This whole thing is exactly the same as the Muslim controversy. Who the hell cares if he was born in the US? It's a stupid law that should be done away with (even if saying this means that I agree with Schwarzenegger).

Nope, but the additional information that the form contains has no bearing on his job. The only thing on the birth certificate that has any relevance is verifying his age and place of birth. All of that is available on the form that was released to the public.


Has any other president shown us this? The president has proven his eligibility. There's nothing strange about a President not showing private documents that have no relevance to his job.


Because, as I noted before, it doesn't stop there. Soon they'll want more documents. And more. And more. Documents that have nothing to do with his job. And at any point he stops, someone will say "why not show it unless you have something to hide?"

Umm ... the Constitution?

Sorry, I guess I should have bolded this part.

He's my President, I don't expect him, of all people, to be afraid to show his original certificate when asked. As commander-in-chief, he's asked to see every military members birth certificate. I don't understand why he needs to be so secretive about his.

If you can get that changed, have at it.

But I don't think you'd get much traction even with most liberals on that one, at least not a general exception.

Their original birth certificate or the one provided to them by their state of residence? Because the latter is exactly what Obama has provided.

Step 1: Post on FOFC.
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Get Constitution changed.

Sure, it'd be nice to get it changed, but I'm not going to rage against the machine about it. Just posting my opinion. I could care less where he or anyone else running for President is born.

Surprised how many birthers we have on the board. Must be more mainstream than I thought. :)

Well for those of us who are late to the party, just a simple question. Does he have the original in his possession? Or do we even know that for sure either way?

I don't know how mainstream it is since it's another term that I don't recall hearing until it came up in this thread (much like the teleprompter thing, which I knew was a topic but didn't know it had an acronym)

Not sure. I don't have my original. All I have is a notarized copy sent to me by the state of Florida.

There's more proof that Barack Obama was born in the U.S. than there is that George W. Bush won Florida in 2000.

Discuss.

:D

Is it hard to get another copy of your birth certificate? I haven't needed it since I got my drivers license at 16 I believe. Not sure if my Mom even has it anymore. I should probably get something on file though in case it's required for something.

Or you run for President ;)

Typically no. My wife has gotten certified copies 2 or 3 times in the last 15 years or so (she can't seem to keep up with 'em after she gets 'em)

I provided a copy of my original birth certificate.

I saw this link on Fark.

hxxp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

In 2007, 35% of Democrats polled believed that Bush had advance notice of the 9/11 attacks.

There are fringies on both sides, sadly. Can we just stage a group mocking and then get back to healthcare? :)

Well, why didn't Bush come out and say he didn't have advance knowledge of 9/11???? :)

If he started a webpage about why he didn't have advance knowledge of 9/11, but then refused to provide his phone records for that morning, it would be kind of weird.

By the way, someone asked whether other presidents have shown their regular birth certificates. I don't know about presidents, but there were some birthers attacking John McCain as well, and one way or another, we got to see the original and short-form (I don't know if McCain released this, or if the military nature of his birthplace makes this a public record somehow).

JohnMcCain: Birth Certificate (long and short form), Colon, Panama, 1936

It seems like a no-brainer to me to require every presidential candidate to authorize direct public access to their original birth certificates. That would quiet a lot of this insanity, and also potentially clear up confusion for potential constitutional questions down the road. Of course, when members of congress tried to pass just such a bill, they were mocked as "birthers".

That's a rather vague question. There was evidence that Bin Laden was planning to strike and even a memo that stated it would be via hijacked planes. Does the question mean that Bush allowed it to happen or that he simply had notice that there could be an attack like that?

The forgery has been torn to shreds primarily because it got the name of the country wrong. But they fixed it and have a new one out already.

http://i32.tinypic.com/281blzk.jpg

There was direct public access to the original birth certificate. It's held by the state and media members such as FactCheck.org were allowed to see it. The long-form is no longer issued by the state upon request. They release the short form which is essentially the same information.

It would be sad to create a law that requires you to have your original birth certificate. It would certainly disqualify those who have states that didn't do good clerical work or individuals who didn't save them over the years.

I still don't see how that matters though. It's about whether or not he's a citizen. The State of Hawaii has confirmed it and released a copy of his birth certificate. There are numerous birth announcements in the local newspaper to confirm as well. He's a citizen according to the State, I don't see what else is needed to show he's qualified. If someone wants to claim the State forged documents or whatever, they are free to do so in a court. But until they win, he's been declared a citizen and I don't see why he needs to do anything else to indulge these morons.

I'm a citizen of the United States but I wasn't born in this country. I also have a birth certificate. *shrug*

My belief is that it's either:

a) He doesn't want to indulge conspiracy nuts which does look rather un-Presidential. I cringe everytime I see NASA try and defend their moon landings. You're fucking NASA, a group filled with brilliant people who accomplished a remarkable task. Why lower yourselves to argue with people who IQs below 60?

b) It's a smart political move. I mean the whole thing is a huge embarassment to the Republican Party and certianly doesn't help them with independents or minorities. Seeing these people run around producing fake birth certificates and sounding like lunatics on TV (you should have seen Orly on MSNBC today) is not good for the GOP. I wouldn't even be surprised to hear that the Dems are pushing the topic out into the forefront.

FWIW

WH says no to any rate hikes on middle class and Im not even saying that that is actually a good thing:

White House says no to tax hike for middle class - Yahoo! News



I guess now we can get back to the idiocy that is birth certificates.

interesting thought that the Dems might actually be pushing this to the fore to keep the drum going for the fringe. interesting.

If Obama manages to keep his promises to not lower taxes and not increase the national debt, I'd definitely vote for him in 2012. For King of the World.

yes, and based on that you could run for president.

i fail to understand your point.

I don't know for sure or anything, but I think if you were a ruthless political mind (Rahm), you would use it. They have made the attempt to paint the GOP as far-far-right. It was the reason they started that campaign of saying Rush was the leader of the party. I don't know why they wouldn't use this to their advantage.

If you look at the timing, it does make sense. He took a hit for the Gates thing, hasn't had much success reaching people on health care, and the economy is still pretty blah. His poll numbers have been dropping a bit too. If I was him, I wouldn't want this story to go away.

Then again, I don't think many Presidents have ever given in to the conspiracy theorists. Whether it be Kennedy, the Moon Landing, 9/11, NWO, Amero, etc. I just don't think it would look real professional if the CIA started constantly debunking every half-brain conspiracy theory on 9/11.

It certainly doesn't make them hypocrites to oppose spending when that's all they wanted to do for the last 8 years.

history that can be talked about started in '09.

Did something in this story happen this week? I thought it just kind of randomly came up here.

sure, the Repubs want to vote against cash for clunkers. A) It's working, and B) Be honest, they're going to say no anyway. It's all they're doing.

Well you gotta do something to distract people from looking atop the fencepost.

Well a bunch of birth certificates from Kenya surfaced in the last week or so. I think a couple networks picked up on it and everyone followed their lead. I believe every network has discussed the story and you can find it in every newspaper.

I don't know if any one thing triggered it, could have just been a slow news week?

It's hard to not say 'no' to most of these policies given the fiscal irresponsibility of the current leaders. I thought the Republicans under Bush were bad enough in regards to spending over their head. Obama and the Democrats have made that spending look like loose change. It's embarrassing stuff.

The rest of you can now return to worrying about Hawaii's free record laws or whatever the hell you're talking about.

It's working... as a subsidy for the auto makers. The money would have been better spent on mass transit as the environmental benefits are really minimal.

Any guess as to which "network" probably picked it up ;)

SI

And there's no real job creation either. All this does is give a paycheck for a week or two more for the remaining dealerships. It's a minimal impact from top to bottom.

The way the question is worded, it's reasonable to think that anyone who knows Bush was briefed in the summer of 2001 on potential attacks by Al Qaeda on the U.S. would answer in the affirmative. So I'd say that's not a clear indication of "fringe".

People who think Bush & Co engineered 9/11 are fringe, but to conclude from this poll that those people equal 35% of Democrats (and 22% of Americans, and 18% of Republicans, all in 2007) is reaching. Like saying that South Dakota is safer than Central Park.

Is this the new liberal "gotcha" way of arguing? Rather than actually discuss a point, you just bring up a piece of rhetoric from a politician?

I mean, if we're talking about reaching, how about saying that the stimulus will save or create 3.5 million jobs, is chock full of shovel-ready projects that would begin shortly after the stimulus was signed, or to bring it back to the national reciprocity argument, that the amendment would have wiped out New York's gun laws and led to an increase in violent crime across the country?

Wow, this is a fun way to argue. Not particularly productive, but fun!

Oh, by the way, does anyone want to agree with Earl Ofari Hutchinson's belief that this spoof of Obama is somehow "dangerous"?

I find it having a tinge of racism in it but thats just me.

Do you mean my substantive reply to your paste-and-run from Rasmussen or the throwaway link I threw in there at the end for fun (because I found it amusing)?


There's 92 words in my post. You've decided to respond to 10 I tacked on to the end for shits and giggles. Who's being productive now?

Slow day on the radio today?

Nope... I just find it hysterical that after a good five years of BusHitler, Bush as the devil, god knows how many Ted Rall cartoons portraying Bush as a bloodthirsty monster that Hutchinson thinks that poster of Obama is "dangerous", and the artist needs to out himself publicly so he can get his comeuppance is mind-bogglingly delusional.

Your "substantive" reply can be boiled down to, "Let's find an excuse for these numbers". I actually didn't consider the first part of your post to be worth a response.

I've completely missed this, to be honest. Do you have a link?

For the record, I don't think the poster is "dangerous". Creepy, though.

I figured as much. It wouldn't be like you to critically examine poll numbers that support your predetermined conclusions. I mean, just throw outcopy-and-paste the poll numbers and your from-the-hip conclusion and cut to commercialhit the "post" button, amirite?

Obama "Joker" Poster Causing a Stir in L.A. - KTLA

Pretty easy to find.

I wish people had more respect for the office of the president, on both sides. Call 'em liars, crappy presidents, but I could do without the nazi/superhero villain stuff. It's like a crappy middle-eastern county's political protest.

Obama "Joker" Poster Causing a Stir in L.A. - KTLA - link to the Hutchinson story.

My point in posting that poll was (as I said) to point out that there are fringies on the left and the right, and that these are really non stories (both the "birther and "bush knew").

I have as much interest in debating the percentage of Democrats that believed Bush had prior knowledge of the 911 attacks as I do in debating the percentage of Republicans who think Obama's not really a US citizen. I just don't think either are really important.

With that, I'm off to take the kids to G-Force. *Shudder* I think I'd rather debate politics than watch superhero hamsters.

Here's Nate Silver's take. He's pretty good with numbers.


Silver doesn't even bother to discuss the difference in the questions asked between the two polls, or the context in which they were set.

On the first, there's a definite expansion of the numbers one can expect when you ask if someone thinks the CIA had some advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, especially when the CIA wrote a briefing report specifically on this topic for the President's review. A certain number of people are going to answer "Yes" to that question but believe nothing more than the CIA felt it was likely attacks were going to be attempted by Al Qaeda on the U.S. mainland, in the near future. Hardly a "fringe" belief because, in fact, that's exactly what the CIA reported to the President.

On the second, the context of Bush's approval rating in 2007 needs to be addressed. How much would an overwhelming public dislike for Bush color participants' responses to a poll which essentially asks them to determine the likelihood that he was anything from an incompetent (ignoring intelligence about the attacks) to a villain (knowing specifically about the attacks that would happen)? I'd expect it would be at least a small but statistically significant number.

Oh, I've run out of time again. Back after the next commercial....

It's really hard to get any kind of read on which side's fringe is more mainstream/substantial. I think we really rely on our own experience. I was pretty much warped from my years at a very liberal law school, in a very liberal city, where many students and professors liked to hint at 9/11 conspiracies and Bush's grand plans for global domination, and they often predicted he would try to hold the office past the end of his term. A few of them actually became anti-gun control because they felt people needed to prepare for Bush's coming monarchy. It was absolutely insane. These were really educated people. I'm sure this was an over-the-top experience, but to me, the left fringe has always been scarier than the right fringe, because they're not hillbillies in a motor home somewhere, they're all over the legal profession and academic elite. It definitely made me more conservative because it just seemed every liberal argument needed to completely exagerate and distort reality to make a point. I think that's a product of being out of power, as you see a similar thing from some conservatives now, yelling about socalism and the country collapsing.

The Republicans definitely didn't do a very good job of highlighting that element as substantial within the Democratic party.

Well, well....


The claims themselves aren't really important because they're obviously false to any rational-thinking person. If, however, prominent GOP politicians continue to be made to look foolish by their dalliance with the Birther movement, it could (emphasis could) have a detrimental effect on the GOP's electoral success, especially outside of the South. That's probably the limit of the importance here, to be honest.

Sounds like you were caught up in an ivory tower liberal echo chamber. Yes, we have them too. There is, however, plenty of good rational liberal/progressive thought elsewhere, much of it linked in this thread.

My father told me once that his skepticism of liberal academics grew substantially when he saw how, in the 60s, guys like Chomsky would rile up the students about something or other and then retire to the Faculty Lounge while the kids got beaten up by the police.

Where were you in 2004?

Seriously, though, aside from the ritual burnings of Michael Moore every two years or so, I'd suspect that the overuse of the "liberal media elite" anonymous bogeyman resulted in a situation where it doesn't carry a lot of weight anymore. Especially when it competes with a veritable parade of bona fide "fringies" (to use Cam's word) out of the right.

The "liberal media elite" is different, that's an attempt to paint liberals as out of touch with regular people. (I think that worked to some extent, and Hollywood's support of Gore certainly didn't help him, and probably cost him votes) The actual fringe wasn't really highlighted.

Yeah, that's a +1.

/falls over dead

Yeah, I don't know why this is (if it is)? Maybe the nutcases on the right are more prominent?

The nut cases on the right have radio and TV contracts? (yes, the fringe of the left has Air America, which I GUESS could be called a radio network. :rolleyes:)

No reason to, when you're right you're right. There were definitely elements within the security community that had a surprisingly good read on what would eventually become known as 9/11.

Thing is, even as someone who supported some of those theories before 9/11 ever happened, it's hard not to admit that there's the benefit of hindsight in assessing that analysis. It's somewhat of a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of business & for every notion that isn't given enough credence that does happen there's probably a hundred others that are totally off base & are rightfully not given priority. But it is hella frustrating (and costly) when someone gets it right but wasn't listened to at the time.

It seems silly to argue about what fringe is more numerous as if that somehow suggests the birther movement isn't worth talking about. Yes, there are loonies on both sides. But currently there is a birther bill in Congress, co-sponsored by several Republicans. It is a current topic. There is not a "Bush knew about 9/11" bill or a "Dick Cheney is Satan" bill.

If we couldn't discuss any topic if the other party had done the same thing in the past, then there would be no topics to discuss and there would be no need to post anything in any political thread.

So you think it's silly to argue about, but then you make an argument.

I'm very surprised there wasn't something like the "birther bill" in place already. When you file your statement of candidacy, it seems reasonable to have to provide a showing that you're constitutionally elligible.

Are you being purposefully dense just so you can make a stupid statement?

I mean, that's like jbmagic logic you're using there.

I think we should discuss the original topic. I think it's silly to say that we shouldn't talk about it just because someone else did it however many years ago.

Maybe I'll break it down easier...

Original topic? Not silly.
Claiming the topic is worthless because someone else does the same thing? Silly.

It's just interesting that your rules about not comparing parties doesn't appear to apply to you. You say that birthers are worth talking about, because there's more of them than truthers, whom by implication then, are not worth talking about. Seems like the same kind of thing you're yelling about me doing "90% of the time".

That's not the point. When someone has a problem with something party X does, but not when party Y does it, they lose credibility. That's what those comparisons are about.

How did I compare parties? I said it is a current topic, thus it is worthy of discussion. If there are truther bills, or any leftwing fringe bills being submitted, then fine, let's talk about them.

I mean, the similar logic you guys are using is saying we can't talk about Sanford because Clinton also cheated on his wife.

Wait, can we review which of us has credibility again? I forget.

When did I say this?

For the millionth time, according to top lawyers, a handjob that results in a ruined dress is not cheating.

When did I say I didn't have a problem with truthers? You have a quote or were you just assuming?

"It seems silly to argue about what fringe is more numerous as if that somehow suggests the birther movement isn't worth talking about. Yes, there are loonies on both sides. But currently there is a birther bill in Congress, co-sponsored by several Republicans. It is a current topic. There is not a "Bush knew about 9/11" bill or a "Dick Cheney is Satan" bill."

Unless I misunderstand (which is very possible), that says that birthers are worthy of talking about because there's more right fringe than left fringe. That's been a pretty common theme in this thread.

Or in other words, you think it's silly to argue that the left fringe is more numerous and thus the right fringe isn't worth talking about, but it's perfectly acceptable to argue that the right fringe is more numerous and is thus worth talking about.

That's directed to comparison with other parties in general, not to anything you said.

If I say, "X party did that too", I'm not saying it's pointless to talk about, I'm looking to see if the poster will condem that too, or try to distinguish it. Usually, they try to distinguish it, which tells me that the opinion is pretty much just partisian blather.

Like if a Republican complains about Democratic Congress spending. If a democrat responds, "Bush wasn't exactly Mr. Fiscal responsibility", the response to that is telling. If the republican tries to distinguish Bush as being somehow better, then they're just making a partisian argument. If they, "Bush sucked too", then they have a little more credibility (IMO) Or if someone goes hard after Clinton and Roberts on infedelity but downplays McCain.

Nope, I'm saying it because the birthers are a current topic, for reasons I explained above. The truthers are not. Just like Sanford was a current topic, not Clinton. I mean, that was pretty clear in my statement. There a bill for X, not a bill for Y. How you translated that into "There is more X than Y' is beyond me.


I never said the right fringe is more numerous. I don't know or CARE which fringe is more numerous. A current topic is a current topic. The birther stuff is current. It's in the news, there's a bill, Congressmen have commented on it.

LOL........the last few pages of this thread get a monumental FAIL. This is borderline awful.

It's silly to say this argument is awful since there have been arguments before in these threads that have been awful.

:)

Please stop comparing this awfulness to previous awfulness. thx.

The original discussion wasn't too bad, but I think people are arguing about what they're arguing about at this point. The last couple of pages need a padded cell.

So now on in political threads, maybe I should just start every post with a disclaimer saying the truthers are morons. Will that suffice? Or maybe I should rotate the left wingers I bash? I've got lots of others - PETA, NARAL, Sharpton/Jackson, etc.

+1

Me? I'm in favor of exploring every avenue available to minimize or in a perfect world eliminate completely the damage that can be done by our fencepost turtle in chief. Exploring his legal qualifications for the job are one avenue, it'd be foolish not to explore it. It's probably a long shot, hell it is a long shot and it's an even longer shot IMO that no matter what was found that his minions wouldn't come up with a way to excuse the discrepancy & try to retroactively legitimize him anyway.

At least something different for a change of pace :D

SI

As a sidenote, how long before we see a photoshopped version of the Clinton-Kim Jong Il photo where Kim has a white stain on his green jumpsuit?

The only thing dangerous is that people don't know what that word really means.

This recess is quickly becoming a disaster for Democrats. The protests at the town halls are being broadcast in the MSM and it is really hurting the Democrats from a PR perspective. As one analyst notes in this article, the Democrats would make a dangerous mistake by trying to demonize the vocal citizens at the town halls. Obama failed to mobilize his internet army to provide supporters at these gatherings and the Democrats are paying for it.

Democrats' break looking like a bad trip - Alex Isenstadt and Abby Phillip - POLITICO.com

what are you talking about?

This may be asking too much, but you may want to read the article and watch the videos first before asking what it's about.

I saw an article earlier today on what Specter & Sibelius ran into, the linked story is basically a similar story with some more examples. I don't envy legislators who come home & try to sell this pig in a poke in a lot of districts, doing so seems like a very bad call for many of them.

edit to add: Speaking of which, just as a related tangent, I got a political call last week that was different than any I'd ever run across before & I thought it was actually pretty smart business. It starts out as a robocall from our Congressman but if you stay on the line he apparently picks up & has a (presumably short) conversation with you about health care. A sort of long distance individual town hall meeting was the gist of it. Truth is, I didn't bother to stay on the line because a)I just wasn't in the mood and b)there wasn't going to be any shortage of people getting those calls in this district that would be saying what I would have said anyway. I'm not operating under any illusions about how the numbers getting the calls were chosen, whether he gives a damn about what I think personally, or anything else that's remotely naive, I was just impressed by what seems like a smart way to provide some interaction with past & future voters while controlling both the message & the exposure.

Kathleen Sebelius - Health-Care Reform's Many Benefits Include Peace of Mind - washingtonpost.com


1. She makes $250,000 between her and her husband and they're worried about covering their kids? What a terrible situation that's indicative of the general public and their insurance plight. We can only hope and pray that her sons are covered under the new bill.

2. Don't let the details get in the way? Yes, what a silly thought to consider the details when you have 1000+ pages of documents and a system changing bill being considered.

And people wonder why Kansans didn't shed a tear when she moved out of town.

Agreed. This can't help the relationship between the White House and moderate Democrats. They're being nudged/forced to vote for this mess of a bill and then they have to go back to their constituents to try to sell it. It's a no win situation and there's going to be hard feelings either way.

I can't wait for the Obama supporters to claim how Republicans are drafting people to do this. Sorry this is independents & Republicans who think this is a terrible idea and who make up more than half the population. I would say it is the same when the independents and Democrats started turning against the Iraq wars. You didn't complain then when organized Democratic groups brought out the troops. The country thinks this is a bad idea and it's not going to happen.

So what has more weight? Your opinion or public polls that say Health Care has less than 50% support. Why wouldn't you expect there to be about 50% of the people there against the Senator/Democratic Official?

If they were doing a speech against Child Porn or Murder there probably wouldn't be a strong turn out against. A lot of people have different opinions on this health care proposal. Just saying they are wrong doesn't change 50%+ of the population's mind.

Anyone ever wonder if these board members who joined in July 2009 are just Democratic and Republican shills sent out to debate talking points on larger message boards?

Nah, we've had a lot of both for years :D

SI

Her kids graduated college and would no longer be covered under her health insurance plans. With no one hiring, a lot of kids graduating college are going uncovered.

Kansans also wanted to teach our kids that the Earth is 6,000 years old. We aren't talking about the brightest bulbs in the box.

Well, she stepped down with a 46% approval rating. But I'd say that's not too bad for a Democrat in a deep red state. Among independents, she had a 58% approval - 37% disapproval.

I'd say it's more accurate to say they were divided on her than they were happy to see her step down.

SurveyUSA News Poll #15290

Lets not let accuracy get in the way.