Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 381: Line 381:  
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
 
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
 
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work.  Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
 
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work.  Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
 +
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)

Navigation menu