The Birther Conspiracy Thread (1 Viewer)

[Fennis]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

For me, I actually think its a pretty interesting issue. And while I have no doubts that Obama was born in Hawaii, I do have my suspicions that he's hiding something.

It is human nature to have those suspicions about someone who is acting like they are hiding something. Which is why Obama ought to just release the damn thing and get it over. His failure to do so just gives the birthers more ammo. Giving your enemies more ammo is irrational.

giving your irrational opponents what they perceive to be ammo is very rational

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

For me, I actually think its a pretty interesting issue. And while I have no doubts that Obama was born in Hawaii, I do have my suspicions that he's hiding something.

It is human nature to have those suspicions about someone who is acting like they are hiding something. Which is why Obama ought to just release the damn thing and get it over. His failure to do so just gives the birthers more ammo. Giving your enemies more ammo is irrational.

Having them spin their wheels on this issue is brilliant.Guess what... he is going to walk right into the presidential election process with no worries about his eligibility in 21 months from now.

 

[bueno]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

For me, I actually think its a pretty interesting issue. And while I have no doubts that Obama was born in Hawaii, I do have my suspicions that he's hiding something.

It is human nature to have those suspicions about someone who is acting like they are hiding something. Which is why Obama ought to just release the damn thing and get it over. His failure to do so just gives the birthers more ammo. Giving your enemies more ammo is irrational.

giving your irrational opponents what they perceive to be ammo is very rational

I just gave you ammo. Guess i'm a rational guy!

 

[Sarnoff]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

The initial REQUEST was fine 3-and-a-half years ago. It was subsequently answered with all that Hawaii provides on such a request, a certificate of live birth.

Well, the current governor of Hawaii said there's more info that he can release, if only Obama would give permission to do so. I have no idea why that permission hasn't been granted.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

The initial REQUEST was fine 3-and-a-half years ago. It was subsequently answered with all that Hawaii provides on such a request, a certificate of live birth.

Well, the current governor of Hawaii said there's more info that he can release, if only Obama would give permission to do so. I have no idea why that permission hasn't been granted.

Obama hasnt given permission. Which is HIS right. That's it, game over.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

For me, I actually think its a pretty interesting issue. And while I have no doubts that Obama was born in Hawaii, I do have my suspicions that he's hiding something.

It is human nature to have those suspicions about someone who is acting like they are hiding something. Which is why Obama ought to just release the damn thing and get it over. His failure to do so just gives the birthers more ammo. Giving your enemies more ammo is irrational.

The Democrats want the birthers around as long as possible.

 

[jon_mx]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

The initial REQUEST was fine 3-and-a-half years ago. It was subsequently answered with all that Hawaii provides on such a request, a certificate of live birth.

Well, the current governor of Hawaii said there's more info that he can release, if only Obama would give permission to do so. I have no idea why that permission hasn't been granted.

Obama hasnt given permission. Which is HIS right. That's it, game over.

When you spend years criticizing Bush for his lack of transparency and then campaigns on how he will be the most transparent president in history, hiding information should not be acceptable.

 

[bigbottom]

Where is the proof that he is the biological son of John S. McCain, Jr.? Perhaps his father is a fair-skinned Panamanian. Are there DNA tests that haven't been released? This is the presidency we're talking about here. We need to be sure!

Oh Snap!You just hit the birther mind-set on the head.

Well done bigbottom.

Moreover, while being (allegedly) born abroad to two U.S. Citizens may confer jus sanguinis citizenship, that does not necessarily make one a "natural-born citizen" for purposes of constitutional eligibility for the office of the President.

 

[Sarnoff]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

The initial REQUEST was fine 3-and-a-half years ago. It was subsequently answered with all that Hawaii provides on such a request, a certificate of live birth.

Well, the current governor of Hawaii said there's more info that he can release, if only Obama would give permission to do so. I have no idea why that permission hasn't been granted.

Obama hasnt given permission. Which is HIS right. That's it, game over.

Sure he has the right to refuse to let us look at a piece of paper with his name on it. Why, as a country, are we willing to accept that assertion from a person who wants to be our leader? There are only two required qualifications to be president, why should we just take anyone's word for it that they meet those requirements if they're running for office? I don't get it. We should expect more from our leaders, right? I mean, if someone wanted to see a private document of mine, as a private citizen, sure, I have the right to refuse. I don't get, however, why we don't expect more from our public servants. Especially one who campaigned so passionately about the government being more open and honest to the people it serves.

 

[Sarnoff]

Moreover, while being (allegedly) born abroad to two U.S. Citizens may confer jus sanguinis citizenship, that does not necessarily make one a "natural-born citizen" for purposes of constitutional eligibility for the office of the President.

True, but, since the term is never defined, nothing can be said to guarantee a person is a "natural-born citizen" for the purposes of constitutional eligibility.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

The initial REQUEST was fine 3-and-a-half years ago. It was subsequently answered with all that Hawaii provides on such a request, a certificate of live birth.

Well, the current governor of Hawaii said there's more info that he can release, if only Obama would give permission to do so. I have no idea why that permission hasn't been granted.

Obama hasnt given permission. Which is HIS right. That's it, game over.

When you spend years criticizing Bush for his lack of transparency and then campaigns on how he will be the most transparent president in history, hiding information should not be acceptable.

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken

It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

 

[bigbottom]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

The initial REQUEST was fine 3-and-a-half years ago. It was subsequently answered with all that Hawaii provides on such a request, a certificate of live birth.

Well, the current governor of Hawaii said there's more info that he can release, if only Obama would give permission to do so. I have no idea why that permission hasn't been granted.

Obama hasnt given permission. Which is HIS right. That's it, game over.

Sure he has the right to refuse to let us look at a piece of paper with his name on it. Why, as a country, are we willing to accept that assertion from a person who wants to be our leader? There are only two required qualifications to be president, why should we just take anyone's word for it that they meet those requirements if they're running for office?

Haven't we always done this?And we have much more than just his word, by the way.

 

[Sarnoff]

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

Again, why the venom? Why take this tone? How do you not see you're just as bad as Jim11 and jon_mx?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Sure he has the right to refuse to let us look at a piece of paper with his name on it. Why, as a country, are we willing to accept that assertion from a person who wants to be our leader?

Because this is a country of Laws. The greatest country ever at that. And this is what the law states. Now all the losers can be a big ol' crybabies about it, but that doesn't change the law.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

Again, why the venom? Why take this tone? How do you not see you're just as bad as Jim11 and jon_mx?

Because its bueno... he once told me it was just dandy my best friend died in the illegitimate war in Iraq... because he made money off of it.How you like them apples?

 

[Sarnoff]

Sure he has the right to refuse to let us look at a piece of paper with his name on it. Why, as a country, are we willing to accept that assertion from a person who wants to be our leader? There are only two required qualifications to be president, why should we just take anyone's word for it that they meet those requirements if they're running for office?

Haven't we always done this?And we have much more than just his word, by the way.

Yes, we always have, but maybe we shouldn't have. Maybe the AZ proposal to pre-qualify candidates is a good first step at reconciling the issue. And the reason I'm not a birther is because I accept the other evidence, I don't take Obama at his word alone. I just don't get why the anti-birthers are so quick to shout down the other side by saying "Obama doesn't have to show if he doesn't want to", instead of questioning whether that's really a valid position for a leader to take.

 

[jon_mx]

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

I am not sure you know what Self Righteousness means. I was pointing out Obama's hypocrisy on a central campaign theme.

 

[bigbottom]

By the way, more on McCain:

- The birth registers of the Panama Canal Zone Health Department contain no record of John McCain's birth.

- Typically, parents of children in the Jus Sanguinis citizenship category file a Form 240 Report of Birth to the local U.S. Consulate to establish the right to citizenship. There does not appear to be such a form for John McCain.

I think we may have narrowly avoided a Constitutional crisis! Thank god we have a real natural-born American citizen in the White House!!!

 

[Sarnoff]

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

Again, why the venom? Why take this tone? How do you not see you're just as bad as Jim11 and jon_mx?

Because its bueno... he once told me it was just dandy my best friend died in the illegitimate war in Iraq... because he made money off of it.How you like them apples?

Wait, jon_mx is bueno? And that makes your behavior acceptable?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Sure he has the right to refuse to let us look at a piece of paper with his name on it. Why, as a country, are we willing to accept that assertion from a person who wants to be our leader? There are only two required qualifications to be president, why should we just take anyone's word for it that they meet those requirements if they're running for office?

Haven't we always done this?And we have much more than just his word, by the way.

Yes, we always have, but maybe we shouldn't have. Maybe the AZ proposal to pre-qualify candidates is a good first step at reconciling the issue. And the reason I'm not a birther is because I accept the other evidence, I don't take Obama at his word alone. I just don't get why the anti-birthers are so quick to shout down the other side by saying "Obama doesn't have to show if he doesn't want to", instead of questioning whether that's really a valid position for a leader to take.

Its a completely valid position for any American citizen to take. What isn't a valid position is to not accept the laws and expecting something above/beyond/outside the laws... and continuing to cry about it for years upon years.

 

[Fennis]

By the way, more on McCain:- The birth registers of the Panama Canal Zone Health Department contain no record of John McCain's birth.- Typically, parents of children in the Jus Sanguinis citizenship category file a Form 240 Report of Birth to the local U.S. Consulate to establish the right to citizenship. There does not appear to be such a form for John McCain.I think we may have narrowly avoided a Constitutional crisis! Thank god we have a real natural-born American citizen in the White House!!!

In 1968, Mitt Romney's dad ran for president and he was a mexican!

 

[bueno]

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

Again, why the venom? Why take this tone? How do you not see you're just as bad as Jim11 and jon_mx?

Because its bueno... he once told me it was just dandy my best friend died in the illegitimate war in Iraq... because he made money off of it.How you like them apples?

I don't recall ever saying that. Nor do I ever recall saying I made money off the war. Sorry to hear about your friend.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

Again, why the venom? Why take this tone? How do you not see you're just as bad as Jim11 and jon_mx?

Because its bueno... he once told me it was just dandy my best friend died in the illegitimate war in Iraq... because he made money off of it.How you like them apples?

I don't recall ever saying that. Nor do I ever recall saying I made money off the war. Sorry to hear about your friend.

I straight up left FBGs afterwards and that old low digit handle is lost for good now.

 

[jon_mx]

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.

Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken

It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

Again, why the venom? Why take this tone? How do you not see you're just as bad as Jim11 and jon_mx?

Because its bueno... he once told me it was just dandy my best friend died in the illegitimate war in Iraq... because he made money off of it.How you like them apples?

XXX

 

[bueno]

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

Again, why the venom? Why take this tone? How do you not see you're just as bad as Jim11 and jon_mx?

Because its bueno... he once told me it was just dandy my best friend died in the illegitimate war in Iraq... because he made money off of it.How you like them apples?

I don't recall ever saying that. Nor do I ever recall saying I made money off the war. Sorry to hear about your friend.

I straight up left FBGs afterwards and that old low digit handle is lost for good now.

If you confuse me with jon_mx, maybe your reading comprehension sucks too. Just saying.

 

[Sarnoff]

Yes, we always have, but maybe we shouldn't have. Maybe the AZ proposal to pre-qualify candidates is a good first step at reconciling the issue. And the reason I'm not a birther is because I accept the other evidence, I don't take Obama at his word alone. I just don't get why the anti-birthers are so quick to shout down the other side by saying "Obama doesn't have to show if he doesn't want to", instead of questioning whether that's really a valid position for a leader to take.

Its a completely valid position for any American citizen to take. What isn't a valid position is to not accept the laws and expecting something above/beyond/outside the laws... and continuing to cry about it for years upon years.

Why do we accept it is a valid position from a public servant? Our elected officials already give up certain specific rights that, otherwise, private citizens enjoy. Why shouldn't proving the required qualifications to hold office rise to the level of one of the rights we require our leaders to give up to hold office?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Wait, jon_mx is bueno?

mea culpa... my mistake during the ongoing back and forth.jon-mx (who i have a ton of spicey back and forth with) is a simple fisherman. he is not bueno.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Yes, we always have, but maybe we shouldn't have. Maybe the AZ proposal to pre-qualify candidates is a good first step at reconciling the issue. And the reason I'm not a birther is because I accept the other evidence, I don't take Obama at his word alone. I just don't get why the anti-birthers are so quick to shout down the other side by saying "Obama doesn't have to show if he doesn't want to", instead of questioning whether that's really a valid position for a leader to take.

Its a completely valid position for any American citizen to take. What isn't a valid position is to not accept the laws and expecting something above/beyond/outside the laws... and continuing to cry about it for years upon years.

Why do we accept it is a valid position from a public servant? Our elected officials already give up certain specific rights that, otherwise, private citizens enjoy. Why shouldn't proving the required qualifications to hold office rise to the level of one of the rights we require our leaders to give up to hold office?

So put your "birther" efforts towards changing the laws. That would be legitimate and valid.

 

[jon_mx]

Wait, jon_mx is bueno?

mea culpa... my mistake during the ongoing back and forth.jon-mx (who i have a ton of spicey back and forth with) is a simple fisherman. he is not bueno.

Just like Jesus commanded...

 

[bueno]

Wait, jon_mx is bueno?

mea culpa... my mistake during the ongoing back and forth.jon-mx (who i have a ton of spicey back and forth with) is a simple fisherman. he is not bueno.

Lithium - it's not just for batteries, you know.

 

[Sarnoff]

Yes, we always have, but maybe we shouldn't have. Maybe the AZ proposal to pre-qualify candidates is a good first step at reconciling the issue. And the reason I'm not a birther is because I accept the other evidence, I don't take Obama at his word alone. I just don't get why the anti-birthers are so quick to shout down the other side by saying "Obama doesn't have to show if he doesn't want to", instead of questioning whether that's really a valid position for a leader to take.

Its a completely valid position for any American citizen to take. What isn't a valid position is to not accept the laws and expecting something above/beyond/outside the laws... and continuing to cry about it for years upon years.

Why do we accept it is a valid position from a public servant? Our elected officials already give up certain specific rights that, otherwise, private citizens enjoy. Why shouldn't proving the required qualifications to hold office rise to the level of one of the rights we require our leaders to give up to hold office?

So put your "birther" efforts towards changing the laws. That would be legitimate and valid.

But I don't get the vehement opposition to changing the laws. Arizona wants to pre-qualify candidates, and the anti-birthers are up in arms over it. Makes no sense to me.

 

[Jewell]

For me, I actually think its a pretty interesting issue. And while I have no doubts that Obama was born in Hawaii, I do have my suspicions that he's hiding something.

Bingo! It's an interesting topic to discuss even if you believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but to some discussing it without condemning The Birthers as insane, racist, dolts makes you an insane, racist, dolt yourself.

I am convinced that the large numbers of birthers on the conservative side has to do with racism. I don't like to think this, but there really is no other conclusion that makes any kind of sense.

Unconvinced on the bolded. When I don't like to do something I don't do it all day long and then share what I hate doing with others. Maybe that's just me.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Yes, we always have, but maybe we shouldn't have. Maybe the AZ proposal to pre-qualify candidates is a good first step at reconciling the issue. And the reason I'm not a birther is because I accept the other evidence, I don't take Obama at his word alone. I just don't get why the anti-birthers are so quick to shout down the other side by saying "Obama doesn't have to show if he doesn't want to", instead of questioning whether that's really a valid position for a leader to take.

Its a completely valid position for any American citizen to take. What isn't a valid position is to not accept the laws and expecting something above/beyond/outside the laws... and continuing to cry about it for years upon years.

Why do we accept it is a valid position from a public servant? Our elected officials already give up certain specific rights that, otherwise, private citizens enjoy. Why shouldn't proving the required qualifications to hold office rise to the level of one of the rights we require our leaders to give up to hold office?

So put your "birther" efforts towards changing the laws. That would be legitimate and valid.

But I don't get the vehement opposition to changing the laws. Arizona wants to pre-qualify candidates, and the anti-birthers are up in arms over it. Makes no sense to me.

They are? I'm not opposed to the discussion of changing any law. If there is validity in the argument, so be it.But this thread and the "birther" scenario is about trying to state Obama is illegitimate or at least, trying to get him to capitulate to something outside of his (and every Americans) rights as they currently are.

 

[bigbottom]

Yes, we always have, but maybe we shouldn't have. Maybe the AZ proposal to pre-qualify candidates is a good first step at reconciling the issue. And the reason I'm not a birther is because I accept the other evidence, I don't take Obama at his word alone. I just don't get why the anti-birthers are so quick to shout down the other side by saying "Obama doesn't have to show if he doesn't want to", instead of questioning whether that's really a valid position for a leader to take.

Its a completely valid position for any American citizen to take. What isn't a valid position is to not accept the laws and expecting something above/beyond/outside the laws... and continuing to cry about it for years upon years.

Why do we accept it is a valid position from a public servant? Our elected officials already give up certain specific rights that, otherwise, private citizens enjoy. Why shouldn't proving the required qualifications to hold office rise to the level of one of the rights we require our leaders to give up to hold office?

So put your "birther" efforts towards changing the laws. That would be legitimate and valid.

But I don't get the vehement opposition to changing the laws. Arizona wants to pre-qualify candidates, and the anti-birthers are up in arms over it. Makes no sense to me.

Hmmm. Am I an "anti-birther"? Because I recall expressly stating upthread that I'm okay with some sort of qualification procedure prior to the election.

 

[Sarnoff]

But I don't get the vehement opposition to changing the laws. Arizona wants to pre-qualify candidates, and the anti-birthers are up in arms over it. Makes no sense to me.

Hmmm. Am I an "anti-birther"? Because I recall expressly stating upthread that I'm okay with some sort of qualification procedure prior to the election.

I wasn't referring to anyone on the last few pages of this thread (the only ones I've followed), I meant those I've read about in the articles discussing opposition to the AZ proposal. The wackjob anti-birthers that are just as bad as the birthers themselves.

 

[bigbottom]

But I don't get the vehement opposition to changing the laws. Arizona wants to pre-qualify candidates, and the anti-birthers are up in arms over it. Makes no sense to me.

Hmmm. Am I an "anti-birther"? Because I recall expressly stating upthread that I'm okay with some sort of qualification procedure prior to the election.

I wasn't referring to anyone on the last few pages of this thread (the only ones I've followed), I meant those I've read about in the articles discussing opposition to the AZ proposal. The wackjob anti-birthers that are just as bad as the birthers themselves.

Oh. Well, I can't really speak for them.So how would a proposed qualification procedure go about addressing someone like John McCain's eligibility to serve as President?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But I don't get the vehement opposition to changing the laws. Arizona wants to pre-qualify candidates, and the anti-birthers are up in arms over it. Makes no sense to me.

Hmmm. Am I an "anti-birther"? Because I recall expressly stating upthread that I'm okay with some sort of qualification procedure prior to the election.

I wasn't referring to anyone on the last few pages of this thread (the only ones I've followed), I meant those I've read about in the articles discussing opposition to the AZ proposal. The wackjob anti-birthers that are just as bad as the birthers themselves.

Ok cool. I was gonna ask if you need the minutes of this thread read back to you. But you seem to be aware of our wackjob birthers right here in this thread.

 

[Sarnoff]

But I don't get the vehement opposition to changing the laws. Arizona wants to pre-qualify candidates, and the anti-birthers are up in arms over it. Makes no sense to me.

They are? I'm not opposed to the discussion of changing any law. If there is validity in the argument, so be it.But this thread and the "birther" scenario is about trying to state Obama is illegitimate or at least, trying to get him to capitulate to something outside of his (and every Americans) rights as they currently are.

I'm just going to throw this out there, because it was something that briefly entered my thought process as I was taking a leak: I might not be so quick to say Obama has the same right of refusal a private citizen does, even as the laws are now. Government requires proof of ID from private citizens regularly. And his job requirements are spelled out in the Constitution. I'm not yet willing to grant that he has the same rights on this issue as does any private citizen who isn't running for president. It's not unreasonable to me to think the framers might have included the job requirements in the Constitution having thought of whether it was a violation of a candidate's personal rights to have to prove them.

 

[Sarnoff]

But I don't get the vehement opposition to changing the laws. Arizona wants to pre-qualify candidates, and the anti-birthers are up in arms over it. Makes no sense to me.

Hmmm. Am I an "anti-birther"? Because I recall expressly stating upthread that I'm okay with some sort of qualification procedure prior to the election.

I wasn't referring to anyone on the last few pages of this thread (the only ones I've followed), I meant those I've read about in the articles discussing opposition to the AZ proposal. The wackjob anti-birthers that are just as bad as the birthers themselves.

Oh. Well, I can't really speak for them.So how would a proposed qualification procedure go about addressing someone like John McCain's eligibility to serve as President?

That's an excellent question. As I pointed out earlier, "natural-born citizen" is never defined... there's no way for anyone to really prove they meet the qualification. So, really, there's no way to address the McCain issue, either, since it's entirely unclear whether a person needs both a jus sanguinis and jus soli claim, or just one, or if "natural-born" was really intended to mean people not born by Caesarean Section or from a test-tube. For all we know, that was thrown in there because Tom Jefferson once got the same prophecy from a psychic that Macbeth got warning him about MacDuff.Kind of why I'm mainly sitting on the sidelines with my waiting to see how the AZ proposal, and the others like it, eventually shake out.

 

[mad sweeney]

Gosh, I wished McCain would have been declared ineligible. I would have supported that effort 100%. Next to Bob Dole, the most inept candidate in my lifetime.

He was only inept to you because, before he fundamentally changed himself in order to appeal to myopic right wingers like you, he was a moderate who put ideals before party lines. Someone like that is most definitely going to get someone like you who won't even stick a pinky over whatever party lines Fox has drawn, subject of course to redrawing complete with denials of previous lines when they want (see: Limbaugh vs druggies and Jindal's Upcoming Eligibility Scandal that the libs will clearly try to use against him, something that Fox will avow would never be encouraged by their side).

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But I don't get the vehement opposition to changing the laws. Arizona wants to pre-qualify candidates, and the anti-birthers are up in arms over it. Makes no sense to me.

They are? I'm not opposed to the discussion of changing any law. If there is validity in the argument, so be it.But this thread and the "birther" scenario is about trying to state Obama is illegitimate or at least, trying to get him to capitulate to something outside of his (and every Americans) rights as they currently are.

I'm just going to throw this out there, because it was something that briefly entered my thought process as I was taking a leak: I might not be so quick to say Obama has the same right of refusal a private citizen does, even as the laws are now. Government requires proof of ID from private citizens regularly. And his job requirements are spelled out in the Constitution. I'm not yet willing to grant that he has the same rights on this issue as does any private citizen who isn't running for president. It's not unreasonable to me to think the framers might have included the job requirements in the Constitution having thought of whether it was a violation of a candidate's personal rights to have to prove them.

The acceptable proof of ID was given. Certificate of live birth.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm going to play the role of a birther. Will someone please prove to me that John McCain was eligible to become president? Because we may have narrowly missed having an illegitimate Commander in Chief!

I understood that this matter was actually taken up by congress. He was born, if I understand correctly, of American parents, on an american military installation in the panama canal zone. Congress itself saw the proof and determined that births under such circumstances anount to natural born citizens. I understand that congress also opined that this would be the case for diplomatic personnel assigned to diplomatic postings whether the child was born at embassy grounds (American Soil) or in ocal hospitals. This is just an understanding from listening to talking heads. I have not researched the matter personally.The anti-birthers like constructing easy straw men arguments that the entire matter is about his place of birth. I get that for some extremists that is the issue. They actually believe he was born in Kenya. My guess, however, and only a guess it is because I am not part of that belief or movement, is that they are a very small percentage of those who have questions about Obama. The reason the anti-birthers like this argument is because they believe when it is shut down they will have answered the issue, but the issue is larger than just birth or citizenship. the issue is the comprehensive background of the president. He has yet to truly be vetted by congress or by the people. This far he is an unnkown.In my mind most so called birthers are actually people who will concede or who actually believe the greater weight of the evidence is that he was born in Hawaii. That does not settle their inquiry into the man since we do not have nearly the documentation we on him that we have had on even presidents born in other centuries. They want to know something of his schooling, and his other records such as health, and selective service. They wish to know how he afforded and funded school, how he performed on the Bar exam and whether he remains in good standing. they wish to know something of the clients he represented to the extent that the information itself is not privileged. they wish to know who the man is by his life history. These questions are not outrageous nor unusual. Others have routinely provided the same. We got to know about Reagan's divorce and health. We got to know the school transcripts of Bush and Gore. We got the same from Kerry. We knew where Clinton schooled and how he did. The same for Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhauer and so forth. Only Obamaa has an incomplete resume`. I know more about the backgrounds of entry level cops in my city than I do about the President. He has not been forthcoming in any reasonable regard. Noting this does not make me a whacko, it makes me aware of the campaigns in my lifetime, and the fact that he stands alone in the absence of information known for certain about him.I note that today I had to get a new passport for my child, her last having expired. To do so both my wife and I had to appear together, with government issued I.D., with our child, and with her prievious passport and with her original birth certificate. We did not insist that the postal employee take our word on matters, we produced the documents. I do not believe it is unreasonable that obama do the same.

You sound so reasonable and yet you are spouting the most unreasonable stuff. I just got a passport too, and I couldn't find my original birth certificate, so I produced a certificate of live birth, which was accepted.There is nothing missing from Obama's records. I don't know where you are getting this from: World Net Daily? Where did you hear that materials were missing? And why are you buying into it? Every facet of Obama's life is as well documented as every former president. There is no "incomplete resume". You're being fed falsehoods from the internet, and you're swallowing them; I can't fathom why.

I am ready to be educated, right here, right now, by you. I happen to have no issue with his birth. I do not need to see a copy of his certificate of live birth. I would like to know his grades at Occidental, Columbia, and Yale. I would be interested in his course work and concentrations. I would like to know if, like other young men of his age, he registered for selective service as required. I would be interested in how he paid for his schooling and whether he applied for government funded financial aid and any claims he made to obtain the same. I would be interested in his legislative calendar from his time in the Illinois statehouse and in his most recent physical before he became President. These documents have all been routinely provided by candidates on both sides of the political spectrum. I would like to know these things about him from records, not from claims. Point me to those records.

 

[matuski]

I really don't get the people who are so opposed to the birthers. I get that the birthers are loony and easy to make fun of. But some people get so worked up being anti-birthers, they're just as bad. And I really don't understand the objection to the initial request. I mean, there are only two qualifications needed to become president, so, when this was first brought up, I don't get why people objected so vehemently to a person being asked to prove those qualifications.

For me, I actually think its a pretty interesting issue. And while I have no doubts that Obama was born in Hawaii, I do have my suspicions that he's hiding something.

It is human nature to have those suspicions about someone who is acting like they are hiding something. Which is why Obama ought to just release the damn thing and get it over. His failure to do so just gives the birthers more ammo. Giving your enemies more ammo is irrational.

A better way to say it is that he is giving them enough rope to hang themselves.More ammo in this case only makes his "enemies" look more foolish.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I would like to know his grades at Occidental, Columbia, and Yale. I would be interested in his course work and concentrations. I would like to know if, like other young men of his age, he registered for selective service as required. I would be interested in how he paid for his schooling and whether he applied for government funded financial aid and any claims he made to obtain the same.

Education records are protected by a number of federal and state statutes and regulations.http://epic.org/privacy/education/school.html

 

[timschochet]

I am ready to be educated, right here, right now, by you. I happen to have no issue with his birth. I do not need to see a copy of his certificate of live birth. I would like to know his grades at Occidental, Columbia, and Yale. I would be interested in his course work and concentrations. I would like to know if, like other young men of his age, he registered for selective service as required. I would be interested in how he paid for his schooling and whether he applied for government funded financial aid and any claims he made to obtain the same. I would be interested in his legislative calendar from his time in the Illinois statehouse and in his most recent physical before he became President. These documents have all been routinely provided by candidates on both sides of the political spectrum. I would like to know these things about him from records, not from claims. Point me to those records.

1.So Obama refuses to release his grades transcripts. This probably has to do with his grades at Occidental. He's admitted to taking drugs at Occidental, and his grades improved after he stopped. We know he didn't graduate with honors from Columbia, though his GPA had to be at least 3.3 to get into Yale. He graduated Columbia with a degree in political science, with a specialty in International Relations. Law school was another story for Obama. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School (the second highest honor available) in 1991. He also was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, a very prestigious honor. What more do we need to know? What secret are you expecting to find? 2. No idea about whether he received government aid. Who cares?3. I have no idea about the rest of it. The only sources I can find that even claim this information is hidden are far right wing websites like WorldNet Daily which I don't find reputable.I don't get what any of this has to do with his performance as President. I have never heard of any other president questioned in quite this way. There seems to be a need to make this guy illegitimate.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I would like to know his grades at Occidental, Columbia, and Yale. I would be interested in his course work and concentrations. I would like to know if, like other young men of his age, he registered for selective service as required. I would be interested in how he paid for his schooling and whether he applied for government funded financial aid and any claims he made to obtain the same.

Education records are protected by a number of federal and state statutes and regulations.http://epic.org/privacy/education/school.html

I am aware of that, as are health records by HIPAA. That said, they have been routinely turned over by every other candidate in my lifetime. I am not arguing Obama's right to not do so. I am only questioning his deciding not to do so. We have had a rather thorough, and at times comically exhaustive look at candidates past, so much so that it discourages candidacies we might want. That said, Obama has decided to stand on his rights where no others have. It is his right to do so, but it is not his right to be President. The voters have always demanded more vetting than Obama has submitted to. Asking the questions is not ignorant nor racist. Refusing to ask questions or hold a candidate to the same standards we have demanded of others may be.

I think I have the right to know whether Obama was an idiot student. I have the right to know if he respected the selective service laws. I think I have a right to know whether his applications for financial aid were forthcoming, if it were federal financial aid. I think I have a right, even an obligation to know whether my smoking president is dying of lung cancer. Yes he has privacy rights, but when one seeks public office they generally have had to give up a modicum of their privacy rights to satisfy voters. I'm not yet satisfied as to who he is. That is different than joining the quest for his birth certificate. It is for me a broader inquiry that has not yet been satisfied.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Well that's certainly off the track. typical.Mr High and Mighty Self Righteousness hath spoken It appears that this is a way to defend Bush some more.

Again, why the venom? Why take this tone? How do you not see you're just as bad as Jim11 and jon_mx?

Because its bueno... he once told me it was just dandy my best friend died in the illegitimate war in Iraq... because he made money off of it.How you like them apples?

I don't recall ever saying that. Nor do I ever recall saying I made money off the war. Sorry to hear about your friend.

I straight up left FBGs afterwards and that old low digit handle is lost for good now.

But yet you came back, lucky us...

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I am ready to be educated, right here, right now, by you. I happen to have no issue with his birth. I do not need to see a copy of his certificate of live birth. I would like to know his grades at Occidental, Columbia, and Yale. I would be interested in his course work and concentrations. I would like to know if, like other young men of his age, he registered for selective service as required. I would be interested in how he paid for his schooling and whether he applied for government funded financial aid and any claims he made to obtain the same. I would be interested in his legislative calendar from his time in the Illinois statehouse and in his most recent physical before he became President. These documents have all been routinely provided by candidates on both sides of the political spectrum. I would like to know these things about him from records, not from claims. Point me to those records.

1.So Obama refuses to release his grades transcripts. This probably has to do with his grades at Occidental. He's admitted to taking drugs at Occidental, and his grades improved after he stopped. We know he didn't graduate with honors from Columbia, though his GPA had to be at least 3.3 to get into Yale. He graduated Columbia with a degree in political science, with a specialty in International Relations. Law school was another story for Obama. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School (the second highest honor available) in 1991. He also was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, a very prestigious honor. What more do we need to know? What secret are you expecting to find? 2. No idea about whether he received government aid. Who cares?3. I have no idea about the rest of it. The only sources I can find that even claim this information is hidden are far right wing websites like WorldNet Daily which I don't find reputable.I don't get what any of this has to do with his performance as President. I have never heard of any other president questioned in quite this way. There seems to be a need to make this guy illegitimate.

Do you not recall bush and gore both being questioned n depth on their grades? That is part of the bush is an idiot thing that went on. Do you not remember bush's national guard records getting combed over, or kerry being excoriated on any record one could find on his military service? We knew Carter's grades, he was proud of the,. We knew much of Clinton's scholarship. As for health, Reagan had to submit to substantial questions thereon, and granted that was more of a reasonable concern over age, but most candidates have to satisfy us as to their health. As for the selective service stuff most young men only a few years yonger than me, such as obama, had to make a choice when the system was reinstated. Many made choices as ardent young men that they would later have to deal with. I am curious how he dealt with the matter as it speaks to his intellectual and political development.As for his financial aid applications many puffed on these applications. Some went beyod puffery to outright fraud. Young men may do some ill-advised things when desperately seeking education. I want to know whether the man with his finger on the button had a history of desperate ill considered behavior. Even if he did i might accept explanation thereof, but i won't, in the office of president be satisfied with a "its none of your business he has privacy interests". For me these questions are reasonable, I get that for others they may ot be. For myself i am never terribly interested in sexual picadillos in the privacy of ones non-public life. Others are. Different inquires or priorities I suppose, but having questions about the background of the president does not make one a racist, nor should you be so quick to label. As I recall this is not the first time you have quickly played that card.

 

[timschochet]

I think I have a right, even an obligation to know whether my smoking president is dying of lung cancer. Yes he has privacy rights, but when one seeks public office they generally have had to give up a modicum of their privacy rights to satisfy voters. I'm not yet satisfied as to who he is. That is different than joining the quest for his birth certificate. It is for me a broader inquiry that has not yet been satisfied.

Where does this come from? What makes you think we don't know about his health?From 2008:

WASHINGTON--Likely Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is in "excellent health," according to a summary of Obama medical records released on Thursday. The 276-word summary was written by Dr. David L. Scheiner, the Chicago doctor who has been Obama's personal physician since March, 1987. Obama has not had a check-up in more than a year. Scheiner described Obama as "lean and muscular with no excess body fat." Obama is still using Nicorette gum to stay off cigarettes--he has quit smoking several times, his doctor notes.

HIghlights:

*Triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal.

The Obama campaign decided to release this summary of Obama's health status at this time to contrast with the long medical history of GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.). The McCain campaign last week allowed a select group of reporters to study McCain's more complex medical history, complicated because of his skin cancer and injuries suffered while serving in the military and as a prisoner of war in Viet Nam.

I don't understand what more you're looking for here. Do you want to conduct your own examination?

 

[Sam Quentin]

And (given that he has a U.S. Passport), he has. But I'm more interested in debating McCain's constitutional eligibility to be president. Shouldn't he have proved his eligibility before the election?

absolutely