The Birther Conspiracy Thread (2 Viewers)

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So you're saying you don't know of anyone? Just asking because based on your earlier comments, you seem to be 100% positive if anyone else was asked to provide a birth certificate but couldn't, it wouldn't be questioned.

I don't know any past President or past Presidential candidate who was asked to produce proof of US citizenship (i.e. birth certificate), then was also subsequently called into doubt/question for producing either suspected false documentation or not producing the "right" documentation. That's what I'm saying.If birthers were calling for the birth certificates of ALL Presidential candidates? I have no issue. Probably a great idea, since being a US born citizen is a requirement of the office! To only ask for the birth certificate of ONE Presidential candidate? That is what I am hoping someone can explain or try and defend. The obvious answer is that they want only one (Obama) because Obama won! However, the calls for Obama's birth certificate were being made loudly and often long before the first Tuesday of November, 2008. So why no calls for McCains? Or Bidens/Palins (since they'd be first in line to take over as POTUS if anything happened). Or Clintons? That is the question (discrepancy) I want answered.

I know about as much as you with regards to this, but I'd have to think that this information was provided for all of the individuals you noted just now. Candidates are asked to provide countless pieces of information over the course of a campaign. As it has been noted numerous times in this thread, one of the requirements to be President is to be a naturally born citizen of the United States - based on that fact alone, I'd be shocked if it wasn't requested of and verified for each candidate. Once provided, great, nothing to see there and on to the next item. The reason you don't hear about this as an issue from candidates is that it's pretty easy to provide proof. I think the only reason this is an issue is that the information provided was incomplete at best (since it wasn't the birth certificate but rather a certification of the birth - same words but different meanings). I'd say it was comparable to the deed of ownership on a car vs documentation noting that you are the owner of the car (i.e. the registration). Coupled with the fact that so much time and money was spent to put a stop to these requests it makes you wonder.

Who knows - I voted for the guy but I can see why folks would want the question answered.

Same legal meaning and authority under Hawaiian law. If you need a passport in PA and make a request to vital records for your birth certificate, you get something similar. It's record keeping. It's not magic.

 

[Witz]

Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and no one has asked for the birth certificates of any other recent presidents. Why do we know Bush was born here? Because he says he was? Well he is a white guy with an American sounding name, so that's good enough for us.

That's the way this is perceived, you understand that no matter if you will admit it or not.

Link showing this to be the case? You won't be able to provide one because it doesn't exist.

A president must:

-be a natural born citizen of the United States;[27]

-be at least thirty-five years old;

-have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

So you are telling me the single document which provides proof on 2 of the 3 requirements has not been asked for from any recent presidents?

Respectfully, I'll have to say that's a pretty naive statement to make.

Is there a link to show that recent presidents have been asked to provide a birth certificate to prove eligibility for the office?

Absolutely not but based on the requirements being what they are, it's not stretch to conclude that this information has been requested and provided. It is, however, a stretch to take the counterargument.

 

[urbanhack]

any chance we can get this to 30 pages today?

 

[Road Dogg]

What are the odds that you would just get a certified copy from the hospital?

bueno, you're a smart guy...so please, out of respect for this issue, answer the question.What are the odds that I would *NEED* to get a certified copy of my birth certificate from the hospital? What are the odds the subject of my birth certificate would come up at all? And if it is different than the odds of those issues coming up for Obama, then why?

You can do it! You can answer this question...even if it hurts to say.

You were the one that said:

If I announce my candidacy for POTUS in 2012

As to why you might need to get a certified copy if you were not running for POTUS, how about moving to another state and registering to vote? Or to get an FM-3 Visa to work in Mexico? Or to get security clearance? Or to get your first US passport? Or any number of other things that required multiple forms of identification?ETA: or to apply for a professional registration in some cases. I have had to provide a certified copy of my birth certificate for some reason or other three times in the past ten years.

and i'm guess that you're whiteIt must be your ethnicity...that's it...that's the ticket

and had he provided what has been published from obama, it would be proof enough

 

[Road Dogg]

Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and no one has asked for the birth certificates of any other recent presidents. Why do we know Bush was born here? Because he says he was? Well he is a white guy with an American sounding name, so that's good enough for us.

That's the way this is perceived, you understand that no matter if you will admit it or not.

Link showing this to be the case? You won't be able to provide one because it doesn't exist.

A president must:

-be a natural born citizen of the United States;[27]

-be at least thirty-five years old;

-have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

So you are telling me the single document which provides proof on 2 of the 3 requirements has not been asked for from any recent presidents?

Respectfully, I'll have to say that's a pretty naive statement to make.

Is there a link to show that recent presidents have been asked to provide a birth certificate to prove eligibility for the office?

Absolutely not but based on the requirements being what they are, it's not stretch to conclude that this information has been requested and provided. It is, however, a stretch to take the counterargument.

if there was a requirement to provide it obama would, there is not

 

[bigbottom]

Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and no one has asked for the birth certificates of any other recent presidents. Why do we know Bush was born here? Because he says he was? Well he is a white guy with an American sounding name, so that's good enough for us.

That's the way this is perceived, you understand that no matter if you will admit it or not.

Link showing this to be the case? You won't be able to provide one because it doesn't exist.

A president must:

-be a natural born citizen of the United States;[27]

-be at least thirty-five years old;

-have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

So you are telling me the single document which provides proof on 2 of the 3 requirements has not been asked for from any recent presidents?

Respectfully, I'll have to say that's a pretty naive statement to make.

Is there a link to show that recent presidents have been asked to provide a birth certificate to prove eligibility for the office?

Absolutely not but based on the requirements being what they are, it's not stretch to conclude that this information has been requested and provided. It is, however, a stretch to take the counterargument.

Why? For example, I think everyone knew that Ronald Reagan was over the age of thirty-five when he was elected. It wouldn't be a stretch to conclude that no one asked him to prove it.

 

[pantagrapher]

And his opponents are... the GOP! As mentioned before, his political opponents within his own party in the Primary didn't raise it, so it's most definitely a GOP issue.

Yes they did. The issue was originally raised by Hillary supporters. A blog called texasdarlin was started by a democrat and lots of people at the DailyKos have questioned the authenticity of the document that was released. It is all politics. Not race. Not GOP specific. I provide facts, you provide nothing but empty accusations.

Texasdarlin is just another republican troll posing as a Hillary supporter.

 

[jon_mx]

There has yet to be a signed document produced which indicates the exact details of the birth, yet is supposedly still exists.

Did McCain produce a signed document indicating the exact details of his birth?

No, and there was a lot of internet chatter about that too at leftwing websites. (I suppose that is a strong indication that the issue is largely driven by hatred of white people among Democrats?) McCain should release whatever records he has. I see no problem with demanding proof of a candidate. There is certainly nothing wacky about asking for proof that a person meets the requirements for being President.

 

[pantagrapher]

any chance we can get this to 30 pages today?

I'm gonna do my part.

 

[Witz]

Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and no one has asked for the birth certificates of any other recent presidents. Why do we know Bush was born here? Because he says he was? Well he is a white guy with an American sounding name, so that's good enough for us.

That's the way this is perceived, you understand that no matter if you will admit it or not.

Link showing this to be the case? You won't be able to provide one because it doesn't exist.

A president must:

-be a natural born citizen of the United States;[27]

-be at least thirty-five years old;

-have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

So you are telling me the single document which provides proof on 2 of the 3 requirements has not been asked for from any recent presidents?

Respectfully, I'll have to say that's a pretty naive statement to make.

Is there a link to show that recent presidents have been asked to provide a birth certificate to prove eligibility for the office?

Absolutely not but based on the requirements being what they are, it's not stretch to conclude that this information has been requested and provided. It is, however, a stretch to take the counterargument.

Why? For example, I think everyone knew that Ronald Reagan was over the age of thirty-five when he was elected. It wouldn't be a stretch to conclude that no one asked him to prove it.

So you are saying these requirements are really just 'guidelines' and not really requirements. Gotcha.

 

[bigbottom]

There has yet to be a signed document produced which indicates the exact details of the birth, yet is supposedly still exists.

Did McCain produce a signed document indicating the exact details of his birth?

No, and there was a lot of internet chatter about that too at leftwing websites. (I suppose that is a strong indication that the issue is largely driven by hatred of white people among Democrats?) McCain should release whatever records he has. I see no problem with demanding proof of a candidate. There is certainly nothing wacky about asking for proof that a person meets the requirements for being President.

And that's an appropriate and defensible position. I raised the issue more in response to those (not you) who appear to be arguing that Obama is refusing to do something that everyone else has done and been willing to do.

 

[jon_mx]

And his opponents are... the GOP! As mentioned before, his political opponents within his own party in the Primary didn't raise it, so it's most definitely a GOP issue.

Yes they did. The issue was originally raised by Hillary supporters. A blog called texasdarlin was started by a democrat and lots of people at the DailyKos have questioned the authenticity of the document that was released. It is all politics. Not race. Not GOP specific. I provide facts, you provide nothing but empty accusations.

Texasdarlin is just another republican troll posing as a Hillary supporter.

 

[bigbottom]

Link showing this to be the case? You won't be able to provide one because it doesn't exist. A president must:-be a natural born citizen of the United States;[27]-be at least thirty-five years old;-have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.So you are telling me the single document which provides proof on 2 of the 3 requirements has not been asked for from any recent presidents? Respectfully, I'll have to say that's a pretty naive statement to make.

Is there a link to show that recent presidents have been asked to provide a birth certificate to prove eligibility for the office?

Absolutely not but based on the requirements being what they are, it's not stretch to conclude that this information has been requested and provided. It is, however, a stretch to take the counterargument.

Why? For example, I think everyone knew that Ronald Reagan was over the age of thirty-five when he was elected. It wouldn't be a stretch to conclude that no one asked him to prove it.

So you are saying these requirements are really just 'guidelines' and not really requirements. Gotcha.

I said nothing of the sort.

 

[timschochet]

I added a poll to the OP.

 

[Witz]

Is there a link to show that recent presidents have been asked to provide a birth certificate to prove eligibility for the office?

Absolutely not but based on the requirements being what they are, it's not stretch to conclude that this information has been requested and provided. It is, however, a stretch to take the counterargument.

Why? For example, I think everyone knew that Ronald Reagan was over the age of thirty-five when he was elected. It wouldn't be a stretch to conclude that no one asked him to prove it.

So you are saying these requirements are really just 'guidelines' and not really requirements. Gotcha.

I said nothing of the sort.

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

 

[Road Dogg]

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

soyou think there is a requirement for Obama to show his birth certificate and he is ignoring it?

 

[Road Dogg]

i hate the poll

some people could have racists motivations, others not

 

[TobiasFunke]

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

Do you consider the drinking age to be a "guideline" or a "requirement"?

 

[timschochet]

i hate the pollsome people could have racists motivations, others not

That's why I used the word "somewhat" (though I'm sure DW would accuse me of being cowardly.)

 

[jon_mx]

So you are saying these requirements are really just 'guidelines' and not really requirements. Gotcha.

It is kind of like asking Joe Montana to prove he was an NFL quarterback. Their is so much anecdotal evidence, seeing a signed contract is not necessary. Now if someone claimed to be an NFL kicker, but only sat on the bench and never saw an action in any game. You would be more curious to see some proof, like a signed contract or something. This is not too hard to figure out. We have no hospital pictures. No one claims any knowledge of baby Obama. Parents who are world travelers.

 

[Witz]

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

soyou think there is a requirement for Obama to show his birth certificate and he is ignoring it?

For any individual to be President of the United States, there are three requirements that need to be satisfied:-be a natural born citizen of the United States;-be at least thirty-five years old;-have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.I don't care how anyone provides proof to support these requirements. All I noted earlier was that a birth certificate provides proof of 2 of the 3 and that I could see how folks weren't satisfied with what was provided by Obama as proof.

 

[bigbottom]

Absolutely not but based on the requirements being what they are, it's not stretch to conclude that this information has been requested and provided. It is, however, a stretch to take the counterargument.

Why? For example, I think everyone knew that Ronald Reagan was over the age of thirty-five when he was elected. It wouldn't be a stretch to conclude that no one asked him to prove it.

So you are saying these requirements are really just 'guidelines' and not really requirements. Gotcha.

I said nothing of the sort.

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

A guideline suggests that it can be disregarded on occasion or where appropriate. The eligibility requirements for the president are indeed requirements. But as far as I can tell, there is no formal procedure in place to verify that the requirements have been. In most instances, it is patently obvious that the requirements have been met, so there's no issue or need for a formal verification procedure.* In a few instances, however, there has been some question as to whether the eligibility requirements have been met (e.g., Arthur, Obama, McCain), and that's when questions have arisen. Indeed, the fact that the questions exist and linger is an indication that there is no formal evrification procedure. If one existed, the matter would have been resolved long ago.* My local basketball league is only open to males**. That is a requirement, not a guideline. But when I signed up, I wasn't asked to pull out my #### to prove it.** I don't actually play in a local basketball league. This example was for illustrative purposes only.

 

[Road Dogg]

So you are saying these requirements are really just 'guidelines' and not really requirements. Gotcha.

It is kind of like asking Joe Montana to prove he was an NFL quarterback. Their is so much anecdotal evidence, seeing a signed contract is not necessary. Now if someone claimed to be an NFL kicker, but only sat on the bench and never saw an action in any game. You would be more curious to see some proof, like a signed contract or something. This is not too hard to figure out. We have no hospital pictures. No one claims any knowledge of baby Obama. Parents who are world travelers.

waitso millions of people saw George Bush/Bill Clinton/Ronald Reagan being born in the United States, and that is why he did not have to produce a birth certificate?as for anecdotal evidence:the official birth certificate that he would have to produce to, for example, get a passprt HAS been producedofficials who have examined the complete documentation have said yes, he was born in hawaii (including I believe a republican governor)and there was an announcement of his birth in the local paper

 

[jon_mx]

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

It is a legal requirement that you are over 21 to buy alcohol. Most people don't get carded when they are over 40 unless the state specifically requires it. Sometimes it is an obvious truth that needs no further verification. It does not make it a guideline if someone is not carded.

 

[Witz]

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

Do you consider the drinking age to be a "guideline" or a "requirement"?

You'll need to clarify what you are asking. Is the legal drinking age of 21 as defined by law a requirement or a guideline? It's a requirement.

 

[Road Dogg]

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

soyou think there is a requirement for Obama to show his birth certificate and he is ignoring it?

For any individual to be President of the United States, there are three requirements that need to be satisfied:-be a natural born citizen of the United States;-be at least thirty-five years old;-have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.I don't care how anyone provides proof to support these requirements. All I noted earlier was that a birth certificate provides proof of 2 of the 3 and that I could see how folks weren't satisfied with what was provided by Obama as proof.

but no other presidents, save maybe arthur, have been asked to provide that

 

[bigbottom]

i hate the pollsome people could have racists motivations, others not

That's why I used the word "somewhat" (though I'm sure DW would accuse me of being cowardly.)

The poll is annoying.

 

[Fennis]

i hate the pollsome people could have racists motivations, others not

That's why I used the word "somewhat" (though I'm sure DW would accuse me of being cowardly.)

wheres the option to vote that Tim is a coward and it is racist?

 

[Sarnoff]

I added a poll to the OP.

You're absolutely awful at creating polls. Your options stink.

 

[squistion]

So you are saying these requirements are really just 'guidelines' and not really requirements. Gotcha.

It is kind of like asking Joe Montana to prove he was an NFL quarterback. Their is so much anecdotal evidence, seeing a signed contract is not necessary. Now if someone claimed to be an NFL kicker, but only sat on the bench and never saw an action in any game. You would be more curious to see some proof, like a signed contract or something. This is not too hard to figure out. We have no hospital pictures. No one claims any knowledge of baby Obama. Parents who are world travelers.

waitso millions of people saw George Bush/Bill Clinton/Ronald Reagan being born in the United States, and that is why he did not have to produce a birth certificate?

as for anecdotal evidence:

the official birth certificate that he would have to produce to, for example, get a passprt HAS been produced

officials who have examined the complete documentation have said yes, he was born in hawaii (including I believe a republican governor) and there was an announcement of his birth in the local paper

Yes and it was a Republican governor who had supported Bush and I don't see any reason why he would lie about it. And a birth announcement proves nothing legally, one could not provide that as proof of citizenship in getting a passport, etc. (the only logical motive would be what it was intended for, simply an announcement of birth).

 

[Witz]

A guideline suggests that it can be disregarded on occasion or where appropriate. The eligibility requirements for the president are indeed requirements. But as far as I can tell, there is no formal procedure in place to verify that the requirements have been. In most instances, it is patently obvious that the requirements have been met, so there's no issue or need for a formal verification procedure.* In a few instances, however, there has been some question as to whether the eligibility requirements have been met (e.g., Arthur, Obama, McCain), and that's when questions have arisen. Indeed, the fact that the questions exist and linger is an indication that there is no formal evrification procedure. If one existed, the matter would have been resolved long ago.

* My local basketball league is only open to males**. That is a requirement, not a guideline. But when I signed up, I wasn't asked to pull out my #### to prove it.

** I don't actually play in a local basketball league. This example was for illustrative purposes only.

Agree with the statement in bold. Actually, I agree with all of the statements you made and I think that is what is at the heart of the issue in some folks minds. (Glad you weren't asking to pull out your ####).

 

[timschochet]

I added a poll to the OP.

You're absolutely awful at creating polls. Your options stink.

OK, critic. Tell me how you would set up the poll and if it makes sense I will change it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

Do you consider the drinking age to be a "guideline" or a "requirement"?

You'll need to clarify what you are asking. Is the legal drinking age of 21 as defined by law a requirement or a guideline? It's a requirement.

I'd confused. I thought you said that if someone says "he looks X years old, so that's good enough for me," that demonstrates that something is a guideline, not a requirement.

 

[matuski]

If I were Obama, I'd tear off a tiny piece of my birth certificate and buy a full page add in the NYT.

Periodically rinse and repeat, never actually showing anything the crazies are demanding to see - at the same time declaring you have shown the world your BC.

That is what I would do.

 

[jon_mx]

waitso millions of people saw George Bush/Bill Clinton/Ronald Reagan being born in the United States, and that is why he did not have to produce a birth certificate?as for anecdotal evidence:the official birth certificate that he would have to produce to, for example, get a passprt HAS been producedofficials who have examined the complete documentation have said yes, he was born in hawaii (including I believe a republican governor)and there was an announcement of his birth in the local paper

If there was any reason to believe that any of those mothers were outside the country close to the time of birth, it would raise the issue. But even in those cases, since both parents were US citizens, the issue would be a bit different. Yes, getting a passport supports that Obama is a US Citizen, but different than being a natural born citizen. The official statement from Hawaii is one of many carefully chosen parsed sentences. The governor makes claims about that statement which just aren't true, such as identifying the hospital which has never been done. The governor has never claimed to seen anything, just refers to the official statements. The birth announcement proves something was filed with the state, but does not prove it was anything official from a hospital.

 

[timschochet]

I removed the poll because everybody hates it.

If anyone wants to suggest a way to poll that people will like better, I'll do it.

 

[Witz]

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

Do you consider the drinking age to be a "guideline" or a "requirement"?

You'll need to clarify what you are asking. Is the legal drinking age of 21 as defined by law a requirement or a guideline? It's a requirement.

I'd confused. I thought you said that if someone says "he looks X years old, so that's good enough for me," that demonstrates that something is a guideline, not a requirement.

The legal age to consume and buy alcohol is 21. By law (the requirement), individuals that sell alcohol need to receive proof that an individual buying or consuming alcohol is 21 or over. Just because someone does not follow that requirement and sells alcohol without receiving proof doesn't diminish the requirement at hand (and thus turn it into a guideline). Please try another example as I don't think this one is working as you intended.

 

[bigbottom]

I removed the poll because everybody hates it. If anyone wants to suggest a way to poll that people will like better, I'll do it.

1) Adding a poll to a thread that is over a year and a half old is pretty pointless, particularly when there is only about 15 people actually participating in the thread.2) The only one who appears to be obsessed with the race angle is you.

 

[Witz]

I removed the poll because everybody hates it.

If anyone wants to suggest a way to poll that people will like better, I'll do it.

1) Adding a poll to a thread that is over a year and a half old is pretty pointless, particularly when there is only about 15 people actually participating in the thread.

2) The only one who appears to be obsessed with the race angle is you.

Crazy to even bring race into this discussion.

 

[Road Dogg]

So you are saying these requirements are really just 'guidelines' and not really requirements. Gotcha.

It is kind of like asking Joe Montana to prove he was an NFL quarterback. Their is so much anecdotal evidence, seeing a signed contract is not necessary. Now if someone claimed to be an NFL kicker, but only sat on the bench and never saw an action in any game. You would be more curious to see some proof, like a signed contract or something. This is not too hard to figure out. We have no hospital pictures. No one claims any knowledge of baby Obama. Parents who are world travelers.

waitso millions of people saw George Bush/Bill Clinton/Ronald Reagan being born in the United States, and that is why he did not have to produce a birth certificate?

as for anecdotal evidence:

the official birth certificate that he would have to produce to, for example, get a passprt HAS been produced

officials who have examined the complete documentation have said yes, he was born in hawaii (including I believe a republican governor) and there was an announcement of his birth in the local paper

Yes and it was a Republican governor who had supported Bush and I don't see any reason why he would lie about it. And a birth announcement proves nothing legally, one could not provide that as proof of citizenship in getting a passport, etc. (the only logical motive would be what it was intended for, simply an announcement of birth).

anecdotal evidence of any sort does not prove something

 

[timschochet]

2) The only one who appears to be obsessed with the race angle is you.

Really?If I google the words "Birther" and "racism" I get literally dozens of articles, statements, opinion pieces about how the Birther movement is based in racism. Some are by liberals. Some are by conservatives, such as Michael Medved. Some are by non-partisan political groups like Politico, and by independent political thinkers like Andrew Sullivan. This is not an idea that I came up with. Its a series of reasonable arguments made by all sorts of thoughtful people that I happen to agree with.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Of course you did. A requirement is something that needs to be be satisfied for something to occur. A guideline is an outline of what needs to occur but with no measurable action. Your example states - he looks over 35 so that's good enough for me. Now if you want to clarify what you said, feel free.

Do you consider the drinking age to be a "guideline" or a "requirement"?

You'll need to clarify what you are asking. Is the legal drinking age of 21 as defined by law a requirement or a guideline? It's a requirement.

I'd confused. I thought you said that if someone says "he looks X years old, so that's good enough for me," that demonstrates that something is a guideline, not a requirement.

The legal age to consume and buy alcohol is 21. By law (the requirement), individuals that sell alcohol need to receive proof that an individual buying or consuming alcohol is 21 or over. Just because someone does not follow that requirement and sells alcohol without receiving proof doesn't diminish the requirement at hand (and thus turn it into a guideline). Please try another example as I don't think this one is working as you intended.

No, it worked just fine IMO. The analogy to Reagan is a good one. And I don't want to sink deeper into this relatively dull semantic conversation when there's so much to just read and enjoy in this thread. Let's get back to the crazy.

 

[Road Dogg]

wait

so millions of people saw George Bush/Bill Clinton/Ronald Reagan being born in the United States, and that is why he did not have to produce a birth certificate?

as for anecdotal evidence:

the official birth certificate that he would have to produce to, for example, get a passprt HAS been produced

officials who have examined the complete documentation have said yes, he was born in hawaii (including I believe a republican governor)

and there was an announcement of his birth in the local paper

If there was any reason to believe that any of those mothers were outside the country close to the time of birth, it would raise the issue. But even in those cases, since both parents were US citizens, the issue would be a bit different. Yes, getting a passport supports that Obama is a US Citizen, but different than being a natural born citizen. The official statement from Hawaii is one of many carefully chosen parsed sentences. The governor makes claims about that statement which just aren't true, such as identifying the hospital which has never been done. The governor has never claimed to seen anything, just refers to the official statements. The birth announcement proves something was filed with the state, but does not prove it was anything official from a hospital.

how would we know?IF this is critical information why not make everyone prove it?

Even you don't really think he as born abroad

and the point is not that he got a passport, but that the documentation he has produced is considered official

 

[jon_mx]

No, it worked just fine from my perspective. And I don't want to sink deeper into this relatively dull semantic conversation when there's so much to just read and enjoy in this thread. Let's get back to the crazy.

I thought you were going to give up the race card angle.

 

[bueno]

Never mind, Bueno. I've got your answer.

The answer is that if you run for president, you need to produce a copy of your birth certificate to prove you are a natural born citizen as well.Most likely he's a natural born citizen, so what is his problem?

I doubt there is a problem.If anything, like me, he gets great amusement watching people like you get your panties in a wad over it.If I were him I would intentionally drag this out forever, even find ways to rekindle it on a regular basis. Arguments like yours do more for him than he ever could.

My panties aren't in a wad. Actually, this could come back to bite him. Just takes one candidate to hold up his/her own certified birth certificate and say "here's mine, where's yours? What else are you hiding?" to plant the seeds of doubt in independent voters.

 

[timschochet]

Here is the Andrew Sullivan piece from last year:

A naive person might believe that Barack Hussein Obama was born, as he has long said he was, in Hawaii to a young American mother and a distant father from Kenya. There are notices in two local papers and the certification of birth is filed in the state of Hawaii’s records.

An independent body — FactCheck.org — part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, asked to see a copy of the original during last year’s campaign. FactCheck is non-partisan and takes all sorts of politicians’ claims to task. Here’s its take on Obama’s birth certificate: “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving US citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. . . Our conclusion: Obama was born in the USA just as he has always said.”

You may be persuaded. Once I’d seen the short-form certificate online, verified by independent journalists and vouched for by state authorities, I was, too. But staggering numbers of Americans remain sceptical. In fact, a majority of Republican voters — 58% — either do not believe or are unsure that Obama is a natural-born American citizen. That means most Republicans believe Obama is constitutionally illegitimate in the presidency because the constitution reserves it for those born in America. The scepticism is — surprise! — concentrated in the south. In Virginia, a southern state that backed Obama last year, only 53% are sure Obama is legitimately president and 70% of Virginia Republicans either don’t believe he is an American or aren’t sure. A poll last week also found that many Republicans believe this issue has not received enough media attention.

What do they believe? The most common theory is that Obama was born in Kenya while his mother was visiting his father. The Hawaiian birth certificate exists, the sceptics claim, because Hawaii recognises as natural-born citizens those born to American mothers temporarily outside the United States. The only problem with that theory is the certificate would mention that fact and it doesn’t.

So Obama was born where all the evidence says he was: Honolulu. Why would a woman in her last month of pregnancy travel halfway around the world to deliver a child in a developing country and then bring him back home, even though he wouldn’t have had a passport? How would she get him into the United States unless someone at the border was in cahoots? “You couldn’t sell this script in Hollywood,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, told reporters last week.

Why does this story stay alive? Some, like me, didn’t understand the Hawaiian intricacies at first: we thought there was a single long-form certificate that could resolve the question. But, as FactCheck notes: “The Hawaii Department of Health’s birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department.” So Obama did all he could to make this go away.

Yet the conspiracists have only become more adamant. A slew of radio show hosts have fixated on the question; Lou Dobbs, CNN’s resident crank, broadcast several segments expressing doubt about Obama’s birthplace. Sean Hannity, a Fox News pundit, ran two reports on a soldier who refused to follow orders from Obama because he doubted his eligibility to be president. When Major Stefan Cook’s orders to deploy to Afghanistan were revoked, he and his lawyer took it as an admission on the part of the military that the president is not, in fact, a legitimate citizen by birth.

On cue, as Obama turned 48 last week, a Kenyan birth certificate popped up on the web. It was immediately exposed as a forgery based on a 1959 Australian birth certificate, but the pressure hasn’t let up. Obama’s legitimacy as president has been challenged in five lawsuits, all dismissed.

WorldNetDaily, the far-right website, has run countless editorials, letter-writing campaigns and billboard advertisements on the question. WND is a fringe web publication — but its fringe has, by some estimates, about 2m visitors a month.

Rush Limbaugh, the mega-chat show host, has raised the issue and Michael Savage, the rabid rightist, has said: “We’re getting ready for the communist takeover of America with a non-citizen at the helm.” Other, calmer Republican activists have denounced the so-called “birthers”. The cannier ones have argued that this issue has been drummed up by Democrats to discredit the Good Old Party (and it has). But it’s hard to accept that explains everything.

The bolder rightwingers have condemned the whole thing: radio star Michael Medved has called the birthers “crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters”. But leading Republican politicians, aware of how powerful the conspiracy theory is among their supporters, have tried to avoid the issue. The Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, for example, told a town hall meeting last February: “Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii but I haven’t seen any birth certificate”, even though a resolution on July 27 — issued on the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood — declared Obama a citizen unanimously (with some Republican abstentions).

This is the silly season. But this silly story seems to me an indication of something more ominous. The demographics tell the basic story: a black man is president and a large majority of white southerners cannot accept that, even in 2009. They grasp conspiracy theories to wish Obama — and the America he represents — away. Since white southerners comprise an increasing proportion of the 22% of Americans who still describe themselves as Republican, the GOP can neither dismiss the crankery nor move past it. The fringe defines what’s left of the Republican centre.

The chilling implication is that a large number of Americans believe the president has no right to be in office and has fraudulently manoeuvred himself there.

I hope the secret service is on alert. If we thought racial panic had ended with Obama’s election, the resilience of this story in key parts of the country is a helpful wake-up call.

 

[jon_mx]

wait

so millions of people saw George Bush/Bill Clinton/Ronald Reagan being born in the United States, and that is why he did not have to produce a birth certificate?

as for anecdotal evidence:

the official birth certificate that he would have to produce to, for example, get a passprt HAS been produced

officials who have examined the complete documentation have said yes, he was born in hawaii (including I believe a republican governor)

and there was an announcement of his birth in the local paper

If there was any reason to believe that any of those mothers were outside the country close to the time of birth, it would raise the issue. But even in those cases, since both parents were US citizens, the issue would be a bit different. Yes, getting a passport supports that Obama is a US Citizen, but different than being a natural born citizen. The official statement from Hawaii is one of many carefully chosen parsed sentences. The governor makes claims about that statement which just aren't true, such as identifying the hospital which has never been done. The governor has never claimed to seen anything, just refers to the official statements. The birth announcement proves something was filed with the state, but does not prove it was anything official from a hospital.

how would we know?IF this is critical information why not make everyone prove it?

Even you don't really think he as born abroad

and the point is not that he got a passport, but that the documentation he has produced is considered official

I am not denying the document provided is official. I firmly believe that the state of Hawaii officially recognizes Obama as a citizen who was born in Hawaii. Legally, there is nothing that is going to happen here that will ever impact Obama's presidency. But the whole story has not been told. I just want to know what the state of Hawaii is basing their position on. There has to be some recorded document in their achieve which shows this. The more effort that is made to cover it up, the more curious I get. There are interesting possibilities which are not all that far-fetched.

 

[bigbottom]

2) The only one who appears to be obsessed with the race angle is you.

Really?If I google the words "Birther" and "racism" I get literally dozens of articles, statements, opinion pieces about how the Birther movement is based in racism. Some are by liberals. Some are by conservatives, such as Michael Medved. Some are by non-partisan political groups like Politico, and by independent political thinkers like Andrew Sullivan. This is not an idea that I came up with. Its a series of reasonable arguments made by all sorts of thoughtful people that I happen to agree with.

I'm referring to people still involved in this thread, i.e., the people you are attempting to poll.

 

[timschochet]

2) The only one who appears to be obsessed with the race angle is you.

Really?If I google the words "Birther" and "racism" I get literally dozens of articles, statements, opinion pieces about how the Birther movement is based in racism. Some are by liberals. Some are by conservatives, such as Michael Medved. Some are by non-partisan political groups like Politico, and by independent political thinkers like Andrew Sullivan. This is not an idea that I came up with. Its a series of reasonable arguments made by all sorts of thoughtful people that I happen to agree with.

I'm referring to people still involved in this thread, i.e., the people you are attempting to poll.

There are people besides me who think race is an issue, even in this thread.

 

[Statorama]

Free money making idea for an enterprising FFA'er

Obama Birth Certificate App for your IPhone. Someone says Obama doesn't have a birth certificate, you hit one button and BAM it's right there on the screen.