Forum: pol
Page 3334
Subject: Birther thread


  Posted by: Perm Dude - [154552311] Sun, Aug 02, 2009, 22:20

Probably good to try to pull the birther stuff into one thread, since Baldwin and the rest of the hard right insists on sticking to their story no matter how silly it makes them look.

Pride goeth before the fall, and all.

The latest fake Kenyan birth certificate gets three strikes.
 
1Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 15:02
My hope is that by the next presidential election congress has it written in stone that the constitutional requirements are VERIFIED before a candiate can even run for that office.

They actually held hearings in congress over McCain's eligibility so tell me how Obama got a pass? How many courts can refuse to let it be looked into? It's just phenomnal how many bullets this guy has managed to dodge.
 
2Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 15:08
They held a hearing for McCain because he wasn't born in the US.
 
3Seattle Zen
      ID: 4478312
      Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 15:14
I'm all in favor of removing this requirement from the constitution. It made sense back in 1789 until about 1825 or so, not so much today.

If America wants to elect Governor Arnold, we should be able to.

That said, Obama was born in Hawaii and to continue to believe otherwise is childish.
 
4C1-NRB
      ID: 2911103011
      Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 17:28
If America wants to elect Governor Arnold, we should be able to.

That's what happens in Demolition Man with Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes, and Sandra Bullock. More of the leftist-Hollywood indoctrination of red-blooded Americans, if you ask me. They're just laying the groundwork for exactly this sort of thing to happen.
 
5sarge33rd
      ID: 17681812
      Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 17:32
?
 
6biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 18:54
Zoinks.

I would find it more dangerous having a Bloomberg, Hensley or Heinz in the oval office than a silly Austrian.

In this day and age, corporate influences are much more insidious and dangerous than foreign influences. Look at Silvio in Italy. He essentially controls the whole media establishment. You think that is less dangerous than him being born in Sweden?
 
7Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 19:19
and to continue to believe otherwise is childish - SZ

This isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of verification.
 
8Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 19:59
The Constitution says:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
And that's what it means.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we can get Obama on the "natural born" part. I don't know what it means and neither do you, and neither did the Founding Fathers. I think it had something to do with not letting Louis XVI be president or black people vote, but your guess is as good as mine. And guesses don't count.


So we can agree: Every word in the Constitution, no matter how oblique or arcane, is there for a reason and any president who violates it is gone, or our system collapses, strangers steal our mail, and our sons start playing with dolls.

Good. Now let's talk about the phrase "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."

Six simple words that mean exactly what they say. No spin. According to the clear letter of the law of the United States Constitution, Barack Obama can't be president, even if he was born in Hawaii, because Hawaii wasn't a state when the Constitution was adopted.

In 1788.

For their own impenetrable but absolutely unambiguous reasons, the Framers made a rule that says you can only be president if you were born in one of the original 13 colonies.

Sorry Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant, William McKinley, James Garfield, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Harding, Harrison and Hayes. A rule's a rule. Get out.

What are you smiling at, Abe? Kentucky didn't join the Union until 1792. Take your almanac, your primer and your lisping baby and scram.

Wait a second. I just had a thought. What if Article 2, Section One of the Constitution couldn't possibly mean what it literally says?

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

Read it again. It's not just about where you were born. It says you can never be president unless you were alive in 1788.

That leaves out everyone but Robert Byrd.

I'm not saying we can't nullify the election. I'm just saying we can't do it without interpreting the Constitution. And we can't interpret the Constitution, because then we'd be no better than one of those horrible activist judges who legislates from the bench.

Next thing you know, we'd be feeling empathy.
- Chris Kelley

Personally I think the word "or" in "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States" sounds arguably enough like a person need only qualify as either a "natural born citizen" or "a citizen of the US" to be eligible for the presidency. But I've never seen the point argued, so maybe it's established somplace that the intent of "...or a citizen of the United States" is simply to define the preceding term, "natural born Citizen".
 
9Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 00:17
Birther Queen complaining, continuously, about not getting more and more time to not answer direct questions.
 
10Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 00:28
Re #8: I wonder why he neglected to discuss Amendment #14? Surely he realizes that amendments to the Constitution are considered part of the Constitution when passed?
 
11Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 00:32
That interview was a journalistic travesty. Heckling and stepping all over her answers to get to the next heckle is not journalism.
 
12Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 00:34
Asked her several straight questions, to which she responded with the same non-answers over and over again.

What you call "travesty" is a journalist asking straight questions and refusing to let the interviewee answer different ones.
 
13Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 00:39
You are so desperate, PD. It is just amazing how you guys cover your ears and sing over any uncomfortable subject.
 
14Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 00:40
You keep saying you think she should just be allowed to make a fool of herself and then you cheer when interviewers talk over her every poiint.
 
15Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 00:42
Calling me "desperate" doesn't change the facts you want to hide, Baldwin. The Birther Queen can continue to say the same things over and over, but if she can't (or won't) answer simple questions she's not going to get much traction.

Well, except with you. She's a hero to you, because it takes a "conservative" getting pummeled by a journalist to rise them to hero level.

Seriously--she's absolutely horrible as a spokesperson for this issue, even given the fact that she has so little actual "facts" on her side. And you project our "side" as being uncomfortable with the subject--you are a projection machine, Boldwin.
 
16Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 00:55
The only facts you have are unknown to you and hidden behind Obama's opaque wall of promised but not delivered government transparency'.

For all I know Obama actually will someday produce a long form birth certificate and this whole certificate thing was a sleight-of-hand distraction from the fact that he isn't a naturalized citizen.
 
17biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 01:28
It's worse than you could possibly imagine, Baldwin.

There are no original birth, death, and marriage certificates in the birther sense. The originals are entries in master registers, kept by the government under lock and key, and you can't see them. You have the right to ask politely at any time for any number of certified copies of all or part of your entries, and in the USA and UK of other people's, but no duty to ask for any. In Britain genealogists complain they can't even see 172-year-old original registers for 1837 when civil registration replaced the earlier parish registers. If this sounds a bit Orwellian, it's because that's exactly where it comes from: compulsory registration is an exercise of coercive state power, and its creation marks the beginnings of the surveillance state 500 years ago.
 
18Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 06:20
PD #10

Not sure what you mean. The 14th Amendment doesn't define "natural born citizen".

My sloppy cropping of the column might have removed some of the context. His sarcasm is intended to challenge originalists (he so classifies Scalia, which is a mistake I think but the point works just as well if he intends constitutionalists) by pointing out the futility in trying to desipher an originally intended interpretation.
 
19Wilmer McLean
      ID: 37652917
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 07:02
Wiki - Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship, Case Law and Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned
 
20Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 08:27
The link in post 19 provides further challenges to the various birther-espoused positions, including that in post #1.
 
21Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 10:22
PD's link in the topic field was updated yesterday with item #205, which includes this link to a page at bomford.net. As of this writing, bomford.net is currently down but it's apparently a geneology website tracking the surname, Bumford.

The blog politijab claims to have discovered the Bomford document and noticed some very unlikely coincidences.
I wanted to see if I could find any images of similar documents from Kenya around the same time period that could be compared to the certificate on the web. I spent several hours with Google image search on that before I decided to broaden my search outside of Kenya-specific documents.

It was some time later that I finally spotted a thumbnail on one of the results pages that looked very much like the Kenyan certificate. I pulled up the full size image and found that it was virtually EXACTLY the same type of document.

It was a scanned image of a "Certified Copy of Registration of Birth" dated in 1964 for a David Jeffrey Bomford on a genealogy website for the Bomford family. Except that David Jeffrey Bomford wasn't born in Kenya, he was born in South Australia. But what was even more interesting was certain other features of the document as compared to the Kenya certificate.

The names of the registrar and the district registrar were the SAME NAMES as given in the Kenya certificate save for the first initials, i.e. G.H. Lavender and J.H. Miller in the Bomford document versus E.H. Lavender and M.H. Miller in the Kenya document.

Also, the book number (44B) and page number (5733) were the exactly the same on both documents.


The image of the Bomford certificate seems to prove beyond any doubt that not only is the Kenya certificate a fake, but that whomever faked it used the Bomford certificate as the template.

Here's a scaled down image of the Bomford certificate:

(larger image here)

And here's an image of the latest alleged Kenyan birth certificate (pulled from WND, just for Boldy).

I won't stand by this as proof that the Kenyan birth certificate is a fake (Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is sufficient proof of that) because I haven't actually seen the Bomford site and can't confirm that this certificate isn't a forgery based on the alleged Kenyan birth certificate. But providing some notable credibility that bomford.net is what it claims are numerous other more established sources linking to bomford.net, including Free Republic and The Washington Independent. So at the very least, before it was bombarded with bloggers and political researchers resulting in the suspension of the account, there apparently was what at least looked convincingly enough like an active geneology site at bomford.net.
 
22Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 10:35
Web archive of bomford.net
 
23boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 10:45
What are you smiling at, Abe? Kentucky didn't join the Union until 1792. Take your almanac, your primer and your lisping baby and scram.

maybe he should go reread his history because Kentucky was part of Virginia making it one of the original 13 colonies. This is true for most of states west of Mississippi that they were actually part of one of the 13 colonies.
 
24Pancho Villa
      ID: 2374549
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 10:46
Almost 4 years ago, I posted this article by BYU professor Dr Steven Jones.

I contrast Dr. Jones article with the interview linked to in #9 with Dr(?)Orly Taitz.

While Dr. Jones did appear in a few low key cable news interviews, he was widely ignored and ridiculed by the press at large and the conservative press in particular.

Given the gravity of the two situations - the destruction of the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 versus Barack Obama's birth certificate - it appears to me that the discrepancy in coverage and support belies the claim of birthers that their concerns are based on patriotism and constitutional issues.

They are all too willing to accept that the state of Hawaii is complicit in shielding Barak Obama, yet resisted any calls for a thorough investigation of an incident that paved the way for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, massive increases in defense spending, as well as official sanctions of rendition and torture.

It's clear to me that this birther issue is nothing more than partisan politics in its ugliest form. The fact that it has received such widespread media coverage, as opposed to the coverage of the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, should have the public questioning the motivation behind such claims, as patriotism is at the bottom of the list.



 
25Pancho Villa
      ID: 2374549
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 10:55
This is true for most of states west of Mississippi that they were actually part of one of the 13 colonies.

Are you kidding me? Try googling the Louisiana Purchase for starters.
 
26boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 10:58
It's clear to me that this birther issue is nothing more than partisan politics in its ugliest form. The fact that it has received such widespread media coverage, as opposed to the coverage of the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, should have the public questioning the motivation behind such claims, as patriotism is at the bottom of the list.

do actually believe that the birthers are getting more coverage than destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings.
 
27biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 10:59
They are getting far more coverage than the "conspiracy theorists" who questioned the official government description of events.
 
28Pancho Villa
      ID: 2374549
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 11:04
do actually believe that the birthers are getting more coverage than destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings.

That's not what I said. Read it again and see if you come up with the same interpretation.
 
29boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 11:04
They are getting far more coverage than the "conspiracy theorists" who questioned the official government description of events.

really? Rosie O'Donnell alone probably got more coverage than the birthers.
 
30Pancho Villa
      ID: 2374549
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 11:22
Rosie O'Donnell alone probably got more coverage than the birthers.

Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen are actors. I don't remember them going on cable news shows as experts in physics and promoting their theories. They offered opinions as private citizens. Compare that with WND, Newsmax, Townhall, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and a host of other political commentators who commit hours daily on the subject.

Rosie O'Donnell's feud with Donald Trump got more coverage than her WTC statements.
 
31boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 12:08
hmmm maybe i should watch less PBS and more fox news but to me it seems like i saw a lot of coverage on the major networks on the 911 conspiracies. i also remember history and/or discovery having at least one if not more hour long specials on 9/11 conspiracy. show me an hour long birther special. Or cover story articles in popular science. Even Canadian tv ran specials. I am sure if we go through the through the 9/11 thread we could find links galore.
 
32sarge33rd
      ID: 17681812
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 13:04
I'm fairly certain, that if we added up the 10-15 minute snippets Glen Beck, Limbaugh, etc etc devote to this 'birther' non0issue, we'd find in excess of4 hrs WEEK "coverage?. Substantially less I think, than the destruction of the WTC garners.
 
33Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 13:31
None of the key spokesmen for the 911 Truthers are ever covered in Big Media. Almost never. The last one that was on Hannity and Colmes was attacked by both of them. It's ususally nice interviewer, mean interviewer on that show. Not when a 911 truther appears.
I like how we are called 911 Truthers. What does that make the official explanation. 911 lies, I guess.

 
34boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 13:52
maybe the truthers and birthers should get together and find out that they both be manipulated by the man and become true birth manners....

 
35Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 14:10
Heh.

The 911 Truthers and Birthers are completely separate things. Birthers are trying to personally attack Barack Obama and have little to no facts on their side. They are using their version of "truth" as a club, as though their refusal to believe Obama is eligible to be President vindicates their refusal to support him, his policies, or his party.

9/11 Truthers are questioning the official version of 9/11 events, and do not have personal attacks as their goal.
 
36Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 16:33
They are all too willing to accept that the state of Hawaii is complicit in shielding Barak Obama, yet resisted any calls for a thorough investigation of an incident that paved the way for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, massive increases in defense spending, as well as official sanctions of rendition and torture.

It's clear to me that this birther issue is nothing more than partisan politics in its ugliest form. The fact that it has received such widespread media coverage, as opposed to the coverage of the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, should have the public questioning the motivation behind such claims, as patriotism is at the bottom of the list.
- PV

1) No one that I know has ever said Hawaii is in league with Obama. Hawaii hospital officials are not allowed to release records legally until Mr 'Transparency in Government' allows them to [not as president but as any other citizen, he owns that call regarding his own records].

2) The media has harly ever ignored a story harder than this one. The largest billboard companies refused or recinded permission to publish the issue after the WH pressured them. The MSM have devoted not one word to investigating this.
 
37boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 16:48
9/11 Truthers are questioning the official version of 9/11 events, and do not have personal attacks as their goal.

I am not sure i agree totally with this statement i think you find a large correlation between those who disapproved of W and supporting the supporting 9/11 conspiracies.

As someone who loves a good conspiracy, I find it more interesting how people/governments find ways to prolong things. I remember reading about how all the surveillance video camera footage of the pentagon crash was taken by the government and never released. why do this? I now wonder why does Obama not release the real birth certificate? I am sure the is a reason like, he lost it or maybe he likes the idea that people think he is from Kenya because it makes a lot of people look crazy and more important the ones that don't support him.

interesting if you did not see this.

I have my own hypothesis that is way more likely than he was born in kenya though still extremely unlikely. He was kidnapped at birth from another family to replace a still born baby. This would explain why his parents went to the extent to announce his birth in two papers but don't have his official birth certificate. I guess this idea wont catch on because that does not disqualify you being president.
 
38biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:05
What the heck is an "official birth certificate", if it ain't what he has already released?

What he has released is all I have, and all I can get. I don't know anyone who has anything more than he has released.

If you think there is something more that he should have, show me yours.
 
39Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:13
1) You can't be serious about that theory. Based on what?

2) Actually the strongest evidence that he doesn't qualify is that anyone who did qualify for president would never have been allowed into Indonesia back when student Obama was. Does Dick Cheney's blood relative or an executive in the oil industry in Indonesia have the kind of clout [or bribery money] to get around the immigration laws in Indonesia. It's conceivable.

3) The thing that draws the most suspicion is that the whole thing could be dispelled by one phone call from Obama to a Hawaii hospital.

4) This thing reminds me of a scandal Clinton was involved in. He skated in this particular case by focussing the public's attention on the one element of the story that he could overcome [based on the fact that the government gives out phony DNA information in VIP cases].

If his problem is the natural born citizen part, and not the location of birth part, why not focus everyone's attention on the birth certificate and if the media ever gets close to the 'natural born citizen' issue, all he would have to do is burn down the strawman part of the scandal. [hypothesizing that he can] Wahla, the attention would evaporate.

 
40Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:17
What the heck is an "official birth certificate", if it ain't what he has already released? - bili

For the one millionth time anyone could get a short form birth certificate. You personally could have called Hawaii and announced the birth of your son Adi Amin, Hawaii would have issued it based on the word of one relative unverified.

The long form however is created by the birth hospital and it is the only record that matters.
 
41Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:19
No one that I know has ever said Hawaii is in league with Obama. Hawaii hospital officials are not allowed to release records legally until Mr 'Transparency in Government' allows them to.

I thought it was clear enough you'd already picked a side of that fence.

For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93

STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
And then last week:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."
If you don't believe Fukino the you believe Hawaii is in league with Obama.
 
42Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:21
Tho it says nothing about the 'natural born' part of the constitutional requirements. That would require verifying the age and citizenship status of both parents on the date of the birth.
 
43Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:24
Mith

He does not specify which document. Tho I will stipulate that if he is refering to the short form he is in league with Obama.

 
44Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:31
For the one millionth time anyone could get a short form birth certificate. You personally could have called Hawaii and announced the birth of your son Adi Amin, Hawaii would have issued it based on the word of one relative unverified.

I've seen the clip of that insane woman on MSNBC clip and I know she makes this claim. Is she also your source for this information or do you have an explanation of this from the State of Hawaii or from some Hawaiian official or something better than faith in what that lady says?

Not an unreasonable question.
 
45Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:31
That would require verifying the age and citizenship status of both parents on the date of the birth.

No, it doesn't. People born in the United States to just one parent who is a citizen is a natural born citizen.

Tho I will stipulate that if he is refering to the short form he is in league with Obama.

A good description of a co-relational statement. Two people making a truthful statement does not make them part of a conspiracy or in league.

Keep spinning. (Or, more accurately, keep passing along the talking points as soon as you hear them, since you seem to have given up processing anything on this issue).
 
47Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:56
it says nothing about the 'natural born' part of the constitutional requirements.

The constitution never bothers to define "natural born". Further, here's something I mentioned in a previous post that I've wondered about; the constitution says, "No person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

Since you're always so certain of your command of very old texts with many numerous competing popular interpretations, please explain to me the word 'or' in that sentence is supposed to mean something different from the way every English speaking person since Shakespere has used it.

He does not specify which document.

Actually, SHE clearly did, when she claimied that she has seen the "original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health".

...now over to the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands web page on Applying for something called the Hawaiian Homelands Project...
The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
 
48Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 17:57
Got any more fallback arguments Boldylocks or can we put this baby to bed?
 
49Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 19:49
The constitution never bothers to define "natural born". - MITH

There are plenty of court cases and discussions of the framers to know what a natural born citizen is.

One thing the framers were primarily concerned about was the loyalty of the father. And Obama fails that test horribly. Abysmally. Obama’s father was a radical Marxist who hated America, America’s government, America’s economic system, America the ’imperialist power’…etc. and Obama identifies more with the views of his birth father than any other relative.

That really was the main point of the requirement in the first place.

Are dual citizens able to become president? Not AFAIK.

Plenty of legal discussions I have run into insist that both parents must necessarily be citizens.

Even if one parent can pass on natural born citizen status, a minor [as his mother was at the time] does not automatically and cannot without jumping thru all sorts of residency and age related hoops.

The son of a non-resident alien America hater who had no intention of ever becoming a citizen and a minor tiptoeing back into the country in the nick of time if she was here at the time at all. Amazing.

If by some miraculous loophole he qualifies, he makes one piss poor president with a view to this particular requirement of ‘natural born citizen’.

But it will be interesting to see why the framers didn’t want anyone but a natural born citizen. Not beneficial but interesting.
 
50Mith
      ID: 3475419
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 20:05
Well thanks for your thorough response to my point about 'natural born citizen'. But I'm prolly not the only one who noticed that you ignored the rest of my.post, including the part where I ruined your final remaining undefeated point.

 
51Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 20:06
Oh, and that powerful looking Hawaii Homeland Security stuff you posted?

That is the new scrubbed version. The previous [and thankfully cached...heh] version explicitly did not allow the short form as a valid document for that purpose.
 
52Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 20:27
Ignored it for one second. Tuff standards around here.
 
53Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 20:57
No, you're still ignoring it.

The previous [and thankfully cached...heh] version explicitly did not allow the short form as a valid document for that purpose.

Oh dear God. I didn't believe I'd read anything today that challenges the "kidnapped at birth" hypotheses, but there you haveit. You say it did not allow the short form for... the purpose of applying for the Hawaiin Homelands Project?

? ... so what?

What in the world could that possibly have to do with whether what Fukino says she viewed was the long form?

Are you even following the conversation you are having?
Item #1 in you post 36 was: No one that I know has ever said Hawaii is in league with Obama.

I pointed out that that doesn't jive with the State of HA confirming that they have the valid original document, confirming Obama's status as natural born. [I didn't bother to also point out that it doesn't jive with just about every source you've cited on this topic]

I showed beyond any doubt that the "long form" is the same thing as the Certificate of Live Birth, which is the same thing as the 'original document', and acknowledging that that thing is something different from the "short form" -aka- Certification of Live Birth which is also 'a computer-generated printout' (which means that it wouldn't be called an 'original document' by anyone). This means we know exactly what Fukino meant when she said, "have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen".

So unless you're telling me that the original text on the page specifically defined those terms differently, you look pretty fcukin stupid triumphantly whipping out that link like a bonobo penis. Since the link you provided doesn't even contain the original text anywhere on the page, the safe money says you haven't even read it yourself.

So here it is, so you can catch up:
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
I'll note that I knew about both versions of the page, as I got my info from a source that provided both versions. I then went to the HA state site to confirm that I was presenting the right ting and provided the link. When was the last time you took even 1 extra step for info that was a slam dunk for your face and could only be screwed up by looking for confirmation? I can't wait until the next time you dismiss my work as worthless googling for anything to support my arguments and lacking for depth of research.

Anyway, where I'm sure you'll go from here is to decide that the state of HA is in fact in league with Obama. And lets establish right now that you come to this conclusion based not on any new evidence to support it. You have no more reason to suggest Fukino is a liar than you did before - except that it's the only way left for you to keep the dream alive.
 
54Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 21:05
I'd say that the state of Hawaii scrubbing their site and changing their policies to help the Obama cause means more to me than Fukino being putatively in the GOP.
 
55Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 21:06
And either Obama has given his permission to release information about his long form or he didn't.

I look forward to seeing it.
 
56Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 21:13
I'd say that the state of Hawaii scrubbing their site and changing their policies to help the Obama cause

They didn't do that! They changed the instructions to apply for something called the hawaiian Homelands Project. What the hell is the Hawaiian Homelands Project and whay should anyone care? The only reason to point to that site is that it establishes that the long form is the same thing as the "original document" and that no one who knows what they are talking about would ever refer to the short form as an "original" because the short form is "a computer generated printout". These distinctions are important because they confirm that Fukino did in fact view and confirm that the long form exists and is valid.

Look at both versions. I provided both LOOK AT THEM. The both define the terms -- EXACTLY THE SAME!

Even if the definitions were different (AND THEY'RE NOT) -- think about what you are proposing - that the state of HA changed a webpage so that a press release by the director of the department better serves the president?
 
57Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 21:16
If enough of you morons continue to pull your hair out over this for the next 7 years, your side is done.
 
58Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 21:18
Why did they scrub it then? Why did it conveniently and in a timely manner do a 180?

And either Fukino is breaking the law or Obama has allowed the state of Hawaii to release his birth information.

Let's see it then.

 
59Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 21:24
And I haven't been pulling my hair out over this.

Notice who started a thread on this. You libs did cause you thot it would be easy.
 
60Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 21:29
Why did they scrub it then? Why did it conveniently and in a timely manner do a 180?

This question is irrelevant. The site has nothing to do with anything about Obama. Unless you can show me that Obama had to apply for the Hawaiian Homeland Project in order to qualify gfor the presidency, the obvious most likely answer is that they changed it for any normal reason that a state government website might change ionfo on a page. Does beurocratic busywork suddenly sound to you like something that doesn't really happen that much?

As luck would have it, the link I provided in post 47 answers that question for you:
They point to a policy from the Hawaii Department of Home Lands, which stated on its Web site:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

That's actually a misnomer, said Lloyd Yonenaka, a spokesman for DHLL. In order to be eligible for their program, you must prove that your ancestry is at least 50 percent native Hawaiian. And when he says native, he means indigenous. They don't even care if you were born in Hawaii. They use birth certificates as a starting point to look into a person's ancestry. Very different.

Here's what the DHLL site says now: "The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth."
There - both versions again. I shouldn't have to bold and underline it all again to show you that the two versions both state that the long form and certificate of birth are the same thing and that it is the original document, while the short form is a computer generated copy.

Why am I supposed to care what they require for an application to the Hawaiian Homeland Project?


You are the worst loser I have ever seen. Bar none.
 
62Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 21:42
I just realized something -- the HA state site was changed well BEFORE Dr Fukino issued her statement.

This USA Today article dated 7/28:
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii's health director reiterated Monday afternoon that she has personally seen Obama's birth certificate in the Health Department's archives:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."
That should put the date of the press release at July 27th.

Here is a WND article decrying the changed website on July 8th.

Whoops!
 
63Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 21:45
You libs did cause you thot it would be easy.

Your boys won't let it die. And it IS easy. You people are crazy and 75% of the country knows it. Every moment you don't outright dismiss or at least ignore this nonsense is another shovel dug out from the political right's grave.
 
64Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 22:06
Funny thing is you guys post a link to the MSM heckling Orly Taitz and demanding she explain why Ann Coulter won't touch this subject...

...and then you claim the right won't let it die.

I'm not aware of any TV conservative making this their celebrated cause.

Few people believe the courts will do their job in this regard, the constitution will actually be obeyed, Biden will replace Obama as the constitution would demand. I know it aint gonna happen.

It would be nice if the constitution is followed next election anyway.

It would be nice if more than 25% of Americans actually cared if the constitution were followed.
 
65Wilmer McLean
      ID: 37652917
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 23:01
Interesting hypothetical...what if it were proven in a Federal or State court that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen? (In a ruling that defined "Natural Born Citizen" and being so is necessary to qualify one to be President)

Would the impeachment trial be necessary?

Would all bills he signed not be law? Would all executive orders be invalid?

Would cabinet members and court nominees be null?

Would his Electoral votes be voided? Would those Electors revote or the whole Electoral College? Would the 2008 Presidential election be resolved in the House?

Can a state court invalidate Obama's Electoral votes?

Lots of interesting hypothetical causations and more.
 
66sarge33rd
      ID: 1732422
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 23:32
equally valid hypothetical:

SCOTUS reverses the decision awarding the previous administrations electoral victories. GWBs portraits are removed from the WH, and ....then what?


Obama WAS born in Hawaii. Fact.

No court, can "reverse" a fact. Yes, they can 'find' differently and "rule" differently. (ie, improperly. But fact is fact and remains unchanged. A Judge could theoretically state that 2+2=3. Doesnt make it "fact". Just makes it a bad decision.)
 
67Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 23:45
McLean

I believe Biden would automatically become president as of the SCOTUS decision, [about as fast as Johnson replaced Kenedy] all presidential actions would become null and void, congress would resubmit previously passed bills for Biden to sign. Appointees would be out and new nominees would be nominated. I believe any bills still in congress' hopper would be uneffected.
 
68Wilmer McLean
      ID: 37652917
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 02:16
RE: 67

That would be a smooth result, but with legal challenges.

Biden did receive Electoral votes for VP and took the oath.

But also, if the Electoral votes are taken from Obama (remember this is a hypothetical, folks) then McCain would have 173 and Obama's 365 would be in limbo. McCain and/or other candidates could challenge in the courts.

I believe the Electoral College would have to revote, or the election would be decided in the House. (And Biden could become President that way, too)** Obviously not the quickest resolve, but a resolve with backing from the legislative and judicial branches.


RE: 66

I presented the hypothetical because the resulting causations interest me. There was no intent to discredit or credit Obama or wish the hypothetical to be true or not. The link in 19 sparked my curiousity.



Sarge, another causation could be that George W. Bush would still be President. ;)

**Boldwin, and...Hillary could become President, too. ;) ;)



 
69holt
      ID: 3175251
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 04:48
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

That section is a grandfather clause. Should be incredibly simple to understand. The comma may be poorly placed, but it's obvious that a grandfather clause was necessary. Without it, no one would have been eligible to be elected President until 35 years after the adoption of the Constitution.
 
70boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 09:33
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

actually i think they refer to it as the Alexander Hamilton clause, allowing him to run for president even though he was born in the Caribbean.

No one thinks my kidnapped at birth theory is going to catch on?
 
71Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 11:19
Funny thing is you guys post a link to the MSM heckling Orly Taitz and demanding she explain why Ann Coulter won't touch this subject...

...and then you claim the right won't let it die.


Citing a single example of evidence of an empirical trend is par for your course.

How you can say that with a straight face when the first ELEVEN stories at your favorite source for news all espouse the birther position?

Here's Bill O'Reilly on the topic, in his "Talking Points" from yesterday: Why Do Conservative Republicans Continue to Hurt Themselves?

Obviously enough, if it weren't for the prominant Republicans keeping the story alive, it would die. When prominant people do and say crazy things, they get attention.

In just the past few days we have Congressman Roy Blunt demanding a birth certificate, Newsmax editorializing that "Obama has never released either a long or short version of his birth certificate.", Lou Dobbs ongoing reinvention of his show into the Obama birth certificate hour, and just barely over 2/5 of Republicans polled willing to say they are convinced that Obama is a natural born citizen.

Yesterday Human Events Online ran an open letter to Obama from Chuck Norris requesting that he provide his original birth certificate.

Michael Savage had some nutball named Phillip Berg on to talk about Kenya being Obama's birthplace.

And as I'm sure you know there is a current campaign led by rightist pundits including Dobbs, Limbaugh and Malkin encouraging right wing protesters to flood town hall meetiungs for the specific purpose of disruption. And this is what those disruptions look like.

I wil agree there is now an anti-birther backlash among the right that I guage is based about half in sanity and half in the pundits being politically savvy enough to know when they're beaten to the point of making themselves look crazy. The latter is why fools like Hannity and Beck and others who were bopping along on the bandwagon have recently hopped off, or at least finally decided to shut up about it.
 
72Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 11:26
No one thinks my kidnapped at birth theory is going to catch on?

I like it, Inspector boikin.
 
73Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 15:41
How you can say that with a straight face when the first ELEVEN stories at your favorite source for news all espouse the birther position? - - MITH

Because no one else on the right wants to spend capital pushing an issue they don't think can topple Obama. If everything WND suspects were proven true do you think the PD's of the world would give up and follow the constitution? Not even I believe that, and in fact the constitution would be in more danger than Obama would be of being toppled.

So why would Coulter, Rush etc put that at the head of their to do list? They don't. Simple as that. I don't listen to Hannity so I cannot say where he is on this. G Gordon Liddy is the only guy with name recognition who is spending any time on this afaik.
 
74Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 15:58
Lou Dobbs is also one of yours. And I provided plenty of examples from just the past couple days of the the issue being raised and pushed by the right. But more importantly, the position of what you call the base is more than clear.
 
75Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 16:02
How many minutes has Dobbs given it?
 
76Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 16:13
Interesting...I had not heard Dobbs because I will not watch that network.

He sounds fair and I don't understand how anyone can fault him for his disposition on this. Was not predisposed to believe it. Gives someone from the other side a fair chance, unlike the way the rest of the MSM treats the story.
 
77Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 16:27
If everything WND suspects were proven true do you think the PD's of the world would give up and follow the constitution?

PD can answer that for you. What we already know for certain is that in the bold face of undenyable evidence proving every last birther charge is false, the Baldwins of the world (which is about half of the American political right) will hold their breath and continue maintain their fantasy that President Obama was born elsewhere.

Obama will continue to stonewall requests for the long form because the absurdity of the birther movement puts it in his best political interests to do so. Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity - who have all previously taken up the birther position - backed off when they figured out how stupid the issue made them look. The rest of you are citing WND and Jerome Corsi and that insane woman in that MSNBC clip.

Which reminds me, you never answered my question in post 44.
 
78Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 17:25
the Baldwins of the world (which is about half of the American political right) will hold their breath and continue maintain their fantasy that President Obama was born elsewhere.

I haven't even stated that Obama was born elsewhere, let alone concluded that. As I told SZ in #7
This isnt a matter of belief. Its a matter of verification.
Is she also your source for this information or do you have an explanation of this from the State of Hawaii or from some Hawaiian official or something better than faith in what that lady says?

Of course I have read a zillion different articles on the subject and articles about 20 different lawsuits that were given short shrift by the courts who were afraid to get involved.

And Obama refusing to produce it after promising a transpaent government is all I need to demand it.
 
79Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 17:41
And I should add that it is about proving that he meets all the constitutional requirements...

...not just that he figures out which hospital he was born in and his people get their story straight finally.
 
80Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 17:45
You maintain the possibility and continue to demand a standard of proof that has already been provided.

Either you believe the HA Dept of Health or you don't. If you do, the issue is long settled (I've thoroughly proven wrong your claims to the contrary).

If there is one entity in existance that is most capable of presenting a forged Hawaiian original birth certificate (especially one which to our knowledge has been seen by exactly 1 living person) it is the HA Dept of Health. Your new tract that the State of Hawaii might be in league with Obama cannot be quelled by an original furnished by the State of HA.

So what's the point? Why should he lend a milligram of credibility to you idiots when everyone knows that nothing short of a time machine (maybe) would satisfy you.
 
81Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 17:52
Of course I have read a zillion different articles on the subject

Then it shouuld be very very easy for you to provide one that cites a source other than the insane MSNBC lady. Please do.

Because while I certainly can't know, based on what we know about the way the short and long forms are kept, I get the impression that the short forms are likely generated based on the information in the long form.
 
82Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 19:45
I just love being sent on wild goose chases thru a month worth of history items just to find one remembered offhand comment buried in an article.
 
83Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 20:04
Very wierd...the state of Hawaii sends this mouthpiece out...
According to Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, "There's only one form of birth certificate. When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site. That's the birth certificate."
Which seems rather misleading in the face of two obviously different forms.

Long form examples:



Short form example:



She can get photostat long forms of her twin daughters born within 24 hrs of Obama:



But the State of Hawaii spokeman says there is only one form of birth certificate.

Just how nuetral and reliable are Hawaii government officials on this issue anyway?
 
84Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 20:18
Dingdingding.

I win a cookie.
 
85Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 20:21
debating with boldwin:

8/5/09 17:25 Of course I have read a zillion different articles on the subject and articles about 20 different lawsuits that were given short shrift


8/5/09 19:45 wild goose chases thru a month worth of history items just to find one remembered offhand comment buried in an article
 
86Pancho Villa
      ID: 57722519
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 20:23
Mith, you need to follow along closer. It's not about short and long form birth certificates.

One thing the framers were primarily concerned about was the loyalty of the father. And Obama fails that test horribly. Abysmally. Obama’s father was a radical Marxist who hated America, America’s government, America’s economic system, America the ’imperialist power’…etc. and Obama identifies more with the views of his birth father than any other relative.

That really was the main point of the requirement in the first place.


Obama identifies more with the views of his birth father than any other relative.

Baldwin's interpretation of the Constitution sounds strangely activist in a judicial sense.

Actually the strongest evidence that he doesn't qualify is that anyone who did qualify for president would never have been allowed into Indonesia back when student Obama was.

Really? The strongest evidence? It's hard for me to take you amateur constitutionalists seriously, but if you can a group of constitutional experts who can verify this strongest of evidence, perhaps I can be persuaded. It's not like his childhood years in Indonesia have ever been secretive.








 
87Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 20:24
Must have been some time ago that she got those. The State of Hawaii went paperless about 2001.

A photostat, eh? Think she can get the audio in 8-track form as well?
 
89Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 20:43
By the way, Boldy, you are (or your uncited source is) presenting Okubo's statement out of context. That statement, in it's proper context is in the link I provided in post #53.

First lets remember they are talking about the change in rules for applying for the Hawaiian Homeland Project, which you inexplicably have confused with the Presidency of the United States (here's an easy way to tell them apart; the office of the Presidency is not in the South Pacific). Anyway:
When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called "long" and "short" forms [with regard to the change in the instructions for applying to the Hawaiian Homeland Project -mith].

"They're just words," said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. "That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii."

"There's only one form of birth certificate," she said, and it's been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

"When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site," she said. "That's the birth certificate."

As for the theory that Obama's original birth certificate might show he was foreign-born, Okubo said the "Certification of Live Birth" would say so. Obama's does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.
This excerpt is one of the reasons I lean toward the idea that the long and short forms are not seperate documents in the sense that information is supplied for them seperately. It seems much more likely that the long form is filled out and put on file and when a copy is requested, the information is taken from the long form original on file and printed out into the short form document.

Or maybe the State of Hawaii is in league with Obama.
 
90Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 20:54
Does it sound reasonable that parents in hawaii have (or had) to fill ut two seperate forms for two seperate birth certificates to go on file at the same department in the state government?

Am I just supposed to assume that this is true because the insans MSNBC lady says so, with Boldwin confirming that he once (but if it was once it was a zillion times) saw an offhand comment from an unknown source buried in some forgotten article in the past month?
 
91Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 20:59
My understanding is the "long form" is what the hospital fills out on-site (includes things like the doctor's name, etc). They forward a copy to the State, who inputs some of the information into the short form.

If the Birthers think the form which Hawai'i believes to be valid isn't, why would they believe a long form?

Also, I haven't seen any rebuttal to the woman who remembers being there (in Honolulu!) for the actual birth.
 
92Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 21:04
why would they believe a long form?

Everything we need to know about Boldylocks and the birthers on this issue is in post 80. It's the only way they can continue to hold on.

Anyone with the authority to disprove their claims will be called a liar the moment their account disputes the birther position.
 
93Razor
      ID: 873520
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 21:04
This thread is hilarious. Baldwin cites the lack of evidence as evidence despite the very clear presence of evidence.

Boldwin 78: I haven't even stated that Obama was born elsewhere, let alone concluded that.

Boldwin 64: Few people believe the courts will do their job in this regard, the constitution will actually be obeyed, Biden will replace Obama as the constitution would demand. I know it aint gonna happen.
 
94Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 21:05
Oh, it's there, we just can't look at it.
 
95Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 21:20
Several google searches, "anyone can get a short form" lead to a bunch of unsourced blog comments making this claim. One guy made this claim, "There was a window from 1954 to 1962 where all you had to do was claim to have been born in Hawaii to get a short form only birth certificate".

Various searches hat look like...

hawaii "1954 to 1962" birth certificate "short form"

...turn up nothing.
 
96Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 21:20
Even if it was there (which, 8 years after they went paperless, is another supposition without basis), it isn't an official certificate.

The Certificate itself is prima facia evidence of his Hawaiian birth, acceptable by any court of law.
 
97Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 21:22
The Birthers seem to believe that if something might be fraudulent in another circumstance, then this particular one must be and any evidence to the contrary is part of a conspiracy.
 
98Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 21:32
Wikipedia on short-form birth certificates
Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as "Certification of Birth", "Certification of Live Birth", or "Certificate of Birth Registration". The short form typically includes the child's name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child's parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances [7]. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels [11].
 
99Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 22:17
There is a reason that until Obama's butt needed covering, Hawii Homeland Security required the long form.

Because national security requires higher standards of proof.
 
100Razor
      ID: 873520
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 22:22
How is the long form a higher standard of proof?
 
101Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 22:23
Hawii Homeland Security required the long form

They required it for what?
 
102Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 22:27
How exactly could loosening the standards for the Hawaiian Homelands Project possibly "cover Obama's Butt" in any way?

You leave out the most important part of this issue to make it look strange. Show me that the the document needed to apply for the Hawaii Homeland Project is relevent.

Do you honestly think there is even one person here stupid enough to not understand your intellectual dishonesty here?
 
103Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 22:29
What's the liklihood she replies?
Dr Taitz


During your recent appearance on MSNBC, you stated that in Hawaii, "they had two types of birth certificate." You explained, "One was a proper birth certificate from the hospital. Another was a birth certificate issued, based on a statement of one relative only. It could be a grandmother or a mother."

After some crosstalk, you continued, "OK, there are two types of birth certificate. One, proper birth certificate from a hospital, another that came from a parent. As a matter of fact, a parent could have just filled out a form and lied. If Obama was born in Kenya and the mother wanted to lie and she didn't want to go through immigration, she didn't want to pay an immigration attorney, she would fill out the form, saying, my son was born in Honolulu, mail it or bring it to the Health Department."

I have searched the Hawaii Department of Health website to corroborate this account of how information for short form Certifications of Live Birth in Hawaii is obtained, but I cannot find any official information on the process. Are you able to provide your source for this information?


Thank you for taking the time to read my request

Joseph Kinlan
 
104Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 22:47
Looking for info on the woman in Boldy's unsourced photo with the long forms for her twin daughters and came across this Honolulu Advertiser article. There wasn't any pertinenty info on the lady but it did say this:
Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers.

Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.

Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn's name, weight and time of birth.

"Take a second and think about that," wrote Robert Farley of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times' Pulitzer Prize winning Web site PoliticFact.com on July 1. "In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers — on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States."

 
105DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 23:04
They were in on it before they even knew they were in on it.
 
106Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 23:15
And they paid some hush money to the woman who, decades later, would recount her memory of being there at the birth.

And Obama's father was apparently so much of a Marxist that he went to a lot of trouble to make sure his son was a citizen of a country he supposedly hated.
 
107Pancho Villa
      ID: 57722519
      Wed, Aug 05, 2009, 23:36
Baldwin may also want to acquaint himself with the following Supreme Court decision:

The following shows that acquiring dual citizenship does not abrogate the natural born status of a US Citizen.

And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….

The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)


So, the Supreme Court has already established that even if Obama's step-father renounced his US citizenship( which has been effectively refuted), that doesn't affect his natural born citizen status, especially given that Obama, as a 6 year old, had no say in any decision regarding his citizenship.

Actually the strongest evidence that he doesn't qualify is that anyone who did qualify for president would never have been allowed into Indonesia back when student Obama was.

A non-issue. Settled law. If that's the strongest evidence you have, I suggest you move on to issues that actually matter.
 
108Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 02:38
And they paid some hush money to the woman who, decades later, would recount her memory of being there at the birth.

Obama's grandmother?

And Obama's father was apparently so much of a Marxist that he went to a lot of trouble to make sure his son was a citizen of a country he supposedly hated

What did he have to do with this decision?

By this time she had learned that he was still married to other women in Africa. Fifteen days after the birth she was in Seattle I think it was, taking classes and I don't think Obama Sr. was anywhere to be seen. She was moving on.
 
109Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 02:45
Both the Pakistan visit and the Indonesia part of his life would have not been possible under normal circumstances for a US citizen so either he had extraordinary help bending the laws or he isn't a natural born citizen.

I'm open to learning he was getting treated special. His career path sure was a matter of getting special treatment.
 
110Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 08:12
You have the newspaper explaining that the newspapers receive vital statistics announcements from the hospital. That birth announcement from the public are a different thing that run in a different wection of the paper.

To recap, at this point we have Obama, his mother, a woman who claims she was present at the birth, a hospital administration, two Honolulu newspapers and the Hawaii State Department of Health (and before this is over, probably Malcom X) all conspiring for almost 50 years now to fake Obama's status as a natural born citizen.
 
111Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 08:16
Oh and maybe a couple of kidnappers and black market baby dealers.

Didn't mean to exclude you from the conversation, Boikin.
 
112Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 10:35
I'm open to learning he was getting treated special.

The unintentional self-parody train continues.
 
113boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 10:47
I knew magnum PI solved this case allready.

The Love That Lies

To bad the daily show beat me too this
 
114Pancho Villa
      ID: 57722519
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 11:30
the Indonesia part of his life would have not been possible under normal circumstances for a US citizen so either he had extraordinary help bending the laws or he isn't a natural born citizen.

I's amazing how easily you ignore facts in order to cling to your obsessions. The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that your either/or scenario is irrelevant.

Additionally, had you actually read
this link concerning Philip Berg's Hollister v Soetoro lawsuit, and digested its contents, you would have realized how weak your claims.

Then there's the Pakistan issue, the WND claim being that Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel there in 1981. Except it's not really a claim, more of a guess, and not a very good guess either.

Here's the guess:

Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule. It was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance. It would have been easier for someone to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.

If [Barack Obama] traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn’t have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. citizens.

If he couldn’t get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen.


There are 3 ifs and a perhaps in the final two paragraphs.

The truth is that it was neither impossible nor difficult for Americans to visit Pakistan in 1981 according to a contemporary New York Times article and a followup article written by an American, Barbara Crossette, who visited there:

… It is possible to cross from India to Pakistan by train from Amritsar and Delhi, but border procedures can be long and complicated. A road crossing at Wagah is also open for a few daylight hours. Check schedules, and allow several extra hours for border formalities.

Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports. Transportation within Lahore is plentiful, with taxis, scooter rickshaws and horse-drawn tongas (especially in the old city) readily available.


You've admitted you refuse to watch CNN, and I wouldn't be suprised if the NY Times also falls into the refusal bin, but somehow you read a claim in the agenda-driven WND and accept it as gospel, even when there's not one shred of evidence to support the 'Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981' claim.

If this evidence exists, present it. Otherwise it's simply speculation based on a jaded viewpoint.



 
115Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 12:09
If this evidence exists, present it.

Not only does the burden of proof not fall on me to prove Obama's natural born citizen status, but the courts won't recognize my standing to raise the issue.

The burden of proof is on Obama to take ten seconds from his busy scedule, call Rahm over to his desk and ask that the records be released and thus fulfill his campaign promise of a transparent government as well as his oath to uphold the constitution.
 
116Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 12:14
This is not a transparent government. They are using TARP money for campaign contibutions.
 
117Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 12:18
The burden of proof is on Obama

Actually, it is on you now.

When you reject his proof (and, as above, his certified Hawaiian birth certificate is prima facia proof), the burden then falls on you to prove your claim.
 
118Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 12:26
Obama has already released the records and the HA Health Dept has even gone a step further and confimed the existance of a valid original document. The burden of proof for requiring anything beyond that does in fact fall on you, home boy.

But PV didn't ask for that. All he asked for proof of is an unsupported claim WND makes about a trip to Pakistan which you espouse as confirmed truth.


So allow me to ask differently: What makes you so sure that Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan?


And while you're at it, perhaps you can finally asnwer the question I've asked you several times now, still to no avail: Why are the required documents for application to the Hawaiian Homeland Project relevent to the question of whether Obama is natural born?
 
119Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 12:26
Obama has provided enough for proof for all except the nuttiest of the nutjobs.
 
120DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 12:29
"Obama has provided enough for proof for all except the nuttiest of the nutjobs."

But Boldwin doesn't beli--

oh.
 
121Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 13:35
Confirmed: David Jeffrey Bomford does exist and confirms that the birth certificate you see in post 21 is in fact his. ABC interviewed him.
DAVID JEFFREY BOMFORD: It's little old me and my mum and everything else up there. Oh I definitely confirm that the birth certificate was mine. That was quite easy to see - my address, even the style of the birth certificate was an old South Australian one.

So it's quite easy to identify that it's mine.

DINA ROSENDORFF: And looking at the fake Kenyan birth certificate what do you make of it?

DAVID JEFFREY BOMFORD: It's definitely a copy of my certificate. It's so laughable it's ridiculous.
 
122Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 13:50
Clearly, there is a conspiracy at work, but Boldwin has the perpetrators, the victim and the intent all backwards.
 
123Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 14:52
Birthers get punk'd on Kenyan birth certificate
 
124Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 15:12
MITH #118

Obama has already released the records and the HA Health Dept has even gone a step further and confimed the existance of a valid original document.

1) I'm not sure they really did refer to the long form.

2) If there is one what does it say?

3) If there is evidence that confirms or disproves that he is a naturalized citizen I want to see it.

4) I would also like to know if he lied on his application to the bar.

But PV didn't ask for that. All he asked for proof of is an unsupported claim WND makes about a trip to Pakistan which you espouse as confirmed truth.

For the zillionth time, I do not believe one way or the other on this issue because nothing has been verified. This is not about belief, it is about verification.

How did he get in a country that was not allowing US citizens in, but which conveniently enuff, did allow people with the citizenship of his father? I think that is a fair question.

So allow me to ask differently: What makes you so sure that Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan?

I'm not sure of anything because nothing has been verified. No legal [or sub-rosa, for that matter] way has been provided that he got in a country that did not allow US citizens.

And while you're at it, perhaps you can finally asnwer the question I've asked you several times now, still to no avail: Why are the required documents for application to the Hawaiian Homeland Project relevent to the question of whether Obama is natural born?

Because if Hawaii did not accept the short form as proof of citizenship as I have proven that they did not after punking you on that scrubbed Hawaii website...if Hawaii did not accept that as proof of US citizenship or Hawaiian birth, why should the US government permit him to become president without the same proof the Hawaii government would require?
 
125Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 16:47
1) I'm not sure they really did refer to the long form.

Of course you're not. But I and every sane person who considers the facts is. Original document = long form. Short form = computer printout. Issue settled.


2) If there is one what does it say?

It varifies that BHO was born in HA and is a natural born American citizen, which is 100% of all we need know on the matter.


3) If there is evidence that confirms or disproves that he is a naturalized citizen I want to see it.

And I want to be 3 inches taller. We will both have to get used to disappointment for the time being.

after punking you on that scrubbed Hawaii website

You ass, I was the one who provided the only link posted in this thread containing info about the altered (not scrubbed) website. And you didn't answer my question. I asked why the Hawaii Homeland Project was important. That requires a connection between the requirements to apply for that particular program and the requirements to be elected president. You have supplied no such connection, obviously because none exists. You spent this entire thread punking yourself, moron.
 
126Pancho Villa
      ID: 57722519
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 16:47
How did he get in a country that was not allowing US citizens in, but which conveniently enuff, did allow people with the citizenship of his father? I think that is a fair question.

Asked and answered, but let me repeat from #114. The truth is that it was neither impossible nor difficult for Americans to visit Pakistan in 1981 according to a contemporary New York Times article and a followup article written by an American, Barbara Crossette, who visited there:

… It is possible to cross from India to Pakistan by train from Amritsar and Delhi, but border procedures can be long and complicated. A road crossing at Wagah is also open for a few daylight hours. Check schedules, and allow several extra hours for border formalities.

Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports. Transportation within Lahore is plentiful, with taxis, scooter rickshaws and horse-drawn tongas (especially in the old city) readily available.


The problem here is that you failed to verify what the policy concerning travelling to Pakistan was in 1981. If someone writes an article on WND claiming Pakistan was a country that was not allowing US citizens in, you blindly accept it like the obsessed Obama basher that you are, sans verification.

Besides, even if he did provide verification, you guys(one of your favorite terms) would just claim fraud as with the Hawaiian birth certificate, so what's the point?

 
127Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 17:24
The funny thing is that I can show you a foreign born person with all the evidence Obama has provided of US citizenship and Hawaiian birth. But that doesn't phase you.

However I am suppose to settle for:

Requirements? What requirements, all he had to do was take a train across the border and ignore Pakistan's laws.

Sorry, I need more. Let me hear him say he was there illegally then.
 
128Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 17:58
Does this foreign born person have a US passport as well?

The US State Department has accepted the birth certificate as valid.
 
129Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 17:59
It looks like I'll have to lead you to the logical fallacy in your #127, eh?
 
130Pancho Villa
      ID: 57722519
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 19:51
all he had to do was take a train across the border and ignore Pakistan's laws.

Ignore what laws? It was not illegal for a US citizen to travel to Pakistan by either nation in 1981.

The U.S. State Department issues Travel Warnings (which caution travelers about "long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable") and Travel Alerts (which caution travelers about "short-term conditions, generally within a particular country, that pose imminent risks to the security of U.S. citizens") but those warnings are purely advisory — they do not prohibit Americans from traveling to the listed countries. The fact that the U.S. State Department issued an informative Travel Advisory for Pakistan in August 1981 (to make American citizens aware of updated visa requirements for entering that country) demonstrates that U.S. passport holders could freely travel to and from Pakistan at the time of Barack Obama's visit there.

Moreover, during that same time period (mid-1981), New York Times assistant news editor Barbara Crossette visited Pakistan and wrote a column about her experiences, a piece in which she offered tips to other Americans who might wish to visit that country. Additionally, her column prompted a follow-up letter from John S. Brims, then the U.S. Consul General in Lahore, Pakistan, in which he "welcome[d] an influx of Americans" who might have been inspired to come to Pakistan by her article and also offered helpful tips for tourists traveling to that country by rail from India.

Many other news articles from 1981 reference either Americans' traveling to Pakistan or the Pakistan government's making efforts to encourage visits from U.S. tourists.

In short, if Barack Obama did visit Pakistan in the summer of 1981, he — like all other Americans — could have openly done so bearing a U.S. passport.



link

In 1981, American mountain climbers were routinely granted visas for expeditions to climb in the Karakorum Range(K2 being the most famous peak)as were climbers from all over the world.
According to possibly the greatest female high altitude climber of all time, Wanda Rutkiewicz .

The many formalities in Islamabad had obviously become a matter of routine, both the dealing with officials and necessary preparations to be made for the departure of the expedition. Since the 1981 Trekking Convention, Pakistan has noticeably opened its borders to tourism. All formalities are quickly and easily overcome with a minimum of red tape even when an expedition is venturing into the frontier area between China and Pakistan.

Several agencies have been founded to help expeditions similar to those in Nepal. In our case it was Karakoram Tours who have Nazir Sabir, a K2 climber, working for them.

The interest in our women's expedition as something unknown was large and we were welcomed with great friendliness. It had occurred to us that a group of mountain climbers consisting only of women might well be met with suspicion or intolerance in this Mohammedan country where a woman's place in public life is completely different than in Western countries. But we were hospitably welcomed and our customs were treated with respect.


Now, what laws were you talking about?
 
131DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 20:07
You know you're never going to get an answer to that.
 
132Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 21:03
I am going to admit the Salon and Huffpo rebuttals are pretty strong looking. I'm going to back off this story and simply say that Obama is a POS for not just releasing the long form, living up to his campaign promise of running a government of transparency and be done with it. I don't know why he doesn't and I won't in my heart be satisfied about the issue until he does.

I know from my time tracking the Clintons that sometime the bear gets you and he skates even when he's guilty as hell. Sometimes you never get to the bottom of a scandal. Sometimes you get distracted by sleight-of-hand where the scoundrel throws out a red herring to distract you from his real vulnerability.
 
133Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Aug 06, 2009, 21:28
Good post, Baldwin.
 
134Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 11:12
MITH

One 'other' last thing. 8]

A little introspection is in order on all sides. You got so confused about why it mattered that Hawaii Homeland Security would originally refuse to accept the short form and required the long form.

The answer is in the name, Hawaii Homeland Security.

In matters of national security that exact requirement becomes more important.

Limiting the presidency to natural born citizens was a national security issue.

It would be harder to have found a more appropo analogous situation and yet you were blocking like crazy. Funny how the brain works that way.
 
135Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 11:26
You got so confused about why it mattered that Hawaii Homeland Security would originally refuse to accept the short form and required the long form.

No. I demanded an answer for why the required documents for applying to the Hawaii Homeland Project is relevent. Your changing the name of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to the Department of Homeland Security to explain that the answer is in the name, "Homeland Security".

Crawl back under your rock.
 
136Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 11:38
Nice one. Homeland, fatherland, motherland...these were terms americans didn't hardly feel comfortable with before 9/11. I just assumed it was the state's component of the DHS.
 
137Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 11:56
Nice one

No it's not.

I just assumed it was the state's component of the DHS.

Yeah. Shocker. As if I ever thought for a moment you would bother to look at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands home page to see if the assumptions you were throwing around might have had any coincidental similarities with reality.
Mission Statement: To manage the Hawaiian Home Lands trust effectively and to develop and deliver lands to native Hawaiians. We will partner with others towards developing self-sufficient and healthy communities.
Here's their nifty organizational flow chart. If you bother to look at it, please tell me if this what you'd expect the organizational chart of an intelligence gathering or security operation of any kind to look like.

Sorry, but you'll have to exhibit a bit more introspection than you've shown before I'll waste a moment's thought on your opinion of what is in order for me.
 
138Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 12:27
Homeland, fatherland, motherland...these were terms americans didn't hardly feel comfortable with before 9/11.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has existed since at least 1972.
 
139DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 12:29
lol
 
140Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 12:48
I stated that to explain why it was so easy to assume that. Maybe for Hawaiians it was more typical to use such a term, but the average american doesn't think in those terms and prolly still feels a bit wierd about the term.

It has a 'totalitarian-trying-to-sound-warm-and-fuzzy' flavor to it.

But I suppose to a Hawaiian it has a 'let's-retain-our-heritage' flavor to it.
 
141sarge33rd
      ID: 236141411
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 13:16
from 124:

...as I have proven that they did not after punking you on that scrubbed Hawaii website...

snicker*snicker
 
142Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 13:19
Now, now. If we can't allow guys to make a mistake (especially after being man enough to own up to it), we'll get guys refusing to admit mistakes and that is not in anyone's best interest.

I completely agree with #140. Baldwin might simply not have been aware of the strong native Hawaiian tinge to the state and its government.
 
143Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 13:20
Now, play nice while I'm gone for a few days...

:)
 
144Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 13:39
If we can't allow guys to make a mistake (especially after being man enough to own up to it), we'll get guys refusing to admit mistakes and that is not in anyone's best interest.

I was thinkig the same thing about a recent thread in the baseball forum.
 
145Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Fri, Aug 07, 2009, 16:50
And I did punk him on that Hawaii site on the main point. It had been scrubbed and the original website page proved the opposite of what MITH thot the site would proved. They did in fact require the long form and the short form was insufficient so it is hardly surprising WND won't accept the short form either.
 
146Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 08, 2009, 17:53
It had been scrubbed and the original website page proved the opposite of what MITH thot the site would proved.

The site did and still does prove EXACTLY what I said it proves, which is that the "original vital records mainitained on file" means the same thing as a certificate of live birth.

Go back and read post 47 again.

Seriously, the gravel that used to be your nose is scattered down the back of your throat, you've got two shattered orbital bones, a few broken teeth left in your head and your abdomen is so sore you can't stand straight.

I'm barely sweating. Just stay the fuuck down.
 
148Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Sat, Aug 08, 2009, 18:16
Then why did they not accept a short form as acceptible? If it was the same thing?
 
149Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 08, 2009, 18:36
You are helpless. Complete your point - acceptable for what?
 
150Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 08, 2009, 19:01
Jesus B do you think I've been citing that link all this time to claim tha the long and short forms are the same thing?

Is that what you think? Do you even read my posts? Do you get to phrases like "same thing" and just completely lose it without considering context?
 
151Boldwin
      ID: 376192015
      Sat, Aug 08, 2009, 19:49
Yes, I think you have been saying all along that a short form should be sufficient for any purpose ie for all intents and purposes it might as well be the same thing.

Then you post a link to Hawaii home Land that says, oh sure we take either the short or the long.

Except I find out that Hawaii has scrubbed their website and changed their policy to save Obama embarrassment on that point apparently. So your link to Hawaii Home Land proved the opposite of what you tried to use it for.

I punked you and you don't even know it. Just stand there blinking.
 
153Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 08, 2009, 20:23
Yes, I think you have been saying all along that a short form should be sufficient for any purpose ie for all intents and purposes it might as well be the same thing.

Well that's not what I'm saying. It's not a case I've made explicitly or implicitly and it's not my reason for linking and citing that page on the Hawaii Home Lands site. I've thoroughly explained why that link is relevent no fewer than three times. I can't dumb it down any further for you. You can choose to read my posts or not. But if you doin't even have the respect for me to click my links and read my posts, what's the point.

Your deliberate ignorance here is infuriating and embarrassing. You've punked no one but yourself and everyone knows it except you.
 
154Pancho Villa
      ID: 418233010
      Wed, Sep 30, 2009, 11:23
After Orly Taitz becomes a national embarrassment for the birther movement, I suppose it's only natural that the new "leader" of the movement is a convicted felon masquerading as a born-again Christian and begging for money.

Meet snake-oil salesman Bill Keller.

A fundamentalist Christian Web site LivePrayer.com has produced a 28-minute infomercial dedicated to questioning where the president was born. It has run at least once on a CBS affiliate in Lubbock, Texas.

LivePrayer.com was founded by Christian minister Bill Keller, who committed his life to God after spending time in prison for insider trading, according to his site. The infomercial is also the work of attorney Gary Kreep, executive director of the birther group United States Justice Foundation, Talking Points Memo reports. He reportedly said the infomercial will run for at least two and a half weeks on stations around the country.


.....for just $30, they can have a fax sent on their behalf to all 50 state attorneys general and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder demanding they force President Obama to supply his official State of Hawaii birth certificate.
 
155Boldwin
      ID: 34803016
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 04:31
Who has abandoned Orly Taitz? Not this supporter of Article 2, Section 1.
 
156Pancho Villa
      ID: 4891818
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 09:19
Who has abandoned Orly Taitz?

Dunno, didn't mention abandonment. Embarrassment was the word I used. Maybe you don't think posting an obviously fake Kenyan birth certificate is embarrassing, but you didn't take that position when Dan Rather hastily did similar.
 
157Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 16:07
Baldwin has already shown that he's got no pride when it comes to honesty or integrity, so why would he care if one of his heroes is honest...
 
158Mith
      ID: 14822920
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 16:32
Pretty sure Taitz posted at least two obviously fake Kenyan birth certificates.
 
159astade
      Sustainer
      ID: 214361313
      Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 23:28
check out this creative Billboard. I'd love to get the scoop on his dealership sales after he put this up!
 
160DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 11:08
Quote of the year:

"Everything I have read about Mr. Obama points right to the fact that he is a Muslim. And that is the agenda of what Muslim is all about. It's about anti-American, it's about anti-Christianity," West said.

There you go folks, that's the agenda of what Muslim is all about.
 
161Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 14, 2010, 12:13
Birther Army doc facing court martial for refusing to deploy...to Kentucky

OK, that was a cheap shot of sorts--he was going to refuse any move and Kentucky just happened to be his orders. But really--why does this stuff persist?

I've been reading a bit about the Tea Party actively recruiting among the military, hoping to covert military men and women to its call to resist a "tyrannical government" and support for "non-constitutional orders" (which, in the past, has been birther code).

How far will these people go? How many fighting words up against the line before some of those yahoos start jumping over en masse?
 
162sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Wed, Apr 14, 2010, 13:31
...he believes Barack Obama may be ineligible to be president...

Here is his "problem" with his legal defense as I see it:

1) It makes no diff what this individual believes. Obama's status is a question asked and answered by the courts. Thus, his position has no true standing.
2) To disobey an order on the grounds it is an unlawful one, the issuer of the order is the one who must be in question. Military assignments come from the Personnel Office, not the Office of the President. So even *if* we labor under the assumption the Col is correct; the President did not issue the orders. The Dept of the Army did, and there is no "citizenship" question re the Dept of the Army.

Kiss your retirement good-bye Col. Say hello to a dishonorable discharge. (or whatever they call it with Officers)
 
163Seattle Zen
      ID: 1410391215
      Wed, Apr 14, 2010, 13:49
Kiss your retirement good-bye Col.

Hey, if we get enough of these, we can start making a dent in the budget deficit!
 
164Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jun 04, 2010, 18:03
As a follow up to #161: Army refuses to allow Birther doc to compel Obama to testify.

A sense-making quote, worth reprinting:

"The Government does not charge that the President gave an order directly to LTC Lakin. For the President's credentials to have any bearing on the charges against LTC Lakin, the Defense proposition must be that military orders issued by superiors to juniors are all 'invalidated' during the period the President improperly holds office. This proposition fails to account f or the law of lawfulness of` orders, which in essence requires that a facially proper order be obeyed so long as it does not require the commission of a criminal act. ...The Defense alters no legal support whatever for its position, which I find to be far from 'axiomatic.' As far as I have found, the position has no basis in law."

Sarge hit it on the head in #162.
 
165Boldwin
      ID: 135311520
      Wed, Jun 16, 2010, 21:37
This is some pretty compelling testimony from someone who apparently has been in a position to know.
 
166Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 16, 2010, 22:06
A clerk who no longer works there says that his "boss" told him Obama has no birth certificate?

Really--the bottom of the barrel.
 
167Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Jun 16, 2010, 22:19
Really--the bottom of the barrel.

actually, not yet.

Adams, the individual making the claims, made those claims on a pro-white radio program hosted by white supremacist and Neo-Nazi James Edwards, at a white supremacist conference.

WND conveniently left these facts out of the story.

*NOW* we're at the bottom of the barrel.
 
168Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Wed, Jun 16, 2010, 22:21
But... "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this."


Compelling? Not when you read that he burst onto the scene last week in a WND story .

A WND story. Next!

 
169Boldwin
      ID: 135311520
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 04:31
His access to Hawaii's computer records is irrelevant? Yeah, in your world.
 
170Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 07:52
it is amazing what, and who, you'll believe...
 
171Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 09:07
Here's the irony with the WND 'story.'

In their rush to grab any type of evidence to back their birther theories, they unwittingly end up giving 15 minutes of fame to anti-Semitism, holocaust denial and white supremacy, folks who would string up Joseph Farah if given the chance.

The backing behind Adams' claim is so extreme that even the right-wing message board Free Republic states that it pulled threads related to Adams because the source of the video "is a group called The Council of Conservative Citizens. This is NOT a Conservative group, do not be fooled by the name. This group is a front group for a neo-Nazi group known as the National Alliance and is associated with Stormfront."
link

Really, when someone says,

"Everyone in the government there knows this"

anyone with a shred of objectivity would seriously question the credibility of the source.



 
172Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 09:50
PV - no use. i made those same points a few posts before yours, and it's no shock that Baldwin's has a lack of concern for the beliefs of the source, or where those words were spoken.
 
173Boldwin
      ID: 135311520
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 09:52
The backing behind the claim is the guy's own career experience. I have no reason to think he's less credible than the Dems in Hawaii government who I know have a good reason to lie.
 
174Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 10:11
I have no reason to think he's less credible than the Dems in Hawaii government who I know have a good reason to lie.

Yeah, in your world. You have numerous reasons to think he's less credible, but you have no interest in even remotely examining them.

Adam's boss, according to WND:

"We hire temporary workers, because we're seasonal"

A temp. What incredible career experience.

"We don't have access to that kind of records. [There's] no access to birth records."

So, everyone in Hawaii government knows Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, Adams' boss is lying about the kind of access he had, and all the Dems in Hawaii government are liars. Only Adams is credible. This is your world. And you insist on calling this radical hysteria conservatism? Even FREEP has enough sense to ignore this clown.




 
175Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 10:52
The only reason this guy is getting any ink is that he says what the Obamahaters really, really, really want to be true. What a foolish bunch of people, hanging their self-respect on a neo-nazi temp who didn't have access to the information they say is "proof."
 
176Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 11:00
I have no reason to think he's less credible

he's a Holocaust denier! that in itself is more than enough reason to think he's less credible.
 
177Boldwin
      ID: 135311520
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 19:51
The info is either in the database or it's not.

Doesn't matter if he thinks the moon is made of green cheese.
 
178Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 20:17
It is not only in the database, but copies of the certificate are available for viewing by anyone with an internet connection.

Your inside source merely passes along heresay about the form (which we've all seen) that is not in "the database" because "his boss" told him it wasn't.
 
179Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 21:33
Doesn't matter if he thinks the moon is made of green cheese.

lol. i suppose you're right. the words of a part-time state employee, holocaust denier, neo-nazi, white power advocate, are certainly more compelling than the words of the countless others who are more in a position to know.

it doesn't at all look foolish putting your stock in this guy!
 
180Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 17, 2010, 23:50
The funny thing, to me, is that the guy doesn't actually appear to have had the access he's implying is the "proof."
 
181Boldwin
      ID: 545192117
      Mon, Jun 21, 2010, 20:36
His job was "senior elections clerk" in 2008, in charge of verifying voters' identity.
 
182Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jun 21, 2010, 21:31
And he didn't have access to the records you think he does. Read your own link more carefully: The story is crafted to make you believe he had access to birth certificate information for Obama but he did not. He had access to other information (drivers info, etc), but the birth certificate information is all second and third hand. All of it.
 
183Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 01:04
His job was "senior elections clerk" in 2008, in charge of verifying voters' identity.

pretty sure Obama wasn't trying to vote in the state of Hawaii in 2008.

his job was a temporary one dealing with the election rush, and it was a low-level data entry position dealing with voter registration and absentee ballots.

interestingly, you'll take this guy's word for it because he "has been in a position to know," yet the word of Hawaii State Department of Health, who might ACTUALLY be in a position to know, isn't good enough.

and finally, Baldwin, your new hero has backed off the claims you so gleefully supported...

I believe Pres. Obama was born a United States citizen, and is eligible to hold office, I find the idea that because he was probably born outside of the U.S., he must be some kind of alien to be basically racist.

i guess he'd be in a position to know, with that racist thing, eh Baldwin?

straight from the horse's mouth:
 
184Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 01:06
"the word of Hawaii State Department of Health" from the above should read "the word of the Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health"
 
185Boldwin
      ID: 545192117
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 01:24
Low level, shmo level. He had access to the computer records.

The one thing I am certain of is that this question has not been resolved when it would have been the easiest thing in the world to resolve. So what's the holdup providing the tiniest bit of 'transparency'?
 
186Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 01:50
I have access to computer records. But, like your racist temp, I don't have access to birth certificate records.

Read your own link. Look carefully for the statement that he had access to birth certificate records. Or that he had firsthand knowledge of the lack of an Obama certificate. [Hint: You won't find either]

The one thing I am certain of is that this question has not been resolved when it would have been the easiest thing in the world to resolve. So what's the holdup providing the tiniest bit of 'transparency'?

Because it isn't in the interest of the birthers to accept the proof that has been offered. The lack of resolution is completely made up and completely in the interest of those stirring the pot.

Really--you accuse politicians of making inflation which doesn't exist because you believe it to be in their own best interest. But you simply refuse to see the self-interest in front of you driving the birther "controversy."

Birthers: Like High School Musical. But for politics.
 
187Boldwin
      ID: 545192117
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 01:54
What is Obama's interest in not releasing his long form?
 
188Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 02:20
What is your interest in withholding your own critical reading skills when faced with stories which are biased in your own direction but don't pass the smell test?
 
189Boldwin
      ID: 545192117
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 04:17
How about your listening skills? The guy says Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and he doesn't sound like some skinhead holacaust denier like he's been vilified here.
 
190Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 09:38
Now we're down to "listening skills?" Seriously--that's what you are left with but you still insist on it?

We're supposed to believe a guy who doesn't have the access implied in the article because he of what he says, that "it's an open secret?"

Really--stop. Insisting on this level of "proof" just cheapens any argument you make on any issue.
 
191Boldwin
      ID: 545192117
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 20:54
I really do believe it is common knowlege in Hawaiin government circles that Obama was not born in Hawaii. I don't believe WND is trying to convince them, I think plenty of insiders convinced Farrah.
 
192Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 22:31
Nice proof. "I really believe it's common knowledge..."
 
193Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 16:31
Anderson Cooper slaps around a birther on his show
 
194Tree
      ID: 2010312116
      Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 00:18
LOL...wow...

totally wrecked.
 
195Boldwin
      ID: 1111295
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 06:03
Maybe this is all he is hiding.
Obama himself, on page 22 of his autobiography "Dreams from My Father," wrote of his parents' wedding: "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it's not even clear that people back in Kansas were fully informed. Just a small civil ceremony, a justice of the peace. The whole thing seems so fragile in retrospect, so haphazard."
Maybe he just doesn't want to look into it or let that become a matter for national discussion. Either he confirms he's legitimate or the story gets worse. There's no upside to investigating it for him.
 
196Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 07:42
Heaven forbid anyone learn that BHO might be no more legitimate than Tripp Johnston.

I'm not aware of any measures he has taken to hide anything. And if it was an issue, why the eff would he write about it in his book?

That Americans are so easily duped into obsessing over this stuff is a huge part of why our world leadership roles are slipping away. Sweet Jeezis we're fukcing stupid.
 
197DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 10:08
I know if I were a famous person looking to hide all that stuff, I'd DEFINITELY put it right in my autobiography, where nobody would ever think to look.
 
198Boldwin
      ID: 1111295
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 13:11
I'm not aware of any measures he has taken to hide anything. - MITH

Because you have studiously ignored the amount he has spent in legal fees to fight transparency...one of his campaign promises.
 
199Tree
      ID: 2010312116
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 13:43
Because you have studiously ignored

lol. that's hysterical.
 
200DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 14:37
It's really an awesome piece of logic, since his two choices in the face of umpteen frivolous lawsuits are:

1. Ignore them (thereby capitulating and assuming that the idiots suing are right), or

2. Fight them (and thereby "fight transparency").

Boldwin, have you stopped beating your wife?
 
201Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 15:11
funny stuff.

Just read that the incoming Hawai'i governor is one of the few people to have actually been there for BHO's birth, and isn't going to take it sitting down anymore. Should be very interesting.
 
202Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 20:01
Won't matter. There could be video of the birth. They could ficking dig up DNA samples from a landfill. Wouldn't matter.

This guy just has to be born in Africa. Dear sweet Lord in Heaven he just has to.
 
203Boldwin
      ID: 4011522918
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 20:11
It will be very interesting to see how he had so much interaction with the 'Obama family' when Senior had already abandoned the family, living in a separate address from the one Ann Dunham claimed, before he moved to Harvard, at no time living with the baby as Abercrombie claims to have seen, and she moved to Seattle within 3 weeks of the birth.

While he's making up stories I'll be surprised if he doesn't tell us about the star that guided him to the as yet indeterminate hospital.
 
204Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 20:15
Turns out a guy I know is a birther (he's a hardcore Palinite, too. Think that might be related?).

Like many who suckle on the sweet sweet juice of conspiracy, he holds himself off as being "unconvinced" and feels "Obama can make it to go away if he wanted to."

The lack of evidence, for these people, is the evidence. Evidence, that is, that hasn't been "tainted" by coming from liberals or RINOs.
 
205Boldwin
      ID: 4011522918
      Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 10:04
The lack of evidence, for these people, is the evidence. - PD

The lack of evidence represents a monumental disregard for the constitution starting at the head and rotting it's way down to a majority in congress, the media, Americans in general, at least initially, the judiciary, the punditry, you name it.

I guess they are relying on something else.
 
206DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 10:46
So, you prove he was born somewhere else. Should be simple. You're the one hypothesizing (charitable word use here) that he was born somewhere else. Either prove it or shut up about it. You refuse to accept the evidence which has been presented, yet you haven't presented actual evidence to support your own side.

You're entitled to your own opinion (as bigoted, uninformed, and hypocritical as they might be), but you aren't entitled to your own facts.
 
207Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 11:05
It will be very interesting to see how he had so much interaction with the 'Obama family' when Senior had already abandoned the family, living in a separate address from the one Ann Dunham claimed, before he moved to Harvard, at no time living with the baby as Abercrombie claims to have seen, and she moved to Seattle within 3 weeks of the birth.

It appears you have a lot of inside information concerning events in August 1961. It doesn't appear as though any of this information indicates that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, and there is absolutely no evidence that he was born outside of the United States.

The lack of evidence represents a monumental disregard for the constitution starting at the head and rotting it's way down to a majority in congress, the media, Americans in general, at least initially, the judiciary, the punditry, you name it.

Such a high level of loathing and cynicism can't be healthy.




 
208Boldwin
      ID: 2701110
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 01:13
I'm seeing a convergence of the evidence from this recent spate of BC [birth certificate] news coming from the left.
Now, we have the governor-elect of Hawaii saying that he will take pains to have state law revised which will enable him to legally release “certain details” contained on the original birth certificate — presumably prior to the 2012 presidential election.
What this suggests:

1) This is a Dem inspired move pre-election 2012 to staunch this issue sufficiently to get him reelected.

2) Something on the certificate supports Obama's presidential elegibility while something else Obama considers unreleasable for some reason.

3) Which all jives well with the hypothesis in #195.
 
209Boldwin
      ID: 2701110
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 01:36
Another possibility is that he was born in Hawaii but still doesn't meet some detail in the more strenuous tests for presidential eligibility involving his parents' status. Those would fill up a very long post. I am leaning towards option A, [occam's razor slightly favoring] but wouldn't put option B past him and his team.

Speaking of which, Rahm Emanuel recently tried to get around his own painfully obvious residential requirement inelegibility to run for mayor of Chicago by claiming his wife told him [he's not liable for perjury] that she stored wedding dress and some other stuff in the storage area of the house they rent out in Chicago, which house the tenants would not vacate to facilitate his run. Said boxes not having been observed by the current occupants. It's Chicago so you know the fix is in. It was so slimy watching Emanuel repeat that lie on his way out the courthouse. Made yer skin crawl and slapped you in the face. Officious, patronizing, insulting and campaigner obsequious all at the same time. His face and posture were just squirming like a toad to accommodate all those contradictions. Sorry, no youtube. I'm trying to think of the actor who could capture that interview.
 
210Tosh
      ID: 3511162411
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 01:50
It's a real shame that the first post of 2011 is a link to some conspiracy nut job blog posting.

Happy 2011 Everyone
 
211Boldwin
      ID: 2701110
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 01:53
I would love to see SNL do his handler.

"Your middle finger is paralyzed and weighs a ton. When you feel a smirk rising up, quick turn it into a warm smile. No cussing, no cussing. No threats. No confrontations. Transmogrify all that raw ambition into a projection of hope and optimism." [*cut to underground parking lot echoing with pent up cussing an hour after issuing acceptance speech*]
 
212Boldwin
      ID: 2701110
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 01:56
Tosh

You obviously have no handle on how respectable Pajamas Media is. A blog site you have to pay to access most of the content is rare. Easily as much clout and heft as Huffpo in the left.
 
213Boldwin
      ID: 2701110
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 02:03
Matter of fact it may be the only political blog to get away with charging for their video content. Can you think of another? And it hosts Instapundit. You are way off base. It is THE blog mainstream of the red states.

Instapundit isn't even reliably culturally conservative for crying out loud.
 
214Tosh
      ID: 3511162411
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 02:22
No disrespect to the website. I'm speaking of the specific nutjob conspiracy.

Perhaps I should have said ... I love the Rotoguru site and have been here since before the Swirve message forum days, and I hate to see it sullied by just another toss of poop onto the walls and hoping it will stick.
 
215Boldwin
      ID: 2701110
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 02:58
And I hate getting the mushroom treatment.
To date the following are all undisclosed:

1) 1961 long-form, original, signed birth certificate
2) Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) — not found, not released
3) Obama’s baptism records — sealed
4) Obama’s adoption records — sealed
5) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on return from Indonesia — not found, not released
6) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not found, not released
7) Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) — not released
8 ) Punahou School financial aid or school records — not released
9) Occidental College financial aid records — not released.
10) Columbia College records — not released
11) Columbia senior thesis — not released
12) Harvard Law School records — not released
13) Obama’s law client list — sealed
14) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois state senator — sealed
15) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
16) Obama’s medical records — not released
17) Obama’s passport records — not released
But hey, if you like the dark, you know where the switch is.
 
216Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 03:50
Why does the marriage certificate matter? Or the "adoption certificate?" Or his baptism?

It should be noted that it is extremely rare for presidents to allow the release of their school records, nor full medical records. (Obama has, however, released some records, and the records he did release are more detailed than McCain;s).

His birth certificate was released. You keep looking for this magical non-official "long form."

Seriously--a list of stuff no president releases in full (or at all) has simply become the reason you (and the other birthers) believe what you were going to believe anyway.

You need to stop casting about for "proof" to back up what you already believe and simply want to protect.
 
217Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 05:45
You obviously have no handle on how respectable Pajamas Media is

The site that hired well-known ridiculous ass, Joe the Plumber (who famously said in 2008 that President Obama would mean the death of Israel, and then the next day could not explain his basis for that statement for 5 painful-to-watch minutes on FOX News Channel) and sent him to Israel as a war correspondant?

How could anyone not know what a huge steaming pile of respectability that "news" organization is?
 
218Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 11:44
Presidents need to release all that information listed in #215.

Boldwin, can you do us a favor and link us to all that information for every president over the past 30 years? Obviously its easily available for Presidents such as Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. So link us to that so we make sure we are treating everyone fairly.

(I hope he can manage to get all that information for even 1 President before I die.)
 
219DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 12:07
None of those presidents (well, except maybe Clinton) were Muslims, dude.
 
220Tree
      ID: 2010312116
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 12:41
215 is outstanding, especially the ones that say "not found, not released" - the fact that some things - like the claimed name change - never happened - means there is no documentation. which, of course, isn't good enough for the nutjobs.

it didn't happen, yet it exists. perfect. lol

not to mention the legal documentation has been released already, showing Obama's citizenship.

even if everything on that above list was fulfilled and released, the birthers would find something else that didn't seem kosher.
 
221Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 12:48
None of those presidents (well, except maybe Clinton) were Muslims, dude.

Shhhh... we're supposed to pretend that's not why these nutjobs are asking for all this documentation.
 
222Tree
      ID: 2010312116
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 14:31
oh. i thought it was because he was, well, ya know, black.
 
223Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 15:53
High court turns away appeal from 'birther' leader
 
224Boldwin
      ID: 57152218
      Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 20:26
Sneer all you want, both the Hawaiian governor and Chris Matthews conceding Obama will not be able to produce a real long form BC.

And...

Ten states have written laws stating that from now on presidential candidates must provide proof of eligility. In addition they are allowing every citizen legal standing to make a challenge on this issue.

So sneer all you want. It's gonna be an issue you can't skate on forever.

And Obama is gonna owe Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin who is in prison a big apology. You too.
 
225Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 20:58
Obama will not be able to produce a real long form BC.

Was that really the issue? The form that isn't the official birth certificate cannot be produced?
 
226Boldwin
      ID: 57152218
      Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:00
It's the only real BC. The short form is confetti. Anyone on the planet can get it without proof.
 
227Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:14
The state of Hawai'i recognizes the short form as proof. The long form is filled out by the hospital and inputted into the records database. The short form is the only form actually issued by the state.

There is no longer any long form for Obama to be hiding.

Anyone on the planet can get it without proof.

You aren't talking about "anyone." You are talking about Barack Obama, who already allowed his original short form birth certificate to be examined, and posted images of it as well. It is one of many pieces of evidence of his birth in Hawai'i, including at least two people who claim to have been there at the time.
 
228Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:17
And Obama is gonna owe Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin who is in prison a big apology.

let the record state that you support draft dodgers and those who chose to shirk a responsibility they voluntarily signed up for.
 
229Boldwin
      ID: 57152218
      Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:27
Obama let him go to prison rather than admit he couldn't prove his qualifications to run for president.
 
230Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 22:21
Ten states have written laws...

What states are these Baldwin? I'm curious to see...
 
231Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 22:31
He already proved it, Baldwin. You just don't accept the many pieces of proof as legitimate, because you are hoping for some proof (yet to come) that he is a Marxist Kenyan.
 
232Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 00:43
Anyone on the planet can get it without proof.

This is a lie. The "short form" you refer to is Hawaii's "Certification of Live Birth" - simply the printout generated by the system based on the "Certificate of Live Birth" stored in their database.

Even if you baselessly charge that their system was fed false information after the fact, the newspaper announcements (which are sent to the papers by the state health department based on info they receive from the hospitals) are as irrefutable as evidence gets. Doesn't matter, we could have every moment of his life from birth unceasingly captured on film ala The Truman Show and Orly Taitz would still be out there with her legion of loonies insisting that he was born in Kenya. There can no evidence or proof sufficiently irrefutable to counter derangement of this caliber.
 
233Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 14:40
Obama let him go to prison rather than admit he couldn't prove his qualifications to run for president.

Obama didn't let him do anything.

the AWOL soldier is a grown-ass man capable of making his own decisions. and he made a decision to not honor a commitment he made to this country, to this country's military, and to the citizens of this country.

it was his decision alone, and as an adult, he's responsible for his decisions, his actions, and the possible benefits or consequences.
 
234Boldwin
      ID: 57152218
      Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 15:19
In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)

Here is the actual legal language allowing someone to simply swear without any evidence other than their word, and get a short form BC.

As you may have noticed, no doctor, midwife or hospital has stepped forward and verified any detail of Obama Hawaii birth. I'm not saying he wasn't born in Hawaii, but whatever his reason is to resist being transparent on the subject, his intransigence will not work the next election cycle.
 
235DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 16:11
"I'm not saying he wasn't born in Hawaii"

Um, I'm not saying that the above-quoted statement is a big steaming pile of bullcrap, but no lawyer, farmer, or cow proctologist has come forward to say it isn't.
 
236DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 16:20
Simple question for the birther nut: you find the proof provided to date to be inadequate.

What proof do you have that he WASN'T born where he and the documents he's provided and the newspaper accounts say? Do you have anything to say other than "nope, you can keep shoveling stuff at me, but I want this particular one document or else" (until that's provided, then the story will change).

I mean, obviously the answer is "no, we just can't stand that black Muslim (note: lol) running our country and will lie whenever possible to throw mud at him"... but humor me.
 
237DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 16:23
And one more, for the humor value:

Is the state of Hawaii in the habit of maintaining birth records for people that weren't born in Hawaii? If no, then where did the short form come from? Can you produce yours? If not, why not?
 
238Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 15:24
Boehner says facts show Obama a Christian, citizen


When the host of NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Boehner whether he, as speaker of the House, had a responsibility to "stand up to that kind of ignorance," Boehner told David Gregory: "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people."

Boehner continued: "Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That's good enough for me. The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word." He later called those "the facts" of Obama's background.
 
239Boldwin
      ID: 191531310
      Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 16:10
If not, why not?

Because my mother wasn't connected to half the Skull&Bones by bloodlines and obsessed with politics and seeking to preserve her son's viability as a political candidate. If she were she could have gotten the same document just by asking for it, despite giving birth elsewhere.
 
240Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 16:56
239 - seems a little overboard. Seems a bit far-fetched even for a thriller novel.

So 49 or 50 years ago, a lady gets pregnant and goes thru the motions of orchestrating her sons birth to appear to be in the United States. This is with the sole purpose of one day catapulting her child into the office of the president of the United States. Oh yeah, this is in the 60's and her son is a black man. And she's forumalating this plan back then.


Boldwin, please think about that for a moment. This goes right up there with b7's theories on 9/11. Actually this is even more far-fetched.
 
241Boldwin
      ID: 581571417
      Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 19:44
When you are in a club of which one of every twenty members ends up president it becomes a tad less farfetched to think the thot crossed her mind.
 
242Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, Feb 14, 2011, 19:57
When you are in a club of which one of every twenty members ends up president it becomes a tad less farfetched to think the thot crossed her mind.

so, by that logic, we DEFINITELY have a white, Christian male conspiracy, since 42 of the 43 people who have been president fit into THAT club...
 
243bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 07:38
...in a club of which one of every twenty members ends up president...

Well, one thing I will say that his mother sure had more foresight than the other 19 members.
 
244Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 10:27
When you are in a club of which one of every twenty members ends up president it becomes a tad less farfetched to think the thot crossed her mind.

So which bloodlines in the s&b are her connections? specifically. name the member and give the relation.
 
245Boldwin
      ID: 581571417
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 13:54
Obama was sworn into office by his eighth cousin Dick Cheney and replaced his eleventh cousin George Bush as president.
 
246Boldwin
      ID: 581571417
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 14:08
More in the six degrees of separation vein, he is also like the 24th and 26th cousin of John McCain by 2 different paths. He's the 21st cousin thrice removed of Elvis. Honestly since the S&B is so interrelated you can tie him to many more ex-presidents and British royalty if you want to go just a tiny bit further out on the family tree limbs.
 
247Boldwin
      ID: 581571417
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 14:09
Winston Churchill also.
 
248Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 14:09
At what point do you realize you are at a meaningless point?
 
249Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 14:17
Obama was sworn into office by his eighth cousin Dick Cheney

well, at least you've left the 1960s and are now overly concerned with the 1660s.

i am sure that these wheels started turning all the way back then, and Obama's mother was completely aware of the relationship. and, also, pigs fly.

also, Obama is cousins with Harry S Truman and Brad Pitt (this is actually true.)

i believe it will eventually be revealed that they to, are part of the conspiracy, and Obama's relationship to Cheney and Bush is at least partial responsible for Brad Pitt dumping Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie (this is actually not true.)
 
250Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 14:35
8th and eleventh cousins? 24th and 26th? Boldwin, are you serious? Really?

You do realize that being an eleventh cousin means their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents were the same.

That relationship goes back to the 1500 or 1600's. And until you go back that far or maybe another century or two beyond that, then you, me and Tree probably have a common ancestor with President Obama, John Kerry, and/or Charlie Sheen. Now thats a scary thought.
 
251Boldwin
      ID: 581571417
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 14:44
Not to mention that as hardcore marxists her family felt entitled to run the world.
 
252Boldwin
      ID: 581571417
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 15:00
And his father felt entitled to run Kenya. I don't think it hard to believe Ann Dunham saw her son as presidential timber.
 
253Boldwin
      ID: 581571417
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 15:00
Cousin!
 
254Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 15:09
I'm sure, after they were divorced, his mother felt it important to imprint into her son the father's political beliefs. After all, in 1964 she was so incredibly farsighted that she could see not only that her marriage (which was illegal in about a third of the states) would produce a son who would preside over the country, but that she should carry on her former husband's wishes despite not wanting him otherwise in her life to make it happen.

Ah, I love the smell of a desperate conspiracy theory in the afternoon...
 
255Boldwin
      ID: 581571417
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 15:10
She didn't kick Obama out, he abandoned her for the greener fields of Harvard.
 
256Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 15:25
Boldwin, Im not even going to give your so-called connections the courtesy of calling them tenuous. That implies there is some potential for validity. Its non-existant. You are basing your whole theory on people who died 500 years ago. I should probably go to a funeral with Obama because its probably my great (to the 11th power) grandfather too.
 
257Tosh
      Leader
      ID: 057721710
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 15:42
I'd read that fictional novel. Sounds interesting.
 
258Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Tue, Feb 15, 2011, 15:47
the silliness of Baldwin's claims can probably be traced back to our own lineage.

Tony Curtis, Jamie Lee Curtis, Max Baer Sr (World boxing champ decades ago), Max Baer Jr (Jethro from the Beverly Hillbillies), and RON JEREMY, YES THE RON JEREMY are all cousins of mine. and all are 5th cousins or closer.

and i've never met a one of them. well, Ron Jeremy, but that wasn't really under family reunion circumstances.

this is just another crazy theory from someone so desperate to paint Obama as a big bad Muslim who isn't American.
 
259Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Mar 08, 2011, 19:19
Are you subject to the scrutiny of conspiracy theorists, with their malleable rules of evidence? This should help: Generate your own "Kenyan" birth certificate!
 
260Boldwin
      ID: 29257915
      Wed, Mar 09, 2011, 17:02
I'd consider believing every 'factcheck' coming from a Soros funded propaganda mill as 'malleable rules of evidence'. Double-plus goodthink also.
 
261Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Mar 09, 2011, 18:13
Wow, you've been slammed twice on these boards on your mistake about factcheck.org. Going for the trifecta, are ya?

You need not believe them--they aren't the only one seeing the evidence. But disbelieving a fact because you believe (in error) that Soros somehow brought it to you? Again with the lack of ethical grounding...
 
263Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 08:24
a little common sense coming out of Arizona...

Calling it “a bridge too far,” Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed the state legislature’s controversial “birther bill” and also rejected a bill that would have permitted guns on college campuses.
 
264Boldwin
      ID: 333101916
      Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 17:59
Dueling with Obama minion.
 
265Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 18:25
Trump? Hahaha.
 
266Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 18:56
#264
Trump continues to make a complete fool of himself, while the phony conservatives fawn over him. It's theatre of the absurd. You'd think maybe Newsmax, Fox News or some other supposedly conservative media outlet would ask Trump why he's opposed to individual property rights.

An elderly Scots widow has won the right to a legal aid review in her war against US tycoon Donald Trump and his plans for a luxury golf resort.

Mr Trump’s golf course plan, which is backed by Aberdeenshire Council, requires Mrs Forbes, her son Michael, who lives next door, and other residents, to move.

Mrs Forbes has consistently refused to sell her home, which she describes as her “pride and joy” and “paradise”.


There's your conservative hero. Buy off the local town council to kick people out of their homes for a golf course. Not a municipal golf course where the locals will be welcome to play, but a resort for the super wealthy only, the same super wealthy that conservatives refuse to consider taxing an extra couple percent, while they pretend to care about the deficit.

In case you're wondering why a self-identified conservative media outlet like
Newsmax would ignore Trump's blatant disregard for what was at one time a cherished conservative principle:

“He has been chatting up the new head of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, and speaking regularly to Christopher Ruddy, the proprietor of Newsmax and a force in conservative circles, who happens to be a member of Trump’s opulent Palm Beach, Fla., club Mar-a-Lago.”

According to Trump,

“This country is a laughingstock for the rest of the world.”

Well, sure it is, giving such unwarranted media attention to a meglomaniac with a track record of bankruptcies and failures who now demands families move from their lifelong residences so that hole #5 can measure 600 yards instead of 120. That's why the world is laughing.







 
267biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 19:11
It will be the job of future sociology professors to tease out the riddle of how the ultra-rich were able to so dupe such a sizable minority of our population.
 
268Boldwin
      ID: 333101916
      Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 19:41
...into believing Obama was a natural born citizen.
 
269Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 19:50
“This country is a laughingstock for the rest of the world.”

...into believing Obama was a natural born citizen.

Not really all that funny. Pathetic comes to mind.

 
270Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 20:30
...into believing Obama was a natural born citizen.

it sounds like the words of a crackpot when you say it, and it sounds like the words of a crackpot when Trump says it.

from the minute this because "news" in regards to Trump, it was laughable. actually hearing him speak on the topic makes it sound like he's totally lost his mind.
 
271Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Apr 19, 2011, 20:40
It's especially laughable when Stephanopolous breaks Trump down lying about investigators in Hawaii.
 
272bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 09:54
Watched that interview with Stephanopolous. Trump really reminded me of a poster hereabouts with a first initial of B.

Trump indicated he had investigators in Hawaii who were going to get at the facts of the birther matter, and when pressed on when he will announce the results of this investigation, Trump said something like "we'll all see what happens".......in some uncertain future time I guess.
 
273Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 10:07
Trump really reminded me of a poster hereabouts with a first initial of B.


bibA?
biliruben?
Bhahan?
Berm Dude?

Not sure there bib.
 
274Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 10:42
Buru?
 
275Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 11:28
Trump's phoney finger in the wind conservative principles have them duped. Why - I have no idea. These people who supposedly have a problem with Obama's elitism want to elect an egomaniac who just might go by President The Donald?

They don't seem to have any clue they're being played by this attention fiend cross between PT Barnum and Charlie Sheen (minus the drugs, presumably). Is Donald Trump even willing to release his financial records? Does this "candidacy" really look like anything more than a publicity stunt ruse to these people? What an embarrassment.
 
276Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 12:12
Trump really reminded me of a poster hereabouts with a first initial of B.

Trump indicated he had investigators in Hawaii who were going to get at the facts of the birther matter, and when pressed on when he will announce the results of this investigation, Trump said something like "we'll all see what happens".......in some uncertain future time I guess.


absolutely. i had the same exact thought. glad someone else felt the same way.

 
277walk
      ID: 348442710
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 12:40
NYT, Room for Debate: Can Trump Win?

More thoughts on Trump. Great posts #266/275.
 
278Boldwin
      ID: 263342011
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 13:00
I think there is a very interesting thing playing out. Any republican politician from NYC with NYC sentiments isn't going to have his views perfectly aligned with conservative midddle america.

So what he is doing is tapping into a perceived need they do have that he can fill. And that is he an incontrovertibly bright spokesman for their side who actually has the balls to support their issues with full force and without apology.

Trust me middle america conservatives are sick to death with Washington republicans...

  • without the balls to use their clout in the House to actually control the pursestrings...as constitutionally mandated and as mandated in the last election.

  • without the balls to enforce the language of the constitution regarding eligibility for president.

  • without the balls to demand Obama live up to his talk about transparency.

  • without the balls to stand tall against the biased MSM.

  • without the balls to demand sanity regarding america's energy supply. [and no liberals obstructing every practical energy supply by demanding unicorn power instead does not constitute sanity]

  • without the balls to stand up to muslim demands for preferential treatment.
Conservatives are used to not getting 100% of their agenda, especially their social agenda. [which they won't get from a NYC politician certainly] They aren't going to get that until much more progress is made in the culture war. What they can get is someone with balls right now.
 
279Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 13:02
incontrovertibly bright spokesman

Wtf is wrong with you?
 
280Boldwin
      ID: 263342011
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 13:44
You think liberals are the brights. Wtf is wrong with you?
 
281Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 14:00
Trust me middle america conservatives are sick to death with Washington republicans...


I'm an east coast republican and I'm sick to death of Washington republicans. I'm also sick to death of Washington democrats. I'm sick to death of politicians.

While your statement rings true, your extrapolation from that statement is more than just a bit of a stretch, though.

without the balls to use their clout in the House to actually control the pursestrings...as constitutionally mandated and as mandated in the last election.

Actually, I'm glad they aren't trying to control the pursestrings.I have zero trust in their integrity or ability to do it right. But same goes for dems. This is not an issue I'm looking to donald trump to fix.

without the balls to enforce the language of the constitution regarding eligibility for president.

I think birthers are wrong. I don't see any conspiracy and no issue with Obama's citizenship. I think the birthers are a very vocal minority.

without the balls to demand Obama live up to his talk about transparency.

Agree here, though this isn't just Obama. This ties back into what I said about your first point. I'm tired of them all, dem and repub. I think as a whole they are liars and cheats and need to clean house. But again, I don't think Donald Trump is the man to get my trust.

I could keep going, but it'll get redundant. No matter how you cut it, Donald Trump is as much of a problem as any current random politician would be.

 
282Boldwin
      ID: 263342011
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 14:18
Watching Stephanopolis browbeat republicans into keeping quiet and not demanding Obama meet the legal requirement and live up to his own promises of transparency just drives me up the wall.

If they are gonna shrink back and whimper they shouldn't be there.
 
283DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 14:56
not demanding Obama meet the legal requirement

Um, he did, we've been over this. That some are too deluded with rage to recognize that would be their problem, not his.
 
284walk
      ID: 348442710
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 15:26
Khahan, and more...such as lacking qualifications and diplomacy and public sector experience. Face it, running a country is not = to running a business, and we do not need a totalitarian, which is what the likes of Trump would bring us.
 
285Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 16:55
without the balls to use their clout in the House to actually control the pursestrings...as constitutionally mandated and as mandated in the last election.

without the balls to enforce the language of the constitution regarding eligibility for president.

without the balls to demand Obama live up to his talk about transparency.

without the balls to stand tall against the biased MSM.

without the balls to demand sanity regarding america's energy supply. [and no liberals obstructing every practical energy supply by demanding unicorn power instead does not constitute sanity]

without the balls to stand up to muslim demands for preferential treatment.


as a whole, this is probably the dumbest, most illogical, most factually incorrect thing ever posted on this forum.

excepting perhaps the part of Obama's transparency (no surprise thought that Republicans and Conservatives hold him up to a higher standard than they would their own candidates - helllllllllllo Sarah Palin), the rest of what you typed is asinine, bigoted, inaccurate, and pretty much talking point for talking point of Conservative irrationality.

as for Trump, he's your candidate du jour, Baldwin. You'll probably call him Reagan With A Toupee soon enough. you switch candidates quicker more often than a hooker switches johns - if there's a bandwagon to jump on, you are grabbing hold before it passes you by.
 
286DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 17:02
You'll probably call him Reagan With A Toupee soon enough

Hey Ruthie/Tree -- it's all natural! Honest!
 
287Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 20:06
like rats abandoning the sinking ship...

Bachmann joins GOPers distancing themselves from birther issue

 
288Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 20:22
How prescient was my Charlie Sheen comparison in #275?
 
289Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 20:53
without the balls to enforce the language of the constitution regarding eligibility for president.

When did you start caring about the Constitution?
You certainly never protested when Jose Padilla was imprisoned for years with no formal charges.
 
290Boldwin
      ID: 263342011
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 22:19
Tree

I haven't even endorsed him yet, [deleted - B]. I'm explaining the phenom to you guys for whom 'The Donald' and his recent moves do not resonate.

Rudy from NYC never had a chance. Trump from NYC does have a chance surprisingly, however unlikely his presence is in the R party.
 
291Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 22:35
Rudy from NYC never had a chance

Rudy from NYC as VP instead of Palin and we're discussing whether or not McCain is running for re-election and if that guy Obama who came pretty close to being the first black president is going to run again.
 
292sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 23:18
Trump has just slightly better odds of winning this election, than I do.
 
293Boldwin
      ID: 263342011
      Wed, Apr 20, 2011, 23:30
See, with rinos like Khahan around I just can't retire. Someone talk AZBacker into coming back.
 
294Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, Apr 21, 2011, 01:00
See, with rinos like Khahan around I just can't retire.

although i'm not sure Guiliani would have ultimately made the difference that Khahan is suggesting, he sure as hell didn't guarantee a loss like Palin did.

if the GOP puts Trump, Bachmann, West, Palin, or any of that ilk on the ticket, they wouldn't have learned a thing from the 2008 election.

and as for RINOs, Khahan has a better concept of what Republicans stand for than you ever possibly could.
 
295Wilmer McLean
      ID: 839213
      Thu, Apr 21, 2011, 04:09
Obama ran on "I'm not Bush."

Maybe a GOP candidate can run on "I'm not Obama." ;)
 
296Boldwin
      ID: 2354214
      Thu, Apr 21, 2011, 05:54
"I'm almost a democrat" - not what Republicans stand for.
 
297Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Thu, Apr 21, 2011, 08:28
I would be more likely to associate myself with the Republican party if the furthest right members didn't seem to demand that everyone be a ultra-conservative bible thumping, abortion doctor bombing, Obama is wrong on everything, personal freedoms are only ok if it fits my view of the world radical.

If those are some of the criteria, I'm just as happy to not consider myself a Republican.
 
298Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Apr 21, 2011, 08:48
"I'm almost a democrat" - not what Republicans stand for.

Again, the statement in and of itself is true boldwin. But please tell us what do Republicans stand for?
 
299Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, Apr 21, 2011, 09:13
#297 - right on.
#298 - please see #297.
 
300Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Apr 22, 2011, 14:20
Postscript to #266

Appears Trump's abuse of eminent domain isn't restricted to golf resorts in Scotland.
Michele Malkin explains.
 
301Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 22, 2011, 16:30
That NJ case was a classic.
 
302Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 07:29
I'm explaining the phenom to you guys for whom 'The Donald' and his recent moves do not resonate.

The phenomenon at work, if tea partiers are as principled as you like to think, can only be abject stupidity. That's the only way to explain why a collection of conservative purists would allow themselves to be duped by a man who just 2 election cycles ago demanded universal healthcare, has made (and lost) millions by egregiously and heartlessly exploiting eminent domain and who's foreign policy has us forcibly stealing oil from Iraq (as payment for the service of invading and conquering their country) and dealing with our international adversaries by luring them into business deals only reneg on them (that'll teach 'em to coddle terrorists!).

Of course I don't really think tea partiers (or the percentage of GOPers who support Trump for 2012) are that stupid. I think your perception of their principles is a fantasy and that they're suckers for the trendy anti-Obama political claptrap of the moment far more than they care about such principles. You know, like the principles that might make a committed conservative who spent the last 2 years raging against a public health option pass on a candidate who was demanding universal healthcare just a few years back.

But either way, they're being had. Were I a betting man, today I'd give 4-1 odds he's not running - or that if he does officially announce his candidacy, his campaign will cease prior to the personal financial disclosure deadline.
 
303Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 08:33
So you felt compelled to criticize tea partiers for supporting a candidate that you think is not running.

stupidity, stupid, duped, heartlessly, stupid again, suckers, claptrap. I got your bingo on one post.

 
306Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 08:54
today I'd give 4-1 odds he's not running

A couple weeks ago, I would have set those odds even higher. Today, given Trump's position at the top of the Gallup Poll, I'd wager those odds at even or better.

We're dealing with a monstrous ego here. Seeing his potential candidacy resonate so positively in these early polls will serve to stoke that ego, and he's fully capable of convincing himself that he's the nation's savior.

What's both comic and tragic about this, is that Trump, and Sarah Palin to a lesser extent, are products of the so-called MSM, which Palin villifies at every opportunity. Those two have the highest name recognition of just about anyone in the country, with the possible exception of Barak Obama and Charlie Sheen. You don't get that type of recognition without major mainstream media saturation. Even though Sarah Palin did not win the vice-presidency in 2008, I would venture to say her name recognition is probably double Joe Biden. Trump, who has been in the media spotlight a lot longer than Palin, is the master at media manipulation.

It's important to remember that many conservatives stopped being conservative a long time ago. That's why they can easily overlook Trump's former positions on health care, abortion, eminent domain, multiple wives and financial shenanigans when they smell a winner.
 
307Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 10:22
That poll has him at 16%, tied with Huckabe. I think previous recent polls had him leading the field alone, no?

Agreed on the point about the temptation to feed his ego with a presidential run but I think his ego also knows that the job itself isn't nearly as satisfying. And maybe I'm giving him too much credit but I also think that if he really running he'd be at least a little more serious and a little less sideshow.

One very curious thing about that poll is that he is much more heavily favored by GOP-leaning voters who identify themselves as liberal or moderate.
 
308Boldwin
      ID: 53322222
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 13:02
PV

That their name recognition owes itself to the MSM is undeniable but that is not the whole story.

Imagine if the Dem party could get a free trillion dollars in negative ad campaign against whoever they calculated was the strongest or most troublesome opponent for them.

Now ask Palin and Dan Quayle how helpful it was.
 
309Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 14:06
Mythbuilding really doesn't become you, B. The Dems would welcome a match against a Palin or a Quayle. Just because they think of both of them as intellectual lightweights and say so continually doesn't mean that the continual comments on them are a reflection of fear.
 
310Boldwin
      ID: 53322222
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 17:06
When they got attacked [for free by the MSM] they were both the highest profile likely candidates. That you were overconfident about facing them doesn't matter.
 
311Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 17:25
Yet somehow you seem to believe "mentions by the 'MSM'" as a reflection of quality. What's next: President Lindsay Lohan?

They were "attacked" by people (through and in the press) for being, essentially, stupid and far above their intellectual stations. And Dan Quayle was never the "highest profile likely candidate."

If the "MSM" (whatever they are) is a group of shallow reactionary liberal outlets, you need to stop believing that their attention anoints anyone with some seal of quality.
 
312Boldwin
      ID: 53322222
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 18:40
You don't have to preach to me. I stopped believing anything they said or believing in anyone they backed shortly after Watergate when they showed their biased hand.

Reactionary liberal. You hold some amazing concepts. What is that?
 
313Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 20:12

Palin and Quayle haven't gotten attacked any more than any other politician. They just whine about it louder.

 
314Boldwin
      ID: 53322222
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 20:47
I'm guessing that is PV practicing for an upcoming poker tournament by seeing if he can say that with a straight face.
 
315Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 21:33
I'm sorry, what was Quayle the most likely candidate for?

I've never seen any political candidate attacked as viciously as Barack Obama in 2008. You could fairly argue that week after week of the same 4 Jeremiah Wright clips, discussions about the possibility that he is Muslim (two "concerns" which one would think are mutually exclusive) and Bill Ayers stories aired wall-to-wall was balanced by a good deal of positive coverage.

But Palin received her share of positive coverage as well. It's not the media's fault she was exposed as a foreign policy nincompoop (did B7 have that one on his bingo card?) when she didn't understand a question that McCain answered months earlier without batting an eyelash - and that attracted exactly zero outrage from the right at that time. It's also not the media's fault that she froze up like a child in school play when asked the weakest softball imaginable. The 2008 election was when you forfeited the right to ever call anyone thin-skinned.

Further, Palin received 100% positive media coverage from the largest mainstream cable news outlet in the country, something no Democrat candidate for president has ever received.
 
316Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Apr 23, 2011, 21:40
You're guessing wrong. No politician has been attacked more in this country than George W Bush, but since he didn't react much to it, it wasn't top of mind awareness.

Attacks on Obama dwarf anything Palin has been exposed to. Birther issues, you're a Muslim issues, Rev Wright issues, Bill Ayers issues, etc. If Palin ever got the negativity Bill and Hillary Clinton have received, her head would explode.

Exactly what attacks from the mainstream media has Palin experienced? The Katie Couric interview? I don't recall Couric grilling her about being intimately involved with an America-hating group that wants Alaska to secede from the nation. I don't recall Couric asking her why in the world she would fly halfway across the country to give birth. She asked her some softball questions, and Palin responded like a nitwit.
It's not the media's fault that Palin overreacts to any kind of criticism and continually fails to give intelligent, well-thought out dialogue, be it prepared or not. She mugs for the camera, then protests when she sees the results.

And I don't play poker. I play golf, a game where bluffing isn't involved. You either make the 5 foot putt or you don't.
 
317Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 11:05
According to Sarah Palin, attacked [for free by the MSM], the media treats Trump unfairly.

“Donald Trump is the one being really treated unfairly — I would say though, in the press —when they are hammering him about the one issue that he has brought up and not been shy about, and that’s the birth certificate,” she continued. “He’s merely answering reporters’ questions about his view on the birth certificate — and then reporters turn that around and [say]: ‘That’s all he’s got — he’s always running on a birth certificate issue,’ when that’s not the case.

“Bottom line [is] that President Obama is so far over his head — he has gotten us on the road to bankruptcy, and insolvency, and a less secure nation,” Palin said. “And Trump, and so many of us, want to do something about that.”


Let's remember that Sarah Palin, by design, is part of the media. She is a paid commentator on Fox News, and she has had her own "reality" TV show. Yet, she goes on Hannity and attacks Obama for free.

CBS and the NY Times, considered by some as the poster children for the MSM, join the attack on Obama, with no protest about the MSM treating the President unfairly.

CBS/NY Times Birther Poll

A quarter of all Americans incorrectly think President Obama was not born in the United States, according to a new CBS News/ New York Times poll.


Among all Republicans, 45 percent believe he was born in another country, as do 45 percent of Tea Party supporters, the poll shows.


Now, where would 25% of Americans and 45% of Republicans get the idea that Obama was born in another country, sans one single shred of evidence to support the claim? Yet, it's Trump who's treated unfairly and Palin who's attacked by the MSM.

Sarah Palin went to Northern Idaho Community College in Couer D' Alene. Hey, that's in the Idaho panhandle, where the Aryan Nation has been headquartered for decades. I don't have any evidence, but Sarah Palin was a member of the Aryan Nations. Let's see if we can get 25% of Americans to buy into that. Sadly, I have a feeling that a big part of that 25% who think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, wouldn't see Palin as an Aryan Nation member a negative.



 
318Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 13:16
Sadly, I have a feeling that a big part of that 25% who think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, wouldn't see Palin as an Aryan Nation member a negative.


Damn straight.
 
319weykool
      ID: 13532415
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 16:53
Sadly, I have a feeling that a big part of that 25% who think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, wouldn't see Palin as an Aryan Nation member a negative.

Damn Stupid
Always with the race card.
Getting a little desperate when we have to stoop to that level.
 
320Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 16:59
weykool

Do you think the president is a natural born citizen?
 
321weykool
      ID: 13532415
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 17:07
MITH

Do you agree that anyone who disagrees with the president is racist?
 
322Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 17:14
Of course not. In fact as far as I'm aware I don't know anyone who thinks that.

Why did you chose to respond but not answer my question? I don't think it was in any way disrespectful.

Again, do you think the president is a natural born citizen?
 
323weykool
      ID: 13532415
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 17:27
I have no idea if he is or not.
I have not really looked into the evidence either way because its a moot point.
We have bigger problems we need to focus on.
This issue remains an issue because it is fanned by the MSM and by Dems who want to use racism to score political points.

Of course not. In fact as far as I'm aware I don't know anyone who thinks that.
Then you need to pay closer attention.

Do you agree or disagree with PV's irresponsible and racial comment?
 
324Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 18:14
Do you agree that anyone who disagrees with the president is racist?

Is that what you take away from my comment? We're not talking about people who disagree with Obama. We're talking about people who believe he wasn't born in Hawaii. Have you asked yourself why they believe that? According to you,

I have no idea if he is or not.

This issue remains an issue because it is fanned by the MSM and by Dems who want to use racism to score political points.


The MSM and Dems?!? You admit you're too lazy to form an opinion, but not too lazy to place blame trying to score political points.

Now, did the MSM and Dems force Donald Trump, a leading Republican presidential candidate, to very publicly question Obama's birthplace?

Did the MSM and Dems force Sarah Palin to say,

“Donald Trump is the one being really treated unfairly — I would say though, in the press —when they are hammering him about the one issue that he has brought up and not been shy about, and that’s the birth certificate”

So, who's the victim? Certainly not Obama. It's Trump and Palin. Maybe you're the one who needs to pay closer attention.




 
325Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 18:54
This issue remains an issue because 'the most transparent presidency ever' refuses to release his birth certificate.

Maybe for no other reason than that it allows him a bogus reason to play the race card. Who knows? But this issues could die with one phonecall if he's got nothing to hide.
 
326Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 19:06
He doesn't have anything to hide, and has, in fact, released the forms.
 
327Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 19:14
weykool #323

I'm sure racism is a motivator for some number of people who are birthers, just as racism was surely a motvator for some number of Obama supporters.

But as far as I'm concerned the evidence that he was born in Hawaii is so strong that most of them are clearly predisposed to believe or support just about any anti-Obama nincompoopery that has any media traction. Some, like Boldwin, likely believe almost everything they hear on rightist media. Others are likely racists. Some are probably all of the above.

So depending on how encompassing PV intended his statement, I might agree with him.
 
328Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 19:32
He doesn't have anything to hide, and has, in fact, released the forms. - PV

You know perfectly well that isn't true. Two million dollars worth of legal fees to keep it from being true in fact.
 
329Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 19:50
Two million dollars worth of legal fees to keep it from being true in fact.

In fact? Should be an easy link.
 
330Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 20:15
First you give me your estimate of what defending @ 30 lawsuits for the President of the USA would cost.
 
331Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 20:18
BTW, the real easy link to find would be the one you went to where Media Matters suggests maybe he went with a team of pro-bono public defenders for all we know.

Yes, that's sarcasm, altho I've read the MM take on it.
 
332Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 20:21
First you give me your estimate of what defending @ 30 lawsuits for the President of the USA would cost.

Nice try, but since you seem to be unable to support your claim, I'll simply allow those with better skills explain for me.

When fact-checking, we think the onus is on the person making the claim to back up his statement. And the only backing we've seen in this case is that the Obama campaign's legal team spent more than $2 million on legal fees since the election ended. It's clear to us that the WND story has been twisted to wrongly assume that every dollar the Obama campaign spent on legal fees went to fight the release of Obama's birth certificate. The evidence shows that's simply not true. It's a huge, unsubstantiated leap to assume that all, or most, of that was related to lawsuits about Obama's citizenship.

link
 
333weykool
      ID: 13532415
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 20:38
I'm sure racism is a motivator for some number of people who are birthers, just as racism was surely a motvator for some number of Obama supporters.

That doesnt really answer the question.
You can take any cross-section of people and find people who have racist points of view.
PV's assertion was that a big part of that 25% are racist.
PV has zero evidence to make this claim and to smear people who hold a different opinion than he holds.
Since you "might agree" with him, perhaps one of you can post the link that backs up his assertion?
 
334Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 20:44
This guy Lt. Harris found the embargo on that info rather expensive.

Hey, he's costing the US government $25,000,000 by not easily collecting this reward - The owners of this website will pay $25,000,000 to Barack Hussein Obama if he will produce his "real" long-form birth certificate.

 
335Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 20:45
I guess allowing you guys to continue to make fools of yourselves is worth that too him.
 
336Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 20:54
weykool

PV's assertion was that a big part of that 25% are racist.
PV has zero evidence to make this claim.


Somebody doesn't know the difference between an "assertion", a "claim" and simple pondering.

He said it "feels like" that to him.
 
337Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 20:59
Or rather that he "has a feeling". Perhaps more of an inclination than a pondering.

In any case, I have no idea why you think I should offer you support for anything. But if you really want me to post a link to suport that PV really has that inclination... here you go, tough guy.
 
338DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 21:00
weykool,

If you have a link to the contrary, post it! Otherwise it would seem that PD thinks what he thinks, and you think what you think, and that's pretty much that.
 
339Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 21:03
MITH

That is the danger that keeps Rush and lots of politicians from stepping forward on this issue. It's just too risky when Obama may just be setting a trap for anyone who reaches for this. He can always just release it. Assuming it wouldn't damage him.

At this point it's also not profitable. By now he's eliminated any chance of being believed by his doubters. If he's thumbed his nose at the constitution this long why should I believe he wouldn't forge him a document? So it's now beyond proving to us doubters. Now all it is is one more example of his low opinion of America.
 
340DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 21:09
"By now he's eliminated any chance of being believed by his doubters."

You mean like all the other evidence available that was there from the beginning that they've failed to recognize?

I'm sure he's heartbroken about that.

However, it's that 25% that's thumbing their nose at the Constitution.


Oh, that open challenge to post one piece of evidence -- just one -- that shows he was born in any other country is still open. And I suspect it will be, because you still have nothing but hateful rhetoric and wild delusions.

 
341weykool
      ID: 13532415
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 21:35
Whatever MITH.
True to form you resort to parsing of words.
You win the High school debate.
However, shame on you and PV for always playing the race card.
I personally find that behavior to be racist.
 
342Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 21:52
you resort to parsing of words.

Yeah it's one of those quirky things about me that I bother to pay attention to what they mean. How silly, right?

You win the High school debate.
However, shame on you and PV for always playing the race card.


I'm pretty sure you lose the elementary school debate for failing to understand a phrase like "depending on how encompassing PV intended his statement".

From my experience, true to form.
 
343Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 21:56
he's thumbed his nose at the constitution this long

How? The certificate of live birth, the newspaper announcements and the confirmation of the Hawaii state department of records fulfills the requirement.

Show me where in the Constitution it says candidates for president must produce a long form birth certificate.
 
344Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 21:57
Now all it is is one more example of his low opinion of America.

Well, no. But perhaps it is an example of his low opinion of the most easily duped sheep on the politica right.

And for the record, if so "thumbing his nose" at 25% of Americans is evidence of a low opinion of America, that makes your opinion of the country twice as low, since you believe that at least half of us are either bent on destroying the place or are "dangerous morons" (your words) who don't realize they are serving that end.
 
345Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 21:58
Show me where in the Constitution it says candidates for president must produce a long form birth certificate.

LOL, right. And of course there's that.
 
346Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 21:58
The one produced by the same organization as the short form, BTW.

Anyone who believes the long form is better than the short form doesn't understand much of either. If the short one is fake than why would the long form be better?
 
347Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 22:13
Maybe this will loosen those Injun tighties, Weycool.

I have a feeling that a big part of that 25% who think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, wouldn't see Palin as an Aryan Nation member a negative.

Let's change a few words.

I have a feeling that a big part of that 25% who don't think Bill Ayers is a terrorist, wouldn't see Obama palling around with Ayers as a negative.

People who buy into a cult of personality, be it Obama or Palin, are quick to overlook their hero or heroine's past shady associations. That doesn't make them racists or terrorist sympathizers.

Of course, I haven't one shred of evidence that Palin ever had any association with the Aryan Nation, and there's not one shred of evidence Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

 
348Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 23:20
It's just too risky when Obama may just be setting a trap for anyone who reaches for this.

or, as has been proven to anyone with a lick of intelligence, there's no argument to be had.

He can always just release it.

he has. just because you think it hasn't, doesn't make it so.

However, shame on you and PV for always playing the race card.
I personally find that behavior to be racist.


in some cases, the shoe fits. so if a behavior is bigoted or racist, it shouldn't be called out?

 
349Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 23:24
Anyone who believes the long form is better than the short form doesn't understand much of either. If the short one is fake than why would the long form be better?

I have no reason to think the short form is fake. The problem is that it doesn't prove anything since you can be born anywhere else in the world and still get one. All it proves is that you were born and that someone bothered to apply for it.
 
350weykool
      ID: 13532415
      Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 23:55
in some cases, the shoe fits. so if a behavior is bigoted or racist, it shouldn't be called out?

As I have said before, always playing the race card in order to foment hatred is as racist as it gets.
Its a shoe that the Dems are always eager to wear
 
351Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 00:02
always playing the race card in order to foment hatred is as racist as it gets.

Since I'm already on the hook for nitpicking, do you not know the meaning of a word like 'always' or do you just toss random words into your posts for visual asthetics?
 
352Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 01:13
The problem is that it doesn't prove anything since you can be born anywhere else in the world and still get one.

Yes, you could have. And that certificate would give the actual place of birth. You might recall that Obama's certificate gives Honolulu as his place of birth.
 
353DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 10:07
What's worse?

1. Being a racist.
2. Pointing out that someone's being a racist.
3. Pointing out that other people are pointing out that someone's being a racist.

Apparently in weykool world, 1 and 3 are peachy-keen, while #2 is the Worst Thing In The World.
 
354Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 10:58
Let me reiterate what I said in #247.

The Sarah Palin/Aryan Nation analogy was hypothetical to show the extent people will go to make connections even if they have to make up "facts."
It wasn't my intention to claim the 25% of Americans who believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii are all racists, although an unknown percentage certainly are. The intention was to show that people will overlook past discrepancies of politicians they fervently support. I gave a similar example about Obama. Many Bill Clinton supporters glossed over his adulterous conduct, but that doesn't make them adulterers.

Weycool is upset about playing the race card. Whatever. I'm upset that Donald Trump went on national MSM TV, and declared,

"I have people that actually have been studying it and they cannot believe what they're finding," Trump told NBC's "Today" show on Thursday. That was on April 5th. When prodded by George Stephanopolous weeks later for details about these "findings," Trump refused to offer any details whatsoever.

Thaqt doesn't appear to upset Weycool, or the 25% of Americans who believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, or the millions who support Trump as a presidential candidate. What if I went on the Today Show and said,
"I have investiagtors studying whether Weycool has been having an affair with a stripper, and they cannot believe what they're finding."

Then, after three weeks, I had absolutely nothing to support the statement, but isn't the damage already done? Will people remember the initial claim, or that he never provided the "findings?"

That doesn't upset you, Weycool. You're upset that

PV's assertion was that a big part of that 25% are racist.[not my claim]
PV has zero evidence to make this claim and to smear people who hold a different opinion than he holds.


Credibility issue here. It's OK for Trump to go on the Today show with zero evidence to make a claim smearing the President, but not OK for me to post on RotoGuru an admittedly hypothetical situation that maybe 20 people will read.
 
355Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 11:32
Notice DWetz leaves out the actual case, namely falsely accusing someone of racism. Which is pretty evil in these days of PC persecution.
 
356Razor
      ID: 172252412
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 11:50
Fareed Zakaria chimes in and claims the birther issue is coded racism, a stance which I agree with. That's how racism exists these days: you don't say that you don't like the President because he's black. You say it's because he's got a shady past which he's trying to cover up in some kind of dubious plot to destroy America...OUR America. It's disgusting, and that there is a political party that did little to denounce this line of thinking shows the level of intellect and character of the politicians who lead that party and those who follow them.
 
357Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 11:53
falsely accusing someone of racism.

In this case, that didn't happen.
 
358Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 11:59
The problem is that it doesn't prove anything since you can be born anywhere else in the world and still get one. - B

Yes, you could have. And that certificate would give the actual place of birth. You might recall that Obama's certificate gives Honolulu as his place of birth. - PD


Actually no, PD.
Hawaiian law allows children born in other countries to get birth certificates if just one parent has had a residence for 1 year in Hawaii, (no citizenship needed). One parent could call by telephone to say he was born in Honolulu at home, and there is no checking.
So what this means is that anyone who has been a resident for a year, [no idea how or if they even check that] just calls up on the phone and tells Hawaii whatever information, true or false, that they feel like telling Hawaii.

Feel like getting that anchor baby birth citizenship? Phone it in. Didn't even get across the border in time? Phone it in.
 
359DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 12:19
"Notice DWetz leaves out the actual case, namely falsely accusing someone of racism."

No, that's a possibility. And it shouldn't happen.

Of course, so is falsely accusing someone of falsely accusing a bunch of people of racism (as PV already explained), which is what weykool did (and I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say, that you're not also calling him out for that -- oh wait, that's because you wouldn't know how to spell truth if spotted T-R-U-T).

As is denying that anyone could have racist motives for this stuff, which is what you do all the damn time.

I also notice you didn't want to answer the question, because you wouldn't want to impugn a bunch of people who agree with you. Keep defending those racists. I'll send you an oxygen tank and a mask so you can hope to get out of the deep deep muck.
 
360DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 12:20
Also, still waiting on piece #1 of evidence that he was born somewhere else.

Got anything there, or going to keep ignoring that question too?
 
361Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 12:30
Sorry, Baldwin, that simply isn't true. Proof of a birthplace is required for such a form--no one can just call up and get a vital record made based upon a phone call.

Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama ‘Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories. “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.” Source

No proof, no cert.

At this point birthers are just throwing up crap hoping it sticks. There have been lots and lots of babies born overseas who have received Hawaii birth certificates--surely you can produce one that was generated strictly from a phone call?

Didn't think so.
 
362Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 12:38
beat me to it PD.

the birther movement continues to beat the same drums that have been debunked over and over again. and i agree with Razor in 356 - it's a form of racism, or, at the very least bigotry.

but the birthers won't accept proof - never mind the fact that it's positively insane to believe some conspiracy was hatched in the 1960s for some little black kid to be president one day.
 
363Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 13:54
I'm naive on the subject, but are there no records from the hospital? Even something as simple as a bill?

Regardless, I'm can't think of a more insignificant issue that has gotten people to burn more calories than this issue. I wonder how many people other than politicos would even no what was being referred to by "birther"?
 
364Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:00
A) It's not a vital document because...

B) The information on it is merely phoned in.

C) Just like the newspaper announcements.

D) They can be phoned in by anybody, any resident. His grandparents for example.

E) No it doesn't have to be a conspiracy for him to become president anymore than any anchor baby is a conspiracy to produce a president.
 
365DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:02
Still waiting on that first piece of evidence showing he was born elsewhere...
 
366Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:19
Besides his grandmother saying so when being interviewed, besides Kenyans in general welcoming him home saying so, besides that he was heralded as Kenyan born when he was elected Illinois senator and it was no big deal...

...well besides all those things it really doesn't matter because he has a much stiffer requirement, that being a natural born citizen, meaning he could not have held dual citizenship and become president [legally], something his dual citizenship father could not bestow on him.

I'll also lay better than even odds that the actual long form document if it actually exists and is ever discovered will list him as 'of an african father' and it will list him as a 'muslim'.

Not meant to prove he's muslim now, but meant to show one more reason he'd rather not release such a document.
 
367Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:31
A) It's not a vital document because...

actually, it is. and it has been posted numerous times, with numerous links, showing that you can't just say "oh yeaaa, of course he was born there."

just because you want to believe fiction as truth, doesn't make that fiction truth. it's been proven time and time again - hell, you'll probably want to see my circumcision for me to prove to you i'm M.O.T.

i also think it takes a complete idiot to think a newspaper article in Kenya is more reliable than the top officials in Hawaii. (note: not calling anyone in particular an idiot, just saying that if you actually hold that to be a higher source, well, you're likely an idiot.)

 
368Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:34
Frick

Really the two reasons it matters is...

1) It shows that we have a president who doesn't respect the constitution he swore to uphold.

2) It shows we have a media that is completely worthless as a watchdog for the people and the people need to find a better source.

Really those two points are already proven by the media and the president's conduct so far in this matter.
 
369Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:35
and never mind the fact that the article posted in 366 is soooooo accurate, they can't even get the spelling of Barack Obama's name right.

sooo, a Kenyan newspaper, adding the phrase "Kenyan-born" to an AP article is proof?

it's proof of something alright, but not the president's place of birth.
 
370Boldwin
      ID: 253542417
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:38
The reporters too dark for you?
 
371DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:41
Where's the Kenyan birth certificate? Without that, you're clearly lying.
 
372DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:44
Bonus points for going full retard by pulling out the race card though.
 
373Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 14:59
The untruth: Besides his grandmother saying so when being interviewed,

The truth

The untruth: ...besides Kenyans in general welcoming him home saying so

The truth

The untruth: besides that he was heralded as Kenyan born when he was elected Illinois senator

The truth: Besides the fact that your own link does not say anything about his being Kenyan-born when elected? Nowhere else on that paper's site does it give reference to his being Kenyan born, except in a single headline that is archived.

The untruth: ...he could not have held dual citizenship and become president [legally]

The truth: Obama lost his un-asked for Kenyan citizenship when he became an adult and declined to pursue it. Obama only held US citizenship when he was elected.
 
374DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 15:00
Just to recap for those following at home:

1. Official state document: not good enough, it's all part of the vast conspiracy!

2. One report from Kenyan newspaper: CONCLUSIVE PROOF HE WAS BORN IN KENYA ZOMG (oh, and if you don't accept this as conclusive proof IT MUST BE BECAUSE YOU ARE RACIST !!!1!1!!!!!1!!!!!).

Awaiting weykool jumping all over Boldwin for doing teh WORSTEST THING EVARRRRRRRRR!!!! (Oh, wait, Boldwin's a right winger, so he's allowed to say whatever he wants to.)
 
375Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 15:06
The reporters too dark for you?

actually, i don't know the color of the reporter, but with a name like "Maura Kelly Lannan", she's likely not from Kenya.

i have no idea if she's "too dark" or not, but Maura Kelly Lannan is quite Irish sounding to me.

as long ago shown, "Kenyan-born" added by the Kenyan newspaper, to an AP Wire store.

Here's the same AP wire story from the San Diego Union-Tribune and from the Seattle Times.
 
376Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 15:34
I don't blame Obama for not responding to this topic, to even mention it would just add fuel to the fire. But as I asked before, are there any hospital records. That doesn't prove the location of birth, but it does provide some evidence, assuming he was born in a hospital in Hawaii.

If there was a loophole this large to allow anyone to claim US citizenship, isn't likely that more people would have used it? As has been pointed out numerous time here, just calling in the information to the county courthouse, is insufficient I believe in all localities in the US.
 
377sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 17:09
from 364:


B) The information on it is merely phoned in.

C) Just like the newspaper announcements.

D) They can be phoned in by anybody, any resident. His grandparents for example.


OK B, I'm gonna play along here. Let's assume that that info CAN merely be phoned in.

Where is your evidence that it WAS merely phoned in?
 
378Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 17:14
Where's the Kenyan birth certificate? Without that, you're clearly lying.

I'd like to see Boldwin produce that. And not the photoshopped piece of junk I saw a year or 2 ago.
 
379boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 18:11
Fareed Zakaria chimes in and claims the birther issue is coded racism, a stance which I agree with. That's how racism exists these days: you don't say that you don't like the President because he's black. You say it's because he's got a shady past which he's trying to cover up in some kind of dubious plot to destroy America...OUR America. It's disgusting, and that there is a political party that did little to denounce this line of thinking shows the level of intellect and character of the politicians who lead that party and those who follow them.

I wonder what 9/11 conspiracy claims are coded for?
 
380Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 18:18
I wonder what 9/11 conspiracy claims are coded for?

The government's conspiracy claims or the host of others?
 
381boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 18:29
i was just think the 9/11 ones, each one is probably code for its own thing.
 
382Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 18:57
Where is your evidence that it WAS merely phoned in? - Sarge

Lol...well sure, maybe she broke water and delivered right in the office of the registrar for all we know. So the proof of nothing still stands, huh?
 
383Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 19:47
was there really any question that Baldwin would completely ignore 369, 373, and 375?
 
384Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 20:10
Have you ever noticed that I've never claimed he was born in Kenya? I've never said it's a lead-pipe cinch that he is a Kenyan. But since you asked, it's not like there's nothing to hang your hat on if you suspect it.
 
385Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 20:25
Fred likes to rule by proclamation but his concept of how you might lose dual citizenship is backwards. You do not lose it by failing to pursue it or failing to update it, tho how he wishes it were conveniently so.
 
386Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 20:51
 
387DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 20:54
Well, there you go, that's surely more conclusive evidence than an official state document.
 
388Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 20:57
 
389Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 21:22
Funny stuff. Posting a known forger asserting he's got a real Kenyan birth certificate for Obama. Keep bringing on those fakes.

This appears to be Dr. Taitz' second "Kenyan birth certificate" she's announced. At least she's now got a friend. Of a sort.

BTW, even WND calls it a forgery.
 
390Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 21:44
Hey, I'm just sayin his certificate has items he doesn't want to reveal and that he's not a natural born citizen.

I haven't had time to research the subject of Kenyan birth. I'm just saying there's plenty of stuff out there including listening to his grandmother and listening to Obama himself before he thot it mattered. He debated Keyes for senate and when Keyes pointed out he wasn't an NBC Obama said, 'yeah but I'm not running for president.'
 
391Razor
      ID: 172252412
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 21:54
I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
 
392Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 21:56
As pointed out above, however, his grandmother makes very clear that she believes he was born in the United States.
 
393Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 22:09
When I've listened to that, everyone around her, handlers, the translator, makes very clear she mispoke. She herself agreed that she was there when Obama was born and she wasn't in Hawaii either.

Maybe she was just befuddled or led into mispeaking, but hey, she did say it so if you believe he was ballsy enuff to fake his birthplace, you aren't crazy. You may or may not be right, but you aren't crazy.

Crazy is not just releasing the long form if you actually can and there's nothing on it you don't dare reveal.
 
394DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 22:13
Crazy would be giving the treasonous morons the time of day.
 
395sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 22:18
Watching Anderson Cooper on CNN now....

1) In 1961, to run a birth announcement in the paper; required that the paper be notified via official hospital records and the State Dept of health; of a birth.
2) A Rep, and former head of Dept of Health, states that the original long form BC is n the vault, says nothing about religion, she has seen ikt, and B H Obama was born in Honolulu.
3) The long form, is no longer a certified, legal form under Hawaii law. the short form, computerized record provided by B H Obama, IS the only legal form the State issues
4) Deny acceptance of B H Obama's certification of live birth; and you MUST deny every Hawaii born childs citizenship.
 
396Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 22:24
The grandmother not only misspoke, but clarified later in the same interview.

When you listen to the edited interview you get the wrong impression. The same wrong impression you are conveying here.

PolitiFact covers this one well, I think. And the actual interview is there.
 
397Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 22:36
When did he change his name from Barry Soetaro and which legal documents have which name?

And why did he tell the Illinois Bar Assn that he had never used another name?

And when did he cease to be Indonesian since his Indonesian official documents list him as Indonesian and muslim?

There is a world of unanswered questions that I believe are significant and deserve the promised transparency.
 
398Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 22:38
I'm inclined to trust the natural word more than the version she's fed later. Granted old people can get rattled, confused and misspeak quite easily.
 
399Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 22:45
I'm not even sure that she recanted at all. It seems to me the translator just took over and started to assert his own version no matter what she said. I will stipulate that the interviewer was really trying to lead her.
 
400Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 22:57
The interviewer's story from PD's link. I would love love love to C-n-P this but this is one source I truly would not trust wrt Righthaven.

Completely demolishes the notion that she clarified and recanted.

I never credited the Kenyan birth angle before today, but I must say the curious behavior in that interview has me starting to believe a Kenyan birth is a distinct possibility.
 
401Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 23:00
When did he change his name from Barry Soetaro

umm, when did he change his name TO Bary Soetoro?
 
402Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 23:05
#400: The interviewer says he has a copy of the Kenyan birth certificate but has never released it ("I've got the names of 314 communists in my pocket...").

Listen to the actual interview (also linked). She never answers the question the interviewer says she "proudly" answered twice.
 
403sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 23:37
re 382....you are the one questioning an official State document. On what basis, other than your vehement and irresponsible hatred of all things
"blue", do you object to the only legal document issued by the State in question?
 
404Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 23:55
and, another investigation debunks completely the birther claim.

Could Obama's 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu Star Bulletin be a fake? Some conspiracy theorists say yes. Longtime Honolulu newspaper reporter Dan Nakaso says no.

"It's not possible," Nakaso told CNN. "Under the system that existed back then, there was no avenue for people to submit information that way. ... The information came directly from the state Department of Health."

Indeed, as CNN confirmed, all birth announcements at the time came directly from hospital birth records.
 
405sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 00:12
as CNN's Legal Analyst defined "conspiracy theories" tonight (apologies but I dont recall the fellas name):

A conspiracy theory is a belief unmolested by facts.


That's pretty much how I see this whole birther 'thing'.
 
406sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 02:29
fellas name is Jeffrey Toobin, former Fed Pros.

(watching rebroadcast of AC 360)
 
407Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 06:48
Indeed, as CNN confirmed, all birth announcements at the time came directly from hospital birth records.

Yeah that would explain why there are people born in other countries who have Hawaii COLB.
 
408Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 08:26
nothing explains you ignoring the fact, well, except ignorance.

you've still not responded to the various posts debunking your Kenyan newspaper article.

Yeah that would explain why there are people born in other countries who have Hawaii COLB.

actually what would explain that would be either you're lying, or they're fakes.

links were already posted about by PD being VERY specific about this, back in Post # 361, and your statement above is 100 percent false.
 
409Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 09:28
Lets just run down a few possible reasons for the article posted in the Kenyan paper:

1 Its true
2 they were lied to
3 they know his father is kenyan born so they are trying to get some kind of a link for their own citizenry to the story
4 they're referencing his heritage rather than his place of birth
5 they're embellishing due to option 4
6 they simply made an error believing he was born in kenya because of his father


Off the top of my head thats 6 possible reasons for the article. In a vaccuum, each one is rather plausible. Sorry Boldwin, but since we have a lot of evidence outside of a vaccuum and there are plenty of other plausible options other than, "its true" I'm going to have call into question that article.
 
410sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 10:30
re 407...

show me one; known, identified and acknowledged foreign national with a Certification of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii, which lists Hawaii as the place of birth.
 
411Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 16:00
It is phoned in. It says wherever the caller says he was born.
 
412Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 16:14
As noted previously, the cert is not issued without proof of the place of birth.

If in Honolulu, that proof would come from the hospital.

You want us to believe that, for some unknown reason, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, yet they phoned into Hawai'i that he was born there, AND that Hawai'i did not follow their own rules and call a hospital in their own town to verify why they were getting a request for a birth that the hospital didn't tell them about?

Stretching, stretching....snap!
 
413Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 16:20
Show me that statute.
 
414Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 16:30
No. You get as much evidence as you give. You've had ample opportunity to show at least one false COLB was issued by Hawai'i after a phone call only. You've failed to come through.

Meanwhile, you've been led three times to the quote by the Health Department stating their policy in very simple and clear terms--your response is to say you simply don't believe it. In other words, that the State of Hawai'i is lying. Yet you have no evidence that they are.

I say that continuing to make this an issue will doom the GOP as much, or more, than the "Bush lied" meme of the far left from 2002-2004.
 
415Boldwin
      ID: 43482517
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 16:45
I see, it's a rule but you can't prove it. Didn't think so.
 
416Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 17:41
It is phoned in. It says wherever the caller says he was born.

this is a lie.

I see, it's a rule but you can't prove it. Didn't think so.

if you held yourself up to these standards, you wouldn't ever be able to post here. just about nothing that you post as "fact" is actually able to be proven as fact.
 
417Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 18:27
I see, it's a rule but you can't prove it.

I linked to a spokesman saying it was a rule.

So far, despite hundreds of examples of non HI-born births resulting in HI birth certs, you've been unable to demonstrate a single example of a false cert "phoned in." Not one.

When you come down to "The State of Hawai'i has lied" that's when you have to realize there is literally no standard of proof. None.
 
418sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 19:51
re 415...you B, are the one challenging the official State Certificate. The question of proof, is then a burden YOU bear.

Provide just one CoLB issued by the State, to a known and acknowledged foreign born national, where the Certification lists Hawaii as the place of birth.

Link to, and provide supporting evidence; to just one such case to demonstrate that your theory, is in fact possible.
 
419Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 19:55
nope, not parody, not from the Onion, nothing of the sort: Poll Finds Most Americans Uncertain of Trump’s Birthplace

A new Gallup/USA Today poll finds significant doubt about whether Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and television personality who is considering a bid for presidency, was born in the United States.

....

the meat:

No, this poll is not a joke. We’re several weeks past April Fools’ Day. But it’s one that should encourage us to proceed more cautiously when we see similar numbers reported for President Obama.

There aren’t any good reasons to doubt that Mr. Trump, who has furnished a copy of his birth certificate, was born in the United States.

Perhaps there are some bad reasons. Two of three of Mr. Trump’s wives were foreign-born. And Mr. Trump was born in Queens. I don’t know if you’ve been to Queens, but it certainly ain’t Kansas. (Although it has much better food.)

But seriously: I’m not ready to believe that all of the 7 percent of Americans who said they thought Mr. Trump was foreign-born — or the much larger fraction who expressed some doubts about his birthplace — were being entirely earnest with the pollsters. Instead, they were giving a stupid answer to a stupid question.
 
420sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 19:57
CNN Investigation

Even though the Hawaii governor cannot release President Obama's original birth certificate, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former director of the Department of Health under Republican Governer Linda Lingle has inspected the document, which is stored in a vault in the Department of Health Building. Dr. Fukino has examined the document twice and in her first on camera interview, tells CNN the document is "absolutely" authentic.

Dr. Fukino, a registered Republican, says she has no doubt that President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii.

Though there is much focus on the President's original birth certificate, the CNN investigation shows that the certification of live birth released by President Obama in 2008 is the same certificate that is issued to every Hawaiian. CNN obtained a birth certificate for Stig Weidelich, a Hawaiian who was born in the same hospital, the day after the President was born.


 
421Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 21:28
Keep researching. The governor 'childhood buddy' of Obama who bragged that he was going to produce the long form 'real' long form document, showed up with a search warrant at that archive and came away empty handed and retracting his promise.
 
422Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 21:37
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

This oddly worded statement caused much skeptical commentary at the time it was issued. Note that Dr. Fukino does not say she has seen the actual birth certificate, but rather that she has seen that it is on record. This is consistent with Gov. Abercrombie's statement that it is recorded (but he can't produce the certificate itself).

Did Dr. Fukino find some sort of index entry and not bother to look at the actual certificate itself? If so, why?

And why did Governor Lingle make the following statement, if she had never seen the actual certificate in an interview with Rabbi Schmuly Boteach on WABC Radio in New York (recording here):

"It's been an odd situation," Lingle said, referring to the continuing controversy over the disputed natural-born citizenship of Obama. "This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.

"So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."


Governor Lingle misrepresents Dr. Fukino's statement here. That also caused much controversy, and would seem to indicate she has seen the long form, which would record the place of birth. The two versions of the Certificate of Live Birth (which can be issued on the basis of a statement to authorities, and which does not even mean that a birth necessarily took place in Hawaii) which have been published do not contain anty information on the place of birth. - American Thinker
 
423Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 21:50
See #232.
 
424Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 21:51


Hollywood Reporter Mike Evans, friend of Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie, reported that Abercrombie told him that there is no birth certificate for Obama in the state of Hawaii. The clip below is from the KQRS morning show. Jack Cashill at American Thinker is now reporting the explosive details. -Update 1/25, Cashill talks with Peter Boyles about Mike Evans statements here.

UPDATE: Mike Evans Told 3 Radio Stations Abercrombie Told Him No Obama Birth Certificate in Hawaii - 1/27/11- -Video here.

UPDATE: Lost in Translation: Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie Used a Search Warrant at Hospitals to Acquire Obama's Missing Birth Certificate! -Video here. - obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com
 
425Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 21:54
But I'll humor you. Also linked in # 41, almost 2 years ago:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."
Real bang-up job they do over there at American Thinker.
 
426Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 21:59
Yawn.

Mike Evans 1/27/11:
Evans told the Daily News in an e-mail that he was "STUNNED!" when his statements appeared in headlines nationwide.

"I NEVER knew I said it until I heard it," he wrote, adding that he feels "embarrassed" by the entire incident. "NO MORE POLITICS FOR ME!!" the entertainment journalist said. "For now on, I'm sticking with Lindsay Lohan and Snookie stuff."

Evans told the News it was an online article with a misleading headline that had caused him to even call Abercrombie's office.

The article cited an interview the governor had done with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, during which he mentioned Obama's birth certificate.

However, while the article "suggests" the governor said he could not find the birth certificate, he never makes any such statement in the Star-Advertiser interview. In fact, he indicates that a record of Obama's birth does exist.

"It actually exists in the archives, written down," he said, although it is unclear what kind of record he is referring to.

 
427Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 22:23
I just broke the code. The reason they almost have a record of it is because when he was adopted they re-issued him a new birth certificate with a new name. Barry Soetoro.

And they can't legally explain that and they don't want to explain that unless Obama himself opens that can of worms.

 
428Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 22:28
Huh? He was adopted?
 
429Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 22:44
Re-issued birth certificate?
An amended birth certificate will be prepared upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree or an abstract of the decree, and after payment of any fees.
 
430Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 22:48
Shouldn't you be able to show that he was adopted first?

And then figure out why the local papers anounced the birth of Barack Hussein Obama several years before Ann Dunham and Soetero had even met?
 
431Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 22:50
That shocks you?

 
432Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 22:50
And then go through whatever illegal hoops necessary to change his place of birth to Hawaii?
 
433Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 22:51
That photo proves that Obama was adopted?
 
434Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 22:51
They re-issue with the name the adopting parents call him. That's the point.
 
435Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 22:55
It's the only explanation that reconciles what Abercrombie and Fukino say and explains why Abercrombie can find a notation but can't produce a Barack Obama birth certificate. The guy would LOVE to wave a Barack Obama birth certificate but he can't.
 
436Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 23:12
No, he can't because when you access the birth certificate Certificate of Live Birth in their system, and print it, the piece of paper that comes out is a Certification of Live Birth.

And everyone who cared to look has already seen that.

The fact of the matter is that if the Certification of Live Birth that we have all seen and has been posted in this thread is a phony, it means that the Certificate of Live Birth was altered to generate it. I have no idea why you're so hung up on that record. Based on all the presented facts you refuse to believe, there is no record in all of existance that could satisfy the standards you demand.
 
437Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 23:34
And this doesn't even make sense:

It's the only explanation that reconciles what Abercrombie and Fukino say and explains why Abercrombie can find a notation but can't produce a Barack Obama birth certificate.

Abercrombe is on record as having seen at least a notation that the original Certificate of Live Birth is in the system. Fukino is on record as having personally seen the actual original record.

This is only hard to understand if you so desperately want him to not be American that supposition consistantly trumps established facts.
 
438Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 00:02
Read Fukino precisely. She does not actually say "I saw a Barack Obama birth certificate". Why not say exactly that? Her statement is true even if there no longer is a Barack Obama birth Certificate but rather a Barry Soetoro certificate. She would still be able to say " Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." Because those are the procedures in the case of an adoption. [she is however clear he was demonstrably born in Hawaii]

Read Abercrombie precisely. He can find a notation that it had been there in the records, but he has to retract the claim that he can produce a Barack Obama birth certificate.

My interpretation explains how every contradictory or incomplete thing they say can be true.

If your explanation were true Abercrombie would now be proudly proclaiming he has the document and is only awaiting Obama's OK to produce it.
 
439Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 00:07
Just because you take a hammer to pound a puzzle piece into place, doesn't mean that puzzle piece actually fits.
 
440Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 00:12
She does not actually say "I saw a Barack Obama birth certificate".

The reason she never worded it that was was because it is the existance of his certificate of live birth is what is being called into question, not that it says his name. You'll persue any explanation except for the most likely one.

My interpretation explains how every contradictory or incomplete thing they say can be true.

Except the newspaper announcements.

If your explanation were true Abercrombie would now be proudly proclaiming he has the document and is only awaiting Obama's OK to produce it.

Wrong again, since the only document the system prodeces is the one already posted in this thread.
 
441Razor
      ID: 160302211
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 00:48
This thread finally got good. I like where this is going.
 
442Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 01:07
she is however clear he was demonstrably born in Hawaii

Wait a minute - your new tract is that he was born in Hawaii, but that he was adopted by Lolo Soerento? Which you believe he wants kept a secret - because it would be too difficult to explain?

And this is more likely than the possibility that the certification of live birth we've all seen was generated by the system from the original document and that Obama just isn't interested in appeasing right wing nutbags (and doesn't mind so much that he exposes them as imbeciles to the other 75% of the country)?
 
443Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 01:07
she is however clear he was demonstrably born in Hawaii

Wait a minute - your new tract is that he was born in Hawaii, but that he was adopted by Lolo Soerento? Which you believe he wants kept a secret - because it would be too difficult to explain?

And this is more likely than the possibility that the certification of live birth we've all seen was generated by the system from the original document and that Obama just isn't interested in appeasing right wing nutbags (and doesn't mind so much that he exposes them as imbeciles to the other 75% of the country)?
 
444Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 01:34
lol. this is outstanding. i mean, seriously, positively, outstanding and amazing.

it's like watching a boxing match where one guy is so thoroughly getting his ass handed to him, yet refuses to give up.

and then, when he's been pummeled senseless, and the really dumb strategy he's been using all night still isn't working, he switched to an even dumber strategy.

amazing.
 
445biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 01:39
The only way you could possibly come to that conclusion is a careful reading of this thread.

So who's the loser?
 
446sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 05:54
re 438...on the contrary B...during the CNN interview Dr Fukino is asked point blank if she has seen the original Birth Certificate and she responds with an unequivocal yes.

So what we ahve is a lifelong rep stating that she ahs seen the original form, that it does exist and that she has no doubt at all about B Obama's having been born in Hawaii.

OTH, we have people like yourself, who irrationally despise all things Dem and who with no evidence what so ever; alledge adoption, name changes and massive conspiracy to falsify official State records.

Simple question...which is the more plausible?
 
447Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 08:51
I'm reminded of the old adage,
"Be careful what you wish for."

Let's say, hypothetically, Baldwin's dreams come true and Obama is found not to be a natural born citizen and is forced to resign. Joe Biden is now President. Biden is Jerry Ford, a likeable enough guy, but not presidential material. Democrats understand this, and turn to a candidate that has all the potential of keeping the White House in the Dem column - Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton could well be a stronger candidate than Obama in 2012. She has done an admirable job as Sec of State, and the organization she had in 2008 could easily be re-structured for 2012.
Obama, despite his oratorial skills, has not been an inspiring leader for the Dems. Ironically, despite the cries of Marxism, terrrorist sympathizer and the like, his governance has been too middle of the road for the likes of left side of the party. He's seen as too willing to compromise, and not willing to stand and fight hard enough against a very vocal, very active right wing of the Republican Party. His image is rather wishy washy and aloof.

Of course, Obama is a natural born citizen and will be the Democratic candidate in 2012, but I believe he's very vulnerable. If he's got anything going for him, it's that the potential Republican candidates are very weak.
Still, it's fun to speculate how the Baldwins of the world would react to the spectre of a President Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton as first gentleman.
 
448biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 09:34


Conclusion, we grow a lot of morons in these here "YouNited" States. ADM must have a fertilizer for that.
 
449biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 09:45
Obama's Long Form
 
450biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 09:47
OMG OMG OMG! He wasn't born on a plantation! 7:24 PM That's an EEEEEVVVVIIIILLL time of day.

Will this be the end of it? I doubt it.
 
451Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 09:50
re 445: indeed.
re 448: hey, i posted that already. ok, well a link to it.

re 449: now it's going to get really funny with lots of people calling this one fake, i'm sure.

watching the live press conference now. i like how Obama just said he was "bemused" and "puzzled."
 
452DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 09:51
If an original copy of that document is not personally mailed to everyone, it's clearly a fake!!!!!1!!!11!!!!!!

(Just trying to get out in front on this stuff.)
 
453Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:01
I can't wait to hear from our resident loonie. I'm sure he'll go in to "Why was this so hard to release? Why couldn't he have done this years ago when us loonies were yelling like idiots about it?"
 
454Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:01
Here's a response from the Yahoo comments:

So the question is...what was this secretary looking at when she typed out Obamas Certificateof Live Birth form in that Hawaii Govt office 47 years ago?? One clue is in the odd detail of the word "African" typed in to the space for "Race of Father".If that secretary was looking at a AMERICAN style Birth Certificate from the hospital the "Race of Father" information would in 1961 have said "Negro" not "African". After all "African" isnt a race.The State of Hawaii Govt secretary would have simply typed in "Negro" in the race slot. But she didnt. Why? Because she was looking at a Birth Certificate FROM KENYA. The poor Secretary didnt know what to do with that. She had to fill in the "Race of Father" blank but she didnt know if "Negro" was appropriate. After all Negro IS NOT A KENYAN TERM..KENYANS DO NOT USE THE WORD "NEGRO" its an AMERICAN usage. In fact sample Kenyan birth certificates I have looked at have no slot for "Race" at all. They dont think in those terms So the poor secretary simply typed in "African" and was done with it.

This won't end it. And then there's Mr. Humble:

Trump on Wednesday took full credit for the release.

 
455Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:09
Donald Trump taking credit for work that he didn't really do? That's original.
 
456Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:19
449 - all that is a picture of a piece of paper with typing on it. It comes from the whitehouse who has every reason to cover up with a fake long form.

And look at the dates of the signature! A full day apart? You're telling me that for the birth of their child both parents couldn't be on hand at the same time to sign the form 3 days after he was born!!

Its a conspiracy. This is a pure fake! Oh and somebody smudged out the checkbox for signature of attendant. What are they trying to hide with this 'abstract'? Why aren't we seeing the real actual cert?
 
457Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:22
i can't believe it took them 2 1/2 years to come up with a fake. i coulda cranked that $hit out in a day.
 
458Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:24
So taxpayers had to cover the cost of a lawyer flying from DC to Honolulu and back. Jeez.
 
459DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:48
Going to be so enjoyable to see all the idiots getting rain-made by Trump over this.
 
460sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:06
I'd like to nominate 447 as "post of the year"
 
461Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:10
Well I feel silly. When was the certificate released?
 
462Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:16
This morning.
 
463Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:17
Short piece in the WSJ.
 
464Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:27
A few points:

1) If Abercrombie couldn't find the certificate with a search warrant and a team searching for three days, how and when did they find it to give Obama his copy?

2) Is it a photocopy or a re-creation?

3) If it is a true copy why did he refuse to release it?

4) And finally the most important question...we still don't know if he qualifies as a natural born citizen, a much much stricter standard than 'born in Hawaii'.

5) I'm betting it's a recreation of his original, from information taken off his amended certificate.

6) I'm also betting the reason he wouldn't release it is because the wording 'african father' begs the question 'is he a natural born citizen'. The longer he could get into his presidency without answering that question, the more his presidency becomes a fait accompli and he can make a vitally important question mute.

MITH #440 - terrible post that shows a complete lack of understanding, obliviousness in fact of what a long form birth certificate is.
 
465Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:31
And 26.3% of the over 3,300 respoders say today's release doesn't settle the issue.

LOL

What are the odds Boldy is satisfied? It doesn't say Soetero.
 
466Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:37
Well it's really gonna quell the 'location of birth' issue and allow us to focus on the really important question, the 'natural born citizen requirement'
 
467Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:39
#4 is a joke, yes? He was born in the United States, so he is a natural born citizen. You should read the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling on this very point.

Start reading on page 10 of that document.
 
468Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:39
Haha!
 
469Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:40
Boldy, your real future is in comedy, not wacky conspiracy theories.
 
470Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:42
Is there a difference, Farn?

:)
 
471biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:46
You think he's joking, but he's not!

It really is amazing. Any rational human would just say "finally! Long form! That's cool.". And go about spending time on useful pursuits, like protecting their mom from death panels.

Not our boldy.
 
472Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:51
Well it's really gonna quell the 'location of birth' issue

Boy I hope this is you just joining the fun and not being serious. But you agree he was born in Hawaii by this statement above. His location of birth is Hawaii.


With that out of the way, I'll direct you to a little known document which helps govern the laws of the land of the country which Hawaii is in (the United State of America). That document is called the Constitution. Since it was originally written there have been a number of amendments to it and one of those amendments happens to answer your 'natural born citizen' question. I'll quote the relevant part of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America for your convenience. Its such an obscure document, it would be very tough to find:

He was born here and his mother was a citizen of another state that is a part of the same country as Hawaii.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As for the 'natural born' provision:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had "a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China" was a U.S. Citizen.
The Court stated that:

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'[10]


He was born in the US, 1 of his parents is a US citizen also born in the US. He is a natural born citizen. Give it up. Put it to rest. Find some other way to keep Obama from being elected in the next election (I'll agree with you that I don't want him to be a 2 term pres). But the citizenship issue is dead in the water. In fact its been dead for so long that its waterlogged and buried in the mud on the bottom of the ocean.
 
473Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:12
Ohh, but you are mistaken, Khahan.

See Vattel for the definition:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Vattel:
legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy.
IE the concepts and vocabulary the founding fathers were using.
 
474Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:14
So Vattel, who died before the Constitution was written, trumps a federal court ruling on a Constitutional question?
 
475Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:22
* Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court discussed the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.

 
476Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:23
Vattel was where they got their vocabulary, yes. Yes it actually was written beforehand.
 
477sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:25
B...the question has been moot for sometime. It is settled, show some minute degree of intellectual honesty and admit that you were wrong. Let it go.
 
478Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:25
* Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): In this case decided after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court stated (pp. 167–68):

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

 
480Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:33
Actually, you're wrong. Read the actual court case for the not-so-secret reason.
 
481Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:34
John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:

Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.[14]

He reiterated his statement in 1866:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.[15]
-----------
Thus Barack Sr, a dual citizenship citizen of Kenya and Britain could not produce a natural born citizen of the USA.
 
482Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:40
Would you be so kind as to read the court case which addresses all of your points? Please? At this point you are just a parody.

The Court closed the hole left open in Minor with the Ark decision.

If you are going to continue to post commentary to trump court cases and superceded decisions you are going to continue to take it on the chin on this issue.

Start reading on page 10 (pdf). Only if you are a strong enough person to actually handle being wrong on something. I have my doubts, but remain optimistic that most of your posting these days are a result of avoiding facing the evidence that proves you wrong.

Be confident and face the evidence.
 
483Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 13:00
Boldwin, you are citing philosphers from the 1700's and case law from 1862, 1866 and 1874.

Unfortunately for you, US vs Wong Kim Ark is from 1898. The newer case law decision trumps older ones. You are going by outdated information.

Even looking beyond Ark, I found plenty of case law from the 1900's supporting that being born on American soil, per the 14th amendment makes you a natural born citizen regardless of parents heritage (excepting parents who are here as diplomats).


Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.[15]

Mr. Binghams comment is to those who are born of parents owing no foreign allegience, thus he is not referring to Obama's case with that statement.

However, a closer look at the constitution shows the wording has more to do with our founding fathers than indians. Did you know that all of our founding fathers and most of our first few presidents were not in fact natural born citizens? They were originally british. It was written to deal with situations arising for those born during various times of British occupancy during the Revolution.

Indians? Really?
 
484weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 14:02
What was the rebtal/response to post #386?
Was the video/audio altered?
Is it real or fake?
 
485DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 14:20
I'm pretty sure the refutation was posted in 449.
 
486weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 14:36
#449 doesnt refute the video.
Unless you are claiming the video is real and Obama was once again flat out lying.
I am looking for a better response.
Is the video real or not?
If its real why would Obama make such a claim?
 
487Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 14:46
The real question is: Assume Obama's words are exactly true (I can't tell--I can't get the sound to work). Does this change the fact of his Hawaiian birth?

That seems very unlike to me.
 
488Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 14:55
Nate Silver gets to the heart of it:

 
489Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 02856618
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 15:05
RE: 484 and the video in 386

Here's the original YouTube video

It's from a humor/satire group. The vid in 386 has had the parts that make it obvious satire taken out.

Video that makes fun of how gullible birthers are takes in birthers. Then again, I knew a lot of metal-heads that thought Spinal Tap was real, so...
 
490scoobies
      ID: 113371314
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 15:26
RE: 484 and the video in 386

and the original unedited video is at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/The-President-Talks-with-Students-in-Turkey

and the transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-student-roundtable-istanbul

and I think that even James O'Keefe would be embarassed by the editing job, or that anyone would take it seriously.
 
491Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 17:37
As I have stated before, I had never accepted the born in Kenya idea as seriously substantiated in any way and I was just quickly posting what was out there from a quick google just to get the argument out there. I don't think anyone had posted what was out there to this thread, amazingly.

The 'not a natural born citizen' charge I have always believed and still do 100%.

I'm not saying it's a useful strategy for every last republican and conservative pundit, talking head and politician to stress this but I for sure expect them to not dismiss the argument either.

I do believe it is a very salient point going to Obama's loyalty or lack thereof to America as a countervailing force to marxism in the world and as a non-globalist independent nation-state.

Heart-felt natural loyalty being the whole point of the 'natural born' requirement. Adopting Barrack Sr's loyalties and attitudes as the USA leadership's is just crazy.
 
492Tree
      ID: 16329157
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 17:38
at this, point, really, are there any other reasons for being a birther aside from racism or complete stupidity?
 
493Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 17:40
Birther was always a poorly fitted derogatory term.

Strict constitutionalist fits better. Some people actually think the constitutional requirements matter.
 
494Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 17:40
Pride. Sometimes it is very hard to admit a mistake, particularly in this partisan environment.
 
495DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 17:45
"Strict constitutionalist fits better. Some people actually think the constitutional requirements matter."

Those people sure oughta cite relevant court decisions and not random 18th century philosophers when attempting to back up their points, then.

Re: 492: You forgot random politically motivated trolling.
 
496Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 17:46
I'll accept your apology for defending the son of a British/Kenyon citizen as a 'natural born' American citizen anytime you realize your mistake.
 
497Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 17:48
Boldwin 464

Whats so terrible about #440?
 
498Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 17:52
Khahan et al

There is of course an entirely opposite constitutional theory out there that the constitution means whateverthehell we say it does today what with it living and breathing so much and all.

There are of course contradictory rulings between these two schools of jurisprudence.

Some say the interpretation of the FF is the one that should win out. For everyone's safety and well-being here's hoping this position holds for a few more years.
 
499Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:03
This is comedy. According to B, Trump's kids with his foreign wives would not be "constitutionally" fit to be president.

This whole "natural born citizen" relating to the Constitution is made up out of thin air. It's settled. Obama is a natural born citizen in every legal sense as it relates to the Constitution. Philip Berg already tried that route and was laughed out of the courthouse. However, there were some legal fees involved, though nothing close to the 2 million lie spread by the delusional.
 
500Razor
      ID: 172252412
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:05
Humility. A sense of when to quit. The ability to reason. Some people have them, some don't care to have them.
 
501Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:06
Boldwin 464

Whats so terrible about #440?
- MITH

My interpretation explains how every contradictory or incomplete thing they say can be true. - B

Except the newspaper announcements. - MITH


Besides the fact that the newspaper announcements only prove that Barrack's grandparents know how to use a telephone...

...the announcements do not help at all in explaining the contradiction between what Abercrombie and Fukino had to say.

If your explanation were true Abercrombie would now be proudly proclaiming he has the document and is only awaiting Obamas OK to produce it. - B

Wrong again, since the only document the system prodeces is the one already posted in this thread. - MITH


Wrong again. Anyone with a long form Hawaiian BC can request and receive his copy of his long form BC. Where did you get such an outlandish claim that only the short form is produced by that department?

BTW there was a meme out there that they had just, or were about to change the rules on what they issue, but I haven't seen any proof.
 
502Tosh
      Leader
      ID: 057721710
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:10
Come on B - Post that link to wnd. We're waiting ...
 
503Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:12
Humility. A sense of when to quit. The ability to reason. Some people have them, some don't care to have them. - Razor

Thank god Trump is more relentless than you recommend.

All you comedy poster...

Sneering eventually wasn't enuff to keep Obama from having to produce a long form BC and hopefully it won't be enuff to prevent him from having to answer the 'natural born citizen' question.
 
504Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:12
#496: OK, exactly where did the Court of Appeals of Indiana go wrong when it ruled, very clearly, the opposite of what you say the law is? A rule with which Eugene Volokh nods approvingly
 
505weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:14
Thanks Balrog and scoobies.
 
506Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:18
PD

Put yourself in George Washington's shoes as he read his copy of Vattel which was recently returned to the library from which it was borrowed...

...and ask yourself why anyone would be crazy enuff to make president, someone whose 'natural born' sympathies did not belong to this country by virtue of his father's sympathies. The point Vattel made and surely that which the FF agreed.
 
507Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:24
I predicted multiple times that President Obama would produce the original long form birth certificate when it best served him to do so. Today that prophecy was fulfilled. I have always maintained that the birth certificate issue was a red herring smoke screen protecting Obama from facing the true issue of his ineligibility – dual nationality.

Like Chester Arthur before him, Obama was protected from genuine questions regarding his birth status having been governed, as he admits, by the United Kingdom via the faux BC issue until October 27, 2008 when I instituted my law suit against the New Jersey Secretary of State alleging that neither Obama nor McCain were eligible.

I predicted over and again that when it served Obama best, he would feed you an original birth certificate on national TV. Bon appetit to those who allowed this conspiracy theory to take precedence over the genuine legal issue: how a person born owing certain allegiance to a foreign nation can be a natural born citizen of the United States?. Since the BC was played so perfectly by the Obama team, the genuine legal issue will now be more marginalized than ever.

They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama’s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President’s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.

If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.

The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance. Well played, sir.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.
 
508Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:25
1. Birth announcements are made by the hospital.

2. There was nothing contradictory between "what Abercrombie and Fukino had to say."

3. I got my "outlandish claim" from the fact that it is the official policy of the HI Department of Health to only produce a copy of the Certification of Live Birth from the file on record. Obama specifically requested that the department waive it's official policy and provide a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth.

And since you conveniently missed or ignored PD's earlier post, I'll note again taht Obama's status as a natural born citizen has already been challenged and confirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals - citing US V Wong Kim Ark. He's your president, more likely than not for another 6 years. Time to get over it.
 
509Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:39
If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.

When a person is born, they are completely incapable of anything but wanting mama's teet. This is more make believe. Obama has never shown allegiance to Kenya, Indonesia, Bhutan, Lithuania or any other country besides the US of A.

Like almost every aspect of this thread, you have failed to show any evidence of "dual allegiance." You seem to think that just by writing the phrase there's some kind of legitimacy. There isn't.

 
510Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:42
I'll also point out the federal courts dodged this issue like it was a solid ball of plutonium as big as a house. I don't respect their gutlessness at all.
 
511Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:44
you have failed to show any evidence of "dual allegiance.

Please tell me any issue with which Obama differs from 'the dreams of his father' on.

Someone should write a book about it and then we'd have some evidence.
 
512Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:51
Are you really concerned with dual allegiance? If that were the case, Sarah Palin is out as a presidential candidate. As an adult, her husband renounced America in the hopes Alaska would secede from the union.

Please tell me any issue with which Sarah differs from 'the dreams of her husband' on.

And the circus goes on and on.

 
513Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:52
Buzzfeed's top 20 crazy Tea Party reactions to Obama's birth certificate.

Boldwin has most of them covered!
 
514Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:56
PV

If I were a liberal you can be sure I'd be making that claim as an aside on every post during her presidential run. Because it's not an illogical argument. And I won't be pretending you are certifiable when you do it. But then I am obviously more gracious than a liberal.
 
515Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 18:59
Ha!
 
516Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:04
I also won't be petending she doesn't need to address the obvious question it raises. [if she hasn't already, I really dunno]
 
517Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:14
I wouldn't do it, because there's no such thing as a "dual allegiance" clause that prohibits a candidate from running or being president. Except, of course, if they were discovered actually working for a foreign government in some capacity.

Obama musing about his father, who he never knew and only visited with one time at 10 years old, hardly rises to the level of allegiance. I suggest you look up the definition of the word.

Maybe Joe Lieberman has dual allegiance with Israel? Wasn't that the beef with JFK, dual allegiance to the Vatican? Mitt Romney - Salt Lake City!!

These birthers get huffy when called rascists, but does anybody think there would be a problem if Obama's father was Canadian or Australian?
 
518Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:24
because there's no such thing as a "dual allegiance" clause that prohibits a candidate from running or being president.

Yeah there is. It's called the requirement to be a natural born citizen as opposed to merely born in the USA.
 
519Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:27
but does anybody think there would be a problem if Obama's father was Canadian or Australian? - PV

I've been strenuously reminding people 'Ahnold' would not be eligible to run for president since the first day he announced for governator. Don't you remember anything?
 
520Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:27
Trump Unable To Produce Certificate Proving...
 
521DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:28
Well, unfortunately for you, an actual court of law (you know, the ones that are actually following the Constitution) charged with answering specifically the question you are asking, thinks you're full of crap.
 
522Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:33
'Ahnold' would not be eligible to run for president

Because he was born in Austria, not because of some phony dual allegiance.
 
523Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:35
AFAIK only one out of thirty courts presented with this issue have had the guts to allow the cases to be heard because when it comes to kicking the president out of office they are gutless wonders, other than the one partisan Democrat who ruled in unconstitutional fashion.
 
524Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:37
Yeah there is. It's called the requirement to be a natural born citizen as opposed to merely born in the USA.

Umm, weren't we over this. According to the 14th amendment. Oh crap, nevermind, I give up. Stay delusional.
 
525Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:38
PV

You can bet your life anyone born of a father reputed to have been an Austrian Nazi will be hearing calls that he be disallowed from running.
 
526Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:41
Khahan

Gratz to you for finding one judge who agrees with you and not the FF.

I've got a majority of judges calling Obamacare unconstitutional. Are you calling Obamacare backers delusional?
 
527Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:45
I've got a majority of judges calling Obamacare unconstitutional. Are you calling Obamacare backers delusional?

Thats a wholly different subject and 1 I happen to agree with you on. But nice attempt at deflection.

Unfortunately, all it takes is 1 judge. But nobody is hanging their hat on 1 judge. It has been determined by multiple judges time and time again in multiple cases since the 1800's. Being born on American soil makes you a citizen. He was born here naturally (as opposed to being t he spawn of satan which is an argument I might listen to!!). Thus natural born citizen.

You are trying to take the definition of natural born citizen and turn it into something its not. You have no backing or leg to stand on that says a person born on US soil but who's parents are not themselves US citizens is not himself a natural born citizen. Everybody else on the other hand has the 14th amendment and multiple court cases to back them up. (ok, you have a senator making arguments in the 1800's against a point that he eventually lost. Sorry, thats not proof you are right. just proof somebody else agreed with your opinion/interpretation).
 
528Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:50
Please tell me how your definition differs from plain old citizen?

Hey, let's nominate a radical fist-in-the-air La Raza anchor baby for president next.
 
529Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 19:54
And while you are at it, explain the court cases which agree with me, which I posted.
 
530Razor
      ID: 172252412
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 20:05
This is so embarrassing. I'd hate for you to spend the rest of your life, or even another minute, wasting your time with this. From one human to another, let it go.
 
531Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 20:06
Please tell me how your definition differs from plain old citizen?

A natural born citizen IS a citizen. A naturalized citizen IS a citizen.

They are 2 categories of citizens.

Here's your challenge. If you can answer this question, you may get people to give you some credit and listen:
Find the constitutional definition of 'natural born citizen' Find it for us and tell us how it is different from 'any person born in the United States.'

When you can't, will you admit that...ah crap. Nevermind, just stay delusional. With the mountain of evidence proving every point you've raised to be wrong its worthless. I think I'm going to find an anvil to drop on my foot while I use my forehead to try and shatter a brick wall.
 
532Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 20:11
I'm pretty sure this going to be my last post on this issue, because it's a dead issue.

People talk about American exceptionalism. A big part of what makes America exceptional is the possibility that if you study hard and work hard, you can accomplish anything, even become President! Despite having a somewhat dysfunctional childhood, being abandonded by his real father, moved to a foreign country by his stepfather, moved back to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Obama studied hard and worked hard and became President. It should be one of those great American stories, regardless of one's opinion on Obama's politics.

What message is being sent to today's youth? If your mom or dad were born in Mexico, Serbia, Iraq, Russia or any number of countries, you're not a natural born American. Don't study hard or work hard, because that dual allegiance card will follow you your entire life. Your patriotism will always be in question. You'll never be a "real American." I know my Dad's maternal family, who emigrated from Italy almost a hundred years ago, faced stereotype discrimination, as did the Irish, Polish, Chinese, and even Mexicans, who were in the west long before the white Europeans.

Politics is a messy business without making up fantasy qualifications that have no basis in reality.
 
533Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 20:36
#529: Please read the Indiana ruling before posing that you posted some kind of proof about case law on this. Seriously--this is embarrassing. Next thing is you'll post about the Dred Scott decision precluding Obama's qualifications for office.
 
534DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 21:49
This thread, summarized:

link
 
535sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 22:43
B, for gawds sake man...you are not a stupid man. You have however, gone far past merely looking foolish and run headlong into looking stupid.

After 25 years of adamantly and logically maintaining that God did not exist, I had a singular experience and publicly reversed my stand. As damnably bullheaded as I can be, I still know enough to admit when I am WRONG. Your turn B.
 
536Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 22:48
Since Vattel is such a sticking point for him, I did some digging.

Regarding US V Wong Kim Ark, Wikipedia notes:
Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:

The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
We know this doesn't reconcile with Boldy's argument regarding Emeric de Vattel, who, B notes, defined natural-born citizen, quoting de Vattel's The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, Section 212:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . ."
So Vattel sounds like he was at odds with what the Fuller Court called the common law of England in their 6-2 decision in favor of Ark.

But as noted by the defense in NY Lynch V Clarke in Section 122 of the same work, Vattel also explained:
The term, Country, seems to be pretty generally known: but as it is taken in different senses, it may not be unuseful to give it here an exact definition. It commonly signifies the State of which one is a member: in this sense we have used it in the preceding sections; and it is to be thus understood in the law of nations.

In a more confined sense, and more agreeably to its etymology, this term signifies the state, or even more partcularly the town or place where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of birth. It is in this sense, it is justly said, that our country cannot be changed, and always remains the same, to whatsoever place we may afterwards remove. A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth. But as various lawful reasons may oblige him to choose another country, - that is, to become a member of another society; so, when we speak in general to the duty our country, the term is to be understood as meaning the state of which a man is an actual member; since it is the latter, in preference to every other state, that he is bound to serve with his utmost efforts.
[emphasis is mine -mith]

Now lets go back to Section 212, and include the preceding sentence which was omitted in the version Boldwin pasted:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it's authority, they equally participate in it's advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens... to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . ."
It seems increasingly clear that by 'citizen', Vattel refers to what we call 'residents' and by natural-born citizen, he refers to children of residents.

And that was precisely the defense's point in Lynch V Clarke:
Vattel was quoted as an authority against the rule for which we contend. Yet if his own explanation of his own terms is used, it may be an authority in our favor; he prefaces this chapter by stating that he had previously defined the term native country, and refers to §122, where he says, ” when we speak in general of the duty to our country, the term is to be understood as meaning the state of which a man is an actual member.” Patrick Lynch was an actual member of this state at the time of his daughter’s birth.

Our state convention on 16th July, 1776, (see 20 Johns. R. 315, 326, which was referred to by the complainent’s counsel, with approbation,) shows its views of national law; it declares ” that all persons abiding within the state, and deriving protection from its laws, owe allegiance to its laws, and are members of the state,” and then distinguishes those passing through merely, or visiting, or making a temporary stay.


When Vattel says, "the natives or natural born citizen are those born in the country of parents who are citizens" - he must by his own reference, mean of parents who are residents there; who have the right of perpetual residence.
The court agreed:
The common law, by which all persons born within the king's allegience, become subjects, whatever were the situation of their parents, became the law of the colonies, and so continued while they were connected with the crown of Great Britan.
Reading Vattel this way completely reconciles the discrepency between him and the Fuller Court in US V Wong Kim Ark.
 
537Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 23:33
Further, as PD directed Boldwin to read (sorry PD but that horse won't drink - or admit to it anyway) the Indiana Court of Appeals found precisely the same thing:
For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12
Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (1888)). The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as „Calvin‟s Case,‟ or the „Case of the Postnati,‟ decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: „By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.‟ Cockb. Nat. 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: “British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. „Permanent‟ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes „temporary‟ allegiance to the crown. „Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.‟ The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: „(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person‟s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.‟ „(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.‟ And he adds: „The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man‟s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.‟ Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13
Id. at 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460.

Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis‟s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856):
The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, „a natural-born citizen.‟ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).
The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
 
538DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 23:39
That's some damn fine research, Mith. I doubt it will have the desired effect, but well done anyway.
 
539Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 01:03
TY DWetzel. Admittedly, the interpretation seems unlikely but it appears to be wholly consistent in and with American case law and English common law.
 
540Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 01:19
Obama Releases His Birth Certificate, and America Loses


April 27, 2011. Mark it down in your calendars as the day the racists and the crazies in America won. A day that should embarrass anyone with human decency and love of country. The day the office of the United States Presidency lost some of its respect and prestige.
 
541Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 01:32
What message is being sent to today's youth? If your mom or dad were born in Mexico, Serbia, Iraq, Russia or any number of countries, you're not a natural born American. Don't study hard or work hard, because that dual allegiance card will follow you your entire life. Your patriotism will always be in question. You'll never be a "real American." - PV

Oh boo hoo, for crying out loud. Just because one job in the whole country is out of bounds they have to hang their heads and give up all ambition and self-respect?

I'll give any one of them who gets natualized citizenship more respect as an american citizen than Obama because they at least had to prove under examination that they had an allegiance to this country. Unlike the Frank Marshall/Bill Ayers/Saul Alinsky/Ann Dunham disciple in the WH.
 
542Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 01:40
I'll crack the books tomorrow on your research, MITH, tho I have already done my own digging, and Vattel was quite clear he was looking for two generations of natural affection for actual homeland to be counted a natural born citizen and that loyalty by natural affection were the object of the term not merely birth. Of course half the lawyers in these cases made a valiant attempt to turn that on it's head. That's what they do.
 
543Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 02:32
Even if you could prove that case after case of American rulings got him all wrong, you'd still have to explain why 400 years of English common law gets trumped by this one contributors musings.
 
544Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 02:37
An really even then it would be legally moot, since that interpretation has been settled law here in the US for over a century.
 
545Boldwin
      ID: 63282620
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 03:01
Really I am completely baffled how any other interpretation but mine would lead the FF to even bother including the requirement.
 
546Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 08:45
Really I am completely baffled how any other interpretation but mine would lead the FF to even bother including the requirement

We're all baffled, too, Boldwin.
Now where's that brick wall?
 
547Boldwin
      ID: 51323288
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 09:24
We're all baffled, too, Boldwin.

Considering that your version of reality makes no sense, I can see why.
 
548Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 09:26
I am completely baffled how any other interpretation but mine would lead the FF to even bother

Really? You have no idea why they would want POTUS to be a citizen born in the US, as opposed to a naturalized one?
 
549DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 10:33
I've decided that when they said "natural born", they meant no Caesarean sections (hey, surgery isn't natural, and "natural born" clearly refers to the actual birth process. Since it's not clearly specified on the birth certificate that he wasn't born with the aid of a C-section, we must obviously conclude that they were hiding something.

I demand that the body of Stanley Ann HUSSEIN Dunham be exhumed and examined for scars.

(Once again, since there's no rational debate any longer available here, I'm just trying to get out in front of the next crazy theory.)
 
551Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 10:37
#550 had to go. Calling someone a bigot and racist simply isn't permitted.

 
552DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 10:46
Darn, I missed it before I would have had a chance to agree with them.
 
553Boldwin
      ID: 51323288
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 10:58


His natural sympathies spring from his roots, naturally. Have I mentioned how great Hyde Park is?
 
554DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 11:01
Hey, look, another thing that you disagree with the Constitution about. Maybe you should take your own advice and try following it once in a while.
 
555Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 11:38
Classic Boldy subject change predictably employed when he knows knows all of his evolving contentions have been refuted, utilized because lacks the grace to admit it or even just retreat back to his hole.

Or is the newest tract that an already thoroughly explored association with Bill Ayers disqualifies one from natural-born status?
 
556DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 11:42
As I read on another board, you can't reason people out of a position they didn't use reason to get into in the first place.

That seems particularly applicable here.

Crazy is as crazy does.
 
557Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 11:50
Darn, I missed it before I would have had a chance to agree with them.

So, you don't even know who was called a bigot and a racist, but you are in agreement.

This is an example of liberals calling others a bigot and racist with no evidence. He even admits it.
 
559Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:04
The problem with that argument is that the racism is assumed. The liberal argument is: "You don't believe Obama is a natural born citizen because you are a racist."

Nonsense. Given the silly and stupid arguments from the wacky right the last few years, the simpler explanation is that the right is silly and stupid, not racist.

 
560Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:04
He's not a racist.
 
561Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:11
So, DWetsel doesn't know who was called a racist, who called someone a racist, why, what the details are, or any facts whatsoever..........but he agrees person X is a racist. Post #550 may have been calling DWetsel a racist, for all he knows.
 
562DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:11
Why is saying "someone's silly and stupid" OK, and saying "someone's a racist" verboten?

You're assuming they're "just" silly and stupid. While there's ample evidence of silliness and stupidity, there's also ample evidence that some non-zero percentage of said wacky right are motivated at least in part by race.
 
564Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:13
#550 had to go. Calling someone a bigot and racist simply isn't permitted.

i called NO ONE a bigot. there was no name mentioned, or anything. i simply stated a belief that if you are still holding onto the whole birthing thing, then you're bigot.

if you're allowing posts that allow someone to call "liberals" such things as socialists, communists, and so on, then you need to have consistency here PD.

if no names are mentioned, if no individual was singled out, then there's nothing that violates or civility policy.

and if the mods thing that it does, then i'd like to see every thing posted here that calls liberals all sorts of names to be deleted as well.

but, enough of that. i'll re-post and comment to this:
Given the silly and stupid arguments from the wacky right the last few years, the simpler explanation is that the right is silly and stupid, not racist.

no one called the Right racists. birthers were called racist.

Andy Ostroy, in his column, at this link, said:

It's a shame and a disgrace to our great nation that the Birther movement existed in the first place, as it is little more than a thinly veiled disguise for the obvious racism behind it. The ignorant, narrow-minded bigots fueling this campaign simply refuse to accept the outcome of the 2008 election; that there's a black family in the White House and a black man in the Oval Office. Anyone who thinks differently is incredibly naive and in denial.

i agree with that sentiment.
 
565Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:14
Really? You are asking why calling someone a racist (without proof) is not OK?
 
566DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:15
Am I allowed to present proof? Or will it be deleted and then there won't be any proof any more, because calling someone a racist is bad?

Sort of a self-perpetuating philosophy there.

Alternatively, why is calling someone silly and stupid (as you did) OK?
 
567Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:17
For the record I've had a entry deleted simply for writing that someone else's post was 'stupid'.

The civility standards specifically state that they will be enforced at the moderators' discretion. Guru never guaranteed consistant application. In fact he warned it should not be expected.
 
568DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:19
"i called NO ONE a bigot. there was no name mentioned, or anything. i simply stated a belief that if you are still holding onto the whole birthing thing, then you're bigot.

if you're allowing posts that allow someone to call "liberals" such things as socialists, communists, and so on, then you need to have consistency here PD.

if no names are mentioned, if no individual was singled out, then there's nothing that violates or civility policy.

and if the mods thing that it does, then i'd like to see every thing posted here that calls liberals all sorts of names to be deleted as well."

Amen to this. There is absolutely no difference.

Which is, yet again, the point. Why is every other bit of name calling (stupid, as the most recent example) freely tolerated and used by the moderator in fact, but any mention of possible racist motives zapped? It's completely hypocritical. Do you have IQ tests or other measurements indicating their stupidity? You demand evidence for one but not the other.

Keep it fair.
 
569DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:21
Re: 567 -- well, you're certainly right that it's not consistently enforced. Understatement of the year.
 
570Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:23
if no names are mentioned, if no individual was singled out, then there's nothing that violates or civility policy.

You didn't see the post in question. Which makes your note somewhat without context, yes? Probably better, in this case, not to continue to comment on that which you didn't see.
 
571DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 12:30
Regardless of the specific application of what Tree said to that specific post, do you agree with that statement or not?
 
572Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 13:04
Are the black birthers racist?
 
573Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 13:06
#571: The Civility Policy dictates no personal attacks. Attacks on groups are not the same.

That is, of course, not why #550 was deleted.

Meanwhile, here's an annotated long form:

 
574bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 13:11
A suggestion for DWetzel. Maybe instead of harping on what you feel are unfair standards from moderators in the birther thread, you could start your own thread on the subject; or take your complaints elsewhere, maybe under Guru Forum Developments.
 
575Boldwin
      ID: 51323288
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 13:43
Just give DWetz and Tree one unmoderated thread where they can troll me over the coals to their hearts content and get it out of their system all day, every day.

Then Dave Hall can resell it to Failblog.org and even make a little income on the side.
 
576DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 14:20
bibA, I'll take it under advisement. I'd remind you that I'm not exactly the one that broached the subject in the first place, so I'm unsure why you feel the need to direct that at me.

Boldwin, That would be 0.0001% of the threads in which you troll me.

PD, haha.
 
577DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 14:22
"Are the black birthers racist? "

Um, who cares about the answer to this question?

Do you assert that NONE of the birthers are racist?
That seems to be the argument you're making, since what you're arguing against is that some of the birthers ARE racist. It's also a silly and stupid (trademark PD, royalty check is in the mail) position to take.
 
578Building 7
      ID: 413432813
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 14:43
We know you don't care. You'll call somebody a racist, and not even know who it is.

Question: What do you call it when liberals make false accusations of racism at rotoguru.com?

Answer: Thursday
 
579Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 14:59
Wrong! The correct answer: "Any day ending in 'day'."
 
581Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 15:15
The feeling I get is that there is a group who feels, "if we can equate birthers with racists, we'll get people to shut up and back off the subject." It seems to be the new strategy and frankly its very annoying. For the record, as should be obvious from this thread, I am not a birther. But I'll defend them as a group against ridiculous blanket statements like that and the one made in 550 (yes I actually read it. no I did not find it personally offensive, it was his opinion and it did not single anybody out. No I have no problem with it being deleted).

We have it brought up here. It came up in a blog I was involved in on facebook. An article was linked in 564 and a similar article is here.

Sorry to tell you guys who throw around the racist label like you're Al Sharpton at a KKK rally (smile, its an over-the-top-silly metaphor to prove a point, not a reality), but you're wrong and its just as damaging to race relations. Are there birthers who are racists? You bet. Are there racists who are bithers? You bet. I'm even willing to bet there is a high correlation between the groups. But looking at the birther movement as a whole, its coincidental or a matter of convenience.

Racists may latch onto the birther issue as a way to get Obama out of the office. But not all birthers are racists. Some are just people who are either very partisan with their politics or who are very confused and ill-informed. I could think of a number of other reasons that have nothing to do with race.

Let racists be called out for the bigotted pigs they are. But don't clump others in with them to serve some politcal agenda or win a fight. Do you really think it helps those who are truly victims of discrimination to have their issues broadened to the point of blurred lines?
 
582Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 15:45
Really? You are asking why calling someone a racist (without proof) is not OK?

fair enough. maybe i missed the post. i don't think anyone was called out by name.

that being said: Just give DWetz and Tree one unmoderated thread where they can troll - this is ok? just let me know. and i'll change my tact slightly and spread the word far and wide that Baldwin hates God.

and with that post, i'm done with this part of the discussion. no need to keep harping on it. it would be as stupid as Birthers who continue to harp on THAT topic.
 
583Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 15:47
I'm even willing to bet there is a high correlation between the groups. But looking at the birther movement as a whole, its coincidental or a matter of convenience.

Since we're on this track anyway, perhaps some members from the right side of this forum could also note that simply noting this potential correlation doesn't deserve a charge of race-baiting (see #341).
 
584Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 16:07
...And then maybe the same folks could offer a similar point about the persistant anti-Obama race-baiting from the rightist media?
 
585Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 16:25
Re: 583

It doesn't, but I doubt that you will get the majority of the right side of this board to agree with that.
 
587Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 17:22
Some blacks see racism in 'birther' questions

Shortly after President Barack Obama declared himself an American-born citizen with papers to prove it, Baratunde Thurston declared himself a disgusted black man.

"I find it hard to summarize in mere words the amount of pain and rage this incident has caused," Thurston said.

"This" would be the nation's first black president standing in the White House, blue power suit and all, going on TV to debunk, in more detail than before, the persistent, he-ain't-really-an-American rumors fanned anew by Donald Trump, the developer and might-be presidential candidate.


obviously, the birther = racism topic is one worth discussing.
 
588Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 17:59
obviously, the birther = racism topic is one worth discussing.

Wow, so some people think its racially motivated (which I never denied it was for some birthers) therefore the whole of the movement is racist?

Tree, first go back and re-read 581. That says everything that needs to be said. Reposting your erroneous belief in a different manner doesn't change the fact that its not true.


MITH 583 - Seeing racism in everything may not in and of itself be racist, but it can be just as damaging to race relations.
Simply put, somebody who is black not getting a job is *not* the victim of racism (necessarily). But somebody not getting a job because they are black is racism (clearly).

But in the first scenario, if you run out and yell, "Racism" what happened? Maybe the poor guy interviewed badly. Maybe he wasn't as qualified. But we'll never know because the true issue doesn't get corrected because the focus is on the wrong thing for the wrong reason. And now, everybody is mad at everybody and a company who didn't do anything wrong is labeled racist (and if you want to know how damaging that can be, just ask the people at Denny's about serving black federal agents. Yeah, they got what they deserved).

No, labeling a whole group of people as racists just because the person they are against happens to be black is wrong and is very damaging. In this particular case, its a big fat, "who cares." They're whole premise is wrong and misguided.

But next time...who knows.
 
589Boldwin
      ID: 51323288
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 18:20
Wait till after Allen West gets elected to make these true points. Let's use Alinski's tactics against them. Like holding them to their own principles.
 
590Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 02856618
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 18:21
obviously, the birther = racism topic is one worth discussing.

Getting drawn into the birther=racism discussion is a trap. Don't fall in.


 
591Boldwin
      ID: 51323288
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 18:25
Vote Allen West. The only reason you could be against him is if you are racist.

Political campaign that will cut thru them like butter. Maybe Sharpton will even vote for him.
 
592Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 18:32
If by "them" you mean very stupid people you are certain right.

Meanwhile, the confusion between causal acts and co-relational acts continues on the Left.
 
593Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 18:47
Getting drawn into the birther=racism discussion is a trap. Don't fall in.

That's probably good advice. However, when a person states:

at least had to prove under examination that they had an allegiance to this country. Unlike the Frank Marshall/Bill Ayers/Saul Alinsky/Ann Dunham disciple in the WH.

It might be important to remember that in 1961, Ann Dunham could have been arrested, prosecuted and jailed in many US states for marrying Barak Obama Sr., a black man. I have no idea why being a disciple of your own mother, whatever that means, disproves an allegiance to this country, but I'm pretty sure that growing up with the knowledge that your parents were considered felons in many states, for no other reason than they married(even dating in some states), might make that person a bit more sensitive to issue of racism.


 
594Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 18:54
And as long as we're on the subject of activist judges

All bans on interracial marriage were lifted only after an interracial couple from Virginia, Richard and Mildred Loving, began a legal battle in 1963 for the repeal of the anti-miscegenation law which prevented them from living as a couple in their home state of Virginia. The Lovings were supported by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Japanese American Citizens League and a coalition of Catholic bishops.

In 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving had married in Washington, D.C. to evade Virginia's anti-miscegenation law (the Racial Integrity Act). Having returned to Virginia, they were arrested in their bedroom for living together as an interracial couple. The judge suspended their sentence on the condition that the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years. In 1963, the Lovings, who had moved to Washington, D.C, decided to appeal this judgment. In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard their original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."


So much for separation of church and state.

 
595Boldwin
      ID: 51323288
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 18:56
Yeah, well I was the biggest fan of MLK at the time. Put that in your pipe and pretend it isn't true as is your wont.
 
596Boldwin
      ID: 51323288
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 19:04
Too bad we'll never see his vision come to fruition by these clowns, since it's been twisted, hijacked and prostituted for the benefit of race hustlers.
 
597Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 19:18
Then perhaps you can explain how being the disciple of Ann Dunham makes Obama not have allegiance to this country. Being her son, he might not have allegiance to American laws that could have imprisoned his parents, perhaps that's what you meant.
 
598Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 19:30
Despite liberal anti-McCarthy hysterics, it was not illegal to be an america hating hardcore communist back when Ann was raising Barry.
 
599Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:12
Khahan 588
But somebody not getting a job because they are black is racism (clearly).

Well, no, not necessarily. That's discrimination, which often a symptom or function of racism. But racism specifically refers to regarding a particular race [I think the term ethnicity actually works better today] as inferior. Some will probably say I'm nitpicking but racism is a very harsh thing and when we dilute the definition, even slightly, then I believe it loses some of it's importance.

And the type of race-baiting you refer to: broad accusations of racism such as Tree and DWetzel have engaged in here, and also the type weykool is guilty of in #341: accusing others of flippantly making broad racism charges when they (I) have not, and also the type that much of the rightist media engages in (as pointed out in #584) all commit the disservice of diluting what should be a very harsh thing into something ambiguous and too often dismissed by the other side.

I've called out posts and opinions in this forum as bigoted and discriminatory and I'll stand by every one of those accusations. Those things are not necessarily the same thing as racism and since (rightly) getting slapped for my own sloppiness with that terminology in my early days in this forum, I highly doubt I've ever accused anyone here of that - since I think I'd probably recall responding any overtly racist expressions posted here.
 
600Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:13
it was not illegal to be an america hating hardcore communist back when Ann was raising Barry.

When Ann was raising Barry, MLK(you're his biggest fan) was being accused by the FBI of being an America hating hardcore communist. The Kennedys authorized his phone taps, because his most trusted advisor, Stanley Levinson was in the leadership of the Communist Party USA in the 1950s.

Is it strange that you so eager to extrapolate "America hating hardcore communist" labels to Ann Dunham(and her son) for her associations, but not MLK(you're his biggest fan). The claim is that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's mentor(Davis was 80, Obama was 10), but King's most trusted advisor had no influence on his politics?

You see, it's gotten to the point where it's impossible to believe a word you say.
 
601Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:15
Khahan 588
But somebody not getting a job because they are black is racism (clearly).

Well, no, not necessarily. That's discrimination, which often a symptom or function of racism. But racism specifically refers to regarding a particular race [I think the term ethnicity actually works better today] as inferior. Some will probably say I'm nitpicking but racism is a very harsh thing and when we dilute the definition, even slightly, then I believe it loses some of it's importance.

And the type of race-baiting you refer to: broad accusations of racism such as Tree and DWetzel have engaged in here, and also the type weykool is guilty of in #341: accusing others of flippantly making broad racism charges when they (I) have not, and also the type that much of the rightist media engages in (as pointed out in #584) all commit the disservice of diluting what should be a very harsh thing into something ambiguous or unfounded which then is often dismissed by otherwise sensible people on the other side.

I've called out posts and opinions in this forum as bigoted, racially insensitive and discriminatory and I'll stand by every one of those accusations. Those things are not necessarily the same thing as racism and since (rightly) getting slapped for my own sloppiness with that terminology in my early days in this forum, I highly doubt I've ever accused anyone here of that - since I think I'd probably recall responding any overtly racist expressions posted here.
 
602Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:17
it was not illegal to be an america hating hardcore communist back when Ann was raising Barry.

Still isn't. But the implication is just silly.
 
603DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:22
Um, cite please where I've done that?

To be clear, I think some of the birthers are racists, a larger number of them (with a lot of overlap obviously) are bigoted against Muslims, some of them aren't either of those (they're merely silly and/or stupid and/or too generally deranged into partisan hackery to care).

But to say that none of them are motivated by racism is at least as stupid as saying that they all are. And, therefore, that bigotry/racism/whatever you'd prefer to call it is definitely a legitimate area of exploration.

Clearly there are no rational motives at this point for the birthers. What's wrong with trying to figure what the irrational motivations are, to better deal with these crackpots in the future?
 
604DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:26
Also, as if it isn't obvious, even if Obama were to tear off his shirt and reveal a giant hammer and sickle tattoo on his chest while defecating on the American flag in public and tearing the rotting flesh of Ronald Reagan in his suddenly massively-grown werewolf jaws, he'd STILL be constitutionally eligible to be president.

And yes, I'd pay to see this.
 
605Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:41
One also wonders that if Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro was such an America hating hardcore communist, why she went to work for the CIA, routing Indonesian communists with her second husband.

Now, if one were to chastize Ann Dunham for her role in the genocide of nearly a million Indonesian communists.....well, I guess it depends on if you're simply trying to make noise by parroting The American Thinker or seriously into researching the Ann Dunham conundrum.
 
606DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:47
Communist infiltrator obviously.

Of course, Osama Bin Laden could be his real father and he'd STILL be constitutionally eligible to be president.

I just don't understand why all these birthers hate our Constitution, and by extension, hate America.
 
607Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:48
PV

Considering the sort of people leaning on MLK he was a tower of strength not letting the movement go that direction.

As so many other movements such as environmentalism have.
 
608Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:54
researching the Ann Dunham conundrum - PV

OMG is that funny. Her parents sent her to a private marxist school and judging by the results she made sure every influence in his life was communist. His biggest mentors are all renowned marxist icons.
 
609Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:56
DWetzel 603
cite please where I've [made baseless accusations of racism]

552. And 353 too.



 
610Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 20:58
MLK he was a tower of strength not letting the movement go that direction.

What a terribly misinformed thing to write.
 
611weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:00
Mith
I stand by my post at #341.
If anyone wants to see where the race card was played you can see post #317,318,319 and Mith agreeing with it in post #327.

DW:
I have no problem with you speculating that SOME of the birthers are racist....that comment could be applied to any group or sub group of people.
Some people who eat carrots are racist.
Some people in the MSM are racist.
Some people in the Democratic party are racist.
In truth, its a rather meaningless statement.

Where you are being faulted for playing the race card is when you go on to say "a large number of them are bigoted".
You have nothing to back up making such a claim and we can only speculate that you are projecting your own biases on a group of people you dont really know.
 
612Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:00
And Dwetzel

But to say that none of them are motivated by racism

This is a Boldwinesque straw man. No one in this thread has made that claim as far as I've seen.
 
613Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:05
MITH

I'm not saying he was John Bircher strong against marxism, but he obviously didn't think the counsel of committed marxists close to him were advocating the most successful approach. Something leaders of the Sierra Club could learn from.
 
614Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:06
She was a liberal and a feminist, not a communist. Though (like Nelson Mandela) she probably took up allies when she could, since the right was so busy witch hunting to do much for the poor, or for women, or for blacks.
 
615Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:06
weykool if you really need someone to teach you the meaning of terms like "depending on how encompassing" and "I might", not to mentioin how my preceding sentences should make clear enough any ambiguousness you find in those terms, I'm not interested in the job.

Back in your hole.
 
616Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:13
Her parents sent her to a private marxist school

And it's name?
 
617Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:13
613 Boldwin

In fairness, I wrote that allowing for your hypersensitive standards for what qualifies as a communist.
The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around!" It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated.
I've seen you decide a person is a marxist or communist for far less egregious statements than that. You just refuse to apply your standards objectively because you want to like MLK's legacy.
 
618Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:14
The blockquoted text in #617 is from an MLK sermon in 1967.
 
619bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:50
608 refers to Ann Dunham when B states that Her parents sent her to a private marxist school....

Researching the schools she attended, I found that she went to Nathan Eckstein Junior High which is a public school in Seattle. Then she went to and graduated from Mercer Island High School, also supposedly a public school. After moving to Hawaii she enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, supposedly a public university in the greater University of Hawaii system. She took classes at the University of Washington in 1961 and 1962. She apparently got a Masters and Ph.D. from The East-West Center, which had been established by the U.S. Congress in 1960.

Was the private Marxist school one of these, or am I missing something? You aren't referring to the Russian languages course she attended at the U of Hawaii, are you?
 
620Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 21:52
Ok, that was off the top of my head.

Obama's grandfather picked an unusual enclave known as Mercer Island because of it's marxist [tho public] highschool, with it's openly communist school board chairman...
Two teachers at this school, Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman, both Frankfurt School style Marxists, taught a critical theory curriculum to students which include d; rejection of societal norms, attacks on Christianity, the traditional family, and assigned readings by Karl Marx. The hallway between Foubert’s and Wichterman classrooms was sometimes called "anarchy ally." - Dreams From My Mother
The family also attended what was known as 'The Little Red Church'.

She then went on to meet Barrack Sr in her Russian language class.
 
621Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:00
And Ann's father handpicked famous Marxist bisexual pedophile [or so I am told] Frank Marshall as a family friend and mentor for Barrack.
 
622Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:02
Sorry, I always forget the Davis. Frank Marshall Davis.
 
623DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:03
You got two witnesses for that pedophile accusation?
 
624Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:05
Of course Mercer Island High School is neither private, nor Marxist. If you knew anything about Mercer Island, you'd know it's one of the most conservative parts of the Seattle area. If two teachers(out of a faculty of probably 40 0r 50) assigning Karl Marx denotes the school as Marxist, there's probably hundreds of Marxist schools in this country.
How are we supposed to trust what comes off the top of your head when it's obviously skewed towards fiction?



 
625Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:06
Ok, that was off the top of my head.

Yeah, dummies. It was obviously not intended to be a factual statement.
 
626Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:07
I forgot to add, famed author...
It has also been established that Mr Davis, who divorced in 1970, was the author of a hard-core pornographic autobiography published in San Diego in 1968 by Greenleaf Classics under the pseudonym Bob Greene.

In a surviving portion of an autobiographical manuscript, Mr Davis confirms that he was the author of Sex Rebel: Black after a reader had noticed the “similarities in style and phraseology” between the pornographic work and his poetry.

“I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.” In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.

{ SNIP }

One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. “I’m not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I’d rather not bed a babe under 20.

“But there are exceptions. I didn’t want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life.”

He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. “Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.

“She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual.”

- “Frank Marshall Davis, alleged communist, was early influence on Barack Obama“
One cannot help but be impressed with Ann's father's choice of family friends.
 
627DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:08
Mith-

In neither of the posts you cited did I in fact accuse anyone of racism.

Try again, this time with facts please. I know you can do it, given your fine work re: the court decisions.

Or don't bother, but when you accuse someone of making specific statements, it'd behoove you to actually, you know, read those statements carefully.
 
628DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:10
Oh, and Boldwin, right-wing smear of the day aside, does any of this have any bearing on the constitutionality of Barack Obama's presidency, or are you back to just blogging about every bad thing you can think of?

I mean, I know obviously it has nothing to do with it, because you know your only defense at this point is to randomly accuse someone of calling someone else a racist at some point to change the subject from your abject lack of facts on the matter, but I'm wondering if you've actually realized it.

Also, again, two eyewitnesses for that pedophile stuff. None of this third-hand BS.
 
629Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:11
Yeah, dummies - MITH

How much did you know about Ann Dunham's highschool off the top of your head?
 
630Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:13
More "can't pin anything on him directly, so we'll try to tie him down by association" crap.

The more you post this kind of stuff, the more I think you simply can't make a stronger argument. You would have us somehow try to defend these bad people who had such an influence on Barack Obama that we can't even measure it.

Did Barack Obama commit statutory rape? Write porno? Become a communist (hard to tell, in your far right mind, which of these is the worst)? If not, then you've got nothing. Worse than nothing--you've traded your reputation and brain for a thinker for a propagandist whose strings are pulled by the Right Wing Media.
 
631Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:13
Is that completely unsupoprted blog paragraph intended to be a factual statement?

It links to a wiki answers page where the text is copied from. The openeing paragraph:

I have been researching the transparent mother and I have come across some information on Stanley Ann Dunham. She is a mystery for several reasons. This is a brief bio I picked up somewhere, it is not mine but I do not believe it has a copyright.
So if you think some anonymous person's alleged recollection of an unsourced alleged bio is a reliable source for information about possibly the most slandered person in the country, I guess it's reasonable to present as fact.
 
632Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:15
I know I know, what a jerk I am for rejecting every last source that isn't officially Marx-approved!
 
634DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:21
Where you are being faulted for playing the race card is when you go on to say "a large number of them are bigoted".

Pro tip -- when you're quoting someone (like, say, by using quotation marks as you did above) to show specifically that they said something, it often helps to actually use the words they actually used, instead of doing what you did, which is saying something rather different, and then sort of implying that the other person said what you wanted them to say instead of what they actually said. You'll find that copy and paste is a wonderful tool for this purpose.

Now, nittery about you misrepresenting what I actually said aside:

Do you deny that some number of them ARE racists? Why is it a big deal to say "yes, I think some of the birthers are racists" if it's true? I mean, aren't the conservatives the ones up in arms about all this liberal PC mumbo jumbo? Can't I say something that's factually true? Why is it so offensive to you that I use the word racist to describe people who discriminate on the basis of race?

Also, again (since you didn't bother to answer this the first time), is it worse to actively be a racist or to say that you think other people are (when it's factually true)? This seems like a simple question, with an easy answer, yet by your words in this thread you seem to think that the actual racists need defending.

If the non-racist birthers are indignant that other people who think identically to them on this particular issue are being called racists, tough titties, tell the racists to stop being racists and focus on the actual issue (which is tough, because at this point there isn't one, discredited citations from 18th century French philospohers aside).

If those non-racist birthers think they're being called racists, then they need to learn to parse words and exercise logic.

And if the racist birthers have a problem with being called racist, that's pretty much a them problem.
 
635Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:21
MITH

Exactly. Especially me.
 
636DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:23
I think you misattributed my quote to Tree, Boldwin. Either that or you think it's clever to pretend to say "troll" without saying "troll" because you think you can get away with it.

Which is it, for the record?

Also, again, it's a simple question. What does the schooling of an American citizen mother have to do with the constitutionality of her son becoming president? It's a really simple question, should be an easy answer for you if you aren't just throwing random right wing blog BS up because it gives you a woody.
 
637Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:24
Yeah take a closer look Boldy. The claim isn't even sourced. That's my standard. And the standard of anyone who isn't an ass.
 
638Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:24
We are discussing the 'natural born' requirement. The Founding Fathers felt that being 'natural born' would help insure the healthy 'natural affections' of the presidential candidate.

I don't believe this is what we are discussing anymore. But since you brought it up, I believe we have established through multiple court cases (some of them even SCOTUS)...oh crap. Time for another head butt on the brick wall.
 
639DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:25
Of course, I know (inconsistent moderation aside) that about the last fifteen times you've directly called me a troll in response to a substantive question, it's been deleted. So I know that this is your clever little effort to get around that restriction, because there's no way you'd ever change your behavior and maybe realize that there's a reason your crap got deleted the first fifteen times.
 
640DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:29
Also, LOL at "alleged Communist".

Is that an actual criminal offense? I'm looking, but I'm pretty sure that's one's not actually on the books any more. Went out about the same time as those pesky interracial marriage laws PV posted about. I can see how some people would have blocked that entire time period out of their memory, I guess, but you'd think a simple Constitutional citation showing that Communists can't run for President would be easy enough.
 
641Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:30
Why is it a big deal to say "yes, I think some of the birthers are racists" if it's true? I mean, aren't the conservatives the ones up in arms about all this liberal PC mumbo jumbo? Can't I say something that's factually true? Why is it so offensive to you that I use the word racist to describe people who discriminate on the basis of race?

Its one thing to say 'some' of the birthers are racist/bigoted. However, the post that was deleted and really kicked off this whole debate did NOT say some. It said 'birthers.'

My beef and weykool's beef is with blanket statements like this, "i simply stated a belief that if you are still holding onto the whole birthing thing, then youre bigot."

If you are not making blanket statements like that, then there is no beef with you. If you have made blanket statements like that, then based on your response in 634 you either mis-spoke before or are coming around. :)
 
642DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:33
Can we just delete items which are not pertinent to the subject of the thread, which is the constitutionality of Barack Obama as president, like random accusations about mothers being communist pedophiles (funny how Boldwin's suddenly fine with those random accusations now, I guess that's back on the table as fair game, great news!) There are plenty of other threads where that may conceivably belong, even if it is completely retarded slander.

It's derailing the vitally important discussion of how stupid birthers are, and what percentage of them are actually racist morons versus what percentage are merely morons
 
643DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:38
Khakan, read my post 603. That's my position.

Then, in 611, read how weykool misrepresents my position (using quotation marks, to make it look like I said something I did not in fact say).

Do you see how that can be rather annoying? In fact, he's doing exactly what he purports to be so angry about -- lumping someone in with a group of people who don't in fact all think the same thing!

Which gets back to post 552 that I made in the first place -- apparently it's not OK to accuse some people of being racists, but it IS OK to accuse some people of accusing some people of being racists -- even if that's not what they actually said. It's the last refuge of the far right winger who has no logical argument left -- any time race is mentioned, it's "ZOMG YOU THINK EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU IS A RACIST, YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE ALL INVALID, I WIN". It's like the Chewbacca defense for their stupid arguments.
 
644Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:53
Wetz...I've completely lost track of exactly who's said what. All I know is somebody somewhere is a racist. Another guy is a bigot. Who's on first. The presidents dad is a militant kenyan muslim and Obama qualifies to be our president.

 
645Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:56
DWetzel, the problem with 552, I believe was that you were either accusing Boldwin of racism or accusing a completely unknown person or group of people of racism.

It's a huge pet peive of mine when people throw racism and race-baiting accusations areound without any regard for truth or, often, what those terms even mean. Suck it up.
 
646Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 22:56
The Founding Fathers felt...

And here's the problem: Their feelings don't matter. The law does. The Right would have us believe the opposite when they don't like that the law helps people they don't like.
 
647DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:00
I think you have everything right there, believe it or not! Well, except possibly the part about the militant kenyan muslim (I'm pretty sure he's a militant kenyan COMMUNIST muslim), but again, we've established that that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, because there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents American-born sons of militant kenyan muslims, communist or not, from being elected President. In fact, we've pretty well established that if the alternative is the Alaskan female Ronald Reagan, it's the preferred alternative.

And dammit, I just realized got your name wrong again.
 
648Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:00
Boldwin 629
How much did you know about Ann Dunham's highschool off the top of your head?

Unlike some, no moreso than I ever claimed to know.
 
649Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:03
Err... no less so than I ever claimed to know.
 
650Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:14
I know plenty about MIHS. That's why I called him on it. Somehow, the same person who decries liberal anti-McCarthy hysterics, has no problem with false private Marxist High School hysterics.

It's hysterical!
 
651DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:15
Well, Mith, it's a huge pet peeve of mine when people like you decide to read things into my words that aren't actually there, and then accuse me of saying something I didn't actually say. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on who needs to suck it up.

OK?

At any rate, we're continuing to distract from making fun of delusional birthers, so let's do that instead.
 
652Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:22
DWetzel

When you lament missing your opportunity to agree with calling [either Boldwin or an anonymous birther target or targets - whichever it was you meant] a racist, that's the same thing calling either Boldwin or an anonymous birther target or targets a racist. Since you didn't bother to qualify the statement and never claimed you misspoke, it's time you live up to your own words.
 
653Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:25
...or at least retract them.

And with all due respect, I got over the notion of this forum as a team sport a long time ago.
 
654Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:27
Ok, so at various points in this thread:
Dwetzel and I are in agreement.
Dwetzel and I are arguing
MITH and I are in agreement
MITH and I are arguing
MITH and I are in agreement
Dwetzel and MITH are in agreement
Dwetzel and MITH are arguing
Tree and I are in agreement
Tree and I are arguing
Weykool and Dwetzel agree on some of it
Weykool and Dwetzel argue with some of it
Oh, and lets not forget the whole of our political system is in cahoots with each other even when they are diametrically and philosophically opposed to each other because of intermingled bloodlines in the 13th century. And PD gets blamed for the whole thread going off topic.
 
655DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:31
Mith,

If the post had been "hey, the head of the KKK is a racist, lookie here", would you be upset that I lamented missed the chance to agree with it?

Like you, I don't know who it was about. I might have wanted to agree with it. I might have wanted to not agree with it. Pretty simple. If you want to read more into it than that, you're welcome to use your imagination, but recognize that that's what you're doing.

Now, as long as we're correcting each other's pet peeves, do you want to actually read my post 353 in its context, and then retract or modify your statement that I accused anyone of racism there? Because, you know, I kinda didn't do that there at all.
 
656DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:35
Yup, Khahan (an H! I win!), that sums it up.

But don't forget, despite our differences, we're all basically liberal marxist socialist pedophile-worshipping communist sympathizers (sorry to any groups I may have left out) who hate America, God, and all things right with the world. It's those differences that just bring us together in our satanic ways.
 
657Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:36
What would we ever do without self-appointed thread police, DWetz to keep us from thread drift?
 
658Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:36
I've had enough. Either you're guilty of what I say or you're a realy sloppy writer.
 
659Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:43
realy sloppy writer.

slight nitpick, but I think there are 2 'l's in really. hah

I've gotten a good laugh tonight at least. Thanks all.
 
660DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:44
657: Well, I don't know, maybe they'd actually have to tell you themselves. Or I guess they could revel in rolling around in your crap. Their choice, I guess. If they enjoy watching you derail every thread like it's your personal blog, that's their choice. I don't have to sit here and take it.

658: Well, whatever. If you want to throw logic and your principles out the window to continue to attack me for something that you're falsely attributing to me, that's you being wrong, and I don't have to worry about it.

I take it also that that means you're not going to apologize and say "gosh, maybe I should actually retract what I said since I was wrong". Because you were. Or you're just a really sloppy reader. Either way, I don't care.
 
661DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 00:01
Nah, no racists among those birthers. About three minutes of Google yielded:

link

link

This sums it up pretty well.

link

To be clear, and to borrow Khahan's logic (which I mostly agree with) from post 641, if you're a birther, and you don't agree with these people, then you don't have to be offended when I call these people racists. Because these are the people I'm talking about. Got it? Good.
 
662Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 00:09
i'm going to go back to this:

obviously, the birther = racism topic is one worth discussing.

Wow, so some people think its racially motivated (which I never denied it was for some birthers) therefore the whole of the movement is racist?


all i simply said was that it was a topic worth discussing, and judging by the sheer numbers of posts that followed, i was completely accurate - it is, indeed, a topic worth discussing.

-----------------

Yeah, dummies - MITH

How much did you know about Ann Dunham's highschool off the top of your head?


as far as i'm concerned, that's exactly the point. MITH's probably the best poster here.

his posts are carefully researched, sourced well, and are often beyond reproach. he rarely rambles off something off the top of his head simply because it supports his point - he does the research, and he sources it.

often, Baldwin, you don't. your posts are usually off the top of your head.

-------------------------

does any of this have any bearing on the constitutionality of Barack Obama's presidency - T

Ordinarily I'd ignore this poster but I enjoy this ironic answer soooo much at this juncture.


that must have come off the top of your head too, because i didn't say that.

or, as was pointed out, you calling people Trolls is perfectly acceptable. whatever. it is what it is.

-----------------

my position is that racism and/or bigotry play a big role in those still holding onto the birther thing. plain and simple. some may agree, some may disagree, but that's how i see it. it's my opinion, and i am entitled to it.
 
663DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 00:20
Question for birthers: Is Bobby Jindal (heralded Republican presidential candidate) eligible to run for president?
 
664Tosh
      Leader
      ID: 057721710
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 00:38
Same question for Rick Santorum.
 
665Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 00:50
Things that make you go hmmmm...
MSNBC devoted 23 times as much airtime as Fox to cover the birther issue. CNN devoted 12.5 times as much.
Not that this counts as watchdog jounrnalism, quite the opposite. Maybe it was due to a guilty conscience. 'The gall of these people to ask us to do our job, just look at them'.
 
666Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 00:52
#663/664: The difference is that the parents of those gentlemen were American immigrants who became citizens. Obama's father was neither.
 
668Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 00:54
#665: Yes, the old "they are talking about me, so that gives weight to my argument" meme that fringes use all the time.

No, not all publicity is good publicity.
 
670Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 01:18
Birtherist response highlights racial undertones of ‘debate’

Amid a flurry of news reports, McCain's own campaign announced in February 2008 that it was conducting an investigation. When a bipartisan pair of lawyers announced the following month that McCain was indeed eligible, the issue virtually died--apart from a Senate resolution that pretty much laid the question to rest by attesting to the facts surrounding McCain's birth and citizenship.

But the winner of the 2008 election, Barack Obama, has faced a relentless campaign questioning his U.S. citizenship--and thereby the legitimacy of his presidency--that has disregarded the facts...

..."There is a real deep-seated and vicious racism at work here in terms of trying to de-legitimate the president," Peniel Joseph, a professor of history at Tufts University, told The Ticket...

...Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. in early April called for the connection to be publicly drawn between birthers and racism: "So it is time to call this birther nonsense what it is--not just claptrap, but profoundly racist claptrap."....

...And columnist Michael Tomasky wrote for The Guardian Wednesday that the birther conspiracy "had to be the only explanation for how this black man got to the White House." He added: "And if you think race isn't what this is about at its core, ask yourself if there would even be a birther conspiracy if Barack Obama were white and named Bart Oberstar. If you think there would be, you are delusional."


and then there's this:

Meanwhile, an eye-opening recent study from the University of Delaware appears to confirm that race-minded detractors of Obama view him as "less American"--as Dan Vergano writes for USA Today.

The study, which surveyed blacks and whites on their opinions of Obama compared to Vice President Joe Biden, found that whites classified as "higher prejudice-predicted Whites" viewed Obama as "less American"--a view that, in turn, resulted in lower evaluations of the president's performance.
 
671sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 04:06
re 665....what you are ignoring, is the CNN has spent that time totally dismantling and debunking the entire issue.

In recent weeks the topic has spiked, with Trumps continuous rantings on it.
 
673Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 05:30
670

That piece couldn't be more dishonest. The obvious reason McCains controversy died down immediately was that he answered the question immediately instead of playing cheshire cat for three years over it.

The obvious reason one third of the country didn't appreciate him thumbing his nose at valid constitutional questions and giving them the finger in the process was because he was thumbing his nose at valid constitutional questions and giving them the finger in the process for three years.

And now we are supposed to immediately forget the insult.
 
674Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 08:00
The obvious reason one third of the country didn't appreciate him thumbing his nose at valid constitutional questions and giving them the finger in the process was because he was thumbing his nose at valid constitutional questions and giving them the finger in the process for three years.

The valid constitutional question was answered when the State of Hawaii confirmed Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.

Everything that has been brought up since has nothing to do with valid constitutional questions. Dual allegiance, natural affection and other recently made up qualifications are not valid constitutional questions. Marxist mentors, Ann Dunham's high school teachers, even what the Founding Fathers supposedly felt, are not valid constitutional questions.

And now we are supposed to immediately forget the insult.

What insult? The insult to the constitution that has been diminished by false claims of valid constitutional questions that don't exist?






 
675Razor
      ID: 172252412
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 09:51
If both their parents were USA citizens and not holding dual citizenship, then yes. If not, then no.

That is not how natural born citizen is defined by US law. Sorry.
 
676DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 10:26
"#663/664: The difference is that the parents of those gentlemen were American immigrants who became citizens."

In Jindal's case, at least, I'm quite sure that his parents only became citizens AFTER his birth (having moved into the country on student visas only six months before he was born). I'm prepared to be corrected on this, but at the time of his birth, his parents weren't citizens as far as I can tell.

So, basically, your statement is incorrect.

(It's also obviously irrelevant, because the fact that he was born in the US clearly makes him eligible. I'm just curious if there will be similar calls for Jindal's papers if he runs.)
 
677Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 11:04
There never is going to be any question whether constitutional questions will be demanded of party candidates of the party which actually believes in honor and resigning if disgraced, the strict interpretation of the constitution and which does not have the MSM covering for them if there is even the slightest hint of political vulnerability.
 
678DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 11:07
lol
 
679Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 11:08
what?
 
680Tosh
      Leader
      ID: 057721710
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 11:21
Thanks PD. As more posts like # 677 (which appears to be a series of random words followed by a period) are written, it gets really hard to know what Boldwin's point is.
 
681Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 11:44
Dual allegiance, natural affection and other recently made up qualifications - PV

I nailed it back in post #16, prescient dude that I am:
16 Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Tue, Aug 04, 2009, 00:55 The only facts you have are unknown to you and hidden behind Obamas opaque wall of promised but not delivered government transparency.

For all I know Obama actually will someday produce a long form birth certificate and this whole certificate thing was a sleight-of-hand distraction from the fact that he isnt a naturalized citizen.
I meant natural born of course.
Boldwin#39: 2) Actually the strongest evidence that he doesnt qualify is that anyone who did qualify for president would never have been allowed into Indonesia back when student Obama was. Does Dick Cheneys blood relative or an executive in the oil industry in Indonesia have the kind of clout [or bribery money] to get around the immigration laws in Indonesia. Its conceivable.

4) This thing reminds me of a scandal Clinton was involved in. He skated in this particular case by focussing the publics attention on the one element of the story that he could overcome [based on the fact that the government gives out phony DNA information in VIP cases].

If his problem is the natural born citizen part, and not the location of birth part, why not focus everyones attention on the birth certificate and if the media ever gets close to the natural born citizen issue, all he would have to do is burn down the strawman part of the scandal. [hypothesizing that he can] Wahla, the attention would evaporate.

Boldwin#42:
Tho it says nothing about the natural born part of the constitutional requirements. That would require verifying the age and citizenship status of both parents on the date of the birth.

Boldwin#49: There are plenty of court cases and discussions of the framers to know what a natural born citizen is.

One thing the framers were primarily concerned about was the loyalty of the father. And Obama fails that test horribly. Abysmally. Obama’s father was a radical Marxist who hated America, America’s government, America’s economic system, America the ’imperialist power’…etc. and Obama identifies more with the views of his birth father than any other relative.

That really was the main point of the requirement in the first place.

Are dual citizens able to become president? Not AFAIK.

Plenty of legal discussions I have run into insist that both parents must necessarily be citizens.

Even if one parent can pass on natural born citizen status, a minor [as his mother was at the time] does not automatically and cannot without jumping thru all sorts of residency and age related hoops.

The son of a non-resident alien America hater who had no intention of ever becoming a citizen and a minor tiptoeing back into the country in the nick of time if she was here at the time at all. Amazing.

If by some miraculous loophole he qualifies, he makes one piss poor president with a view to this particular requirement of ‘natural born citizen’.

But it will be interesting to see why the framers didn’t want anyone but a natural born citizen. Not beneficial but interesting.

Boldwin#109: Both the Pakistan visit and the Indonesia part of his life would have not been possible under normal circumstances for a US citizen so either he had extraordinary help bending the laws or he isnt a natural born citizen.

Im open to learning he was getting treated special. His career path sure was a matter of getting special treatment.

Boldwin#115: If this evidence exists, present it.

Not only does the burden of proof not fall on me to prove Obamas natural born citizen status, but the courts wont recognize my standing to raise the issue.

The burden of proof is on Obama to take ten seconds from his busy scedule, call Rahm over to his desk and ask that the records be released and thus fulfill his campaign promise of a transparent government as well as his oath to uphold the constitution.

Boldwin#124: 3) If there is evidence that confirms or disproves that he is a naturalized citizen I want to see it.

4) I would also like to know if he lied on his application to the bar.

But PV didnt ask for that. All he asked for proof of is an unsupported claim WND makes about a trip to Pakistan which you espouse as confirmed truth.

For the zillionth time, I do not believe one way or the other on this issue because nothing has been verified. This is not about belief, it is about verification.

How did he get in a country that was not allowing US citizens in, but which conveniently enuff, did allow people with the citizenship of his father? I think that is a fair question.

So allow me to ask differently: What makes you so sure that Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan?

Im not sure of anything because nothing has been verified. No legal [or sub-rosa, for that matter] way has been provided that he got in a country that did not allow US citizens.
.
.
.
Yeah, yer right PV.

The 'natural born' requirement is just a 'recently made up qualification' that we just came up with after Obama finally produced a long form. *roll*
 
682Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 11:53
What?
 
683sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 12:00
made up and fabricated position, unfettered by fact and/or law, supported by not-arguments already defeated in the courtroom. And B thinks he is onto something. Sad B, truly sad.
 
685Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 12:08
What? - Khahan
 
686Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 12:12
Well at least you spelled my name right.

Now if we could just get you to admit to what reality truly is rather than what you want it to be, maybe we could move this conversation past the infinite loop of repetitive repeating and restating of ideas we've seen over the last 300 or so posts.
 
688bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 13:07
Baldwin - What do you hope to accomplish with post after post after post ad nauseum saying the same thing? Don't you realize, we get it? You have a belief that no one else agrees with, that Obama is not what YOU consider a natural born citizen.

Has even a single Republican in the Senate or House brought up this issue? There are many in these bodies who do whatever they can to discredit him. Why aren't they taking this up?

If you disagree with almost everyone else, can't you just say something like "hey, I know no one else may believe this to be the case, but I think that the circumstances of his birth leave some questions as to his eligibility to become President", and leave it at that?

Maybe you think that going on and on will change peoples minds, but might that just show how unrealistic and stubborn you may be.
 
689DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 13:08
Another rocket scientist hard at work:

Texas lawmaker still questions Obama's birth certificate
 
690bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 13:09
Oops, sorry Khahan, had not read your post before I said pretty much the same thing.
 
691Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 14:06
bibA

Has even a single Republican in the Senate or House brought up this issue? - bibA

Roughly a fourth of the state legislatures have pending or passed legislation demanding in the future, that presidential candidates cannot appear on their state's ballots without proving their constitutional fitness to run. A big step forward. Crazy that this wasn't always the case.
 
692Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 14:26
Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation. - Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
 
693Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 14:35
Boldwin, throwing up the same arguments you've been throwing up just stated by a different person doesn't make them suddenly valid. You can't validate them. The dude with Esq. behind his name can't validate them. I can't validate them or invalidate them. But you know who can? SCOTUS. And at every chance they were given to valid your arguments, you know what they said?

Your arguments are NOT VALID.

Brick wall, meet my forehead.
 
694Tree
      ID: 16329157
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 14:47
Brick wall, meet my forehead.

i was thinking his arguments were very childlike in wonder and amazement - as if repeating the same wrong thing over and over again will make it true.

it's also very childlike in its hubris, the way teenagers believe they are always right.

i'm thinking Lennie.
 
695bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 14:47
Re 692, yes, everyone knows this is how you interpret the situation.

Have Huckabee, Romney, Trump, Palin, Pawlenty, Gingrich, either of the Pauls, Mitch Daniels, Huntsman, Bachmann, Santorum, Bolton, Barbour, DeMint, Christie, Perry, Jeb Bush, Jindal, or any other important contender showed an inclination that would lead you to believe that they were aware of your interpretation of Natural Born Citizen? One would think this would be an issue they would find in their interests to raise, if it had some basis in fact.
 
696Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 14:49
The opinion of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee on who is a natural born citizen:
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3 ['08 - B], Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

What’s interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a “natural born” citizen is the child of American citizen parents.

Parents — that’s two. That’s BOTH parents.

Every time the words, “citizen” and “parent,” are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, “citizens” and “parents,” is used. The plural case is the operative case.
 
697Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 14:54
One would think this would be an issue they would find in their interests to raise, if it had some basis in fact. - bibA

Not at all if they consider how the MSM will treat them over it.

Definately if they watch Trump's numbers.

We'll just have to agree on these two as the opposite poles of the congressional 'balls' meter.
 
698DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 14:55
That Mario Apuzzo guy, he must have been around when they wrote the Constitution, right? Oh, no?

He must have been around when they wrote the 14th amendment? Right? Oh, no?

He must have been on one of the various courts that have ruled on this issue and established the law, right?

Oh, he's just some random birther dude who's trying to pretend he's the guy who wrote The Godfather. The real Mario Puzo's opinion carries about as much weight as that hack (which, for the record, is zero).

 
699Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 14:57
696 - That is a different situation and all that Leahy was speaking on. His affirmation that being born to a pair of American citizens makes one a citizen does not preclude those born to only 1 American citizen or born on American soil or a mix of those 2.

All it does is speak to McCains situation.
 
700bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 15:11
So, you apparently believe that all of the presidential hopefuls mentioned in 695 are very well aware that Obama is not in fact eligible to be President, but that they are afraid that the MSM would mistreat them if they let the nation know the true situation? They would allow someone ineligible to be President, and not be confronted on an issue that would probably give them an advantage in the race for the Presidency, because they are afraid of the media's reaction.

Is Allen West also too afraid of the media to bring this up?
 
701Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 16:42
bibA

Absolutely no politician wants to sit in a Sunday morning politics show and be berated by Stephanopolis for several minutes nor do they want accusations [false tho they be] of racism attached to themselves, especially since there is no allowable defense to that third rail. You are automatically considered guilty sans evidence and every evidence in your life to the contrary is verbotten testimony.
 
702Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 16:44
Allen West? We'll see, but if he does they'll attack him four times as harshly with every sterotypical oreo/house N***** accusation at full throated scream.
 
703Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 16:47
Yes--we wouldn't want a presidential candidate to be unfairly attacked by the fringe, would we?
 
704Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 16:52
berated by Stephanopolis

But being berated by Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingrahamor any other right wing MSM talking head is admirable. Partisan hackery at it's most transparent.
 
705bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 17:07
Maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't be so berated BY such as Limbaugh and Hannity if they told "the truth" when interviewed by them. Or do you lump them in with the likes of Stephanopolis?
 
706bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 17:13
Delusion is a belief that, though false, has been surrendered to and accepted by the whole mind as a truth.

It must be a special feeling to know that EVERYONE ELSE, i.e. all of us, and just about everyone in our countries government, is delusional, and only you know the actual truth of a matter.
 
707Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 22:07
Just to bring this thread full circle:

"I refuse to accept that Jesus is the Son of God until I see the long form certificate. This Bible thing is obviously faked..."
 
708Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 22:58
for the win.
 
709Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 23:14
1) I've never said the balless wonders in congress and the judiciary were delusional. I just said they think this issue is biting off more than they can chew.
 
710Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 23:19
PD

What kind of christian do you think you are anyway?

 
712Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 23:37
#710: The best kind, of course.
 
713Wilmer McLean
      ID: 839213
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 05:43
CBS and MSNBC Both Falsely Claim Obama First President to Have Citizenship Questioned


Both CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric and MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell incorrectly asserted that President Obama is the only president in U.S. history who has had his citizenship doubted. In reality, both CBSNews.com and MSNBC.com posted a 2009 Associated Press article that detailed 21st President Chester A. Arthur having to deal with a similar controversy in the 1880 presidential campaign.

On Wednesday's CBS Evening News, outgoing anchor Katie Couric began the broadcast by declaring: "It was an extraordinary moment, President Obama went on national television today and did what no other president has ever even been asked to do, prove he's a natural born U.S. citizen." On Thursday's Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, host Andrea Mitchell similarly proclaimed: "I mean, people who want to raise these conspiracy theorists – theories – and there is no other explanation other than, you know, sort of pure racism, because it's never been raised about a white president."

As the August 2009 Associated Press article explained: "Long before 'birthers' began questioning the citizenship of President Barack Obama, similar questions were raised about the early years of Arthur, an accidental president who ascended to the job after President James Garfield was assassinated."

The article goes on to note specific calls for Arthur prove his American birth: "According to historical accounts, Republican bosses wanted him to provide proof of his birthplace, but he never did. Democrats, meanwhile, hired a lawyer named Arthur Hinman who sought to discredit Arthur, claiming he was born in Dunham, Quebec, about 47 miles north of Fairfield [Vermont]."

It is bad enough that Couric and Mitchell didn't properly fact check their statements, but for the information to be available on their own respective websites make the errors even more stunning.

...


-------------------------------------------------

When did the Birther Movement start?

Hillary supporters in April, 2008?

Birtherism: Where it all began (Politico.com)

...

If you haven’t been trolling the fever swamps of online conspiracy sites or opening those emails from Uncle Larry, you may well wonder: Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there?

The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama.

...
 
714Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 07:02
I thought the likely origin of the claims was well enough established. There's no way to know whether it was floated by people connected to the campaign but I think one of the reasons she lost traction in the 2008 primaries is just how low her people were willing to sink.

Of course even if it was her campaign people who floated the story, it's simply no comparison to the abject hate and lies forwarded by Boldwin and the birther movement, from to historical and legal distortions to video clips edited to distort truth to numerous fake Kenyan birth certificates, these people have no regard for shame.

True, "Democrats" might be responsible for the crack in the dam, but it's the rabid political right that planted a bomb in the crack.
 
715Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 09:57
The Boldwin 681
prescient dude that I am

Having posted your current (and only remaining - based on ignorance and misinformation as it is) tract 19 months ago wouldn't be an example of prescience even if it was true. It's just one item in your 'kitchen sink' approach to this issue, in which you simply advance every last half-backed and easily debunked theory you come across without so much as even thinking about checking for viability.
 
716Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 10:06
Oh, I agree: The Hilary Clinton team hinted at all this in a losing strategy.

I'm not certain how this makes it any more true. Or attractive as a strategy.
 
717DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 10:56
There are really only two options that aren't completely hypocritical, and I'm surprised that right-wingers would embrace either of them.

1. The Clintons Were Right, or
2. The Clintons are evil, scheming, vile, disgusting scumbags, and we want to be just like them (only with the volume turned to 11).
 
718Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 11:07
Looking more into the natural born citizenship clause, Wiki cites Presidential Selection (1987) by Alexander Heard and Michael Nelson. Here's a longer excerpt than Wiki provides:




This account also supports the interporetation of Vattel accepted by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark and NYS in Lynch V Clark. Unfortunately The Library of Congress website is down this weekend so I couldn't go there to see if there's a record of the debate regarding the NBC Clause to compare it with.

But again, we're well into moot point territory here since this stuff is all settled law now.
 
719Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:15
I think you could just read Boldwin#16 and Boldwin#507 and have a better understanding of this whole affair than 99,999 out of 100,000 people.
 
720Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:24
And the most salient part...
If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don’t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.
There is no logical counter to that argument and no possible honest reading of the constitution by which a person born with British/Kenyon natural allegiance by blood would be allowed as president. You might as well argue King George could have visited and left an anchor baby to reclaim the colonies and the FF would have approved.
 
721Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:45
Let's see:

#16:
For all I know Obama actually will someday produce a long form birth certificate and this whole certificate thing was a sleight-of-hand distraction from the fact that he isn't a [natural-born] citizen.

Well that certainly didn't turn out the way you so presciently (hehee) predicted, since that's exactly the tract that many of the slightly less-derragnged birthers shifted to after the Certificate of Live Birth was produced.


#507:
I have always maintained that the birth certificate issue was a red herring smoke screen protecting Obama from facing the true issue of his ineligibility

I'm pretty sure Jerome Corsi and Orly Taitz and Boldwin from Rotoguru who cheered them on were not working for Obama to provide him with a distraction.


And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President.

Actually these are guys you have to thank for that:



And you have yet to offer a single shred of evidence to the contrary other than a misinterpretation of Vattel, which you also have yet to offer any support for.


If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.

It is? Heard and Nelsson claim "historians agree" that fear of actual foreigners assuming the presidency was what they were concerned with.



And why am I supposed to care about what some guy named Leo Donofrio thinks?
 
722Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:46
You'll have to show me where in the constitution the issue of dual allegience is dealt with.
 
723Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:49
Oh right, Vattel, who wrote:
A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth. But as various lawful reasons may oblige him to choose another country, - that is, to become a member of another society; so, when we speak in general to the duty our country, the term is to be understood as meaning the state of which a man is an actual member; since it is the latter, in preference to every other state, that he is bound to serve with his utmost efforts.
 
724Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 12:49
Triple-moot overtime.
 
725Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 13:52
Obama, of course, made no such foreign allegiances to renounce.

Luckily, here in the US we follow US law. Otherwise, Dems would pay to get some third world country to confer citizenship in their country on Gingrich, Palin, etc.
 
726Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 14:04
His father was not 'a member' of the USA when Obama was born. Then again he wasn't loyal to Britain or Kenya either.
 
727sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 14:07
we all wish B that you WOULD follow US Law. This non-point you are trying to hang your hat on, has already BEEN decided by the US legal system. It is moot.

Is anybody else reminded of the sitcom character, fingers in their ears, singing; la-la-la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you-la-la-la-la?
 
728Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 14:38
His father was not 'a member' of the USA when Obama was born.

IRRELEVANT!
 
729Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 14:46
His father was not 'a member' of the USA when Obama was born.

According to Vattel's [moot] standandards he was.
 
730Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 15:13
It's already in #536 but...

Vattel on membership, again:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to it's authority, they equally participate in it's advantages.
An in his very next sentenced on natural-born status, again:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens... to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . ."
 
731Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 16:05
BTW there are hours of video of Obama demonstrating his divided loyalties in Kenya.
 
732Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 16:11
for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Are you blind, MITH?
 
733Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 16:12
Or do you believe Barrack Sr was a USA citizen?
 
734Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 16:54
No, you're blind. As repeatedly displayed, when Vattel says 'citizen' he refers to what we call a resident. He made the distinction between someone who makes a home in a country (becomes a member, and is therefore a citizen in his terms) and a visitor (foreigner).

You're ignoring the context. At this point, it appears deliberately so.
 
735Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 16:56
Which of course is moot anyway since even if youre right SCOTUS trumps Vattel. By a lot.

But for the record you're not right.
 
736Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 17:03
You're claiming the pot as you refuse to accept that one of the nines in your pair is an upside-down six, while oblivious to the straight flush in front of the guy across the table.
 
737Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 17:13
You just keep demanding the FG attempt that clanked off the upright as time ran out was good. But you still lost by 40 points.
 
738Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 17:24
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!!!


and for Boldwin, its not over when he's presented with irrefutable facts proving him wrong.

 
739Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 17:26
Maybe a bocce ball reference would help?
 
740sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 18:28
even *if*, and it is a HUGE if, B had a leg to stand on by virtue of Obama's father not being a citizen; it does not matter EVEN, by his own, oft cited herein source.

An in his very next sentenced on natural-born status, again:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens... to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . ."


unless now B wishes to debate whether or not Obama's mother was both a citizen and a person.
 
741Myboyjack
      ID: 36452617
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 18:40
Andrew Jackson
 
742Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 19:29
Excellent point. Both Jackson's parents were Irish immigrants, which obviously would have disqualified him if he had to meet B's standard of "two generations of natural affection".
 
743Boldwin
      ID: 38323019
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 20:02
OMG, now these boneheads pretend "born of a person who is a citizen" means NBC is determined only by the mother.
 
744Boldwin
      ID: 38323019
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 20:04
natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

How in THE hell do you guys read that any other way than the way I read it?
 
745Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 20:26
Boldwin, that is from Vattel who has been proven to be irrelevant. So it doesn't matter how he's read. He's irrelevant. His thoughts are irrelevant to this debate.
 
746Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 20:26
In 542 you said "two generations of natural affection". Am I to assume you meant Vattel's actual standard for "natural affection" for the candidate's father and your false version of vattel's standard for the candidate?
 
747Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 20:29
And of course khahan reminds us of the greater of the two irrefutable points.
 
748Boldwin
      ID: 38323019
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 20:31
Post#542 and post#744 are entirely consistent. I have no idea what #746 means.
 
749Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 20:34
So being born stateside isn't a requirement for "natural affection"?
 
750Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 20:39
And for the 4th or 5th (moot, thanks to SCOTUS) time, when Vattel says 'citizen', he means resident.
 
751Boldwin
      ID: 38323019
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 21:05
Yeah right. I communist citizen of Kenya who thinks he is so smart he should be running his home country of Kenya who happens to be on a student visa is by your lights a resident citizen and can produce a loyal NBC the FF would be confident about becoming president.
The Arizona Independent filed a FOIA request respecting the President’s father and reports this is among the information they found in the immigration files:

1. “ The memo refers to Obama Sr.’s plans to attend the University of Hawaii for one more year to obtain his bachelor’s degree in economics, and that his spouse, a United States citizen, plans to work at the university.

“They have one child born Honolulu on 8/4/1961 – Barack Obama II, child living with mother (she lives with her parents & subject resides at 1482 Alencastre St.),” the memo states.”

2.” [T]he agency “recommend(s) that Subject be closely questioned before another extension is granted – and denial be considered. If his USC (United States Citizen) wife tries to petition for him make sure an investigation is conducted as to the bona-fide of the marriage.”

3.”Documents show that Obama, Sr. was denied an extension on his student visa in July, 1964, in part because Harvard University, where Obama, Sr., was a Ph.D. candidate, sought his removal. Obama Sr. eventually left the United States willingly after becoming an illegal alien for remaining in the country past the expiration of his visa.
An INS investigator, M.F. McKeon, wrote “They (Harvard officials) weren’t very impressed with him and asked us to hold up action on his application until they decided what action they could take in order to get rid of him. They were apparently having difficulty with his financial arrangements and couldn’t seem to figure out how many wives he had.”
Documents show that Harvard officials considered Obama, Sr. to be a “slippery character,” and conspired with the INS to have him deported.”
Remind me again why they would bother making such a 'stringent' requirement?
 
752sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 21:09
as if it were necessary, re 743...no, i did not say it was determined by the mother...I said, according to your source Vattel, it must be A parent who is a citizen.

A male or female citizen must be the parent according to your source. he did not state that it was gender relevant.

None of which matters anyway. Unless and until you manage to argue before SCOTUS,, and somehow win, the point has been long settled.
 
753Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 21:27
can produce a loyal NBC the FF would be confident about becoming president

Are you kidding? Obama is considered a Negro by the Founding Fathers. Not only could he not be president, or a citizen, he couldn't even have his own freedom.

The 14th amendment settles the issue of natural born citizen as we all know. I believe the word "moot" has repeatedly put this to bed.
 
754Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 21:34
Hoping no one noticed your flight from #749?

Was Obama Sr bound to this society by certain duties... subject to it's authority [and did he] participate in it's advantages?

Yes, yes and yes. He was therefore a member and, according to Vattel's personal explanation of his own vernacular, a citizen.

Sorry everyone, but I'm having fun.
 
755Boldwin
      ID: 38323019
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 21:42
Really, a hardcore communist who hated colonial powers felt duty bound to the USA. Fidel visited the UN in the USA. If he slipped out on the side and spawned, could he have produced a future president? Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe on the UN podium screaming 'we will bury you, then bangs a NY prostitute and her baby can be president?

Rich, that's rich. Just absurd.
 
756Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 21:45
I believe the word "moot" has repeatedly put this to bed.

he may not know the meaning of that word, at least based on most of his recent posts in this thread.

also, here's a test to discover if you are a Canadian citizen under recent changes in laws.

i realize that doesn't matter one iota in the discussion of Obama's citizenship, but i figure that since most (read: all) of the points put forth by Baldwin are ALSO irrelevant, i ask this question: why DOESN'T it matter??? i mean, after all, we're talking about citizenship here, and isn't that what's important?!?!?
 
757sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 21:45
In resp to 755, yes and yes.

 
758Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 21:54
Really, a hardcore communist who hated colonial powers felt duty bound to the USA.

Ha! So now he's a hardcore communist. No different than Castro or Khrushchev. I don't know if this is fun, seeing a person undergo a complete meltdown.
 
759Myboyjack
      ID: 36452617
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 21:55
Not only was Andrew Jackson's father a foreign born non-naturalized American - his hand-picked successor spoke English as a second language. Very suspect
 
760Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 22:07
Castro and Krushchev did not reside in the US. And Vattel didn't say the parent need to feel duty bound. He was bound by certain duties, like paying any applicable taxes.
 
761Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 22:11
MBJ after some digging, I see that Jackson's parents arrived in 1765, prior to the constitutional convention, so I believe they were actually colonists. I think the Constitution named all white people residing in the states at that time citizens, so I believe that exempts TJ from B's misguided standards.
 
762Myboyjack
      ID: 36452617
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 22:13
They also died before the Convention - not that that matters. Just silly stuff for a silly thread.
 
763Myboyjack
      ID: 36452617
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 22:20
They were not citizens of the US "at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" but Jackson was.
 
764Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 22:29
Obama Sr hated colonial powers . Well, he had that in common with the Founding fathers.
 
765DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 22:37
The beauty of our Constitution and our system of government as a whole is that it protects us from really dumb ideas like "this guy doesn't think like some of us, therefore he can never be President".
 
766Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 23:50
I suspect that Baldwin believes it is more important that both parents took patriot oaths to the US than whether a child was born on this soil to determine whether a person is a natural born citizen.

Here's the other thing the Right doesn't talk about when it comes to becoming president: The person has to be elected. And it is in campaigning for the office that voters determine whether the candidate's loyalties match their own. In Obama's case, the race wasn't even close.
 
767Boldwin
      ID: 38323019
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 00:13
The beauty of our Constitution and our system of government as a whole is that it protects us from really dumb ideas like electing presidents who believe America is what is wrong with the world and who apologize at every stop.
 
768sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 00:35
The more people B, who stubbornly hold to a faulty view as you are doing, and refuse to apologize and admit error; as you are doing...the more correct ANY President would be, in doing so on your/our behalf.

Truth is, Americans have long held an unworthy air of superiority. There is some truth, in accepting that we are part of our own problem.
 
769Boldwin
      ID: 38323019
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 03:37
Speaking for liberals.
 
770sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 08:08
No B. Speaking as one who has traveled abroad and observed Americans overseas at length. Speaking the truth. National pride is a fine thing, until you start holding it over the heads of other peoples, as if it were a hammer.

Tell me, what does the Bible say about abject pride?
 
771DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 09:31
"The beauty of our Constitution and our system of government as a whole is that it protects us from really dumb ideas like electing presidents who believe America is what is wrong with the world and who apologize at every stop. "

Well, no, that's what elections are for. No matter how amusingly you try to spin it.

What the Constitution is for is protecting people from stupid birthers, in this case.
 
772Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 10:06
my RWF friends will love the beginning of this. And yes, it also contains birther comments.

 
773biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 10:15
That was pretty funny, though it didn't appear that Trump thought so.

Taking the gloves off with a bit of comedy had just the right touch for exposing the petty idiocy.
 
774Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 11:09
Did anybody else note the extreme irony of post 751, in which Boldwin, a person who is claiming Obama was NOT born in the US, cites US documentation from that time stating, "“They have one child born Honolulu on 8/4/1961 – Barack Obama II,"


Folks, I think we have our answer. Not only did we get a long form birth certificate, but Boldwin himself has posted that Obama is a Bruce Springstein Song, "Born in the U.S.A."
 
775Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 12:07
my RWF friends will love the beginning of this.

that is the greatest 60 seconds in presidential history.
 
776Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 12:19
and the rest of the video is damned amazing. the roasts of the Republicans? wow.

and poor Michele Bachmann....i can't believe she wasn't born in the US!!!! who knew??
 
777bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 12:49
The beauty of our Constitution and our system of government as a whole is that it protects us from really dumb ideas like electing presidents who believe America is what is wrong with the world and who apologize at every stop.

Well, Obama certainly was elected. So, if what is said in 767 is true, I guess we can assume B does not think Obama is someone who believes America is what is wrong with the world and apologizes for it at every stop.
 
778Boldwin
      ID: 54431118
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 19:37
bibA

The constitution can't actually protect us unless the constitution is actually followed/enforced.

It would be quite ironic if both Emanuel and Obama skate on residency related issues because, 'well we haven't been enforcing it for so long, why start now?'.
 
779Boldwin
      ID: 54431118
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 20:05
The importance of being natural born.
 
780Boldwin
      ID: 54431118
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 20:22
I know we've considered Bingham already but I just discovered he isn't just any old congressman. He's considered the father of the 14th amendment so a re-hearing is in order:
Rep. John Bingham, the abolitionist Representative from Ohio “considered the father” of the 14th Amendment, described the definition of “natural born Citizen” during Congressional discussions prior to the 14th Amendment.
All from other lands, who by the terms of congressional laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862).
Parents...plural...not dual citizenship or foreign citizen. If he doesn't know what he meant, who does?
 
781Tree
      ID: 16329157
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 20:28
re-hearing is in order

lol. no it's not. the issue has been settled over and over again. kicking and screaming and crying "it isn't so!" doesn't change any of that!
 
782sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 22:01
two words B.....


LET GO


 
783Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 22:03
As has been settled law for some time: Commentary about the law is not the law. It certainly is important for judges to use when settling points of the law which are not clear. But the question of natural born is not.
 
784Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 22:15
Throughout this thread, we've been treated to numerous claims that are accepted as "facts" not only by Baldwin, but a large swath of birthers and general hard right Obama-hating pundits.

These include:

Barack Obama Sr. - a hard core communist..a radical Marxist who hated America

Ann Dunham - Her parents sent her to a private Marxist school and judging by the results she made sure every influence in his life was communist. His biggest mentors are all renowned Marxist icons.

Frank Marshall Davis - mentor to Barack/ early influence on Barack


Starting with Obama, Sr., there doesn't appear to be anything to substantiate that he was a hardcore communist, a radical Marxist, or that he hated America. He was a serial adulterer, alcoholic, and apparently a really bad driver.

I could find no evidence to support that Obama Sr ever belonged to any group or organization taht could be labeled communist or radically Marxist prior to his coming to Hawaii, while attending the U of H, or at Harvard.
After returning to Kenya, he worked in the Kenyan government, as a protege of
Tom Mboya.

I could find no evidence Obama Sr, in his capacity as a senior economist in the Kenyan Ministry of Finance was ever chracterized as a commuinist or radical Marxist. Neither chracterization is even implied.

Ann Dunham - The Mercer Island High School claim has been proven false. As for making sure every influence in his life was communist, this claim is ludicrous and unsubstantiated. Obama Sr was long gone before Obama was ever able to be influenced(plus, there's no evidence Obama Sr was a communist). Obama's first influential adult, besides his mother and grandparents, was his step father. Lolo Soetoro was not a communist. In fact, he worked for the Indonesian government which was in the process of purging communists. Following that, he was employed by Union Oil, not exactly a communist organization. While in Indoenesia, there's no evidence that Obama's mother had any type of contact with communist organizations, much less that she made sure her son was influenced by such.

Frank Marshall Davis appears to be a communist and a sexual deviant to some extent. The question here is the consistent use of the term "mentor" when describing Davis's relationship with Obama. According to Boldwin's link in #626,

In his memoir, Mr Obama recounts how he visited Mr Davis on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel. At one point in 1979 Mr Davis described university as “an advanced degree in compromise” that was designed to keep blacks in their place.

Mr Obama quoted him as saying: “Leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people behind. Understand something, boy. You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained.”

He added that “they’ll tank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.”


He visited Davis on several occasions. Davis is likely the first American black man Obama had ever been exposed to on a personal level. Obviously, Davis had some influence on Obama as a teen, since he included him in his book.

Does this rise to the level of Davis being Obama's "mentor?" Of course it does to those who are hell bent on throwing hardcore communist and radical Marxist claims around fraudulently. To me, the possibility exists, however there's just not enough information to make that determination. Certainly not enough in this supposed expose,

Obama's Communist Mentor.

Allegations regarding Davis’s Communism are sure to infuriate the Left because of the influence Davis once had over our president. He was a drinking buddy of Barack Obama’s maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, and spent time with young Obama. He turns up in the president’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, shrewdly identified only as “Frank”: “I was intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes.”

That's the extent in this article on the relationship between Davis and Obama. Hardly enough information to conclude that he was Obama's mentor. Yet, that's the title of the article, and as we see with Boldwin, that's all some people need.
 
785DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, May 01, 2011, 22:59
PV, that's all well and good, but I think mere facts and stuff are, well, preaching to the 99% if the world that constitutes the choir.
 
787Boldwin
      ID: 54431118
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 03:53
PV - The Mercer Island High School claim has been proven false.

Other than the private part, not at all. And it did act like a private communist school. With famously communist teachers and communist principle. He moved his family to go to that specific school for that reason.

Starting with Obama, Sr., there doesn't appear to be anything to substantiate that he was a hardcore communist
To understand Obama’s mind, we are encouraged to look to the thinking of his father who once wrote an “important article” called “Problems Facing Our Socialism.” The anticolonial thinking of Barack Obama, Sr. is all there. So too his socialist ambitions.

The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that “theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”

D’Souza then makes the observation that we should all ponder:

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father’s history very well, has never mentioned his father’s article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.
When you get kicked out of a socialist government and told you are never gonna work again in any position of influence because you are TOO marxist...yeah, you are a marxist. If you argue, maybe we should be confiscating 100% of people's income, yeah, you are a marxist.
every single influence over Barack Obama's life has come from a leftwing, Marxist perspective. If he does indeed have the traditional American belief in private property and free-enterprise, the capitalist system, just when did he pick it up, who taught it to him? Certainly not his mother, his father, his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, or his pastor Jeremiah Wright, his closest associates and mentors from his earliest days - they were, each and every one of them, Marxists!
Oh, but he went to Harvard and was put in charge of the Harvard Law Review, how much more establishment can you get?

You mean the same Harvard that 'educated' Obama's dad who was too marxist for Kenya?

Just what was Harvard teaching young aspiring lawyers during Obama's formative years?
[Obama] attended Harvard Law School at the height of something that it was promoting, education technique or a theory. It was called critical legal studies. Critical legal studies was in its ascendancy at Harvard Law when Obama was there. You can look it up. Just Google critical legal studies. It is out and out Marxism.

In a nutshell, critical legal studies claims that law is just politics by other means. It is a way for the rich to keep the poor working man down and deny him opportunities for prosperity. That is what Obama was taught at Harvard and based on what he believes and is doing it looks to me like he probably did get good grades. Look it up if you want. Critical legal studies. Law is just politics by other means. You can even turn it around. Politics is just law by other means. - Rush via AlthouseLet's do that, google critical legal studies.
The critical legal studies (CLS) movement attempts to expand the radical aspects of legal realism into a Marxist critique of mainstream liberal jurisprudence
.BTW CLS argues that judges always make new law instead of merely interpreting it and letting legislatures make the law.

Put that in yer Supreme Court and smoke it.

Oh, but Obama does not credit Harvard for his education so much as he does his Alinsky marxist training.
When he announced his candidacy for president last month, he said the "best education" he ever had was not his undergraduate years at Occidental and Columbia or even his time at Harvard Law School, but rather the four years he spent in the mid-'80s learning the science of community organizing in Chicago.
BTW, is he sincere in his religion? That last link is absolutely the best description you will ever get for why he picked his church. He was a Alinsky marxist agitator who felt disconnected from the church pastors he was trying to rally to his projects and he took a closer look at one, Wright's black liberation theology which he could buy into. Because of just how equally radical it was. The inventor of BLT, James Cone said,
"If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

(Quoted in William R Jones, "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube.)
So yes he is religiously serious if you consider revolution and black racism religious.
The “Rosebud” of Barack Obama’s DREAMS FROM MY FATHER.

There’s a big mystery at the heart of Barrack Obama’s Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college? Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school? Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of “the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm”, in college? Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?

And there is more mystery in the book. Why does Obama consider working in a consulting house for international business like being “a spy behind enemy lines?” Why does he repeatedly find it so hard to explain his political views to others? Why was he driven to become a left-aligned political organizer? It’s a question Obama again and again can’t seem to answer to the satisfaction of the interlocutors in his own memoir.
What are those 'Dreams of My Father' again?
If there is a mystery at the heart of Barack Obama’s Dreams From My Father, one thing is not left a mystery, the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father. Obama tells us, “All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own.” (p. 220) And what was that image? It was “the father of my dreams, the man in my mother’s stories, full of high-blown ideals ..” ( p. 278 ) What is more, Obama tells us that, “It was into my father’s image .. that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.” And also that, “I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father” in his efforts at political organizing. ( p. 230 )
That would be agitating for a vision too marxist for early anti-colonial and socialist Kenya.
 
788nerveclinic
      ID: 40352125
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 05:56

The anticolonial thinking of Barack Obama, Sr.

Said like it's a bad thing? So you are for stronger countries invading weaker countries and taking them over as colonies Baldwin?

 
789Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 09:01
Heh.
 
790Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 09:32
#787

One line taken out of context in an economic paper proves Obama Sr was a hardcore communist and radical Marxist? Where's the demand for transition to a socialist society requiring a revolution? For a more objective analysis:

Greg Ransom, a blogger who unearthed the journal at the University of California, Los Angeles, library, calls the article “the Rosebud” that provides the missing key to Obama’s memoir. Ransom wrote about the article’s contents recently in a posting with the provocative headline “Obama Hid His Father’s Socialist and Anti-Western Convictions From His Readers.”


But Kenya expert Raymond Omwami, an economist and UCLA visiting professor from the University of Helsinki who has also worked at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, said Obama senior could not be considered a socialist himself based solely on the material in his bylined piece.
Obama senior’s paper was not a cry for acceptance of radical politics but was instead a critique of a government policy by Kenya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, which applied African socialism principles to the country’s ongoing political upheaval.


“The critics of this article are making a big mistake,” says Omwami, who at Politico’s request read the document and the associated Internet debate over the weekend. “They are assuming Obama senior is the one who came up with this concept of African socialism, but that’s totally wrong. Based on that, they’re imbuing in him the idea that he himself is a socialist, but he is not.”


Omwami says he would instead refer to the elder Obama as “a liberal person who believed in market forces but understood its limitations.” Sessional Paper No. 10 centered on the new control of Kenya’s resources, promoting a form of trickle-down economics in which financial aid would be consolidated in more populated areas with the hope that positive effects would eventually be felt by smaller villages.


Obama senior argued against this notion, and Omwami suggests history has proven him correct since most, if not all, small communities in Kenya have yet to benefit from monies that poured into larger cities since the nation’s independence four decades ago.


The elder Obama also looked ahead to what has become a shaping force across Africa — urbanization — arguing that the government’s efforts to lure citizens back to the land were futile.


“If these people come out in search of work, it is because they cannot make a living out of whatever land they have had,” he wrote.


In retrospect, it was one of several warnings in the paper that would prove true.


You failed to address Lolo Soetoro, in your she( his mother) made sure every influence in his life was communist claim. Instead, you regale us with more propaganda from Discover the Networks.

Obama's work focused on helping poor blacks on Chicago's South Side fight the city for things like job banks and asbestos removal. His teachers were schooled in a style of organizing devised by Saul Alinsky, the radical University of Chicagotrained social scientist. At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of "agitation"--making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to "rub raw the sores of discontent."

On this particular evening, Kruglik was debriefing Obama about his work when a panhandler approached. Instead of ignoring the man, Obama confronted him. "Now, young man, is that really what you want be about?" Obama demanded. "I mean, come on, don't you want to be better than that? Let's get yourself together."


I don't see the connection. How is telling a panhandler he can do better rubbing raw the sores of dicontent? How is it Alinsky Marxist training? The article is simply a generic attack on community organizing, with Alinsky references liberally sprinkled throughout, usually with no context. It's immaterial to the claims you made that I protested in #784.
There also isn't any support in #787 to the claim that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's mentor.

You failed to show Obama Sr was a
hardcore communist and radical Marxist.

You failed to show Obama's mother made sure every influence in his life was communist.

And, you failed to provide anything that hasn't already been presented that Frank Marshall Davis relationship with Obama rose to the level of mentor.

You did accomplish that you're willing to accept any and all propaganda from radical and biased sources without question.
 
791Boldwin
      ID: 243229
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 10:55
You've proven that democrats won't be moved by any evidence no matter how compelling because 'The One' must be sheltered no matter what.

You've also proven that democrats are completely unwilling to look in the mirror and recognize the marxist source of their core principles. If Mao were alive today he'd be wined and dined in the WH and you'd all be downgrading his marxism to democratic reformer to cover 'The One' as well as your own self-deception.
 
792DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 10:57
notsureifserious.jpg
 
793Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 10:57
I never mentioned Democrats, your "evidence" is not compelling and Mao is dead.
 
794Boldwin
      ID: 243229
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 10:59
As demonstrated by the czars now screwing up everything in the background who openly call Mao their favorite inspiration and whose marxism does not trouble you in the slightest.
 
795Boldwin
      ID: 243229
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 11:03
That 'The One' would select Maoists for our czars doesn't tell you anything either. You are willfully blind.
 
796Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 11:11
hahahaha. good one. Open projection.
 
797DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 11:12
If the only two choices presented are 1. Maoists or 2. whatever you'd like to call your political leanings, then yes, we mostly prefer the Maoists. And it appears the country agrees.

That tells very little about how we actually feel about the Maoists, of course, but it should give you a bit of pause to think about what it is you're doing wrong. (Hint: it's a lot.)
 
798sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 13:13
What is it precisely B, you hope to accomplish by liberally tossing about words like "Marxist", "czar", "communist"; if not simple fear mongering?

Pancho and MITH (amongst others), have done superb jobs of thoroughly debunking your every allegation. You accuse "democrats" of not seeing the man in the mirror. I wonder if in truth, the sentiment would not hold more validity when applied to you?
 
799DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 15:27
Content, admittedly low. Awesomeness factor, high.
 
800Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 15:44
that is so 12 hours ago. i posted that early this morning. lol
 
801DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 16:01
*mizgirl face*

You win, THIS time.

(Still should have put it here too.)
 
802Boldwin
      ID: 5421219
      Mon, May 02, 2011, 20:25
Sarge

Marxism, like that other ism, Islamism offer only two options.

Slavery or death.

If you like those options go back to sleep.
 
803sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 10:16
point is B, you toss the terms about with the same frequency that I inhale/exhale. I often think you do so, with the same amount of conscious thought as well.
 
804Boldwin
      ID: 5421219
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 12:20
Freedom and tyranny are not trivial matters and I take them very seriously and give them great deliberation.

Trivial is saying 'never again'.

Serious is recognizing death camps, real deadly repression and genocide are common ongoing problems today and it's a crime that nations, the media and the intelligentsia ignore them and the risk of them developing.

The entire 'big government' side of the spectrum scares me to death because they do not respect individual rights and they rely on intimidation to suppress man's natural desire for autonomy.
 
805Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 13:03
At least he's given up on Vattel.
 
806sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 14:25
It is the right wing B, which is doing everything it can to shove itself down the throat of the American citizenry. From who can do what with whom in the privacy of their own bedrooms, to who and how we should worship what God(s), to what we should or shouldnt be allowed to watch at a movie theater or read in a book.

I agree that such an intrusive govt is an inherently "bad" thing. We simply disagree on which side of the political spectrum is going to leave us free to be ourselves.
 
807weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 14:40
From who can do what with whom in the privacy of their own bedrooms, to who and how we should worship what God(s), to what we should or shouldnt be allowed to watch at a movie theater or read in a book.
Lies, Lies, and more Lies.

Sarge if you are concerned about this then you need to look at your own party and the far left that you support.
It is the left who want to tell us what cars we can and cant drive (if they grant us that right in the first place), what food we can and cant eat, what you can and cant say.
You also support Obamacare and by extension will be supporting whatever health restrictions that will come with it "for the public good".
You already made a thread about this but refused to accept the resposibility for what you support.

 
808sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 14:59
It isnt the left WK, who drives adult bookstores out of towns.

It isnt the left, who is trying to dictate who a consenting adult human can become emotionally attached to and enjoy the legal benefits of a couple.

It isnt the left, telling people if you dont make enough money to pay for insurance and exorbitant profit levels, to fking bad...just die already.

No one on the left has said what you can or can not eat. In fact, it was that Hero of the Right Pres Reagan, who tried to tell us that ketchup counted as a vegetable serving in school lunches.

Lies, lies., lies and more lies? The pure unadulterated BS spilling form the mouthpieces on the right; would fill that bill quite nicely. Question is, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit the truth?
 
809weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 15:43
You have not heard of Political Correctness?
PC is nothing more that trying to dictate what you can and cant say.
Most of the PC bs comes from the left.

It isnt the left WK, who drives adult bookstores out of towns.
If they are being driven out of towns then perhaps they are doing more than just selling adult books?

It isnt the left, who is trying to dictate who a consenting adult human can become emotionally attached to and enjoy the legal benefits of a couple.
Trying to change the definition of marriage is a far cry from your original assertion: "who can do what with whom in the privacy of their own bedrooms"
For the record you are in complete disagreement with Obama on this issue.

It isnt the left, telling people if you dont make enough money to pay for insurance and exorbitant profit levels, to fking bad...just die already.
It must be the left because I have never heard anyone on the right espouse this point of view.
Although, Obamacare does mandate that everyone has to buy insurance. (once again the left telling us what to do)
And if you think it will be cheaper than what you are paying now.....well we know who is delusional.

No one on the left has said what you can or can not eat. In fact, it was that Hero of the Right Pres Reagan, who tried to tell us that ketchup counted as a vegetable serving in school lunches.
Whatever your point was here im sure it made sense in your head, but somehow got lost when you typed it.

 
810Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 15:47
You also support Obamacare and by extension will be supporting whatever health restrictions that will come with it "for the public good".

Well, if you don't support "Obamacare" then, by extension, you support the ability of insurance companies to cut off people from their insurance, to cap their benefits, to raise rates with little (or no) reason, etc. Do you, in fact, support the ability of insurance companies to dump expensive patients despite the on-time payment of premiums?

 
811sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 16:58
WK, trying to legislate your own religious morality, is as intrusive as you can possibly get. THAT, is the aim of the current crop of rightwingers. To essentially say to one and all, "You're free to believe as you like, provided you like what we tell you to like."

Your veiled allegation that the stores were selling more than books, is pure self-righteous BS. I always found it odd, when driving south on I-35 and crossing the OK/TX border, the first and I mean VERY first business in TX, not 100' into TX, is an adult bookstore. Yet, a lingerie shop, not an adult bookstore, got run out of town when a councilmans extremist Baptist wife found the window display of lingerie clad mannequins to be "offensive" and thus zoning was changed.

I watched Matt Damon not long ago on Peirce Morgan. (sp wrong I know) Matt wqas telling of a Sunday morning conversation he had recently, with a friend of his in the CA Rep party and how they disagreed vehemently on the idea of universal healthcare. Matt says the dispute suddenly became crystal clear when his friend said, "Matt, here is the simple difference. You see healthcare as a right. I see it as a privilege." And there it is in a nutshell. The left, sees access to affordable medical care as a basic right. The "right", sees it as the purview of those who can afford it. By extension, that means if you cant afford it...too damn bad; die and go away.
 
812weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 17:12
The status quo and the government takeover of healthcare were not the only two choices.Ramming through legislation that nobody bothered to read can't be good.Is there a perfect solution to a very complex problem such as healthcare?Probably not.But anything, even the status quo is going to look pretty damn good once the legislation has ruined healthcare for everyone.Obamacare...Pay more ... Get less.
 
813Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 17:18
has ruined healthcare for everyone.Obamacare...Pay more ... Get less.

didn't ruin it for me. it allowed me to get healthcare.

unemployed or freelancing for the last few years, i was denied health insurance. but once HealthCare Reform was passed, i was able to get it.

Thank goodness for "Obamacare". it allowed me to purchase insurance.
 
814sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 17:20
Funny how Mitt Romney was for the same thing in Mass, before he was against it anywhere else. Odd too, how R Limbaugh who blasts the very notion of universal healthcare, was saved in Hawaii BY universal healthcare. Even more odd, how not a single Brit I have ever known/spoken with, nor Swede, nor German, nor anyone else who HAS universal healthcare; wants to swap for the American profit driven version.

From 1970 forward, the number one cause of BK filings across the country, had been illness/injury resulting in a massive increase of expenses accompanied by an equally dramatic decline in income. (From a report I read circa 2002, and ran thru either 1999 or 2000, I dont recall now which. Read/cited that report in preparation for a presentation I had to make at the time.)

There is no logical, or justifiable means; of making profit the determining factor behind saving a persons life or not. Yet, that is precisely what insurance companies do, on a daily basis.
 
815weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 17:26
I dont live in a small town so I cant answer your anectodal examples that you want to put forth.
The only reason book stores get shut dowm where I live is because the owner was using it as a front for other activities.
I support the right for each community to set reasonable standards when it comes to obscenity laws.
It is my understanding that I am in agreement with SCOTUS on this.
The fact that you see this as some rightwing kabal is pretty rediculous.
I have no problem with you going to your favorite bookstore to get your porn or going online to get what you need either.
 
816weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 17:28
didn't ruin it for me. it allowed me to get healthcare.

Most of the provisions have not even kicked in yet.
Perhaps your personal example means that what we had before was working?
 
817weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 17:32
There is no logical, or justifiable means; of making profit the determining factor behind saving a persons life or not.

Sorry sarge but moth of the medical advances and new drugs we now have are a direct result of the profit motive.
How many companies will spend billions on new research when they know they wont be able to recoup that investment?
Like I said....crappy healthcare for all.
 
818boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 17:33
It is both the right and the left that trying to force us to do what they want because both sides are selfish.
 
819Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 17:45
Most of the provisions have not even kicked in yet.
Perhaps your personal example means that what we had before was working?


the provisions that did affect me, did kick in. what we had before did not work for me. what we have now, does.

i was encouraged to apply for insurance again at the urging of a friend in the healthcare industry. she said "with HRC, they can't turn you down now. you're all good."

and sure enough, i was. due to HRC.
 
820Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 17:50
Freedom and tyranny are not trivial matters and I take them very seriously and give them great deliberation.

You probably are that person in your real life. Not on this forum.

Tyranny begins with dehumanization and demonization, and you've shown a propensity to make characterizations casually and recklessly, with little deliberation.

 
821sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 19:12
re 817...look thru history. MOST medical advances, came about not thru corporate R&D (which seems lately to focus on the most recent "ailment of the hour" vs life saving research), but through independent research. Pasteur, Falk, et al.

Whats the most profitable drug to come out of American pharmaceuticals? Little blue pill, called Viagra. Real life saver there.
 
822Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 19:29
PV

OMG, now I've tyrannized poor PV! That my friend is to trivialize a terrible problem in the world.

Sarge

You feel America has limited access to porn? Really? Just do a search of just about any government office and search the jpeg and gif files of the computers. The question is more like, 'is there any room on government computers to do any governing'? The government is hardly anti-porn.
 
823Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 19:32
now I've tyrannized poor PV!

When?
 
824Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 19:33
#820
 
825Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 19:46
Where in #820 did I indicate you were tyrannizing me? Project much?
 
826Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 20:11
Retract much?
 
827Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 20:31
Wow the meltdown continues.
 
828Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 20:33
The status quo and the government takeover of healthcare were not the only two choices

Look, I get your point. But there are many of us who believe that "Obamacare" is better than what we had, even if there are parts we don't like.

A step forward, even a small one.

But you will only get the respect of having a nuanced position once you allow that others might also not fit into your "with us or hate us" dichotomy on this complicated issue.

Prescription drugs are another complicated issue. And one that is entirely unaddressed by "Obamacare."
 
829Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 20:43
you will only get the respect of having a nuanced position once you allow that others might also not fit into your "with us or hate us" dichotomy

Something more substantial than the usual general vagaries would help too.
 
830sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 20:43
822...good gawd B. I made no such comment. There ya go again, tossing up your own strawman so you can shoot it down, and claim some sort of victory.

I point out the sheer hypocrisy of the Baptist members (said church which dominates TX religion) and how they chased a lingerie shop...not porn..lingerie; out of town because ONE WOMAN took offense to a mannequin in something sheer. All the while, the very first business you encounter upon entering TX via I-35; is an adult bookstore.

You want to try and shoot down my claims, feel free. But address WHAT I said, not what you want to shoot at.
 
831Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 20:47
There's nothing to retract. #820 makes the point that you are quick to demonize with terms like Communist/Marxist/Terrorist as pointed out in sarge #803.

Rather than contemplate that with any deliberation, you gave us #804, which I found rather ironic, not only for the lack of deliberation, but the trivialization that comes from tossing about terms with the frequency of breathing.

Like I said, I don't think that's the person you are in real life. I don't see you as a person who is apt to make snap judgements about people you meet and interact with in your daily life in regard to their politics, religion, sexual preference, environmental views, etc as evil. I see you more as a person who is a lot more accepting and tolerant than the average lurker would be led to believe. You don't butt heads with someone for years without getting a sense of their real self vs their internet self.

Mods can feel free to delete this post if they feel it violates the civility code.
 
832Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 21:01
It would indeed be interesting to talk one on one with you, PV. I don't think we'd come across as quite such dogged opponents. You really have taken to smothering my posts as energetically as any troll but without the troll stupidity. I don't know where that obsessiveness comes from on your part. I wonder how much is posturing for the lurkers or something like that because I don't think you are so unreasonable.

Then again I thot PD and I would be able to communicate one on one but he has become quite one dimensional in person to me in the last four years.
 
833Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 21:07
Y'know PV, I really do wanna get outta here as soon as a conservative appears here who can take over. Then we can have a nice phone call about music and roto and part friends. 8]
 
834weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 21:13
A step forward, even a small one.

A totally unsubstatiated opinin.

Obamacare is a huge step backwards.
My opinion is based in large part based on the government takeover of our retirement money.
In 1937 the rate was 1% of the first 3k of income for a total of $30 annually.
Compare that today with 6.2% on 106,800 more than a 200 fold increase and still the program is going bankrupt. (dont forget your employer matches what ever you pay in which wasnt the case in the beginning)
Do you really think the government is doing a better job of managing your retirement money than you would be able to?
The "crisis" at the time was that Americans wouldnt save for retirement and needed the help of Uncle Sam.
the only problem is Uncle Sam not only spent our money but spent it 2-3 times over.
And yet somehow with their abysmal track record you think the goverment can manage healthcare without massive increases to the cost.
Its not about wanting respect, I could give a rats ass, it is a genuine fear of what lies ahead.
 
835Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 21:14
and part friends. 8]

I consider us friends now. I have lots of friends I consistently annoy.
 
836Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 21:26
#834: This isn't about Social Security, though I'm happy to have that discussion elsewhere. This is about your feeling that "Obamacare" is a disaster of some sort. And that all those who support it in any form hold positions that are always less nuanced than yours.
 
837sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 03, 2011, 22:59
...based on the government takeover of our retirement money.

First problem in any discussion, is the very premise from which you start. You're antogonistic, even before a discussion can begin.
 
838weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 12:41
And post #806 isnt antagonistic?
It is the right wing B, which is doing everything it can to shove itself down the throat of the American citizenry.
Followed by a bunch of nonsensical examples was how our discussion began.
I cant answer your isolated example of why a lingerie shop was shut down, but to make the rediculous leap that this proves your inflamatory premise is mindboggling.
You have a big problem with a lingerie shop closing but have no problem with the federal government mandating that everyone has to buy health insurance or pay a penaly to the government.
All I'm asking you to do is OWN YOUR BAGGAGE.
Do you really think the government isnt going to impose its will on our rights to freedoms when it comes to questions of health?
You are already up in arms about Arizona imposing penalties for people who make poor health decisions.
It will only get worse as a result of the legislation that you support.
Obamacare is being shoved down the throats of the American people and you support it.
 
839sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 12:46
No, 806 was not antagonistic.

I dont have a problem with "a" shop closing down. I have a problem with a shop being FORCED to close down, due to religious bigotry and intolerance. If you see that as a "ridiculous leap", then there is no discussion to be had. Your mind is clearly already made up and no amount of fact is going to intrude.
 
840weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 13:01
#1 You are taking an isolated case and trying to use it to paint with a broad brush everyone on the right.

#2. You are pointing the finger but refusing to acknowlege that the left does the very thing that you are complaining about.

Very simple Sarge....clean up your own house before you go throwing stones.
What about all of the left leaning city councils who have passed rent control laws?
You have a big problem with 1 lingerie shop but no problem with millions of private property owners who are having the ideals of the left forced down their throats?

Please Sarge....be consistent....OWN YOUR BAGGAGE.
 
841Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 13:03
What does "OWN YOUR BAGGAGE" mean, exactly? That he must explain the positions that other people hold?

In what way are you owning your baggage that he is not, for example?
 
842weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 13:24
OYB means taking responsibility for positions he holds.
He doesnt like the right forcing their agenda down his throat but has no problem supporting the left wing adgenda being forced down the thrats of millions of Americans.
There is baggage that comes with supporting Obamacare....Im just asking him to own it.
 
843Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 13:44
Right--but you seem to be asking him to "own" the agenda of "the left wing" rather than his own positions.

In particular, you are asking him to own "baggage" of your own making--insisting that the position of "the left wing" is his own and that the position will cause "X, Y and Z" when virtually none of those elements are certain.
 
844Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 13:47
Obamacare is being shoved down the throats of the American people

According to a recent Kaiser survey, about 50% of the people surveyed think the law should either remain as is, or be expanded. About 39% feel the law should simply be repealed, or repealed and replaced with a GOP alternative.

If by "shoved down the throats" you mean "passed over the very vocal opposition of a minority of Americans" I'd certain agree with you.

Source
 
845Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 14:12
Yeah, the minority who won the last election.
 
846Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 14:20
Are you supporting the tyranny of the majority PD?

I kid, but your logic seems slightly flawed. We need a major overhaul of medical insurance and Obamacare is an attempt to start it. I might not agree with all of the components, but I would have a hard time thinking of a law where I agree with all of the components.

Forcing down our throats, does seem like a legit complaint as it does require everyone to purchase insurance.
 
847Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 14:22
And lost the one before, and is currently polling pretty damn badly.

If you believe that the winners of the previous election should get what they want, legislatively, then I'm surprised to see that you posted at all between January 2008 and January 2010.

My point above, of course, if that the actual "Obamacare" is supported by a lot more people than not. And if the parts are broken out, support goes up substantially.

As before, the more people know what the law does, the more they support it. The reverse is true: The more people believed things that weren't true about "Obamacare" the more likely they were to support the GOP in the last election.
 
848DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 14:30
If it isn't patently obvious, both parties try to "force things down other people's throats".

Republicans, especially the religious zealot wing of the party, tend to force their own ideas about social issues down other people's throats: what you can put in your body, who you can put in your body, what you can spend your money on recreationally (e.g. anti-gambling), and what religions are "right" and which ones aren't. Basically, I'd sum it up as "trying to protect people from themselves".

Democrats, especially the socialist (start your bingo card now) fringe, tend to force their ideas down other people's throats about economic issues. Basically, I'd sum it up as trying to protect people from each other".

Neither of them are particularly wonderful choices. However, given the choice, I'd rather have the freedom to do what I want and have a little less money to do it with, than to have a little more money and not be allowed to do anything with it that's not state-approved.

"Own your baggage" is a pretty amusing statement from someone who's specifically not owning his side's own baggage.
 
849Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 14:35
According to a recent Kaiser survey, about 50% of the people surveyed think the law should either remain as is

That means less than 50% actually think the current plan is worthwhile. They had to add in people who maybe like parts of it or in some way wanted to change it to get that 'like the plan' to 50%.

Even if it was an even 50% who actually liked as is, don't you think thats a big enough portion against that rather than railroading this thru like the dems did, maybe they should have kept working on it?

Honestly, there are parts of the package that are good, parts that are bad. But as a whole I am against Obamacare. Where would that poll have put me? In the 50% who like but want to expand?

Basically, the country is divided enough on the issue and on this plan that it took politcal manuevering and gamesmanship to push it thru. Thats not what I want from our congressmen. I want them to work out a deal that serves the US populace and they can agree on passing w/out the political manuevering. Guess that is asking too much.

I also wouldn't really call it a 'very vocal minority.' That term 'vocal minority' implies it is a small but loud group. 40% is hardly a small group. Technically a minority? Yes. But hardly a small enough group that it should be ignored.

We'll reach the vocal minority point when people are shouting down a policy just because of who proposed it rather than whats in it.
 
850Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 14:45
40% is about 5% less than the percentage of people who voted for McCain. It is certainly a minority.

50% of the people surveyed liked it as is, or wanted to use it as the starting point but expand it. About 11% more than the people who wanted it repealed.

And we're still a couple of years out from some elements kicking in.

when people are shouting down a policy just because of who proposed it rather than whats in it

I believe we're long past that point. There are plenty of things Obama has proposed or passed that were supported by the GOP when those things were proposed by a Republican.
 
851walk
      ID: 348442710
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 14:55
Khahan, it never would have happened then. It took forty years. These laws are also dynamic. The healthcare plan can be improved, and should be. It will evolve, as did medicare and medicaid and Soc Sec when they became law. Getting 40 million folks insurance who had none should be enough for anyone to say this healthcare reform was the right thing to do. The uninsured could be one of us, or a loved one...that is a very scary place to be. It's just not humane, IMO.
 
852weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 15:05
what you can put in your body,
Are you referring to drugs?
Under the right circumstances and a comprehensive plan to deal with addicts, I generally support them being decriminalized.

who you can put in your body,
Are you referring to sodomy laws passed mostly in the Democratic south?
If not please give examples.

what you can spend your money on recreationally (e.g. anti-gambling),
There are casinos in almost ever state so that cant be it.
If you are talking about internet gambling then you need to come up with a plan that ensures minors dont have access.

and what religions are "right" and which ones aren't.
People are entitled to their opinions.
Having an opinion is a far cry from forcing that belief on anyone.
 
853Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 15:15
The uninsured could be one of us, or a loved one...that is a very scary place to be. It's just not humane, IMO.

This isn't the place to debate ideals vs reality nor is it the discussion we are involved in.

Khahan, it never would have happened then.

Well, it won't happen now because a new law, and a very controversial one at that (opposed by 40% of the polled public) is in place.

This was railroaded thru congress and that has never sat well with me. A large enough portion of the public were against this plan (and a large enough portion were against what the repubs wanted to do) that both sides should have shut up, sat down and kept working. Not taken an opportunistic majority to say, "we're doing what our party leaders want and screw a large, large portion of what Americans think."

Obamacare was 100% partisan politics at its worst. It was democrats doing whats right for democrats. Not whats right for their constituents. Sometimes a leader does have to do something regardless of what its people want. But to me, this isn't one of them. And what they did was just as bad or worse. Instead of listening to their constituency, they listened to their party leaders.
 
854DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 16:06
"who you can put in your body,
Are you referring to sodomy laws passed mostly in the Democratic south?
If not please give examples."

For the most part, yes. It's important to note that 'passed in the Democratic South' is a pretty silly distinction, because that's the Democratic South of the 19th and early 20th century. The Democrats of that time period bear no resemblance to the Democrats of today.

More recently, you'll find it's the Republicans in charge of those things, as a brief Google search found: link link link

"If you are talking about internet gambling then you need to come up with a plan that ensures minors dont have access."

That's easy: how about we let parents control their kids? Personal responsibility used to be the mantra of the Republicans, and still is on other issues.

Failing that, why not use the same safeguards we use to let people sell alcohol and tobacco over the internet? Those are other activities which are restricted to minors that are readily sold and advertised over the Internet. As a bonus, regulating (and taxing) those companies will provide plenty of revenue for enforcement.

Regardless of all that, saying "someone might abuse it" is a great reason to put sensible regulations in place. It's a pretty lousy reason to ban it for the 99+% of people that are law abiding and won't abuse it.
 
855sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 16:07
840...the particular case of the lingerie shop, is FAR from isolated. Its common place, throughout the bible-thumper belt.

As for the left trying to force anything down your throat; you have insurance now yes? So wtf difference does it make to you, if I too am required to buy insurance? If I dont, you get to pay my bills now as it is. Unfortunately, w/o insurance; preventive medicine isnt handled by many and that means long term expensive costs which may have been avoided, have to instead be borne. And as it stands now, people WITH insurance, still face bankruptcy and ruin due to medical expenses. If itymakes me a terrible, horrible, rotten SoB to want some alternative wherein a single illness/injury is insufficient to leave a family destitute...then I will gleefully BE that horrible, rotten SoB.
 
856boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 16:47
preventive medicine isnt handled by many and that means long term expensive costs which may have been avoided, have to instead be borne.

Actually that is not proven, studies actually show total health care cost are actually probably lower as the health status of the population goes down.
 
857Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 16:49
I guess as more people die from preventable diseases instead of getting old and really sucking at the health care money pool?
 
858boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 16:57
Yeah basically people die younger usually just die, where as live longer you continue to suck up health care and technology add medicine improve the cost become chronic.
 
859walk
      ID: 348442710
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 17:34
Sorry Khahan, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt about partisan politics, I think the ends more than justify the means with this law. And, if you want to continue to only discuss the cynical side, I'd say the only reason the healthcare bill was opposed was that a certain party is much more beholden to rich corporations whose earnings will be cut into by the bill's passage, and who then used scare tactics to create the negative attitudes expressed by the 40% you claim.
 
860weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 18:03
Sarge:

It makes you an SOB (Your words) when you try to paint one side with a broad brush while at the same time you ignore the very same thing when your side does it.
All Im asking of you is to not ram your morality down my throat.

DW....out of curiosity....how old are your kids?

One question that I can never get an answer to is:
If insurance companies are making obscene profits why didnt Democrats pool their money and start their own insurance company?
You could undercut the profits of the bad companies and use the remaining profits to offer free healthcare to those you deem needy.
 
861sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 18:08
You ask me not to do something which (a) I dont do and (b)( your side of the political aisle is and has been doing; to the extreme detriment of the middle class.

Yes, Dems in Congress have an agenda. No question. So do the Reps. Problem is, the Rep agenda as being put forth by the current crop of extremists; will utterly destroy the middle class.

Look at urban S America or Mexico, for what happens when the middle class fails.
 
862DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 18:09
School age (I don't feel the need to be more specific)... why?

Answer to your last question: because the health of the poor isn't a good profit source for an insurance company.

The alternatives are basically some combination of:

1. Screw the poor, let 'em get sick and die.
2. Make insurance companies cover them (corporate interference)
3. Find another way to cover the health care costs -- either passing it on to other health care consumers covertly (which is essentially what's done now), or passing it on overtly (which is closer to what Obamacare does).
 
863Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 18:10
If insurance companies are making obscene profits why didnt Democrats pool their money and start their own insurance company?

Because Democrats aren't interested in earning obscene amounts of money on the backs of sick people?
 
864Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 02856618
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 18:22
If insurance companies are making obscene profits why didnt Democrats pool their money and start their own insurance company?

Because the start up costs would cause it to lose money for years. Every state has it's own insurance rules. Not to mention the fact that the existing insurance companies would use a good chunk of their "obscene" profits to lobby against such a plan. The only entity that can overcome those odds is the Feds.
 
865Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 18:39
How do you define "obscene" profits?

Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

.... Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

.... were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.
Source
 
866sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 19:08
Right, yet in terms of raw dollars, the industry is exceptionally profitable. (Provided, the math has been done correctly.)

Yet I would ask this question....why is the provision of healthcare, the treatment of the ill/injured...profit driven AT ALL? It should be driven, ideally, by simple human decency/compassion. NOT by ROI.
 
867biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 19:21
The real costs, l contrary to what you hear from free market cheerleaders, is intensely innecfient, bloated bureaucracies.

They also make most ( used to be nearly all until they greedier) of their profits on investment income. Is that included in your figures?
 
868weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 19:28
sarge:
I think its pretty obvious that you will never see the 3 fingers pointing back at you when you point your finger and the right.

DW:
The reason I ask is because there is a big difference between young kids and late teens.
We dont allow 18-21 yo's into casinos or allow them to drink (in most states) because it is an age when people are prone to really poor judgement.
Young kids can be monitored but that task becomes increasingly more difficult for late teens.
My guess is you will have a slightly different perspective once you experience it first hand.
I played online poker and would like to be able to do so again.
But I also see the dangers in allowing unregulated sites to operate within the US.
When the poor for example lose all their money trying to get rich.

#863 and #864 both cop-out answers.
#865 thank you for providing the answer for 863 and 864.
 
869Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 19:46
I'd say the only reason the healthcare bill was opposed was that a certain party is much more beholden to rich corporations whose earnings will be cut into by the bill's passage

You'd be wrong. I agree a big reason the healthcare bill was opposed was simply partisan politics (within our elected officials). But outside of that in the general populace there are people (like me) who truly do not believe its the best that can be done, its unconstitutional and its a horrible stopgap.

I think the ends more than justify the means with this law

I completely disagree that the ends justify the government overstepping its bounds and saying "buy this product or face penalties." Its unconstitutional. No ends justify that in my mind.

Every state has it's own insurance rules

Yet another reason why the Feds should not be mandating this. There are other ways.

The dems don't have a good idea w/ 'obamacare,' anymore than the republicans had an idea.

Out political system is as much of a roadblock to resolving this as anything else. But that doesn't mean we should settle for an unconstitutional plan.
 
870sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 19:47
WK..it was I who posted that Dems have an agenda. So I have already proven false, your opening statement in 868.

Yet you, like B, will persist with your unsubstantiated diatribe.

Just be grateful, there are enough people like myself, to stand in the way of your getting what you claim to want.
 
871Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 19:53
Khahan

There are other ways.

Care to elaborate on 'other ways' to bring down the cost of healthcare?

I can only think of one and that idea is dead on arrival for 100% of American conservatives.
 
872Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 02856618
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 20:01
weykool I was responding to your suggestion that the D's start their own insurance company. I'm pretty sure that the only way a non-profit insurance company (started by the D's or anybody else) could work is if the feds ran it. I don't know about their profits, that's why I put "obscene" in quotes. If I was a venture capital stiff, I'd invest in the company making the best profit. Nothing personal, it's only business.
 
873Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 21:04
Care to elaborate on 'other ways' to bring down the cost of healthcare?

This is about way more than bringing down the cost of healthcare, MITH.

Healthcare doesn't need overhauled because its too expensive, it needs overhauled because its broken. Right now, insurance companies have as much say in treatment as doctors. While the trend is breaking away, insurance companies have a say in who an individual's doctor is (you may get an HMO thru an employer and if your family doctor for the past 20 years isn't on their list..guess what).

Obamacare is unconstitutional in its application. It and every other plan presented wants to put a new skin on old bones.

I've identified some of what the problems are. I don't necessarily have the answers to fix them. But I can spot them.
 
874Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 21:30
With all due respect I don't know if you can. There is something very wrong with the cost of healthcare when it runs $8,000.00 - $15,000.00 to have a broken bone set.

This is a hugely complicated issue and it's hard to hear someone say "there are other ways" when he knows he can't back that up.

Without nationalizing the whole healthcare system, there are but three ways that I know of to bring down the cost of healthcare and get more people access to it:

1. Have people live healthier lifestyles. This is a good idea in theory but Michelle Obama can't so much as suggest a fat kid eat a carrot without being called fascist by your side of the aisle - while you moderate conservatives stand in silence.

2. Provide a significantly sized insurance option that isn't part of the profit-based industry to compete with the major companies and force them to thin out their margins. No private nonprofit would stand a chance to ever get off the ground and a government run one is called fascist by your side of the aisle while - you moderate conservatives stand in silence.

3. Get more people to pay into the pool. And there are only two ways I can think of to do that. You either mandate that everyone buy private insurance or you nationalize the healthcare pool, either way everyone on your side of the aisle cry fascist.
 
875Razor
      ID: 172252412
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 22:54
Healthcare doesn't need overhauled because its too expensive, it needs overhauled because its broken. Right now, insurance companies have as much say in treatment as doctors.

Soaring health care costs are the single biggest drag on the economy. The government, corporations and citizens all spend huge amounts of money on health care and health care insurance.

While insurance companies have too much of a say in health care decisions, they have nowhere near the influence that physicians do.
 
876DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, May 04, 2011, 22:58
"The reason I ask is because there is a big difference between young kids and late teens.
We dont allow 18-21 yo's into casinos or allow them to drink (in most states) because it is an age when people are prone to really poor judgement.
Young kids can be monitored but that task becomes increasingly more difficult for late teens.
My guess is you will have a slightly different perspective once you experience it first hand.
I played online poker and would like to be able to do so again.
But I also see the dangers in allowing unregulated sites to operate within the US.
When the poor for example lose all their money trying to get rich.
"

I agree -- so regulate them, don't ban them. One reasonable regulation, off the top of my head, would include having an ID check immediately upon setting up an account. Not that hard to do. And yes, it's potentially faked, but those acts of fakery either explicitly include the parents not doing their job for their kids, or are already illegal (basically, identity theft). By far the biggest task I face as a parent is preparing the kids to make good choices for themselves as they get older, and that there are consequences for every action. If I do that job right, they'll hopefully understand for themselves (possibly after a little hard experience) why drinking to excess, or gambling more than you can afford to lose, or screwing up their body with drugs, or putting themselves in a position where an abortion is a consideration, are bad situations that they can generally avoid with good choices. At the same time, they will hopefully learn that other people will make different choices, which may be right for them for whatever reason. They will learn, hopefully, how to determine right and wrong for themselves, and ideally how to help others determine right and wrong for themselves.

The poor may, indeed, lose all their money trying to get rich. They can also do that in any number of ways, and we don't protect them from that. Heck, some of the rich may lose all their money. Isn't the argument essentially "how dare you tell people what to do with their money, they have the right to do it on their own" when we're talking about things like mandated health insurance and Social Security, and if so, why doesn't that same argument apply even more strongly here, when a private citizen makes an active choice to interact with a public company?
 
878Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 00:26
MITH post 874 is SO far off base its ridiculous. For one, I thought this was the birther thread, not the healthcare thread. I have some ideas documented in another thread on healthcare about how to bring them down but couldn't find it. Sorry I jsut got done working a 12 hour day and a 14 hour day this week. Just don't have the energy to dig and dig blindly for info on a discussion from a few months ago.

Then you keep talking about how 'my side of the aisle,' and how I stand in silence. If I'm standing in silence, why am I sitting here engaging you on this topic?

2 - my side of the aisle? I think for myself. I often find myself agreeing with republican line of thinking but it should be obvious from so many of my posts that I'm simply against thinking and voting based on partisan thought. So please put me square in the middle of the aisle to express my own ideas and don't try to tie me to one political party or the other.

I agree with the first lady. Last week I let my kids daycare know what I thought of their snack (poptarts and chocolate milk) and made it clear I don't give a crap what their policy is, my kids don't get that junk. My kids will eat what i send them and the teachers (at daycare, not school) can deal with an extra 5 seconds of work pulling my snacks out and handing them to my kids. If a school in Chicago wants to only serve healthy food and remove soda vending machines for bottled water, that is great. They are welcome to do it. But that same school has no right to turn around and tell parents, "You cant send your kids with packed lunches because we don't like what you may put in them." See the difference? Its when people take the first lady's suggestions too far that you'll find me disagreeing with them. And yes, I believe that particular school acted in a fascist manner.

I have no problem with providing healthcare at an affordable cost to those who's jobs don't provide it as a benefit or can't afford it. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let the federal government force me to 'buy this or else.' And remember, I'm an insurance agent. I have a pretty good idea of how insurance and shared pools work. I fully understand the importance of a sizeable pool. But its not the governments place, no matter what the ends are, to tell the citizens of this nation we must buy a product. That is a fascist line of thinking to me. And I do happen to agree with Republicans on that view.

There are parts of obamacare I like and parts I don't like. But I cannot ever accept it as a whole based on the fact that it is the federal government forcing its citizens to buy a product. Plain and simple as that. You want to fix the current problem, I want to fix the current problem. But giving us healthcare in its current form and forcing all of us to buy it does not fix the problem. It will only amplify it.

If you want to fix healthcare, you don't do it by expanding what we have.

You fix:

1) the influence of health insurance over doctors abilities to do their jobs and treat patients.

2) the rising cost of medical advances:
a) treatments/medicines from pharmaceutical companies. Believe it or not, back off on FDA restrictions on R&D. Penicillan would not make it out of the first testing phase today under current FDA regulations. No company would want to take a drug with pen's allergy rate before the FDA for approval.
b) the cost of equipment - Look at all the different kinds of equipment in a hospital. Millions of dollars of machinery that the hospital has to make back. So the guy going to the ER for a broken finger ends up paying a few bucks towards the sonogram machine.

3) What/when/how hospitals are used. A co-worker of mine, just today got acall from her mother who fell and banged her knee. I sat and listened to my co-worker browbeat her mom into calling 9-1-1 to get a ride to the hospital to be checked out in case she had a concussion or in case something in her leg was broken!!! No. She walked to the phone which was upstairs. She was perfectly coherent. Use some common sense. STuff like that and going to the doctor and insisting on getting this medication you saw on TV etc. All those things artificially drive up the cost of insurance.

If you force everybody to buy into healthcare #3 on that list above is only going to get worse as people feel entitled to use it.
 
879Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 00:40
What/when/how hospitals are used. A co-worker of mine, just today got acall from her mother who fell and banged her knee. I sat and listened to my co-worker browbeat her mom into calling 9-1-1 to get a ride to the hospital to be checked out in case she had a concussion or in case something in her leg was broken!!! No. She walked to the phone which was upstairs. She was perfectly coherent. Use some common sense.

i'm sure Natasha Richardson's family wished she had used common sense.
 
880Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 01:17
one, I thought this was the birther thread, not the healthcare thread.

I engaged you in a discussion you were already willing having on healthcare.

If I'm standing in silence, why am I sitting here engaging you on this topic?

That's terrific that you agree with Michelle Obama on healthy diet for children but do you show up in the court of public opinion on the matter? You certainly don't here and neiither do other moderates from your side of the aisle. That's what I mean by standing in silence - while people who might hear you out demonize someone who fights the good fight. Someone coming from your perspective certainly has a better chance than me.

You offer some thoughtful responses on the cost of high tech equipment but the reason that stuff is so expensive is that there is no mass production demand for it. We're never going to have MRI machines in every driveway.

There might be something to easing R&D for meds but pharma is a largely separate issue, paid for by a largely separate pool.

I'm not sure what you mean about influence of insurers over procedures but I find it hard to believe they are forcing caregivers to provide more expensive treatments. In fact I believe the opposite is true.

I agree hospital ERs are misused but the primary reason for that is the huge portion of Americans who have no health insurance and know they will get turned away at a GPs office. So they wait until their condition demands attention and go to a much more expensive facility for more extensive care than would have been necessary when symptoms first occurred.

The more people we have who are covered, the more people we have with the opportunity to nip their medical issues in the bud well before they wind up in an ambulance.
 
881Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 02:13
Care to elaborate on 'other ways' to bring down the cost of healthcare?

I can only think of one and that idea is dead on arrival for 100% of American conservatives.
- MITH

Let's see. Doctors are charging 10x the true cost of providing services so that they can avoid being sued into oblivion.

Your side has convinced everyone that they are victims who should sue the evil rich into oblivion.

But no idea to reduce the cost of medicine by 9/10 occurs to you, huh?
 
882Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 02:17
I'd ask for a nonpartisan source for that figure but we all know how that'll go.
 
883Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 02:45
But tort reform in general is a non-starter with you anyway, huh?
 
884Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 02:48
And what's YOUR explanation for why the price of setting a bone has inflated a million times? Those million dollar bone pullers? Doctors just got greedier?
 
885sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 04:09
B Gates sued his way to riches. D Trump files lawsuits and corporate BKs to erase debt and retain wealth.

This has been refuted to DEATH B, malpractice is a SMALL factor in the cost of medical care.
 
886Tree
      ID: 16329157
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 08:25
Your side has convinced everyone that they are victims who should sue the evil rich into oblivion.

and your side wants poor people to die. either by poor health, or by lethal injection. your side defines death squad.

see how easy that is? and how lame...
 
887Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 08:46
That's terrific that you agree with Michelle Obama on healthy diet for children but do you show up in the court of public opinion on the matter?

Actually I do. I am vocal about this locally both at my kids school and daycare.


i'm sure Natasha Richardson's family wished she had used common sense.

Sorry Tree, we're discussing people who abuse the system and your answer is to bring up Natasha Richardson? Really?

Common sense doesn't mean never use the ER. But common sense tells me if my co-worker's mom didn't hit her head, there is no concussion. Common sense tells me if she walked up the stairs there is no broken leg.

Common sense means you use the information available and act appropriately. Not overreact and over-treat.

Here's an appropriately timed article on ER wait times and redirection programs.

And from the state of New York.

And this study puts misuse and excess healthcare spending at just over 1/2 of all healthcare spending.

This gets into slightly different issues than just patient use. Some is patient misuses as noted above. Some is from doctors recommending treatment/programs because health insurance companies have these neat little guidelines on what they pay and why, even if the doctor has good reason to believe otherwise. Some is doctors doing unnecessary work out of fear of lawsuits (tort reform is another area to discuss to help. And its a tricky one).
 
888Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 09:27
You criticize the moderate conservatives for remaining silent. I would argue that moderate conservatives and liberals are speaking up, but we are drowned out by the yelling from the the extremes. And since we don't yell and don't flock to either side without accepting everything without questions, we are considered opponents who need to be shouted over.
 
889Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 09:40
Khahan

Daycare centers are not the court of public opinion.


Boldy

I have no issue hearing out reasonable tort reform ideas (though the blanket cap proposals I heard from the right were not reasonable) but unless you can show me that malpractice award increases align with healthcare cost increases (and we've been down this road so I know you cant, which is why you ran away from my challenge to put up) you aren't proposing a solution.
 
890Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 09:48
MITH - your assertion is that I am not vocal about this issue. My assertion is that you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm vocal here and on another board.

I'm vocal publicly on a local level. I'm vocal in my neighborhood. I'm vocal with kids I teach karate to about this issue. I'm even vocal with my customers at the insurance agency I work at.

Trying to tell people how they act and what activities they may do in their life outside of a message board when you have no information about them is pretty dangerous ground to tread on MITH. Daycare alone may not be the court of public opinion, but I also didn't say daycare alone. I also talked about my kids school. I go to board meetings. I've been involved in petitions with them. Are you sure this is a path you want to go down, MITH? Or do you maybe want to drop the 'moderates like me are not vocal' thread? I won't even ask you make an apology or admit maybe it was off base. I'll leave it up to you decide to drop it or pursue it. :)
 
891boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 10:05
a) treatments/medicines from pharmaceutical companies. Believe it or not, back off on FDA restrictions on R&D. Penicillan would not make it out of the first testing phase today under current FDA regulations. No company would want to take a drug with pen's allergy rate before the FDA for approval.

Just to give you idea of how much cost of new treatment testing are, I am working on two similar studies both with already approved treatments one on rats and one on humans. While the rat experiments are mostly done using graduate students overseen by a post doc the human experiments takes army of doctors. I would not be surprised if there 2 doctors for every subject.
 
892Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 10:28
but unless you can show me that malpractice award increases align with healthcare cost increases - MITH

That is pure dodge. What did you think? I should come up with the jury award that drove up the cost of setting a bone?

It's a simple x-ray, yank and a bandage wrap. Doctors have some sympathy with a poor working stiff and aren't charging 5K because they are late on their Beemer payment.

Stop trying to protect the rampant sabotage of capitalism and use your common sense.
 
893Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 10:33
It all boils down to one thing.

You are not going to give the free market a reasonable break.

Obama can create a death panel that says 'these are the fair rates and no, you lawyers cannot drive it up.

But the free market must never get a reasonable environment. It has to be sabotaged out of existance.
 
894Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 10:41
I linked to a study in the actual thread on this topic, in which the "tort reforms" being proposed would save about one-half of one percent of health care costs (a number which has shrunk lately, btw, because overall health care spending is way up). So, letting the insurance companies of guilty hospitals and doctors from paying more money would save some pocket change.

Kaiser has looked at the cost drivers here.

Kaiser also has some links to some nice tort reform articles. Some of them are dated, but the historical surveys are interesting: Link
 
895DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 10:47
Creating a market where doctors are totally insulated from the cost of their mistakes is hardly an act in favor of a "free" market. Unless you intend "free" to mean "doctors should be free to do whatever they want, and patients should be free to like it or suck it up".

For that matter, a market where only certain people are allowed to practice medicine by the government (under penalty of jail and/or massive fines) isn't a "free" market either.

Neither is a system wherein pharmaceuticals and medical devices are protected by patents for extended periods, preventing other people from entering the market to produce those drugs and devices, and thereby artificially raising consumer costs.

So, spare me the "free market" talk, especially when it comes to health care. Even if you decree that "nobody can ever sue a doctor for making a mistake", you're not going to be willing to fix the fifty other ways in which the market isn't free.
 
896Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 10:50
So, letting the insurance companies of guilty hospitals and doctors from paying more money would save some pocket change

Tort reform should be explored, whether its pocket change or not. The reality is there is no 1 avenue we have to look at to get savings in healthcare costs. Its going to need to come from multiple things. A few of them may be large, most of them will be nickel & dime ideas that as a whole, add up.

But tort reform is just a sticky mire. Caps on awards won't fly. The moment 1 person can't get the settlement he truly deserves or needs, because of a cap is the moment we need to protect from happening. It should never happen. But that is a wholly separate discussion.
 
897Boldwin
      ID: 7412318
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 10:50
Yeah, and planned parenthood spends 99% of their resources on non-abortion related work. I am so tired of liberal liars and their twisted bookkeeping.

There isn't any other factor involved but liberal sabotage.

Inflation hasn't gone from 50 to 5,000 in 50 years.

Even the fact that doctors can bill a faceless insurance company instead of looking little Billy in the eye and asking for 5K doesn't explain it. Doctors and even insurance companies want a sane reasonable environment.

The only people who want it not to work are socialists who want an excuse and the power to insert their system.
 
898Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 10:56
Boldwin, really buddy, you aren't making this any easier. You have some good comments which (at least to me) ring true - "Doctors and even insurance companies want a sane reasonable environment."

But then follow it up with baseless comments that don't lend anything to converation and make any kind of resolution impossible (like blaming it all on socialists).
 
899Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 10:57
I am so tired of liberal liars

ironically, conservative liars are the people you look up to and hero worship.
 
900Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 11:01
I should come up with the jury award that drove up the cost of setting a bone?

That's either embarrassingly naive or a dodge of your own, complete with the humorous accusation that I'm the one dodging. Bone setting costs don't go up because of malpractice suits related to setting broken bones. Insurers spread these costs around.

The point is that as has been shown in our healthcare discussions, the overall amout in medical malpractice payouts by insurers has not significant increased in the past few decades. I will agree that malpractice premiums have skyrocketed, but that isn't because those insurers are being squeezed by award payments. What do you think you'll find if you take a look at the trend in that industry's profit margins in that time?

You lost this argument last year.
 
901Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 11:08
Summing up, then:

Boldwin: "There can't possibly be any other answer than the one I've proposed! All other thoughts in this very simple issue are liberal lies!!"
 
902Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 11:19
Khahan

I go to board meetings. I've been involved in petitions with them.

That's the sort of thing I was talking about and I'm glad to hear it. Why you wasted both our time on what you say to your kids' teachers instead is beyond me.
 
905bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 11:53
I see a dermatologist twice a year. Spend no more than 10-15 minutes with him, during which time he zaps this, freezes that, scrapes here and there, and sends some stuff off to a lab. He apparently calls some of what he does surgery.

A few weeks later I get the statement from my insurance company where they show what was billed and payed. Don't really understand it all, but I can see that the doctor has billed over $1000 every time.

I am convinced that he bills so much because the insurance company will pay their 80% or whatever. I usually don't end up getting billed anything, I assume because the doc is satisfied with what he gets from the insurance people.

Does he bill so much because of his expertise and the amount of work he has done? No, I don't think so.

Would he bill so much if his patients had to pay the same amount out of their own pockets? Of course not, or he wouldn't get any business.

The only thing I can see is that he bills so much because that is what he can get away with, what the insurance company allows.

I think it would be unrealistic to assume that ALL of his profit was going to malpractice insurance.
 
906sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 12:17
904 I self edited. Somehow jumped threads from the Bin Laden one.
 
907Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 12:25
this thread is so OT you don't need to apologize at this point, sarge.
 
908Boldwin
      ID: 27435516
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 21:33
Khahan

They aren't ever gonna settle for a compromise in the longrun. They've made that abundantly clear. So what do you think you are accomplishing by allowing them to take tort reform off the table? Remove problem #1 when you've got the majority in power and ratchet it back from the brink.
 
909Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 22:00
When your singular focus is on reducing malpractice awards, which make up something like 1% of total healthcare costs, you aren't really interested in dealing with the problem.
 
910Boldwin
      ID: 27435516
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 22:05
You are missing the effect by focusing on the cause.

Every single procedure, every incident which could lead to a liability is padded based on those awards you think are so rare. Easy for you to minimize it when it's not your professional career and personal fortune on the line.
 
911Boldwin
      ID: 27435516
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 22:28
Oh, those outrageous awards are insignificant...yeah, right.

First off 10% of the Doctor's gross income, [not just profit] goes to malpractise insurance if he's not in the highest risk areas.

Then Defensive Medicine costs need to be added. Several hundred billion is spent yearly on that and the costs don't stop there.

I'll give you an example. My father just had to be sent to Peoria for heart and kidney testing. 'The hospital can't let you drive him there yourself'. That's what they told me. So instead of packing him in my van for the 1 hour and 10 minute drive, we waited at the hospital for 3 hours while the backlogged ambulence service got around to us. There's a grand we'll never see.

The hospital experience is just littered with crap like that which you will let a socialist Obamacare eliminate but you'd rather we never fix if it meant leaving the system capitalist.
 
912sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 22:33
You most certainly could have driven him yourself. They simply WANTED to bill you the grand for the ambulance trip. Gotta pad that bottom line after all.
 
913Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 22:40
Malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed, I've already noted that. Malpractice payouts have not. You're putting the blame in the wrong place. Take a look at compensation and profits in the malpractice insurance industry and then talk to me.
 
914Boldwin
      ID: 27435516
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 22:41
Indeed just the fact that insurance companies are in between the consumer and the provider has created a culture of corruption where all providers rob the insurance companies at every opportunity. Not a shining example of the free market at work. More an example of a third party managing to intervene to kill off the natural market signaling. Like the government wants to do.
 
915Boldwin
      ID: 27435516
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 22:42
MITH

No tort, no need for malpractice insurance.
 
916Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 22:45
You want to eliminate malpractice suits altogether?
 
917Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 22:47
And you really mean to say the healthcare provider robs the insurer?
 
918sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, May 05, 2011, 23:03
natural market signaling? The run up in gas prices in 2005, was due to speculators. Supply-demand had NOTHING to do with it. Same thing right now. Yet, you hod the to the "capitalist free market" (which gave birth to the very insurers referenced above) as the be-all-end-all. It was this same free market, unfettered by adequate regulation; which led to this damn near depression we're just starting to crawl out of.
 
919biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 00:05
No tort, no need for malpractice insurance.

No insurers, no need for malpractice insurance.

If we aren't going to do the most reasonable thing to lower costs - namely ban the existence of health insurance - I would lean towards excluding them to only catastrophic care. I hear this is being done in some companies (Madman outlined it a year or two ago, and I've been ruminating on it for a while).

Insurance at it's heart is, or should be, purchased in the event of an unforeseen event that has the potential to ruin you.

This situation is not going to the doc and getting a strep culture or putting 6 stitches in you.

Everybody gets a tax exempt account that they can fund up to some amount a year. If your income is below a certain level, you get a voucher for the government. You use this account to pay for all health-related expenses. You can keep adding to it as you age, with a minimum X% of your salary automatically deducted as a payroll tax.

You also pay for catastrophic insurance that only kicks in if you suffer something so major that you wipe out your account.

So we have to contribute at least 4K to max of say 20K a year, and that builds as we grow older, with the government funding it for you if you aren't earning, say 3X poverty. Maybe put in a sliding scale. for those between poverty level and 5X poverty.

You pay for all minor injuries and doc appointments out of it. While you are young, you barely make a dent, so it builds to a substantial sum by the time you get old and start really needing it.

If you run into a 300K event, your catastrophic insurance kicks in.

This allows you to have your free market where it may make sense - say shopping docs average fees for basic care and preventative care, but has insurance for when you need it. Estate destroying illnesses that nearly everyone would want the best care for, price be damned.

Anyway, I think what Obama did was a great integral step, given the political realities, but it works within the health insurer frame work. Our health insurers are the worst kind if incompetent, bloated bureaucracies, and we simply should cut out the middle man when ever possible. The overhead for that kind of stuff is running close to 25% of costs, where most of Europe is under around 7 or 8%, iirc.
 
920Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 00:12
And you really mean to say the healthcare provider robs the insurer?


Actually yes, that is fairly accurate in many cases. Its called insurance fraud.

Allstate sues in NY

Now, that is just 1 company in 1 state getting $161 mill over 8 years. Throw in whatever State Farm, AIG, Nationwide, Progressive, Geico, Farmers, Hartford or any of the regional insurance carriers have done across 50 states. And then realize this is just fraud concerning auto accident medical claims. So add in health insurance fraud claims. Yeah, pretty staggering to think about how doctors groups are affecting the costs of insurance.

I've talked about the health insurance companies controlling treatments, but there are also the doctors and physicians groups gaming the system.


And Boldwin 908. As I've said, Tort reform is just a giant catch-22. It should be discussed. There should be some limits. But it needs to be done in a way that protects the victims. If you (or anybody) can tell me a way to limit awards without depriving deserving victims of full compensation I'll listen. But again, I'd rather a whole new thread start for that which is why I'm not giving specific ideas here.
 
921Razor
      ID: 160302211
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 00:24
No insurers, no need for malpractice insurance.

Two different types of insurance. Malpractice (and thus, the need for malpractice insurance) will exist whether private health care insurance providers exist or not.
 
922Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 01:09
Right. But Boldwin's point is that doctors and other health professionals cover the additional cost of malpractice insurance by both raising their own fees, and by ordering extra (and unnecessary) CYA tests and procedures.
 
923Boldwin
      ID: 27435516
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 03:34
It was this same free market, unfettered by adequate regulation; which led to this damn near depression we're just starting to crawl out of. - Sarge

This mostly false charge deserves it's own thread.

I'll just say in this one, that it wasn't the free market which made all the players offering derivatives as insurance. It was the government which was seen as blackmailed into backing them because they were too big to fail that made those products salable. The companies themselves did not have the assets to make those assurances. But the charge is true in that all new Enron style markets start out under-regulated because they are poorly understood and the government arrives late to the table with regulations.

If they had had basic clearinghouses like established markets, this might not have happened.

I don't think they are regulated enuff even now, because derivatives are still selling and I just don't see how they insure anything realistically because the companies will fail when what they are insuring against happens. The 'to-big-to-fail so don't worry the government is co-insuring' still applies. Because they all weren't allowed to fail. So is it really free market in the docket?
--------
Yes the repeal of Glass Steagall played a role, so you've got that but that hardly explained the debacle. Can you really claim that? Some people even say that repeal was a factor in restoring stability after the fact of the recession/depression.
--------
Was it really the free market that forced banks to issue mortgages to unemployed people and illegal aliens and then subsidize that madness by having quasi-governmental agencies FM/FM buy that paper?
--------
When that unrealistic capital availability blew up the housing bubble, was that free market?
--------
When the Fed keeps interests nearly zero and blows up the housing bubble, was that free market that did that?
--------
Did high oil prices play a role? You bet. Did speculators play a role in that? Yes, speculators like the group deliberately riding the world economy down which Soros led. That sort of manipulation should be dealt with by the SEC.

That same insider short-selling is currently destroying non-public colleges and that collapse won't be free market either. A case in point.
 
924Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 09:37
This mostly false charge deserves it's own thread.

As opposed to the Birther thread? Huh.

Otherwise, your arguments don't add up to crap, really. The housing markets collapsed largely because the financial markets got involved and started hiding risks from itself, bundling housing loans and dabbling, more and more, in derivatives as a way to hide billions of dollars in risk. It is all simple: In a bubble, greed drives people to take shortcuts at every step, along with the natural greed that drives money into (and out of) markets.

Did the government intervene in the market? Sure it did. Take a look at President Bush's suggestions at the “A Home Of Your Own" conference.
 
925Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 10:50
Did high oil prices play a role? You bet. Did speculators play a role in that? Yes, speculators like the group deliberately riding the world economy down which Soros led. That sort of manipulation should be dealt with by the SEC.

What are you talking about? According to this

conservative business blog Soros group is guilty of blaming speculators for high oil prices. This appears to be just another feeble attempt to link Soros(deliberately riding the world economy down) to any kind of economic calamity that arises simply because it's OK for conservatives to say anything about Soros, truth be damned.

 
926boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 11:29
The housing markets collapsed largely because the financial markets got involved and started hiding risks from itself, bundling housing loans and dabbling, more and more, in derivatives as a way to hide billions of dollars in risk.

what are you talking about the housing market collapsed because houses were over priced not because financial markets got involved. You have it backwards the financial markets collapsed because the housing market collapsed.

Boldwin is correct is asserting that the housing market was fueled by cheap money, if you think for an instant property values would have sky rocketed if interest rates were in the double digits you are insane.
 
927Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 11:48
So long as nearly all home loans are financed, then the financial markets are already involved in the housing market. It is really just a matter of determining how much of the shenanigans we know already went on in the financial markets affected the housing market in which they were already hip deep.

I think you need to parse out exactly what Boldwin says. I see you've neglected, among other things, that forced banks to issue mortgages to unemployed people and illegal aliens and then subsidize that madness by having quasi-governmental agencies FM/FM buy that paper?

Boldwin would have you believe that the banks were overextended because "liberals" forced them to loan money they otherwise wouldn't. His point is nothing new: Liberals are to blame for everything. Conservatives are either blameless or simply doing things in a more muted way than liberals.

 
928Boldwin
      ID: 27435516
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 13:16
PD

I've posted before that very youtube of regulators telling Barney Frank the subprime market was leading to disaster and him arguing that doing the sane thing would lead to less poor people getting home loans.

It was nothing less than and nothing short of liberals forcing banks to loan to unworthy borrowers. Very notable liberals on FM/FM drove exactly the way liberals wanted them to and liberals held celebrations for them for doing so. Bank chains were blackmailed and forced to follow CR Act rules which insured an explosion in subprime mortgages.

Just for once just admit the unavoidable truth.
 
929biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 13:27
Uh... Fannie and Freddie were a tiny part of subprime and alt-a market until the very end when they used them to attempt to slow the descent.

This was, beyond any doubt, a free market and regulatory failure.
 
930Boldwin
      ID: 27435516
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 13:30
And the financial markets got involved because FM/FM were offering implicitly government guaranteed dirt cheap T1 security and the brokerage houses were willing to make a mint selling junk made rock solid by Government.

You can't take the heavy government involvement out of it.

 
931Boldwin
      ID: 27435516
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 13:32
bili

That is untrue and unsubstanciated. What were those subprime loans that weren't run thru FM/FM?
 
932biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 13:40
Somewhere around 95% of them. I'll try and dig up the data, but you will find over at calculated risk.
 
933biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 13:54
Do you even know why they call it alt-a?

I thought you were our bubble surfer? You sound like were reading the wrong websites. I hope you didn't hit a reef.
 
934sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Fri, May 06, 2011, 16:02
B, even a good many conservative economists (WSJ amongst them), have laid the preponderence of the blame on Graham-Leach-Bliley and that acts supplanting of the Glass-Steagall Act. Had G=S stayed in affect, common theory holds that the money wouldnt have gotten so cheap, housing wouldnt have skyrocketed, and the entire collapse would not have happened. The whole thing, started with and grew from, the seed that was GLB.
 
935Boldwin
      ID: 3043675
      Sat, May 07, 2011, 06:36
Do you even know why they call it alt-a?
- bili
the approval for an Alt-A loan is based primarily on an individual’s credit score. People who are great candidates for Alt-A loans include the recently divorced, entrepreneurs, the self-employed, and those who are paid on commission.
Yeah, I guess the collapse happened because of all those loans to people with good credit scores.
 
936Razor
      ID: 160302211
      Sat, May 07, 2011, 10:46
Yeah, I guess the collapse happened because of all those loans to people with good credit scores.

Ya, actually. Or did you think that only the poor got loans they couldn't afford?
 
937Boldwin
      ID: 48457713
      Sat, May 07, 2011, 14:58
Alt-A's were not the crisis at all.

Thus it was called the subprime crisis not the Alt-A crisis.

Now granted once the subprime crisis burst the RE bubble then the Alt-A's went underwater and you got crisis part 2...

... but claiming it's Alt-A's that caused the crisis is just a liberal squirming away from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's guilty pleasure which was bankrupting the planet on the premise that it was good for poor people.
 
938sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sat, May 07, 2011, 16:01
or is that just you squirming to blame Dems for everything? Both sides were complicit. the Reps for writing GLB and Pres Clinton for signing it into law. GLB, opened the door and allowed the first step on that long, downward spiral.
 
939Boldwin
      ID: 48457713
      Sat, May 07, 2011, 17:06
And yet it's not called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley crisis either.
 
940DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, May 07, 2011, 17:23
Well, people have a way of applying catchy yet non-factual names and labels to things. I wouldn't read too much into that.
 
941Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, May 07, 2011, 22:47
You know, Boldwin, that Fannie and Freddie stopped buying Alt-A's years before the bubble burst, yes?

You've got a Michael Moore-like timeline problem with your hypothesis...
 
942Boldwin
      ID: 3243782
      Sun, May 08, 2011, 06:07
Yeah right. Ever so cautious FM and Barney looking out for us by raising lending standards. OMG are you funny, Fred!
Fannie and Freddie took steps in 2006 and 2007 that came back to bite them. The companies lowered their standards for loans they would buy, and they backed riskier mortgages, including loans that didn't require borrowers to provide proof of their stated income. Such loans accounted for half the companies' credit losses in the second quarter this year [2008 - B]. - LA Times

FM lowers standards in Feb 09:
Bloomberg says that Fannie Mae will loosen standards for refinancing in the hopes that more homeowners will be able to take advantage of historically low interest rates.

Fannie will lower its credit score requirements, reduce the amount of income verification needed, and waive the need for appraisals. These changes apply to loans which the company owns or guarantees.
Here is a 'suitably chastened' Barney Frank ordering FM to make even riskier loans in Jun 25, 2009! After the debacle he created by ordering FM to accept crazy loans he's still at it even after the depression!
 
943Boldwin
      ID: 3243782
      Sun, May 08, 2011, 06:09
Source for the first quote, from LA Times.
 
944Boldwin
      ID: 3243782
      Sun, May 08, 2011, 06:34
And before standards were lowered in 2006 and 2007...

...they started lowering them in 2005:
Fannie Mae�s 2008 Credit Supplement documents the weakened underwriting standards for loans purchased in 2005 and 2006 compared to earlier vintages. For example, Alt-A loans represented just 7.1% of mortgages from 2004 and earlier, but increased to 18.9% in 2005 to 2006. The prevalence of interest-only and negative amortization loans increased from 2.3% to 14.6%. Adjustable-rate loans increased from 8.5% to 14.9%.
But it didn't stop there at Alt-A which are better than subprime remember:
The volume [of private-label mortgage-backed securities, ie packed with subprime junk - B] continued to grow in the 2000s, peaking at $221.3 billion in 2005.
The private backed securities were packages of mixed subprime and standard loans which managed to get a AAA rating for arcane reasons...go study 'tranches' if you have that much time and interest.

So Fred, don't tell me FM stopped taking Alt-A. They took Alt-A and started packing on subprime which was worse.
 
945Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Mon, May 09, 2011, 15:00
damnit Obama, didn't you learn anything?

Obama retracing his Irish roots

 
946sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 09, 2011, 15:40
lmao now we get to hear about him founding the IRA and being an Irish-Muslim-terrorist.

That red hair and those freckles, should have been a dead give-away to his true ancestry.
 
947Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 22:36
Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery.

This is the 2nd birth certificate. Too early for this thread to die.
 
948Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 22:40
Actually, it is far too late for it to die.

 
949Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 00:52
The lengths some people are willing to go to humiliate themselves.
 
950Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 08:19
I don't think Perm Dude's post is humiliating. Unless you were referring to Obama.
 
951sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 12:26
proof, of 949
 
952boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 13:39
This is the best news all day, I am so excited to see the birther thread is back up and running.
 
953Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 19:08
If there is any question, my reference was to the author of the linked page in 947.
 
954Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 22:38


I don't know where Obama was born, but that new birth certificate has problems. It reminds me of the Bush airforce records.
 
955sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 22:47
birthers have the same mindset as too many in Salem those many years back. All the evidence to the contrary, they hold to their irrational fears, and seek to persecute the innocent anyway.
 
956Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 23:56
If B7 insists on including himself in the aforementioned reference, so be it.
 
957Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 00:18
954 - Here's another straw. I'll hold it just out of reach and you guys can keep grasping at it.
 
958Boldwin
      ID: 374391816
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 06:25
Great stuff, B7!

I think this is consistent with attempts to avoid admitting it's a recreated document.

I still think he needed it recreated to avoid revealing the version which would have been amended for his Indonesian family.

He's just got too many citizenship issues to be natural born and thus he'll be dodging full disclosure till the day he dies.

He'll get away with it too. He's got way more shameless will to dodge, than the MSM or 51% of the electorate has interest in the 'natural born' requirement.
 
959Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 08:52
Lets go thru this one more time.
Show proof that he was not born in the US.
Discrediting evidence that he was born here is not proof that he was born elsewhere.

Why don't birthers go produce his Kenyan Birth certificate?
 
960Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 09:10
they did--twice! Two different ones, mind you.
 
961Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 09:17
Sorry PD, I should have clarified. Please produce the 'actual' Kenyan birth certificate.
 
962Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 11:42
Please produce the 'actual' Kenyan birth certificate.

those ones are not fake, because the birthers said so.

the ones that say he was born in Hawaii are fake, because the birthers said so.

obama's joke about his actual live birth video weren't too far off. there is nothing that could satisfy the crazy and the desperate (aka, birthers)
 
963Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 12:08
those ones are not fake, because the birthers said so.


Well, I guess its settled then.
 
964sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 12:15
The only two people from Rotoguru, whom I know for a fact to exist; are PD and Goatlocker. So until I see irrefutable long-form Birth Certificates for the rest of you, I am going to maintain that both PD and Cliff are schizo, and the rest of you are manifestations of that mental condition.

I offer no more proof than the birthers. I said it, and it therefore must be held to be factually true, unless and until proven otherwise.
 
965DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 12:18
How do we know you're not just a manifestation of your own imagination?
 
966sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 12:21
Because I just photoshopped err, saw....my BC.
 
967Boldwin
      ID: 374391816
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 12:41
Lets go thru this one more time. - Khahan

1) It's not the original and if there was a surviving original we haven't seen it and Obama's good friend Abercrombie can't find it.

2) It doesn't matter anyway because the qualifications for president are more strenuous and Obama hasn't addressed those questions.
 
968Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 12:51
It doesn't matter anyway because the qualifications for president are more strenuous and Obama hasn't addressed those questions.

This is simply an opinion which has no legitimate basis. Already covered and legitimately dismissed.
 
969DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 13:08
PV, I think what you meant to say was:

link

or, possibly,

link

Nothing more really needs to be said.
 
970Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 13:13
Lets go thru this one more time.
Show proof that he was not born in the US.


The burden of proof is on the presidential candidate....or at least it should be......to prove he was born in the USA. Failure to find a foreign birth certificate, does not mean that Obama was born in the USA. In fact, it doesn't mean diddly as far as the requirements of becoming President.
 
971sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 13:33
Except B7, the "candidate", HAS proven it. Just a few nutjobs (if the shoe fits) that insist otherwise.
 
972Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 13:37
The presidential candidate shed that burden when he provided the required documentation. He then went above and beyond that requirement. The burden is on those who challenge the considerable proof provided. The most annoying thing about you CONSPIRACY THEORISTS is that you think you are owed an explanation. Really, you should be better accustomed to disappointment by now.
 
973Boldwin
      ID: 374391816
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 13:45
We expect he would be held to the same standard as McCain, namely having to prove he is a natural born citizen.
 
974DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 13:52
Which he did, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and hold your breath and go "lalalala, I can't hear you" and say otherwise.

/thread.
 
975Razor
      ID: 172252412
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 14:17
I see the strategy by birthers here is to wait 2 weeks and pretend like nothing happened. Unfortunately, the idiocy from the birthers is not shared by those outside the movement.
 
976Boldwin
      ID: 374391816
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 17:17
I see the strategy of Obama. Hold out on the BC until everyone thinks that's the only issue, then hope no one remembers the other more difficult ones.

And for the record, this is probably the first time you ever took the line...
We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We have better stuff to do. I have got better stuff to do. We have got big problems to solve."
...for anything other than what it transparently is:"Sure I'm guilty but I'm dancing real fast so please stop digging."

"“Just give me a chance to be able to let the truth come out, so sooner, rather than later, I can show you I’ve done nothing wrong, so sooner, rather than later, I can clear my name, and we can put this behind us and get on with working to do things for people.” Get on with the business of the people." - Blagoyovich

"Look over here, look at the birdy, really I'm sooo very very busy doing the business of the people which is the real story, what with how I'm doing the will of the people and all." - every last politician with something to hide.
 
977Razor
      ID: 172252412
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 17:21
US law is clear on this. It's over. Move on and stop believing that everyone is crazy but you.

 
978DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 17:34
facepalm.gif.

It's not even worth the time to look one up and link it.
 
979Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 17:39
It took Obama about 10 seconds to tell some minion to go get his 2nd birth certificate. That's not a lot of wasted time. He spent more time filling out his women's bracket and discussing it. Who fills out a women's bracket anyways?
 
980weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 17:43
From #960:
they did--twice! Two different ones, mind you.
After having read your mincemeat story I think its pretty clear what happened.
The forged Kenya BS's were planted by Obama supporters.
 
981weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 17:44
Who fills out a women's bracket anyways?
Everyone born in Kenya fills out a women's bracket?
 
982Boldwin
      ID: 374391816
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 18:04
Can't you see I'm innocent? I'm reading stories to kindergartners for crying out loud. I even really care about women's basketball so you know I'm correct and upright.
 
983DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 18:29
link
 
984sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 20:45
INNOCENT? You sanctimonious PoS. To be "innocent", there must first be a credible charge/allegation. That the ONLY charge/allegation, comes from, a bunch of extremist whackos for whom there is NO SUCH THING as proof to the contrary of the decision they long ago made, is hardly credible.
 
985Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 21:17
at this point, it's really, really, really hard to think birthers are anything other than idiots, or bigots. for these people, there simply is NOTHING Obama could do to satisfy them.

now, i'm not calling anyone here an idiot or bigot, but ya know, it is what it is.
 
986Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 21:54
Actually I think they're mostly just abjectly shameless partisans. Rabid conspiracy theorists like B7 excluded.
 
988DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, May 19, 2011, 23:11
link
 
989Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Fri, May 20, 2011, 01:28
fair enough on 986. the fact that anyone could think Obama still isn't eligible to be president, despite all the proof, is beyond me.

i can't help but believe that race plays a role, but the shameless partisan argument is a fair one.
 
990Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, May 20, 2011, 08:24
Wow, I feel special. I'm neither a birther nor a liberal. Might be one of only 2 or 3 people on the board thats not an idiot or bigot. Not that I'm calling anybody here an idiot or a bigot.
 
991Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Fri, May 20, 2011, 10:50
Depends on who is judging you Khahan, I'm pretty sure that both of us would qualify as liberals under some peoples' definition. And even if you we not a liberal, you would at best be a RINO.
 
992Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Fri, May 20, 2011, 12:07
Frick's right. by being traditional conservatives and/or Republicans, you're not nearly conservative enough to be considered a true Republican by some no names mentioned.
 
993Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Fri, May 20, 2011, 13:13
What is the definition of a birther? Is it:

A. A concerned citizen who thinks there may have been a violation of the Constitution. Or

B. Someone who hates black people, especially Obama, and is only using this birth certificate stuff as a ploy to get rid of Obama.
 
994Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, May 20, 2011, 13:53
C: Someone so concerned about partisan goals that they will dismiss all evidence against their own goals, while jumping from flimsy evidence to flimsy evidence in the hopes of ending up, against all the facts, of being right.
 
995Razor
      ID: 172252412
      Fri, May 20, 2011, 14:03
What flimsy evidence? There has never been any evidence that could even qualify as flimsy.
 
996Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Fri, May 20, 2011, 14:28
Laughing out loud at option A in post 993.
 
997Boldwin
      ID: 64132020
      Fri, May 20, 2011, 21:47
Can't you just hear SZ on Firing Line?
 
999Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 16:48
Which one of these is not evidence of Obama's 2nd birth certificate being a fraud?

A. A sworn affidavit from a document imaging expert detailing that it's a fraud. (#947)

B. A video that shows at least eight problems with it being doctored. (#954)

C. Calling a birther an idiot or a racist.(Numerous liberal posts)
 
1000DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 17:07
D. All of the above.
 
1001Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 17:10
None of them outweigh the evidence already before us: Two people who were there, two different birth announcements, HI state officials' consistent testimony, etc etc.

C carries no weight at all, true or not, even though some conspiracy theorists seek out and collect such signs of martyrdom to justify it all.
 
1002Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 18:10
C carries no weight at all, true or not

true or not, are you kidding? 962,971,975,984,985,986,989. Sometimes its nutjob or an equal disparaging comment devoid of evidence. I didn't check the first 940 posts.

even though some conspiracy theorists seek out and collect such signs of martyrdom to justify it all.

You worked so hard to work in the phrase conspiracy theorist that I can't understand it.
 
1003Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 18:21
Kerning is the overlapping of letters not possible on a 1960's computer. It appears in Obama's new "birth certificate", but not of some people born near the same time. Here is a 3 minute video. I'm not sure what a plausible explanation would be for this.



 
1004sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 19:31
and could kerning have occurred with a 1950s typewriter, which is how these documents would have been produced. Scanned by a modern system, but produced with an old fashioned typewriter I'd wager.
 
1005Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 19:45
I meant not possible on a 1960's typewriter. Also, not possible on a 1950's typewriter.
 
1006DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 22:20
I meant not possible on a 1960's typewriter. Also, not possible on a 1950's typewriter. oh, really?

Yeah, this took me like 30 seconds to find on Google. If you don't want to bother to click the link, here's a brief excerpt:

"This publicity photo, from the Berthold foundry’s Specimen No. 525B (late 1950s?) shows the foundry type for Arabic Shaded No. 50. In addition to demonstrating the maker’s facility with both non-Latin scripts and elaborate ornamentation (this is an outline face with a drop shadow, produced at 30pt), this diagram shows an interesting technique for kerning Arabic’s many delicate features."

So, um, yes it was possible in the 1950s. And probably in the 1960s too.

Strike eleventy billion and twelve?
 
1007DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 22:23
Now, the cynic in me says "if I, armed only with a laptop computer, Google, and one minute of time, can manage to prove that yes, kerning was possible in the 1950s in fonts far more intricate than on Obama's birth certificate, why can't a bunch of birthers with obvious ownership of computers do the same?"

And then I realized, once again, you can't convince people by reason to change a position they never tried to arrive at by reason in the first place.
 
1008Boldwin
      ID: 28428213
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 22:28
#1006/#1007

That in your link is typeset for printing. It is not an example of a 50's typewriter.
 
1009DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 22:32
Please provide an exhaustive list of typewriters used to create birth certificates in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth, or bugger off.
 
1010Boldwin
      ID: 28428213
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 22:47
You find one 1950's typewriter that kerns or begone.

This thing is a recreation. It's as simple as that. Open and shut case for that point.

Which doesn't mean the information on it is incorrect. It just raises the question, 'Why was a recreation necessary'?
 
1011DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, May 21, 2011, 22:57
I'm sure you have all sorts of theories for that.
 
1012Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 08:19
One theory is that Trump was closing in and Corsi's book was coming out; so they foisted this new document on us. It appears to be an amateur job. So, the question is, why did they release this document with so many problems.
 
1013DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 08:29
1013 GOTO 1011
 
1014Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 09:32
Here is the governmant website for passport applications. Item 3, Submit Evidence of U.S. Citizenship:

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

............................

So, Obama couldn't use his "birth certificate" to get a passport. But, it was sufficient to use as proof to be eligible for President. Oh Okay.
How could these court cases not request a certified birth certificate that has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office. I don't know, I didn't follow them.

 
1016Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 10:12
Here.

Cue the sad trumpet noise for B7.
 
1017Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 10:16
Snopes on the Certification of Live Birth (which is the form that Obama would have used to obtain a passport):
A number of self-proclaimed experts immediately seized the opportunity to pronounce the certificate a forgery (even though none of them had actually seen the
original, just a scanned image of it), picking on such specious details as minor variations from other Hawaii-issued certificates and the lack of an embossed seal and signature. (Some forgery claimants even maintained that the certificate was actually an altered version of one issued to Barack Obama's half-sister, Maya.) Aside from the inherent absurdity of such claims (i.e., that a major party presidential nominee would risk his entire candidacy on a fraud that could be uncovered simply by a check of state health records), the supposedly incriminating details don't pan out: the certificate is consistent with others issued in the same time and place, and the embossed seal and signature don't show through very well on the scanned front image made available on the Internet because they were applied to the back of the original document, not the front. Those who have actually touched and examined the original certificate have verified and documented that it bears all the elements of a valid certificate of live birth.

 
1018Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 10:30
From a 2008 FactCheck.org article
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
 
1019Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 10:43
PPSimmons kerning "proof" (boy I wish you conspiracy theorists would look up the definitionof that word) debunked.

B7 you're not evenany good at this. That was 7th link on a google search for obama kerning. Like Boldwin, you just pass on every last half-assed theory you come across without the slightest bit of research. Why should anyone here believe you are the slightest bit intereted in the truth?
 
1020Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 11:01
From MITH's link:

You'd almost think they were typed with the same typewriter?

Heh.
 
1021Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 11:08
Photo Savannah Guthrie took of the long form document which she personally handled:



Blowup of the same image, linked in the comments section of this blog page (comment by reader "BC") faintly showing the reaised seal:

 
1022sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 13:40
from 1014:

So, Obama couldn't use his "birth certificate" to get a passport. But, it was sufficient to use as proof to be eligible for President. Oh Okay.

The short form Certficate of Life Birth, is the official state form and IS used to obtain a passport etc. So to take your statement above and meke it relevant:

So, Obama couldn't use his "birth certificate" to get a passport convince a birther, but, it was is sufficient to use as proof to be eligible for President and for any and all legal/court proceedings. Oh Okay.
 
1023Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 17:26
Was there anything else, B7? Do you really have to be convinced that a typed, scanned and printed capital H just might come out looking like an X?
 
1024Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 17:43
The short form Certficate of Life Birth, is the official state form and IS used to obtain a passport

Government website: Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

Sarge, why don't you take the short form and see if you can get a passport with it. Report your results here.

I'm going to side with my source for now over mith's totally anonymous blogger, since they have conflicting information on kerning.

So, Obama releases a 2nd BC because people don't think the first one is real. And he fails to show the section of the document that certifies it with the official seal. A 5th grader would ask, where is the seal that makes it official. Why would they want to do something like that?

Who is officially tasked with verifying a presidential candidate's qualifications (birth certificate)? I don't think it's factcheck.org, snopes, or dailykos. Probaly some gov't outfit. Whoever it is, I would hope that they verified an official raised seal on it. What are these people saying? Why did they allow the short form?

Again, my questions are mostly about the 2nd birth certificate. I didn't follow the first that closely.
 
1025Boldwin
      ID: 35462217
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 18:10
Who is officially tasked with verifying a presidential candidate's qualifications

It's become clear that the answer is no one.

Unless a state or two steps up and passes that duty into law and gets it signed by the governor. With a third of the states attempting I have yet to hear of one passed into law.
 
1027Boldwin
      ID: 35462217
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 18:27
The closest thing we've got is the 'honor system'. Or is it the 'only investigate republican's credentials' system?
 
1028Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, May 22, 2011, 18:42
You guys have heard of the Federal Elections Commission", yes? The body that presidential candidates must file with in order to become eligible to run for president? Proof of citizenship is part of the required paperwork. Obama filed his in 2007.
 
1029sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 00:34
1024,,,try checking Hawaii State B7. It is their form, their law, and the short form is the ONLY one that state currently certifies. As the line you yourself quote, though you choose to ignore the qualifier....SOME short forms.... Hawaii's is not included in that "some".
 
1030Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 10:05
Since I had the post removed (presumably for a phonetically spelled expletive) I'll restate that, contrary to B7's false claim in #1024, there is no "conflicting information" on kerning. B7's source asserts that there is overlapping type in Obama's certificate that does not exist in other Hawaii certificates issued around the same time, claiming that the overlap in the Obama document is kerning. My source examines the same documents and displays that the same overlapping - in fact, even in some of the same letter combinations - exists in the other documents. He says this is not due to kerning but simply misplaced letters. Whether the overlaps occur from kerning or not is irrelevant. The fact is that the overlaps occur in documents besides President Obama's. So either way, the claims of inconsistencies by B7's are confirmed untrue.
 
1031sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 10:27
With a third of the states attempting I have yet to hear of one passed into law.

There is a reason for this. It is unnecessary, except in the minds of a few die hards who refuse to accept the truth.
 
1032Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 13:28
1029...it doesn't say under what circumstances a short form is OK.

1030...You forgot to call me a conspiracy theorist. Or your new one......rabid conspiracy theorist.
 
1033sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 14:30
It doesnt HAVE to say, The individual states mandate what does/doesnt constitute their legal documentation, and Hawaii legislated the short form certificate of Live birth as theirs.

 
1034sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 14:34
fact check says "Donald, you're fired"


He insists that the official "Certification of Live Birth" that Obama produced in 2008 is "not a birth certificate." That’s wrong. The U.S. Department of State uses "birth certificate" as a generic term to include the official Hawaii document, which satisfies legal requirements for proving citizenship and obtaining a passport.

I'll leave it to you B7, to do a modicum of research into the facts, vs conspiracy theories.
 
1035DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 14:56
"1029...it doesn't say under what circumstances a short form is OK."

It doesn't say under exactly what circumstances they aren't OK either, so it seems we are at an impasse.
 
1036Boldwin
      ID: 534432314
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 15:45
MITH#1028

Obviously they didn't do their due diligence or it would have been resolved with the same rigor as were McCain's qualifications handled; something which wasn't remotely achieved in Obama's case.
 
1037Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 15:49
Ha! So the fact that the FEC (and the State Department for that matter) have no problem with Obama's citizenship is because they didn't do "due diligence" and this is shown by, well, what, exactly?

 
1038DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 18:29
(in before subject change, probably to "irrefutable" crap from random 18th century French philospoher, we haven't done that in a while)
 
1039Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 18:59
B7 it doesn't say under what circumstances a short form is OK

Agreed, which is why the stated claim that Barack Obama couldn't get a passport with his certification of live birth is baseless. In all likelihood, short form birth certificates which lack the stated requirements are the ones which are inadmissible. Since the Hawaii-issued certification of live birth includes all of the stated requirements and since that is the document they issue for birth certificate requests (and since it's probably the document Obama used to get his passport) it stands to reason that it qualifies.
 
1040Boldwin
      ID: 534432314
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 20:50
PD

What is your proof that the FEC and the State Dept. were more interested than federal judges in settling the question?
 
1041B7 USA citizen
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 22:48
Why don't they examine the mother's passport? If she was in Kenya, her passport would reflect that. It would also show when she re-entered the USA. Or INS records.

Also, there should be hospital records of his mother being admitted to the hospital and released from the hospital.

Does anybody know about those?

I'm just asking questions. I lived during a period of this nation's history where that was allowed.
 
1042Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, May 23, 2011, 23:54
Heh. Yes, indeed, you do. The best part of the First Amendment, in fact, is that questions which reveal the nature of those asking are allowed to be aired, in public. You gotta love it.

#1040: The proof is in the existence of Obama's passport (State Department) and his eligibility for the office (FEC).
 
1043Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 00:02
Why would "they" want to do any of those things? The guy provided the necessary paperwork. A bunch of idiots proposed the notion that he might not be eligible and a whole bunch more idiots bought into it. Weve had multiple fake Kenyan birth certificates, multiple lawsuits thrown out, idiots turned into celebrities for pushing far-fetched conspiracy theories, more idiots who twisted the writings of a 17th century philosopher, yet more idiots in state and federal legislatures trying to enact laws an even a gigantic idiot whobased a gimmick presidential campaign, all over the notion that a birth certificate filed with the FEC in 2007 is a fake - which after all this time still no one anywhere has demonstrably shown.

So the freaking president of the United States superfluously releases the stupid long form they've all been demanding and the idiots have now advanced yet another round of fake evidence to claim that one is bogus, each item just as easily shown to be nothing more than the same type of cheap distractions and wastes of time, again advanced by idiots.

And now you want to examine his dead mother's passport.

But you get offended if someone calls you a conspiracy theorist.
 
1044DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 01:57
I'm pretty sure we live in a period during this nation's history when crazy conspiracy theorists can be called crazy conspiracy theorists.
 
1045sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 03:53
I think, 1043 says it all and does so about as well it could be said.
 
1046Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 07:03
Why don't they examine the mother's passport? If she was in Kenya, her passport would reflect that. It would also show when she re-entered the USA. Or INS records.

Also, there should be hospital records of his mother being admitted to the hospital and released from the hospital.

Does anybody know about those?

I'm just asking questions. I lived during a period of this nation's history where that was allowed


Here's the reason most people aren't buying the birther movement. While those that accept that Obama was born in Hawaii are basing their belief on what is, the birther movement is based on what isnt. This piece of evidence doesn't exist. That event didnt' happen.

Its why birthers seem like a pack of raving, agenda driven lunatics. Every time something comes out to prove what is, they come out with another piece of 'what isnt' as if its some kind of proof positive. Even if there is no basis for using that 'what isnt' evidence.
 
1047Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 07:54
I rest my case about asking a simple question. Still waiting for an answer.

Readers can see who is trying to find out what is going on, and who is trying to squelch the discussion.

Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is a common ploy used to squelch the discussion. It is often used when they have no argument for themselves.

Chew on this awhile:

33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True
 
1048Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 07:59
But you get offended if someone calls you a conspiracy theorist

Does it sound like I was offended, or does it sound like I was mocking you and PD.

You forgot to call me a conspiracy theorist. Or your new one......rabid conspiracy theorist.

You worked so hard to work in the phrase conspiracy theorist that I can't understand it.
 
1049sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 08:17
Readers can see who is trying to find out what is going on, and who is trying to squelch the discussion.

There is nothing going on, except in the minds of a relatively few extremist wingnuts. In such a case, there will always be something going on, and they will never discover it because it isnt there.


Feel free to discuss amongst your like minded chicken littles B7. I'm sure yo will all regale each other with your baseless accusations, non provable theories, and rampant speculation.
 
1050Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 08:58
There are conspiracy theories and there's manufactured conspiracy theories.

Presidential assassinations, buildings imploding for no apparent scientific reason and aircraft slamming into buildings leaving hardly a trace of wreckage are examples of incidents which scream for independent investigation that could possibly reveal elements that the average citizen would rather not ponder.

Obama's birth certificate controversy is driven by those who have a basic hatred for the man. Obviously, a newborn baby has no control over his birth certificate. Musings that his mother conspired to have her son falsely reported to be born in Hawaii, when he was actually born elsewhere, have yielded nothing but wild and unproven speculation. Phony Kenya birth certificates, "proof" that his 80+ year old Kenyan grandmother admitted he was born there on a radio interview, translated from Swahili, and other manufactured theories abound on this issue.

Charlie Sheen went public with his skepticism that the official 9/11 theory didn't pass the smell test, and it was presented as proof that "truthers" are drug-addled, serial wife beaters.

Donald Trump went public with his skepticism that Obama's birth certificate didn't pass the smell test, and suddenly he was a leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

That's a sad commentary on our society.
 
1051bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 10:44
I would like to ask B7 and Baldwin whether there was anything that would lead either of you to believe that Obama was actually born in Hawaii?

If you were personally not actually there to witness the event, ANY other information re the issue could be attributed to the conspiracy, correct?
 
1052Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 10:47
In order for there to be a conspiracy, there must be conspirators.

Jerome Corsi, WND fictionalist is attempting to promote his book, due out any day. Corsi now speculates a new conspirator in the mix.

Trump conspired with Obama to Neutralize Birther Controversy
 
1053Mith
      ID: 123351710
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 10:48
B7 you've taken exception to the conspiracy theoorist tag numerous times in this forum. If you're now saying you have since embraced term, good for you.

I rest my case about asking a simple question. Still waiting for an answer.

Well here's my answer: You are free to research the questions you asked on your own. It is not encumbant on the members of this forum to rush to google everytime you come up with another angle.

Now, you know, I asked a pretty simple question too, which is also yet unanswered and which is not researchable on my own.

So like you, I'll ask again, why should it be necessary to examine his dead mother's passport? Or more to the point - and in my opinion this is a crucial type of question that conspiracy theorists should want to ask before investing time and effort (and possibly respect of others) into one of these theories: exactly what facts regarding Obama's citizenship have led you to call it into question?

Please indulge the appearance from my perspective. There's no reason to think you're a racist. I also don't think you're driven by any kind of partisanship. You're clearly the type of person who gets a kick out of this stuff. That's all I mean, of course, when I call you a conspiracy theorist. And when I call you a rabid conspiracy theorist, I mean you take this thing beyond the point of it being a hobby/curiosity, where it becomes personal and you become desperate enough to vindicate your case that you sometimes disregard strong evidence which should dismiss the theory and you advance poorly crafted false arguments without bothering to research them.

I think the reason for that is that you seem to be the type of person who reacts poorly to being made to look foolish (I know I certainly fit that bill). It looks like you got sucked in and suckered by a handful of false and dishonest claims about the certificate of live birth, along with the notion that someone as powerful as POTUS would advance a fake document and possibly get away with it. The claims you propogated were quickly and easily shown phoney and you had to take some chiding for advancing half-baked and falsified evidence (presented as "proof" no less) obviously without any effort at further research on your part. So it has since become a matter of pride, if not to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, then at least to make a reasonable case that you haven't been "chasing unicorns".

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe pride has nothing to do with it and you just can't get past what you regard as some overwhelming discrepency that cannot add up to BHO being a natural born citizen of the US. If so, please fill me in or point me to where you've previously made this case.
 
1054boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 11:35
Re 1047: There goes my chance to get anything productive today. Hinkley/Bush connection interesting.
 
1055Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 11:54
don't waste your time boikin (well, sounds like you already did, but others who haven't yet). While there are a few items in there that are a true, much of it is a stretch. One of the items is claiming the New World Order conspiracy with a shadow government of international bankers has been unequivocably proven true.

The existence of the mafia being revealed in the 1960's is on that list (capone was well before the 60's. I think the mafia was known before then despite what this article says), asbestos, the Kennedy assassination and the Black Sox Scandal are all evidence that conspiracy theorists are right.
 
1056Boldwin
      ID: 534432314
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 12:38
I would like to ask B7 and Baldwin whether there was anything that would lead either of you to believe that Obama was actually born in Hawaii? - biba

I currently believe he was born in Hawaii, received an amended BC renaming him when he was adopted by Soetaro.

I believe the recent BC released was reworked or back-engineered to the original [I do not believe an original exists anymore] as a favor to him.

Most importantly I still think he is disqualified under the 'natural born citizen' requirement at least three different ways.
 
1057DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 14:19
Re: 1047, if you gave a half a damn about the truth, instead of having made your mind up and squelching discussion, you'd occasionally ask questions about the birther side of the argument as well. But you clearly don't do that, or else you might have thought something like:

"hmm, I wonder if a zillion other birth certificates from exactly the same time have the same features as the ones that make the Obama birth certificate clearly a fraud",

then you would have spent two, maybe three minutes to try to answer that question and discovered that the entire premise was wrong, instead of just running to post it as "proof" that it's all a vast conspiracy.

It's not the asking of questions that's the problem, it's the fact that you only choose to ask them of one side, without applying any semblance of standards to your own side. And then, of course, you accuse others of doing exactly the same thing. There are words for that, but I'm not allowed to say them here.

Playing a game of whack-a-mole, wherein one of your faulty pieces of evidence temporarily pokes its head above ground, does not mean that you have proven anything, or raised any questions worthy of being dealt with.

So, it's a simple question: are you interested in getting the truth, or are you interested in maintaining the conspiracy theory?
 
1058boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 14:21
Re 1055, I was reading more for interest I was not expecting things to be true. Though some of them are true and those interest me because they never have any good historical sources on the investigation time lines for the conspiracy.
 
1059Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 19:14
Boldwin 1056
I currently believe he was born in Hawaii, received an amended BC renaming him when he was adopted by Soetaro.

What leads you to believe BHO's original certificate of live birth was amended? That he was enrolled in school in Indonesia under the name Sotero? Anything else?



I still think he is disqualified under the 'natural born citizen' requirement at least three different ways.

1. Presumably you believe his time in Indonesia somehow disqualifies him from natural born citizenship status. If so, how, exactly?

2. Presumably you are also still attatched to your contentions regarding Vattel (that NBC requires having both parents born in the US) despite my opinion that the contrary has been displayed from further examination of his writings, yes?

That would be two ways you think he is disqualified under the natural born citizen requirement. Assuming I've got those down correctly, what's your third?
 
1060Boldwin
      ID: 514402413
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 21:28
MITH

What leads you to believe BHO's original certificate of live birth was amended?

See the discussion around post #435.

The explanation that best fits with Abercrombie's trip to the archives with troopers and search warrant that reported having found some relevant notations but no BO BC, and also fits with Fukino's version of events that the paperwork was in order...

...is that they are in order but that they [the notation and the proper paperwork] are the amended Soetaro BC.

1. Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. Had he been a US citizen he would have needed a USA passport.

2. Show me how the definition you proffer for Natural Born Citizen' differs from merely being born in America or merely being a citizen. If it doesn't differ why did they raise it as a higher bar to meet for that one office?

3. Since you only accept completely biased sources I'll prove it from Obama's very own Chicago mafioso Annenberg family source 'Fight The Smears'.Link to archived screenshot

[I'd love to post the image but link only ppl, as this is a site that might traffic with Righthaven]

Obama's own site says he started life as a dual British/Kenyan citizen but that this expired.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Having once been a dual citizen you can only become the opposite of a 'Natural Born Citizen', namely a naturalized citizen.
 
1061Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 22:20
Revised and Expanded Affidavit

I, Douglas B. Vogt, am over 18 years old, do not suffer from any mental impairment, have personal
knowledge in the following and attest under penalty of perjury that I have knowledge and expertise in documents, imaging, scanners and document imaging programs. Based on my knowledge and expertise the following is true and correct
My Credentials
I have a unique background for analyzing this document. I owned a typesetting company (Nova
Typesetting) for 11 years so I know type and form design very well. I currently own Archive Index Systems since 1993, which sells all types of document scanners worldwide and also developed
document imaging software (TheRepository). I know how the scanners work and their capabilities. I have also sold other document imaging programs, such as Laser Fiche, Liberty and Alchemy. I have sold and installed document imaging systems in city and county governments, so I know their procedures with imaging systems and everything about the design of such programs. This will be
important in understanding what has happened with Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. I also have a good working knowledge of Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator.

What I Discovered about Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth and why it is a Forgery.
What the Obama administration released is a PDF image that they are trying to pass off as a
Certificate Live Birth Long Form printed on green security paper by the County Health Department, but this form is a created forgery. Ironically the country has a lot to thank Mr. Donald Trump and Mr. Jerome Corsi and his new book, because they made President Obama’s birth certificate a public issue which in turn forced the White House to produce this forgery to answer both of them. The Obama Certificate of Live Birth Long Form is a forgery for the following reasons.

1. Curved and non-curved type.
2. There is a white haloing around all the type on the form.
3. The Obama Certificate is loaded with both binary and grayscale letters
4. The Sequential Number is a fraud
5. Two different colors and font sizes in Form box 22 and 20 Date Accepted by Reg. General
6. The official seal is not part of the Certificate of Live Birth
7. The hand stamped certification from the current registrar is a forged stamped notice
8. Multiple layers in the PDF file from the White House.
..................
The link goes into more detail. This was originally posted 7 days ago in post 947.
Recapping the 113 posts since then:

7 days
0 rebuttals
57 insults
 
1062Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 22:21
1. Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. Had he been a US citizen he would have needed a USA passport.

Which he used. Prove he used a passport other than his own.

Regarding #3: What, exactly, is your point? Kenya conferred onto BHO Kenyan citizenship which expired. This does not affect his United States citizenship, which does not recognize dual citizenship anyway, let alone believe that US citizenship is "lost" in some way.

 
1063Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 22:39
Oh, and before we go off and start re-posting since-debunked birther theories, it was not illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan in 1981.
 
1064Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, May 24, 2011, 23:03
1. Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.

I've seen this claim many times, though not the version you posit (Had he been a US citizen he would have needed a USA passport).

The usual claim is that he could not have traveled there with an American passport because Pakistan was on the DOS no-travel list in 1981. That claim is false, as convincingly displayed by snopes' claim that Pakistan was not on that list in 1981, supported by examples of Americans traveling to Pakistan that year. But since you don't rely on that misinformation anyway, what evidence do you cite in claiming that he traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport?



2. Show me how the definition you proffer for Natural Born Citizen' differs from merely being born in America or merely being a citizen.

According to Vattel, it means a person born in the country of parents who were residents there. As noted in #536, Vattel explicitly said that one's country is where one's "parents had their fixed residence at the time of our birth." Citizens in his terminology were residents of the country and "natural-born-citizens" were of parents who were "citizens."

This is different from merely being "born in America" because it doesn't include people born of parents who are simply visiting (and not residing in) America. It's different from being a "citizen" (modern terminology) because that stand-alone term includes naturalized citizens.

If it doesn't differ why did they raise it as a higher bar to meet for that one office?

As shown, it obviously does in fact differ.



3. ... Having once been a dual citizen you can only become the opposite of a 'Natural Born Citizen', namely a naturalized citizen.

[Link to actual factcheck article here]

On this you are sorely mistaken. The UK government can grant full citizenship to all babies born in Peru, IL, if they care to. It wouldn't have any impact on America's rules for what qualifies here as a natural born citizen.
 
1065Boldwin
      ID: 514402413
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 02:27
This is different from merely being "born in America" because it doesn't include people born of parents who are simply visiting (and not residing in) America.

His father was only on a temporary student visa thus only visiting. In fact he had illegally overstayed his time in america when he left.
 
1066Boldwin
      ID: 514402413
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 02:28
of parents who were "citizens."

He doesn't meet that test either.
 
1067Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 03:05
Luckily he's not the law. The law is the law, unless you don't want it to be, it seems. Is the ruling linked in #467 is just inconvenience?
 
1068Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 03:21
1065 & 1066 make the same point. I don't know why it's still necessary for me to repeat this, but when Vattel says "citizen" he means what we typically recall a resident. And Obama's father did in fact reside in Hawaii. Nitpicking over what qualifies as a resident won't help you, either. Vattel was very clear on that definition, as well. Obama Sr. was a member of the civil society, simply by nature of having a residence here. He was bound to it's duties in that he was required to pay applicable taxes. He was subject to it's authority, unlike some foreign diplomats, dignitaries, heads of state, etc. And he was able to equally participate in it's advantages, such as attend it's schools, have full access to public facilities, like borrow library books and use local utilities.

Remember: you're the one who introduced Vattel's writings as the standard for the term.
 
1069Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 09:10
Mr. mith, what's with the Dr. Jeckyl (1043) and Mr. Hyde (1053) postings. Did you drink some potion? This forum would be a lot better place if you post more like 1053 and not 1043. Although, sarge33rd liked the eight idiot post in 1043.

Re: the mother's passport, do you know how a passport works? When you visit another country they put a stamp in it with the date. Hurt feelings aside, if the birth certificate is in doubt, why would you not want to examine the mothers passsport, if you were trying to find out what was going on. Maybe INS records would be helpful. Same for the hospital records. Why would you not want to check those out?
 
1070Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 10:11
Re: the mother's passport, do you know how a passport works? When you visit another country they put a stamp in it with the date.

nope. that's not true. they often do it, but they don't always do it. i've visited plenty of countries and was disappointed to get no stamp.
 
1071Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 10:12
The mother's movements are not in doubt--I don't see any reason to look for it, even if it exists anymore.
 
1072DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 10:44
7 days
0 rebuttals
57 insults


Having not had the opportunity to personally depose Douglas B. Vogt, you'll forgive us if we don't directly ask him if he's actually personally examined the actual document (hint: he hasn't, so he doesn't know jack squat) or if he has examined other specific documents from that same time to determine if they have the same features as the allegedly "forged" document (hint: he hasn't; he would have maybe glanced at MITH's link in post 1019, and while you're at it maybe you should too), because that's what you do to determine if a document is a forgery, unless you know you really just want it to be a forgery and don't give a damn about the truth.

You're good at asking questions, why don't you ask Douglas B. Vogt about the link in post 1019.
 
1073sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 13:11
I did enjoy 1043 and still do. Why? Because it clearly illustrates the frustration felt by rational/logical people when dealing with the utterly irrational.
 
1074boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 13:59
The mother's movements are not in doubt--I don't see any reason to look for it, even if it exists anymore.

well i guess if she never left the country then it is going to be pretty hard for her to give birth in Kenya...then again I say he was stolen at birth and he actually some one else's kid.
 
1075Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 14:12
Heh. Since we can't prove otherwise I think that's going to go to the top of the birther meme list, boikin.

Obama's mom died in 1995, which means she would have gone through four passports since Obama was born, assuming she kept current. And assuming she kept the old ones. Asking for her information is only another way to deflect into "can't be proven" territory which is where the birthers like to reside.

 
1076Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 14:42
The fact is, Obama was never actually born. He materialized out of thin air and after Oct 21 when the world ends, Obama, as the anti-christ will remake it in his own image and call it the New New World Order.
 
1077sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 16:17
well sh*t, now that the Masons secret plan has been revealed, what you gonna do next Khahan? Kill the Easter Bunny? :(
 
1078Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, May 25, 2011, 23:40
Actually, if one is to convince themself that a conspiracy exists concerning Obama's birth, the rumours of Stanley Anne Dunham's relationship with the CIA make a hell of a lot more sense than any kind of Manchurian candidate nonsense, and would go a long way toward explaining the ease in obtaining passports not only for Dunham, but for Obama himself.

After graduating from Columbia University in 1983, Barack Obama went to work for a firm called Business International Corporation (BIC), a firm that was linked to economic intelligence gathering for the CIA. For one year, Obama worked as a researcher in BIC’s financial services division where he wrote for two BIC publications, Financing Foreign Operations and Business International Money Report, a weekly newsletter. An informed source has told WMR that Obama’s tuition debt at Columbia was paid off by BIC. In addition, WMR has learned that when Obama lived in Indonesia with his mother and his adoptive father Lolo Soetoro, the 20-year-old Obama, who was known as “Barry Soetoro,” traveled to Pakistan in 1981 and was hosted by the family of Muhammadmian Soomro, a Pakistani Sindhi who became acting President of Pakistan after the resignation of General Pervez Musharraf on August 18, 2008. WMR was told that the Obama/Soetoro trip to Pakistan, ostensibly to go “partridge hunting” with the Soomros, related to unknown CIA business.
The covert CIA program to assist the Afghan mujaheddin was already well underway at the time and Pakistan was the major base of operations for the CIA’s support. Obama also reportedly traveled to India, again, on unknown business for U.S. intelligence. WMR has been told by knowledgeable sources that Obama has, in the past, traveled on at least three passports: U.S., Indonesian, and British.


link

As for Obama's mom being a CIA recruit, the State Department’s recent revelation in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that the pre-1965 passport files of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham Soetoro, were destroyed in the 1980s, has re-ignited suspicions that Obama’s mother worked for the CIA under non-official cover (NOC) cover in Indonesia.

link

Yet, as we approach almost 1100 posts in this thread, I'm the only one who has brought up the CIA angle, even though it's widely circulated on the web.

One has to ask why Clinton and Trump would so readily drop their interest in the birth certificate controversy if not backed into a corner by "national security" interests.

Nobody really takes Jerome Corsi, Orly Taitz or Philip Berg seriously, and those that do are too engulfed with cries of rabid Marxist and Manchurian candidate to admit that their beloved CIA is at the bottom of their nefarious claims. After all, if you're looking for conspirators, where better to look than the CIA?
 
1079boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, May 26, 2011, 15:31
Very interesting post, but I could not get the second link to work.
 
1080Boldwin
      ID: 12554112
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 14:34
The evidence is in and it obvious that the newest certificate is a recreated photoshopped composite.

Different resolutions:



Original greyscale 'R' and recreated binary type:



Slanted and curved original letters, straightarrow additions right alongside:



Halos, etc. Believe your own eyes.

[I'm not saying the info is definately incorrect. I am saying they don't have the original.]
 
1081Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 15:16
I am saying they don't have the original.

But you admitted earlier in this thread you believe he was born in Hawaii, so why is the birth certificate even an issue anymore?

It has nothing to do with your fallacious interpretation of Vattel.
 
1082Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 17:46
any time i'm having a crappy day, i come to this thread for a good laugh. today was no different.
 
1083Mith
      ID: 657210
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 11:07
From the article:

As seen in Figure 1 below, the word "Sex" on the printed form curves into the binder, while the typed word "Male" does not, Vogt argues.

The most likely answer for this is that the blank form was copied from the binder before it was originally filled out. This is the same reason for why the text "Name of Hospital" which would appear on the blank form, would curve more than the word "Kapiolani".

Regarding the halo effect, I honestly don't know what he's talking about. Most of the text in that document appears to have that effect. If the claim regarding the binder curve is that some of the text is from the original document while some is forged, then only the forged text should have a "halo" around it, but not the curved text, which he claims is not manipulated, right? Is there some way I'm missing in which these two claims reconcile with each other?

I have the same question regarding the grayscale claims. Why would one letter in the line "Hospital or Institution" have to be altered? If it's a forgery, it's either from a blank original document with the info photoshopped in, or one which was already filled out and altered to look like Obama's. I could see why one character in the document number would be altered, but why would any part (much less a single character in the middle of the line) from the blank form have to be altered?

The possible answers for why these completely random inconsistancies indicate it's a forgery seem far less likely than the possible answers for why an original might have them.
 
1084Boldwin
      ID: 554211
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 12:14
MITH

Look me in the eye and tell me you believe the middle image, 'Barack', was typed in one continuous ordinary process of natural typing.

Khahan

This is just more proof there is something here Obama is still hiding. Until he comes clean and transparent, don't ask me to take him at his word.

My personal belief is that at a bare minimum he is covering up that his name was legally changed to Barry Soetaro. At the very least.

My personal belief as to why he goes to all this trouble is that at the bare minimum he doesn't want to admit he lied to become a lawyer and that he doesn't want a name controversy swirling. I think it goes much deeper and it is all to cover that he isn't a natural born citizen.
 
1085Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 13:17
As much as I hate to ask and open up another can of worms:

My personal belief is that at a bare minimum he is covering up that his name was legally changed to Barry Soetaro. At the very least.

My personal belief as to why he goes to all this trouble is that at the bare minimum he doesn't want to admit he lied to become a lawyer and that he doesn't want a name controversy swirling. I think it goes much deeper and it is all to cover that he isn't a natural born citizen.


How does him having his name changed affect anything we've been discussing? Not attacking you or even saying 'conspiracy theory bs.' Looking over his history/childhood wouldn't surprise me at all if that happened. But how does it affect anything, why does it matter?
 
1086Mith
      ID: 657210
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 13:47
Look me in the eye and tell me you believe the middle image, 'Barack', was typed in one continuous ordinary process of natural typing.

OK, I'm facing west as I type. Honestly I have no idea why that letter would come out like that. But fraudulantly adding his name to the document doesn't seem like a logical explanation. If it was, why in the world would the R look different from the B, K and two As?

Moreover, I'd think that if the president of the US was going to forge that doc, I'm beyond certain he'd have a world-class forgery expert doing the dirty work. I'm certainly not a photoshop expert, but I know it well enough to know that a master could create an image without any of these supposed discrepencies, leading me to believe they occur from years of paper documents aging, being moved around, copied, then scanned into a database, possibly copied as files into other formats, printed, then scanned again into yet other formats.

Or maybe he had Mayla and Sasha do it.
 
1087Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 14:27
Vogt's claims and credentials well shredded.
 
1088Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 14:30
The word “liar” may have been a little too strong, and if he will accept it, I will substitute the word “crank.

Hahaha.
 
1089Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 14:38
From the link:
3. The Obama Certificate is loaded with both binary and grayscale letters

This is normal. PDF document optimization software isolates the background image (what’s not black) and stores it as a lossy JPEG file. It then makes bitmaps of the black part. In a few cases what we consider black was not quite black enough and was considered part of the background. This is what Adobe calls “adaptive optimization” described as:
Adaptive Divides each page into black-and-white, grayscale, and color regions and chooses a representation that preserves appearance while highly compressing each type of content. The recommended scanning resolutions are 300 dots per inch (dpi) for grayscale and RGB input, or 600 dpi for black-and-white input.
Of course we aren’t dealing with Adobe software with the President’s certificate [as the writer explains, contrary to Vogt's supposedly expert judgement-Mith]. Other PDF software creates color and grayscale layers in different ways.
Click through for supporting links.
 
1090sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 14:56
to quote Pink Floyd..."another one bites the dust..."
 
1091sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 14:57
lol oops, Queen...had Brick in the Wall on my mind. :/
 
1092Boldwin
      ID: 554211
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 15:37
I found this in the comments interesting if true. It was unsourced...
According to the previous Republican administration in Hawaii of Governor Linda Lingle, they had moved the bound volume that contained the Obama long form to a more secure location. When there was a change of administration in Hawaii on December 7, 2010, the new Democratic administration in Hawaii of Neil Abercrombie didn’t get the memo on the location change.
I'd be interested in seeing this confirmed.

The best I can determine after looking this over for an hour is that Obama actually showed the press a copy that did not have those greyscale/binary flaws and that they only occurred after the WH released a PDF copy. The optimization when the WH ran the PDF was spotty and sometimes used several different processes. Is that what you get out of it?

I'll have to mull the curvature and halo issues a bit more.

I still don't think the 'forgery' angle is the right one to be looking at. I think he asked them to turn his amended BC back to the original [because that's what these birthers want to see and I sure don't want them to see the amended version] and we aren't looking at a sophisticated forgery but rather the Hawaii official's good faith unsophisticated effort to comply with this unusual request to backtrack and un-amend an amended BC.

 
1093Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 16:08
What evidence do you have left to support this hypothesis of an altered birth certificate?

And you never answered Khahan's post. On what misconception do you base your belief that it was necessary for his name to not be Barry Sotero for him to become a lawyer or president?
 
1094Boldwin
      ID: 554211
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 16:24
He swore he had never gone by another name when he took his bar exam or something like that. I forget exactly when that question gets asked. Not as big an issue now as when he was running for president when he started the stonewalling.
 
1095Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 16:36
You can't have changed your name if you take the bar? And he falsified his birth certificate to be able to tell that lie?

And a passive reference to "stonewalling" does not explain why he couldn't become president if the thing said Barry Sotero.
 
1096Boldwin
      ID: 554211
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 16:45
When you apply for the Bar there is a 'Character and Fitness Questionnaire'. I believe he lied about the name which was Barry Soetoro according to everyone who knew him at the time. I also believe he lied about his 19 Harvard unpaid traffic tickets.
 
1097Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 16:45
MITH: One meme that has been bouncing around birther circles is the name change, which stems from an April Fools joke that some birthers still take as serious.
 
1098Boldwin
      ID: 554211
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 16:45
does not explain why he couldn't become president

Other than the 'lack of character' issue, nope.
 
1099Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 16:45
He swore he had never gone by another name when he took his bar exam or something like that. I forget exactly when that question gets asked. Not as big an issue now as when he was running for president when he started the stonewalling.

This would only be an issue if there was an intentional and material misrepresentation. If he briefly went by Soertaro but has no business dealings, bankruptcies, criminal history etc hidden under that name and there are no other circumstances which would have materially changed the outcome or a subjective decision making process, then its 100% irrelevant.

Of course, being a socialist, liberal, democrat may qualify as criminal but I think he got those labels as Obama, not Soertaro. :)

Now, please stop this whole line Baldwin. Im too conservative to be constantly defending Obama. Its making me physically ill. haha
 
1100Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 17:10
I'm still lost on what evidence remains that certificate of live birth has been altered.
 
1101Boldwin
      ID: 554211
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 19:12
Khahan

Your bonafides as a conservative elude me almost entirely. I wish I could say otherwise. Really do.

As Obama himself says...The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide...how well he would know.

Well past time that he proved he was a natural born citizen and he quit thumbing his nose at the constitution and the public.

 
1102Boldwin
      ID: 554211
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 19:19
MITH

Still mulling. I cannot wrap my mind around how you get words on that document that don't follow the contour of the paper and at what stage that would have happened. My presumption is that it was an artifact of recreating a non-existent document and I'll stick to that until I can figure out a more likely explanation.
 
1103Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 20:51
Well past time that he proved he was a natural born citizen and he quit thumbing his nose at the constitution and the public.

Come one. It's been well established that this is an inhuman feat for you and the remaining committed birthers. There is no time machine, no Truman Show-type production and no burning bush that would satisfy your unicorn hunt at this point.



I cannot wrap my mind around how you get words on that document that don't follow the contour of the paper

The link I pasted into 1087 suggests that the curvature isn't necessarily different at all. The 3rd image in 1080 seems to support this. Note that the word "Kapiolani" starts well to the right of the column where the arc is most acute. Given the poor resolution we're dealing with, I'm not so sure that two distinct curves are there at all.

My suggestion was that the curvature may have occurred more than once; first prior to the the form being filled out, and then again after. If that curvature was there because, for example, the original blank form curved while in a stuffed manilla folder in a drawer and copies of the blank form were made on a machine that allowed for some of that curvature to remain intact, then lines like "Name of Hospital" would already have a curve to them before words like "Kapiolani" were filled in. If the filled-out document were then curved again by being copied from a bound book, the text that was present in the blank form would have a distinct and greater arc than the text which was filled in.



I also asked you why you think he couldn't become president if the thing said Barry Sotero instead. Previously you rattled off something about him being adopted and becoming an Indonesian citizen. Was that it or was there something more compelling?

If that was it, the obvious responses are that:

1. You have no evidence that he was ever an Indonesian citizen, as it has already been shown that Americans did indeed travel to Pakistan in 1981.

2. If an American citizen moves to another country and becomes a citizen there, it doies not change his status as an American citizen here in the states.
 
1104Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 21:27
Here is the largest resolution image I could find of the Nordyke twins' certificates of live birth.

Save the file to your desktop, open it, enlarge it, move to the upper left-hand corner of the image, look me in the eye (40.714623/-74.006605) and tell me you don't see the same effect on Susan's document under the 'Sex' and 'Hospital' fields.
 
1105Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Thu, Jun 02, 2011, 22:01
so, do we need to rename this thread from "Birther thread" to "Desperate attempts to find something, anything, no matter how nonsensical to make Obama look bad thread"?

this thread keeps getting deeper and deeper into silliness and absurdity.
 
1106Boldwin
      ID: 554211
      Fri, Jun 03, 2011, 05:02
Save the file to your desktop

Not familiar with this trick. You mean set it as desktop background?
 
1107Boldwin
      ID: 554211
      Fri, Jun 03, 2011, 05:07
Wow, really neat trick! Thanks MITH...off to work but I'll leave it up to play with later.
 
1108Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jun 03, 2011, 09:34
To be clear, I meant use the 'save as function' and select 'desktop' as the folder to save it in. It's just easier to find, open and then delete when your finished that way. Of course you could open and enlarge it from any other folder as well.

And I still don't know why it would have been necessary to alter the form if ihis name had been changed at any time to Barry Sotero.
 
1109Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 15:17
Butt for Boldwin. Might as well do it now rather than wait for the nex cracking of the code. Still waiting for you to look me in the eye buddy.
 
1110DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 15:49
Too busy reading up on Weiner pics probably.

(Side note: thanks to everyone, EVERYONE, for not starting a thread about some salacious crap that probably doesn't rise to a level that Nancy Grace would even touch.)

(Yes, that's right, I said it that way on purpose.)
 
1111Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 17:43
WRT Rep Weiner, turnabout is fair play. It's basically the same incident as the one regarding Christopher Lee from earlier this year, and that one garnered a brief discussion here.

IMO no big loss for the Democrats if he resigns.
 
1112weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 19:03
Why would anyone make a new thread when all we need is two words?

LIBERAL HYPOCRISY
 
1114DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 19:47
Also looking forward to all of weycool's posts about David Vitter and how awful he is for banging hookers.

OH WAIT -- CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRISY
 
1115Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 20:00
Hypocrisy? DWetzel, who I don't believe wrote a single post about Lee, thanked the forum for not bothering with the Weiner topic. My comment was that the two scandals are basically the same thing and that turnabout is fair play if it is brought up.

WTF is that guy talking about?
 
1116Myboyjack
      ID: 36452617
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 20:04
Heard Wiener was simply evidencing his Teabagger Party credentials.
 
1117Tree
      ID: 3553714
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 20:37
Mbj for the win.
 
1118DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 20:48
Agreed -- that's what this "scandal" is good for. A few good penis jokes, cheeky comparisons to Brett Favre, and keeping Colbert extremely funny for a couple more days.
 
1119weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 20:51
Wow DW....did my words hit a little too close for comfort?
All I said was LIBERAL HYPOCRISY and never said anything about you specifically.
If you feel those words apply to you then so be it.

When the Congress woman from Orange County sent a photo depicting Obama as a Cmimp the liberals were outraged and said that it showed "lack of judgement" and that she should resign.
Sending crotch shots of yourself at a minimum shows a complete lack of judgement.
So where are all the liberals asking for his resignation?
LIBERAL HYPOCRISY

In addition one of the women who he sent his photo to was completely unsolicited, and by liberal definition would be considered sexual harassement.
So where is the outrage on the left?
Oh thats right.....liberals only use the sexual harassment charge for political gain.
If it means giving up a congressional seat they dont seem to care so much.
Complete LIBERAL HYPOCRISY
 
1120Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 21:02
It is only a liberal hypocrisy if they were asking a Democrat to to something different than a Republican.
 
1123Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 21:40
...never said anything about you specifically.

Actually you never said anything specific at all. I don't find it illogical to assume the post was directed at one or both of the only liberals here who had commented on the topic, or to compare their (our) reactions to an almost identical incident from a few months back.

Let's please not play a children's game of baiting people with unspecific posts only to attack them for assuming the most likely intent (with obnoxious juvenile capitalizations, to boot). It's not clever.
 
1124Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 21:43
So where are all the liberals asking for his resignation?


Everywhere
 
1125Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 21:53
And of course there's that.

LIBERAL HYPOCRISY Conservative ignorance.
 
1126weykool
      ID: 53530517
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 22:19
PV:
Calling for an investigation (Pelosi) is a far cry from calling for his resignation and in my opinion could been seen as trying to stonewall and hoping the scandal blows over.
Beyond that there were no other calls from the left for his resignation cited in the article you linked.

MITH:
I expect DW to be arrogant enough to try and tell me what I was thinking when I wrote something but I dont expect you to stoop to that behavior.
I clarified in post 1119 exactly what my thoughts were when I posted.
If you choose not to accept me at my word then so be it....we have nothing further to discuss.
 
1127DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 22:25
lol weycool, confirmed off the reservation.
 
1128Tree
      ID: 3553714
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 23:11
Not saying what Weiner did was right, but comparing sending a racist photo of Obama to a congressman sending a photo of his dick is really not to understand what was wrong with sending the chimp photo in the first place.
 
1129Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 23:18
OK fair enough weykool. I believe your unintelligible ambiguity was not intentionally deceptive. Feel better?
 
1130Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 23:31
I don't know Tree. Both show more than the simple lapse in judgement weykool charged them with.

Of course that's not to say he's right. I don't know that there were necessarily any more Republicans demanding Davenport's (who was not a congressional representative, for the record) resignation than there are Democrats demanding that Weiner resign. Maybe he has a running tally, tabulated by a highly sophisticated network of active internet searches, wire taps and hidden microphones.

And on the other side of the equation, we also have no idea who weykool might be referring to as "the Democrats." Given the confounding non-reference in citing Davenport's email, the subject of the charge could be literally anyone. And be warned, as shown by the response in post 1119, attempting an educated guess is obviously out of bounds in his rulebook.

Oops, there I go parsing language again!
 
1131DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 00:36
I'm just curious as to when David Vitter and Larry Craig (too lazy to take up bandwidth listing a few hundred others) -- you know, the people who actually campaigned and spoke out on "family values" campaigns before banging hookers and soliciting gay sex in airport bathrooms -- became liberals. I must have missed the Fox News ticker announcing that factoid.
 
1132Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 09:25
I don't know Tree. Both show more than the simple lapse in judgement weykool charged them with.

lapse of judgement, yes. malicious toward others, not so much.

there is a world of difference between racism and bigotry (perceived or real), and sending dick photos of one's self.

i also hold a very strong opinion that unless this interfered with Weiner's job, then it has less to do with his politics, and more to do with his personal life.

big deal. he sent out photos of his penis. to me, that's not enough to bring down a politician, unless he specifically railed against such things.

the worst part of this "scandal" is that i've heard the word "underpants" about 10,000 times, and i haven't used that word since i was 6.
 
1133Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 09:33
Weiner was a liar. Bold-face liar. Admitted liar. Saying his twitter account was hacked. Falsely accusing Breitbart and others. Going on national TV and lieing. If evidence had not surfaced to prove he was a liar, he would still be lieing. Blaming others.

I hope he stays, though.
 
1134Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 10:25
I was talking about this with some serious Tea Party friends of mine a couple of days ago (by "serious" I mean not just the people who take buses to rallies in DC, but the people who hire the buses). They were spitting nickels about Weiner, and "lamestream media hypocrisy" etc etc, until I pointed out that, were I a partisan Republican, having Weiner not resign is the best thing for them. He's effectively neutered himself as loudmouth Progressive spokesperson.

The media's fixation on sex assures he does nothing without him facing questions about it. Even supposed "softball" questions like "how are you holding up?"

If he were to resign, there's no doubt that his district would elect someone just as liberal, but without the baggage of having tweeted his junk.
 
1135DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 10:46
"I was talking about this with some serious Tea Party friends of mine a couple of days ago (by "serious" I mean not just the people who take buses to rallies in DC, but the people who hire the buses). They were spitting nickels about Weiner, and "lamestream media hypocrisy" etc etc,"

Did you ask who they were running against Vitter in Louisiana?
 
1136Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 13:05
My thoughts exactly, Permdude.

For me, it's not about sticking a sausage down his pants and taking a picture. It's about the lieing and falsely blaming others.
 
1137Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 17:41
LIBERAL HYPOCRISY in action as Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)demands that Weiner resign...
 
1138weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 18:21
Tree you link doesnt work.
Weiner

Looks like the liberal hypocrisy charge is resonating with voters and wont be able to be ignored by Democrats much longer.

From the story something I didnt know:

an image from Andrew Breitbart’s phone of a picture originally taken by Weiner of himself. Breitbart, whose conservative Web site BigGovernment.com broke the Weiner story

You are a liberal and you are sending photos to somone who runs a conservative website?
Way too stupid to be in congress.

I agree with PD:
until I pointed out that, were I a partisan Republican, having Weiner not resign is the best thing for them. He's effectively neutered himself as loudmouth Progressive spokesperson.
Will be sad to see him go.

 
1139Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 19:05
You are a liberal and you are sending photos to somone who runs a conservative website?
Way too stupid to be in congress.


He didn't send the photo to Breitbart. But the second sentence is a fair point regardless.
 
1140Boldwin
      ID: 1353071
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 21:04
His wife is like Hillary's daughter they work so closely together. With advice like that he will no doubt brave it out and not resign. Or should I say brazen it out.
 
1141Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 21:12
Was wondering if you'd pop in here, B. Shall we assume you've finally given up your pursuit of the thread topic?

If not, there are a few questions you've left dangling...
 
1142Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 08, 2011, 22:07
#1140: Because Hilary decided to "brazen it out" when things got tough for her?

I think they call that "working it out with your spouse."
 
1143Boldwin
      ID: 1353071
      Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 01:52
MITH


Proportionality, MITH.

I'm trying to run a balanced life here and becoming expert enuff to weigh the expertise of two competing document experts, on the way to answering BC questions which I believe are diversions from the 'Natural Born Citizenship' issue...well it is just going to have to be shoehorned in when it is convenient. A pixel hunt for a hanging hospital....uhhh. Sure I'll get right on it.

Assuming I find the hospital name doesn't follow the paper as it should. Are you going to accept my word over your experts?
 
1144Boldwin
      ID: 1353071
      Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 01:56
PD

We used to have a thread titled 'the advantage of the shameless'. She and her husband wrote the book on it assuring us democrats would rarely ever again do the honorable thing and step down. We know the democrat lamestream media won't ask him to. The 'firestorm' dies down right quick when it's a democrat.
 
1145Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 02:15
-you continue to miss the distinction that most other people make, in that lying is never good, but lying about something personal is a different matter than lying about things on your job. This is why the Right completely doesn't understand why Bill Clinton continued to enjoy huge support and Republicans got whacked after trying to keep Monica-gate on the front page as much as possible.

-I have no idea why you think it is up to the media to call on anyone to resign. Perhaps your love of conservative media has blurred the lines between "opinion" and "news" for you. But even a cursory search reveals a number of Democratic *politicos* publicly asking for his resignation: Pat Leahy, Allyson Schwartz, Mark Pryor, Tim Kaine, etc etc etc. And we have no idea how many have privately urged him to step down.

Taking the "lamestream media" to task for something that isn't your job reveals a Palin-like understanding of the role of the media.
 
1146Boldwin
      ID: 1353071
      Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 13:23
I understand the job of the lamestream media. It is to ensure there are democrats in power to hire you when you want to go back into political life.
 
1147Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 21:35
No--that's what you accuse them of.
 
1149Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 02:36
Trust but verify.

In fact E-verify.
 
1150Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 02:56
Still on this?

E-verify has a failure rate of about 7-8%--unmentioned in the piece. But the article also has this doozy:

In May 2010, WND reported two private investigators working independently were asking why President Obama was using a Social Security Number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in that state.

As Paul Harvey would say, And now for the rest of the story.

So to flesh out their vague article on Obama's SSN they drag out a now-debunked rumor about it from last year, as well as a whine toward the end that the SSA won't give out the SSNs for "public figures." Jeez--the SSN won't expose "public figures" to identity theft? What kind of country is this??
 
1151Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 04:48
Wow, is Snope's conclusion ever a leap of faith and special pleading. Yeah that must be it. Yeah, it must have been a typo, yeah, that's the ticket.
 
1152Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 08:51
I'll agree their simple explanation of a typo is a leap of faith baldwin. But when trying to debunk this kind of bunk there's usually nothing but bunk to rely on.

I think the rest of the article does a pretty good job of debunking the rumor that Obama is using a SS# stolen from a French immigrant. They list the french immigrants SS# and they list Obama's #. They are different SS#'s. Debunked.
 
1153Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 08:58
lol.

if there ever was a Don Quixote moment, this is it. lmao.
 
1154Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 10:33
Well Snopes doesn't address the point I raised.

Obama failed the E-verify test. We can't employ him.
 
1155Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 10:47
We don't know if he did or not, since e-verify has a 7-8% failure rate on that count (look it up yourself--the thing has false positives almost half the time, and false negatives about 7-8% of the time).

Also, there could be very good reasons why one
 
1156Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 10:48
cut myself off.

...why one cannot look up the President's information in a US government database. We have no idea what personal information of the President's the Secret Service (for example) has made unavailable to the public.
 
1157Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 11:46
Let's err on the safe side.
 
1158Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 11:49
Good idea. Anything with such a high error rate should be rejected out-of-hand as proof of anything.
 
1159Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 11:51
Ok, you are making the allegation (or rather relying on this lady who is making the allegation). So, prove that is Obama's birth certificate.
 
1160Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 12:50
Obama failed the E-verify test. We can't employ him.

keep throwing things at the wall. see what sticks. so far, nothing you've thrown has stuck. this one doesn't either.

 
1161Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 20:04
1159 - wow, I went right for the birth certificate. Mental lapse. Meant that be prove its actually obama's SS # they entered.

I'm sure I could look it up, but I'm not the one making the allegation. Burden of proof is on you.
 
1162Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 19:37
While sitting in McDonald's (yeah yeah, I know), I overhear 3 senior citizens talking about Obama not being an American citizen. Paraphrasing conversation, they said that if they can prove he isn't a real citizen all his signed laws will be repealed. At this point one says (paraphrasing)...

"I don't get why they stopped trying to prove it. Just because they can't find any real proof doesn't mean they should give up. Its gotta be there. I mean, his father wasn't born here so no way he was either."

I almost interrupted to ask if they knew Boldwin.
 
1163sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 20:51
rightwingnuts (n): group of people for whom the truth (see also facts, verifiable) holds no meaning at all.
 
1164Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 10:22
Its getting harder and harder to live in this city. This guy is just insane. First his dislike of immigrants, now his attack on the President.

Sheriff Joe Says Obama Birth Certificate a Fake. And Selective Service Registration may be phony too.
 
1165Tree
      ID: 13240210
      Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 11:52
its to distract from the fact he's facing a litany of pretty serious criminal charges, something becoming all-too-common for the heroes of the Right.
 
1166Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 05:02
keep throwing things at the wall. see what sticks.

facing a litany of pretty serious criminal charges, something becoming all-too-common

Projection:
 
1167Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 08:24
facing a litany of pretty serious criminal charges, something becoming all-too-common

Projection:


are you saying that he's not facing charges?
 
1168Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 16:32
The liberal response to Clinton's impeachment was to up the ante and as usual to play dirtier than their opponents. Ever after they will launch torrents of bogus charges against they're favorite targets.

What's amusing is seeing the liberals complaining about 'throwing things at the wall to see what sticks'.

Don't expect to get taken seriously by anyone but your allies when you pull that trick. It's really just crying wolf by now. Unless you've obviously got an airtight case. You've used up your credibility.
 
1169DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 16:34
lol
 
1170Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 17:27
are you saying that he's not facing charges?
 
1171Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 17:33
If you are a conservative and you aren't facing bogus charges, then you aren't doing your job.

He is doing his job.
 
1172DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 17:34
"If you are a conservative and you aren't facing bogus charges, then you aren't doing your job."

spockeyebrow.gif
 
1173Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:03
so, charges against conservatives are bogus? they can't actually commit crimes? lol
 
1174sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 18:41
"Duke" Cunningham, anyone? Anyone?
 
1175Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 11:13
He is doing his job.

Arpaio is the sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona. Where in his job description, or the job description of any other county sheriff in this country, does it provide for him to investigate the POTUS's birth certificate, much less to call a press conference arguing at a news conference in Phoenix that President Obama’s birth certificate is a fake and that crimes were committed in its creation. If Arpaio has evidence that a crime was committed in Maricopa County related to fraud, then he is within his jurisdiction to investigate and present the results of the investigation to prosecutors, who then decide whether or not to bring charges.

Instead, Arpaio is using his position as Maricopa County Sheriff to promote his opinion as a private citizen.

Arpaio was joined at the news conference by Jerome Corsi, a writer for the conservative website WorldNetDaily and one of the main proponents of the birther theory. Corsi said he assisted in the sheriff’s investigation, which has been going on for six months and was run through Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse.” The sheriff said the investigation was funded completely by donations from private citizens.

link

Arpaio's job is not to pursue investigations outside of Maricopa County with funds provided solely by private citizens. Plus, are we to believe that members of Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse" aren't employees of the sheriff's department? If they are, then every minute they've spent during this six month investigation is taxpayer money, and if they aren't, why does the sheriff have a private organization working outside the structure of Maricopa County?

If Arpaio wants to spend his off duty hours pursuing his birther hobby, that's his perogative. But it's not his job.
 
1176Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 14:54
Whose job is it then? Because citizens of the USA including his county can't find anyone else willing to uphold the constitution on this issue.
 
1177DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 15:05
lol
 
1178sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 15:16
could it be, cause its already BEEN upheld? Just sayin...
 
1179Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 15:41
Whose job is it then?

It's a Hawaiian birth certificate, so the logical answer would be Oahu County Sheriff's Dept, or maybe Hawaii 5-0. Book em, Dan-o! More likely it would be considered a federal crime. so the FBI would lead the investigation. What's the connection to Phoenix, other than the joke of a Sheriff is buddies with serial fabulist Jerome Corsi? How does he justify having jurisdiction.

If Arpaio is serious about there being a crime committed, he should immediately quit as sheriff of Maricopa County and run for a federal office, so he can waste all Americans' taxes, instead of just those citizens of Maricopa County.
 
1180Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 15:54
If my suspicions are correct a crime has been committed against every man woman and child in America and he has jurisdiction.
 
1181Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 16:03
If my suspicions are correct a crime has been committed against every man woman and child in America and he has jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is based on evidence, not suspicion. Funny how you're so eager to trash the Constitution when it suits your political agenda.
 
1182DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 16:28
"Whose job is it then?"

lol
 
1183Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 18:21
If my suspicions are correct a crime has been committed against every man woman and child in America and he has jurisdiction.

funny that your suspicions are accurate, but suspicions against anyone who you support - from Arpaio to O'Keefe to the elders of your church - are fallacies.
 
1184DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Mar 04, 2012, 19:02
Tree, you're giving it way too much of your attention.
 
1185Tree
      ID: 542422619
      Mon, Mar 26, 2012, 20:53
Birthers want proof that Mitt Romney was born in America


on the bright side, at least the Birthers are consistent in their ridiculousness.
 
1186sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Mar 26, 2012, 23:38
I want proof that the birthers were born in America. Lacking submission of such proof, I move that we export them, tooooo, oh I dunno...they seem to be partial to Kenya.
 
1187Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Mar 27, 2012, 02:32
I want proof that people who think constitutional requirements are ridiculous are Americans.
 
1188Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Tue, Mar 27, 2012, 11:32
I want proof that people who think constitutional requirements are ridiculous are Americans.

you've already proven that proof isn't enough for you.
 
1189sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Mar 27, 2012, 11:34
Obama, has met and exceeded, any constitutionally required level of proof. That birthers, ignore the proof, is to their discredit, not his.
 
1190Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Apr 15, 2012, 07:38
 
1191Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Apr 15, 2012, 07:42
 
1192Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sun, Apr 15, 2012, 15:52
re 1190 - considering the meaning of the song, i wouldn't want it played at my inauguration either.

re 1191 - LOL
 
1193weykool
      ID: 542292223
      Sun, Apr 15, 2012, 16:32
i wouldn't want it played at my inauguration either.
"The End" By The Doors?
 
1194Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sun, Apr 15, 2012, 19:26
i wouldn't want it played at my inauguration either.

"Born in the USA" is not the rah rah patriotic song many people think it is.
 
1195boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, May 18, 2012, 10:01
This should probably be in real Obama thread but I chooses to put it here because I think it shows that he was born in the US:

Old biagraphy of Obama has him being born in Kenya.
 
1196Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, May 18, 2012, 20:48
I saw something of that--the writer of the piece owned up to it being a stupid mistake. And it was.
 
1197Tree
      ID: 374303014
      Wed, May 30, 2012, 15:31
Prove Mitt isn't a unicorn....

Call them "unicorners." A liberal group says it has collected more than 19,000 emails requesting Arizona officials to confirm Mitt Romney is not a unicorn.

Without such proof, the group Left Action argues with tongue in cheek, Romney may indeed be a unicorn -- his dark mane hiding a horn -- and therefore ineligible to be on the presidential ballot in November.
 
1198Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Wed, May 30, 2012, 19:52
Did you also find his previous promotional materials touting his unicorn origin and powers?
 
1199Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, May 30, 2012, 20:09
They were written by others and they claim to have been mistaken. But we're taking them as being personally written by Romney himself anyway.
 
1200Tree
      ID: 1483020
      Wed, May 30, 2012, 21:10
Did you also find his previous promotional materials touting his unicorn origin and powers?

not yet, but i'm sure if i keep digging, i can find somebody who will make it up too.

in the meantime, there's clear photographic evidence in the link from 1197. clear as day. clear as the horn on Mitt Romney's head.

Mitt Romney is a unicorn.
 
1201Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, May 30, 2012, 23:11
Really--speaking on behalf of people asking stupid questions isn't making you look open minded--it makes it look like you have stupid people determining the parameters of your curiosity
 
1202Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 11:12
Sprung from deepest darkest Africa, dripping with excess diversity and biodiversity, able to unite diverse peoples, command the waters of the oceans to drop, brighten the skies, cheer the hearts, fill the coffers...it's...it's...



 
1203DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 11:22
Racists gonna racist, I guess.
 
1204Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 11:26
The funny thing about that tactic is that if racism was at work it would have worked better the first time around than the second. Opposite of what we actually see happening.

Welcomed by a country with open arms, rejected after the results of his administration were in.
 
1205Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 11:34
What specifically is racist about it Dwetz? Because it mentions Africa? Is that really all it takes for a rallying cry of racism these days? To merely mention Africa?

Considering Boldwin actually believes Obama is from Kenya (literally born there), to him its a statement of fact.
 
1206Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 12:03
Khahan - To pretend that there is no racial component to the birther movement is willfully naive. Obama's roots and motives are questioned by a small fraction of people simply because he has dark skin and a funny name.
 
1207Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 12:09
deepest darkest africa? Really?
 
1208Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 12:50
I'm with Khahan that I don't see anything overtly racist with the cartoons, but I also agree with Razor that the birther movement is full of racists.
 
1209Tree
      ID: 454383112
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 13:42
What specifically is racist about it Dwetz?

the vernacular?

"hey, be cool!"
"Obama been lyin'"

if this was about Mitt Romney - who's own father was not born in the United States - would that language have been used?
 
1210Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 14:10
"Obama been lyin'" is a slur of "Osama bin Laden"

They are all ways of painting Obama as not being American.
 
1211Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 15:40
Hard to get more 'not being American' than actively trying to destroy America.
 
1212sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 15:52
hear that whoosh B? That was the truth, flying by right over your head.
 
1213Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 17:05
"Hey, be cool. Rome wasn't unbuilt in a day."

Captures the attempt to hold together Obama's base perfectly.
 
1214Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 17:18
Heh. Yeah--like that's really the focus of Obama. Trust me: The trouble isn't "holding the base together" but "getting the GOP to think."
 
1215sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 18:29
That isnt the "trouble" PD. That's an exercise in futility.
 
1216Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 00:23
There is obviously an unavoidable racial component to birtherism.

But there's an uphill half-mile or so from that to the racist component you sometimes also get from the birther fringe.

As noted, the greater point is to outright reject him as an American.

That said, mocking the president by attributing slang terms to him is racist? Let's unbunch the panties.

Dammit, did that just make me a misogynist? Anti-transgender?
 
1217Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 01:19
Out of curiosity, do all you racism experts consider this racist?
" 'Sleeping Giant' Latino Vote Yet to Awaken"--headline, CNN.com, May 30

Pointed out in WSJ.
 
1218Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 03:04
It's a piece about the coming impact of the growth of the Latino population on politics. As the writer explained, the headline is a reference to another publication:
The American, the online magazine of the American Enterprise Institute, calls the Hispanic electorate a "sleeping giant" yet to wake.

But I don't understand why that might be considered a racist statement, regardless of who wrote it. James Taranto says it is and also wants you to think it came from CNN. Why?
 
1219Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 03:20
I am deadly serious about this. I think CNN is putting hispanics on the horns of a dilema. Either rise up and support Obama, [in which case we'll treat you like heroes] or sit this election out [in which case we will send racist profiling sentiments your way].

Yes this isn't the first time anyone ever used the term sleeping giant. Considering the timing, considering the situation, considering what everyone knows you'd say if this were said by a republican...it's beyond cute and edging into racist territory.
 
1220Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 04:22
Please spare me what you think I'd say.

But thanks to you, we know exactly what conservatives will say when it is reported (not even written!) by a mainstream news outlet that doesn't cater to the right fringe. Who are the race baiters again?

You really believe the media isnt allowed to look at the masses of Latino voters and their potential to impact politics? Who are the speech stiflers again?

And you make these accusations of racism and threats against a broad ethnicity without having read a single word of the article other than the headline!

The thing starts off quoting someone who predicts that the future first Latino president has already been born.

(Corrected link.)

Had you bothered, you'd know that the 2012 election isn't even mentioned in the thing. It discusses the future of the impact of Lations as they begin to dominate the population. It doesn't get to the low number of current Latino voters until page 3 and even then tempers that issue by noting the growing number of elected Latinos in politics. And far more space is dedicated to stressing the diversity of American Latinos and the places they and their families originate from, stating plainly that they will not be so politically homogenous as they currently seem once they start participating in more representative numbers.

As usual I'm sure you'll be just filled with reasons to reject this opportunity to roll back the piss and vinegar a touch.

Its because you clearly prefer anger and fear and convincing yourself that you're right to bitch about it. You don't ever watch CNN. It would bore you to tears. Your preferences for having things to be angry and fear and bitch about are clearly much better sated by lazily taking the word of people who are in the business of making you hate the media, and who rely on angry, fearful, bitchy people like you to consume, espouse and perpetuate the rancid bile they feed you.
 
1221Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 04:44
If you think reporters don't enjoy their cute titles you are missing the fun of it.

And they know many more people will register the title than read the whole article.

The title chosen wasn't obvious. For example when I wrote the title for my post about Sendak 'The Wild Rumpus Ends', I came up with that myself only to be surprised to later find at least a couple thousand other similarly titled internet pieces.

I don't think too many latino leaders think of their communities as sleeping. Then again I could be wrong.
 
1222Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 07:29
So right after a story about how white births are no longer the majority, an article is published talking about the growing impact the Latino population will have on politics. In an election year.

Shocking and a complete stretch.
 
1223Tree
      ID: 5752919
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:59
I think CNN is putting hispanics on the horns of a dilema. Either rise up and support Obama, [in which case we'll treat you like heroes] or sit this election out [in which case we will send racist profiling sentiments your way].

idiotic.

CNN is struggling with their lowest ratings ever, struggling because they've remained impartial and unbiases in an era when more and more news outlets are letting their biases show.


If you think reporters don't enjoy their cute titles you are missing the fun of it.

who here has ever been employed as a reporter? anyone? ok, then as someone who once was a newspaper reporter, i'll speak up. Damned straight we enjoy our cute headlines.

and damned straight that "sleeping giant" phrase had ZERO to do with anything even remotely racist.

And they know many more people will register the title than read the whole article.

it's as if you don't know the phrase "sleeping giant". who on earth but the most bigoted of people sees that phrase and thinks "oh! sleeping! they must mean latinos!!!"

no one. no one except those who are bigoted in their heart and desperate to pin that label on someone else.
 
1224Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 11:21
I have no idea why that headline would be considered racist. Maybe because Boldwin can't differentiate between racial and racist?

This is probably why his prescriptions for Hispanics are so tone deaf. Hispanics, a natural conservative group, have fled the GOP in droves as a result of the GOP's fixation on ham-fisted "solutions" to the Mexican illegal immigration "problem."
 
1225Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 12:02
If you think reporters don't enjoy their cute titles you are missing the fun of it..

Right. What would I know about reporters? Not their code language, obviously. But bitchy conservative are just naturally fluent it seems. Which page in the translation book explains that "sleeping giant" really means:

Either rise up and support Obama, [in which case we'll treat you like heroes] or sit this election out [in which case we will send racist profiling sentiments your way].

The headline is (hilariously) followed by a column that is almost entirely about how the growing Latino population will increasingly find it's way into and eventually dominate the political landscape over the next 40 years, both at the polls and on the ballots, and will come to occupy wide political diversity. The thing doesn't discuss the 2012 election or President Obama, much less tie either to the title in any way - except in the minds of people who need something to be angry with and afraid of and to bitch about. And possibly race-baiting conservative opinion writers.

And they know many more people will register the title than read the whole article.

Suckers who read the WSJ opinion pages, obviously.

I don't think too many latino leaders think of their communities as sleeping. Then again I could be wrong.

Regarding political involvement? How poorly do you regard "Latino leaders" (whoever you have in mind) that you think they are against politically empowering their communities because they are too proud to potentially label them as "sleeping"?

And how many widely recognized Latino American "leaders" can you name who aren't already in politics, anyway? Have you ever heard of a politician who wouldn't be disappointed with low-turnout constituents or who would avoid telling them to register for fear that he might sound too critical of the current numbers they bring to the polls?
 
1226Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 12:09
"oh! sleeping! they must mean latinos!!!"

Now I understand the image that lept to the front of Taranto's and Boldwin's brains.

So the media is never allowed to use a phrase with the word "sleeping" if it refers to Latinos. LOL! Exactly who makes up the anti-speech, race-baiting PC crowd again?
 
1227Tree
      ID: 49512111
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 12:25
Now I understand the image that lept to the front of Taranto's and Boldwin's brains.

it never even crossed my mind until brought up by Baldwin, but in his brain, he sees any number of these images when the words"latino" and "sleeping" are put together. (never mind that the "popular" image is of a sleeping mexican peasant, and not all latinos, but hey, he probably thinks all latinos = mexicans.)

i don't suspect Baldwin will bother with reading this, but for anyone who is curious, here's an interesting article on "the sleeping Mexican phenomenon". The roots of this caricture might surprise you.

Posture and dress coalesced to manifest into flesh-and-blood sleeping Mexicans during the presidency of Porfirio Diaz, the autocrat whose privatization policies forced hundreds of thousands of rural Mexicans to move to urban areas and live in poverty during the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Exhausted after a day full of work or travel, all that many working-class Mexicans could do was find a wall and sleep—an image American travelogues of the day breathlessly captured for their audiences.
 
1228Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 13:51
SCOTUS rejects, without comment, birther suit.
 
1229Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 23:04
How can Alan Keyes not have standing? He was running for President.
 
1230sarge33rd
      ID: 34536813
      Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 23:46
Because the claim itself is pure, unadulterated BS. NOBODY, has standing. Might as well be filing a complaint alledging a Martian is running. They wont hear that one either.
 
1231Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 23:49
Some of the reasoning appears at the end of this piece.

Apparently, since the courts are unable to remove Obama from office (which is impeachment), the power to do so is reserved to the Congress, so they were asking the court to do something they were unable to do anyway, even if they proved their case.
 
1232sarge33rd
      ID: 34536813
      Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 01:31
gawd...the idiotic responses beneath that piece...
 
1233Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 07:48
"Even the political candidates who lost to Obama in 2008 would only have had standing to sue if they had filed their complaint alleging unfair competition from an ineligible candidate before the election, the 9th Circuit judges said."

I disagree, but that is something. What if the evidence of the unfair competition from an ineligible candidate was acquired after the election.

sarge33rd, do you understand the concept of legal standing ? They did not look at the merits of the case, but tossed it out, because they thought Keyes did not have the right to bring any case after election day. He should have filed before the election.
 
1234Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 08:16
I was really hope this would all go away now. But, it looks like we get to spend more time hearing about it again, since I'm sure someone will refile prior to the election this year and the case will waste more time in court.

Re: 2132. Agreed.
 
1235sarge33rd
      ID: 34536813
      Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 11:26
yes B7, I understand the concept of legal standing. What you seem unwillling to understand, is that the complaint HAS no merit. None. Zero.
 
1236Boldwin
      ID: 38202019
      Thu, Sep 20, 2012, 23:33
Frank Marshall Jr?

This has been my theory for about a year.
 
1237sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 00:00
This topic is still alive and well within the GOP far right, yet calls for Romneys Tax Returns are treated with disdain by those same far right loons.

I'd invite any intellectually honest explanation for that.
 
1238biliruben
      ID: 21841115
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 00:31
Mental. Illness.
 
1239Perm Dude
      ID: 56832185
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 01:41
It is extremely important to denigrate Obama personally with such wild assertions, in order to justify the vitriol they already hurl at him.
 
1240sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 02:06
said hurling no doubt precipitated by 1238's brief yet accurate, explanation.
 
1241Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 10:06
This has been my theory for about a year.

So, after pressing your theory that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen because of his father's British/Kenyan citizenship, you've completely abandoned that position in support of this new theory.

After all, if Ann Dunham's marriage to Obama was a sham, to cover up her pregnancy by Marshall, then any talk of the president not being a Natural Born Citizen is moot, since both his parents were unquestionably American citizens.

Thanks for clearing this up, so we can put this birther conspiracy to bed once and for all. Obama was born in Honolulu to a mother and father who were both American citizens. Case closed.




 
1242Tree
      ID: 53840219
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 10:44
This topic is still alive and well within the GOP far right, yet calls for Romneys Tax Returns are treated with disdain by those same far right loons.

I'd invite any intellectually honest explanation for that.


i honestly believe it's rooted in racism, or maybe the slightly "lesser" form, bigotry.

if Barack Obama was white and named Donald Worthington, we wouldn't be asking these questions.
 
1243Mith
      ID: 98342014
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 11:45
my theory for about a year.

So this would leave at least a 7 month period in which he was still advancing birther theories while he actually believed Obama's father was an American citizen.
 
1244Mith
      ID: 98342014
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 11:46
if Barack Obama was white and named Donald Worthington, we wouldn't be asking these questions.

Well, unless there was what appeard to be a black person's hand in Worthington's childhood photo, I'm sure...
 
1245Perm Dude
      ID: 56832185
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 12:06
PV's post is spot-on. If this is the new theory, it doesn't belong in this thread.
 
1246Boldwin
      ID: 378202110
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 12:59
MITH

I have always taken the position that Obama's version is a lie.

While I post every new wrinkle of that lie that comes out, if you think about it I've been pretty quiet the last year.

The two big new developments the last year has been Sheriff Arpaio proving the latest certificate is a forgery and the accumulation of evidence that Marshall was more involved in the lives of Obama and his mother than previously understood.

I've come to think of Obama writing two autobiographies before the age of 40 as desperately keeping the lid on the embarrassing lie at base of his origin story and the depth of his communism commitment.
 
1247Tree
      ID: 198162113
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 14:20
Sheriff Arpaio proving the latest certificate is a forgery

that would be great evidence for your side...if it was actually true. but it's not.
 
1248Perm Dude
      ID: 56832185
      Fri, Sep 21, 2012, 14:24
I'd be interested in this proof. Last I heard, the Sheriff was demanding to see microfilm:

Sheriff Joe's birther press conference
 
1249biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Sat, Sep 22, 2012, 10:10
Daily News

Speaking to a group of GOP diehards on Wednesday in Fairhope, Ala., party Chair Bill Armistead raved about a film called “Dreams From My Real Father.” The movie claims President Obama’s grandfather was a CIA agent who convinced Barack Obama Sr. to marry his teenage daughter to hide the fact that she’d been secretly impregnated by a communist.

The Mobile Press-Register reported that Armistead’s comments came after he was asked by someone in the group about another film, “2016: Obama’s Presidency,” which also weaves elaborate theories about the president’s upbringing.

“If you haven’t seen it, you should,” Armistead said, according to the newspaper. “But I’m going to tell you about another movie. The name of it is ‘Dreams From My Real Father.’ That is absolutely frightening. I’ve seen it. I verified that it is factual, all of it.”


See 1238.
 
1250Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sat, Sep 22, 2012, 21:32
I verified that it is factual, all of it

This is a very enlightening statement into the midset that equates theories, accusations, and innuendo as factual. We were treated to similar yestrday on this very forum:

Sheriff Arpaio proving the latest certificate is a forgery

Again, this new line that Marshall is Obama's real father, completely discredits the original birther theory that Obama was born in Kenya or that he's constitutionally unqualified to be president because of some fictional natural born citizen clause.

So, what's the motivation? Marshall passed on the communist gene to his illigitimate son? Other than somehow getting DNA samples from Marshall and Obama Sr., likely a complete impossibility, is there any way to know for sure who the real father is? I use that word, "likely", because it's at the heart of the American Thinker article linked to in #1236.

Ann, Gilbert says, was about five weeks pregnant when she posed, and the photographer was likely also her lover.

The other word at the heart of that article is "believes."

Kengor and Gilbert believe

Gilbert believes


It might be interesting to some to conjecture about what people think is likely or what they believe, but let's not confuse that with things that are factual.

I believe, and think it's likely, that Building 7 was imploded on 9/11/01. Funny thing is, this who's Obama's real father thing is some kind of soap opera that has nothing to do with the man who is president in 2012. Yet, from the American Thinker article:

The truth will eventually come out, perhaps in 2013, but maybe not for many more years. When it does, historians will ask why the media was complicit in deceiving the American public

If this statement pertained to the destruction of Building 7, it would be pertinent. But dealing as it is with a manufactured soap opera about people who have been dead for decades and have no bearing on anything relevant in 2012, it just reeks of an agenda of personal hatred.








 
1251sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Sep 22, 2012, 22:13
I verified that it is factual, all of it



Is the Right-Wing Psyche Allergic to Reality? A New Study Shows Conservatives Ignore Facts More Than Liberals
 
1252Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sat, Sep 22, 2012, 23:30

I've come to think of Obama writing two autobiographies before the age of 40 as desperately keeping the lid on the embarrassing lie at base of his origin story and the depth of his communism commitment. - Boldwin

There's no factual evidence that there's any lie at the base of his origin story, but even if it is a fact that Davis turned out to be Obama's real father, why would it be embarrassing? It's not like Obama had any hand in the shennanigans his mother, grandparents, and the other participants might have been involved with prior to his birth. And how is that more embarrassing than the story that Obama Sr was actually a bigamist with a wife back in Kenya?

As for his "communist committment", this, of course is based on his relationship with Davis when a teenager. From the American Thinker:

Davis was the single most important influence in shaping the political beliefs of the young Obama

It goes on to describe Davis as a ponographer, womanizer and sexual predator. And yet, there's no statement proclaiming Davis was the single most important influence in shaping the sexual beliefs of the young Obama.

So, a teen age boy completely buys into a "communist committment" from his alleged mentor, but chooses to be a dedicated monogamous family man instead of a Bill Clinton clone, despite being regaled with escapades of sexual conquests complete with pictures?

Gilbert's reflections on the media are fitting here, because he spells out the danger:

All evidence indicates that Barack Obama was raised and indoctrinated by Frank Marshall Davis, Communist Party propagandist, during his formative years. And all evidence indicates that Barack Obama, his entire life, pursued the dreams from his real father. And what are those dreams? They are the dreams of a forced imposition of a classic Stalinist/Marxist agenda upon America at home and abroad. And what is the history of Marxism? ...Marxism leads to economic ruin and the biological destruction of populations and societies...
link

All evidence? Indoctrination? Dreams from his real father?

These are the ravings of lunatics. For these "journalists" to suggest they know what Davis and Obama spoke about or the depths of their relationship is pure folly. Where are the interviews with Obama's close school mates at Punahou detailing Barry and Frank hanging out talking about the biological destruction of populations and societies? The extrapolations are fantasy based, again, reeking of personal hatred. So, spare us Boldwin with your,
"I've come to think...."

You haven't really thought about it at all. You just lap up whatever is spewed out there without any kind of cognitive reasoning or intellectual integrity.
 
1253biliruben
      ID: 21841115
      Sun, Sep 23, 2012, 09:49
It really is remarkable, despite all actual evidence, what these folks are able convince themselves of. If it weren't for Boldwin, I would go with a cynical Ockham's razor explanation: they were all simply being paid. That's the simplest explanation, and one I could actually feel much more comfortable with.

The truth is much scarier. That there are that many people with significant psychiatric issues out there.
 
1254Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 17:55
Taitz slapped around by judge after suing Occidental College for Obama records.

"You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the internet."

Hmmm. Wonder if that can be applied here...
 
1255Tree
      ID: 55115417
      Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 18:06
of course it can. but that's not even my favorite quote from the article:

On a radio podcast he went on after the case, attorney Jay Ritt, a friend of Botterud’s who was brought on to assist Occidental defend its position, commented on Taitz’s legal skills.

“I would like to take credit for a spectacular job preparing papers and going down to the Orange County Superior Court and arguing this case and getting sanctions, but I honestly believe a rhesus monkey could have beaten Ms. Taitz and got a sanction award based on the awful lack of merit to the subpoena itself,” Ritt said. “And the case itself, from what I could tell, seems just ludicrous on its face.”
 
1256Boldwin
      ID: 51036421
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 01:13


http://minutemennews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/altered-national-archives-1961-hawaii-arrival-records-12-20-2012.jpg
 
1257sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 01:17
when B, will you admit that this whole effort, is perpetrated BY fraudsters?
 
1258Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 02:12
Wait--this is still a thing?

In World War II, they would question would-be spies by asking them baseball questions. Now, would-be idiots are just asked about Obama's birthplace.
 
1259Boldwin
      ID: 1303155
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 13:13
And indeed all we have to do is ask if they believe the constitution matters, or if we should just blow it off whenever we feel like it.
 
1260sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 13:29
Your entire premise, is false Boldwin. The courts, have already made that decision. You might as well continue to argue that the GOP initiative of an individual mandate in healthcare reform, is unconstitutional.
 
1261Tree
      ID: 35054512
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 14:07
wait. last time i checked, those records were "missing"...

i swear that there is a guy in Topeka who comes up with this stuff, and he's paid to fool the fools. i want that gig, because they are so easily suckered.
 
1262DWetzel
      ID: 5411161018
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 14:17
"And indeed all we have to do is ask if they believe the constitution matters, or if we should just blow it off whenever we feel like it."

This is actually right; too bad you don't even know what side you're on.

Can we please have one "Boldwin's moronic conspiracy theories thread" and just confine this stuff there?
 
1263Boldwin
      ID: 1303155
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 14:20
Wait, what happened to the real August 1st?
 
1264Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 14:43
"Before" will be "before the conspiracy theorist changed the date with PhotoShop."

Nothing like generating your own evidence.
 
1265Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 00:41
1259 - and isn't there something in that Constitution along the lines of innocent until proven guilty?
 
1266Mith
      ID: 1311443016
      Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 09:09
Starved for attention, the Birther Queen has moved on to the tinfoiler issue du jour, Sandy Hook Trutherism.
 
1267Boldwin
      ID: 125451212
      Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 18:52
Hollywood producer Bettina Viviano, formerly Vice President of Production, Steven Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment.

 
1268Tree
      ID: 275221211
      Wed, Jun 12, 2013, 20:28


or, if you prefer.

now it all makes sense!