What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Birther Conspiracy Thread (1 Viewer)

Of course I do. But they're based on what I consider to be the facts. My main point in this case is that the root of this conspiracy did not lay in the issue of where Obama was born, per se, but in the fact that there are people out there who don't want Obama to be president and are willing to believe anything that would make him illegitimate. What is unique about this particular conspiracy is not the details of the conspiracy itself, but the size of the audience willing to swallow them.
There is no difference in size of this conspiracy than any other. The Let it happen/make it happen 9-11 crowd made up more than 50% of Democrats according to several polls, and that would have involved a much more involved conspiracy than simply one false birth recording. The idea that whole portions of government were involved in setting off explosions and timed it with a plot that happened to have airplanes flying into those same buildings and then covered it up vs. the idea of one concerned grandparent might have filed to record a birth so that the child could receive benefits. The laws of Hawaii were already such to protect the privacy. These conspiracies are not even if the some league. The level of craziness for truthers was off the charts, but yet made up very similar numbers to what birthers are. And as illustrated above, the birth place of several white male politicians running for president has been questioned prior to this, including McCain who had to disclose his birth certificate to a Senate subcommittee. There will always be people not liking a particular president willing to believe things. This is nothing new.Even you Tim, you are far more likely to swallow something you see on MSNBC and are far more likely to be critical of something you see on Fox. You are as guilty as anyone of letting their biases influence what they believe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
His name is Kenyan. He is 50% African-American. African-Americans have a wide variety of last names due to the legacy of slavery.Is it just Kenyan names that you were referring to?
No offense, but you're making yourself look foolish by insisting to continue this conversation. Couple that with the reality that this question should be directed to a different audience and it's just silly. Oh and before you ask me what "different audience", I am specifically referring to the group of people who go by what a name "sounds like" and don't have interest in really figuring out the origin of the name. So if someone said, "Obama? That sounds muslim. He's a muslim" or "Hoffman? That sounds German, he must be a nazi." People who do that crap is who you should be asking what "sounds ethnic".
 
Disclaimer: I am posting the link below because I think it is interesting . On the subject where Obama was born, I believe it is a non-issue now. First because even if he was born elsewhere, what are we going to do about it now? Second, if it was proven that he was born elsewhere there are those in power who don't care and will fight it tooth and nail and it isn't worth the fight (see point 3). Third, it is the one thing beyond Obama's control. Raising taxes in the middle of a recession, having a bogus trillion dollar stimulus package in a time where our dept is out of control, leading from behind as a foreign affairs policy, adding a new entitlement (health care) at at a time when we don't know how we fund our existing entitlements .... these are things Obama is responsible for and the areas we need to focus on- Not where he was born.

However this is interesting:











We Are All Birthers Now (Part Two)

B.P. Terpstra

More CasesFor some reason, it's 100% blasphemy to question Democrat Obama's birthplace, but Republicans Bush and McCain are fair game. Furthermore, critical thinkers are also confronted with more inconvenient historical examples, pointing to an undeniable pattern.Case 3: Following media speculation and constant rumors, "former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency" in 1980. But "an aide said, and was assured he was eligible," acknowledges Hulse. Weicker was a Republican.Case 4: In 1967, the Governor of Michigan George Wilcken Romney faced anti-Mormon discrimination and touchy eligibility questions around his birth in Mexico to American parents. Did that make him a hip Latino? No. Romney was a Republican.Case 5: Barry Morris Goldwater (aka "Mr. Conservative") is another interesting example, and a victim of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He was born in Arizona when it was a territory, hence the media-related assaults. Goldwater was a Republican.Case 6: Born in Vermont, President Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885) nearly fell victim to born-in-Canada rumors. Arthur was a Republican.In short, Republicans are often the targets of birth-related hunts, but bizarrely, they're also blamed for Obama-created conspiracies sold by 2008's Team Hillary Clinton.

Media-approved schizophreniaBut there's more!On Seven's Sunrise morning show (April 28), Steve Handlesman an Obama-first NBC News Reporter was asked about the birth certificate row. He informed my fellow Australians that Trump was a "Birther" and that "sinister forces" were out to "pin" the President Obama.According to the government-friendly NBC News Reporter this was a question for psychiatrists and psychologists, and yet a clearly emotional Handlesman failed to mention the name Hillary Clinton. Or the elite media's history of conspiratorial birthplace reports used to attack Republicans over and over again, for literally decades.Which brings me to their latest target, case 7: Sarah Palin? Yes. In the internet age, campaigning media elites found it harder to construct birthplace-related lies, so they suggested that the former Alaska Governor didn't give birth to her beautiful son, Trig.Sure Palin was American born and bred but didn't she pretend to have a baby, and trick us all? At least that's what the conservative anti-conservative Andrew Sullivan threw out there.Bush. McCain. Weicker. Romney. Goldwater. Arthur. Palin. When the media concocts a birth-related conspiracy, it's called investigative journalism, but when untouchable President Obama is questioned, God help you. Palin is a Republican.


Seriously? Weicker himself asks if he's eligible, is told he is and that constitutes an attack on a Republican by the Democrats and press? Romney faced "touchy eligibility questions"? From whom? Other Republicans in the primary before he imploded? I may have only been 15 at the time, but I don't recall even hearing a mention of such a debate. In 1968, the ONLY thing that mattered in his campaign was Vietnam. Goldwater was challenged in one lawsuit (from Ralph Ginzburg and Melvin Belli in a flap that lasted an entire week and that's a "media-related assault"? (Goldwater may have been attacked by the media, but it certainly wasn't about his birthplace.) Chester Arthur in 1880 is an example of an attack by the liberal media? Must have been MSNBC and CNN prolonging that one, too. And those compare to a three-year witch hunt? Talk about grasping for straws.
 
...But then you lump people with legitimate concerns about how we vet our presidential candidates ...
You mean those people that want to create new government "solutions" to imaginary issues? Presidential campaigns now dominate the news for about a year before the election, take some personal responsibility to find out what you need to know and, if necessary spread the word. The only legitimate concern is the laziness of the electorate. That laziness has gotten your friends into high places your entire life so why is it suddenly a concern now?
 
...But then you lump people with legitimate concerns about how we vet our presidential candidates ...
You mean those people that want to create new government "solutions" to imaginary issues? Presidential campaigns now dominate the news for about a year before the election, take some personal responsibility to find out what you need to know and, if necessary spread the word. The only legitimate concern is the laziness of the electorate. That laziness has gotten your friends into high places your entire life so why is it suddenly a concern now?
I have no clue where you are coming from here - except to try to annoy me.
 
...But then you lump people with legitimate concerns about how we vet our presidential candidates ...
You mean those people that want to create new government "solutions" to imaginary issues? Presidential campaigns now dominate the news for about a year before the election, take some personal responsibility to find out what you need to know and, if necessary spread the word. The only legitimate concern is the laziness of the electorate. That laziness has gotten your friends into high places your entire life so why is it suddenly a concern now?
I have no clue where you are coming from here - except to try to annoy me.
He's saying this has never really been a problem/concern in the past and the fact that a bunch of whackos tried to make it one this time around doesn't really mean there is a problem/concern now.
 
Disclaimer: I am posting the link below because I think it is interesting . On the subject where Obama was born, I believe it is a non-issue now. First because even if he was born elsewhere, what are we going to do about it now? Second, if it was proven that he was born elsewhere there are those in power who don't care and will fight it tooth and nail and it isn't worth the fight (see point 3). Third, it is the one thing beyond Obama's control. Raising taxes in the middle of a recession, having a bogus trillion dollar stimulus package in a time where our dept is out of control, leading from behind as a foreign affairs policy, adding a new entitlement (health care) at at a time when we don't know how we fund our existing entitlements .... these are things Obama is responsible for and the areas we need to focus on- Not where he was born.

However this is interesting:











We Are All Birthers Now (Part Two)

B.P. Terpstra

More CasesFor some reason, it's 100% blasphemy to question Democrat Obama's birthplace, but Republicans Bush and McCain are fair game. Furthermore, critical thinkers are also confronted with more inconvenient historical examples, pointing to an undeniable pattern.Case 3: Following media speculation and constant rumors, "former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency" in 1980. But "an aide said, and was assured he was eligible," acknowledges Hulse. Weicker was a Republican.Case 4: In 1967, the Governor of Michigan George Wilcken Romney faced anti-Mormon discrimination and touchy eligibility questions around his birth in Mexico to American parents. Did that make him a hip Latino? No. Romney was a Republican.Case 5: Barry Morris Goldwater (aka "Mr. Conservative") is another interesting example, and a victim of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He was born in Arizona when it was a territory, hence the media-related assaults. Goldwater was a Republican.Case 6: Born in Vermont, President Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885) nearly fell victim to born-in-Canada rumors. Arthur was a Republican.In short, Republicans are often the targets of birth-related hunts, but bizarrely, they're also blamed for Obama-created conspiracies sold by 2008's Team Hillary Clinton.

Media-approved schizophreniaBut there's more!On Seven's Sunrise morning show (April 28), Steve Handlesman an Obama-first NBC News Reporter was asked about the birth certificate row. He informed my fellow Australians that Trump was a "Birther" and that "sinister forces" were out to "pin" the President Obama.According to the government-friendly NBC News Reporter this was a question for psychiatrists and psychologists, and yet a clearly emotional Handlesman failed to mention the name Hillary Clinton. Or the elite media's history of conspiratorial birthplace reports used to attack Republicans over and over again, for literally decades.Which brings me to their latest target, case 7: Sarah Palin? Yes. In the internet age, campaigning media elites found it harder to construct birthplace-related lies, so they suggested that the former Alaska Governor didn't give birth to her beautiful son, Trig.Sure Palin was American born and bred but didn't she pretend to have a baby, and trick us all? At least that's what the conservative anti-conservative Andrew Sullivan threw out there.Bush. McCain. Weicker. Romney. Goldwater. Arthur. Palin. When the media concocts a birth-related conspiracy, it's called investigative journalism, but when untouchable President Obama is questioned, God help you. Palin is a Republican.


I hate this issue. I wish it would go away.
 
Disclaimer: I am posting the link below because I think it is interesting . On the subject where Obama was born, I believe it is a non-issue now. First because even if he was born elsewhere, what are we going to do about it now? Second, if it was proven that he was born elsewhere there are those in power who don't care and will fight it tooth and nail and it isn't worth the fight (see point 3). Third, it is the one thing beyond Obama's control. Raising taxes in the middle of a recession, having a bogus trillion dollar stimulus package in a time where our dept is out of control, leading from behind as a foreign affairs policy, adding a new entitlement (health care) at at a time when we don't know how we fund our existing entitlements .... these are things Obama is responsible for and the areas we need to focus on- Not where he was born.

However this is interesting:











We Are All Birthers Now (Part Two)

B.P. Terpstra

More CasesFor some reason, it's 100% blasphemy to question Democrat Obama's birthplace, but Republicans Bush and McCain are fair game. Furthermore, critical thinkers are also confronted with more inconvenient historical examples, pointing to an undeniable pattern.Case 3: Following media speculation and constant rumors, "former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency" in 1980. But "an aide said, and was assured he was eligible," acknowledges Hulse. Weicker was a Republican.Case 4: In 1967, the Governor of Michigan George Wilcken Romney faced anti-Mormon discrimination and touchy eligibility questions around his birth in Mexico to American parents. Did that make him a hip Latino? No. Romney was a Republican.Case 5: Barry Morris Goldwater (aka "Mr. Conservative") is another interesting example, and a victim of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He was born in Arizona when it was a territory, hence the media-related assaults. Goldwater was a Republican.Case 6: Born in Vermont, President Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885) nearly fell victim to born-in-Canada rumors. Arthur was a Republican.In short, Republicans are often the targets of birth-related hunts, but bizarrely, they're also blamed for Obama-created conspiracies sold by 2008's Team Hillary Clinton.

Media-approved schizophreniaBut there's more!On Seven's Sunrise morning show (April 28), Steve Handlesman an Obama-first NBC News Reporter was asked about the birth certificate row. He informed my fellow Australians that Trump was a "Birther" and that "sinister forces" were out to "pin" the President Obama.According to the government-friendly NBC News Reporter this was a question for psychiatrists and psychologists, and yet a clearly emotional Handlesman failed to mention the name Hillary Clinton. Or the elite media's history of conspiratorial birthplace reports used to attack Republicans over and over again, for literally decades.Which brings me to their latest target, case 7: Sarah Palin? Yes. In the internet age, campaigning media elites found it harder to construct birthplace-related lies, so they suggested that the former Alaska Governor didn't give birth to her beautiful son, Trig.Sure Palin was American born and bred but didn't she pretend to have a baby, and trick us all? At least that's what the conservative anti-conservative Andrew Sullivan threw out there.Bush. McCain. Weicker. Romney. Goldwater. Arthur. Palin. When the media concocts a birth-related conspiracy, it's called investigative journalism, but when untouchable President Obama is questioned, God help you. Palin is a Republican.


Seriously? Weicker himself asks if he's eligible, is told he is and that constitutes an attack on a Republican by the Democrats and press? Romney faced "touchy eligibility questions"? From whom? Other Republicans in the primary before he imploded? I may have only been 15 at the time, but I don't recall even hearing a mention of such a debate. In 1968, the ONLY thing that mattered in his campaign was Vietnam. Goldwater was challenged in one lawsuit (from Ralph Ginzburg and Melvin Belli in a flap that lasted an entire week and that's a "media-related assault"? (Goldwater may have been attacked by the media, but it certainly wasn't about his birthplace.) Chester Arthur in 1880 is an example of an attack by the liberal media? Must have been MSNBC and CNN prolonging that one, too. And those compare to a three-year witch hunt? Talk about grasping for straws.
The issue of where these candidates were born were raised by the left in all those cases. The difference is the candidates addressed the issue early and the issue didn't linger. It was part of the vetting process.

Another example is suppling college transcipts. The left felt it was important to vet G.W. Bush and demanded his college transcripts. Bush supplied his grades and we found out he wasn't a great student. However, he was a better student that Gore. Contrast that with the modern day press who feel those who demand Obama's grades are extremist or worse racists. Vetting should be part of the process in electing the most powerful person on the world. Calling people names not only shows press bias, it is somewhat childish IMHO.

 
OK I'll bite. Why are you vetting a sitting president's school grades? Didn't anybody do that when he was running? You guys even have your own channel with supposed journalists and everything.

Seems like the only people who made any attempt to "vet" Obama were Hillary's camp. What the right is doing now is not vetting, it's just the usual turd slinging.

And yes going on the attack because someone may have benefited long ago from minority college programs can be called racist and extremist. Not sure what else you would call it.

 
OK I'll bite. Why are you vetting a sitting president's school grades? Didn't anybody do that when he was running?
We need to know if his grades show that he's worthy of being a two term president. Affirmative Action students should be one-term presidents at most.
 
Thank you, golddigger for keeping this issue and thread alive and kicking. Noone in the history of this forum has matched your goal post moving skills.

Jon mx apparently is no longer up to the task (desperate to distance himself from his posts in this thread), so I want to thank you for sticking this out. :popcorn:

 
What do you mean by distancing? All I ever asked for was if there was some third party verification in the records which established Obama was born there. And now that that was finally released, the issue is over.

 
Thank you, golddigger for keeping this issue and thread alive and kicking. Noone in the history of this forum has matched your goal post moving skills.Jon mx apparently is no longer up to the task (desperate to distance himself from his posts in this thread), so I want to thank you for sticking this out. :popcorn:
He's also the one that wishes "this issue would just go away"....funny how all that works.
 
What do you mean by distancing? All I ever asked for was if there was some third party verification in the records which established Obama was born there. And now that that was finally released, the issue is over.
:lmao: You are one sorry, self deluded mess jonnay. Do they keep baby pictures in those records? How about witnesses and statements from friends? Are those in the records? Cuz you spent plenty of time asking for those too. On top of all the things you were "positive" or "absolutely convinced" about. Now you want to minimize and diminish your zeal on the topic? :lmao: "All I ever asked for..." what a joke! PS No one's buying it from you either jon, just so you know since your self delusion is so thorough, I wasn't sure if you would catch that. HTH
 
What do you mean by distancing? All I ever asked for was if there was some third party verification in the records which established Obama was born there. And now that that was finally released, the issue is over.
What changed that you no longer want to see his baby pictures? Not just any pictures, you had VERY specific requirements. With his dad, on a beach, as a baby (toddler didnt count), identifiable as a Hawaiian beach... etc.He has shown his long form BC, but according to you Hawaii's laws were so "lax" (a term you used perhaps more than a dozen times in this thread)... why does his BC change ths for you? These are easy to get right?What happened to demanding to hear from his friends/family/doctors/witnesses?Do you now have newfound respect and trust for the Hawaii Governor and State Health Department's word?And on, and on, and on, and on.........................................The birth certificate answers NONE of these issues you put forth in the most serious of fashions. You have now been trying for three pages to slink away... but we see you! :pics:
 
What do you mean by distancing? All I ever asked for was if there was some third party verification in the records which established Obama was born there. And now that that was finally released, the issue is over.
So you're happy with the form shown even though anyone and everyone can just walk down and have a BC issued in Hawaii? Him showing this long form does nothing to change the laws in Hawaii. Not sure why an official doc from such a lax state now satisfies you. Remember, Obama originally released a doc that didn't satisfy you and it was based on the doc that satisfies you.
 
What do you mean by distancing? All I ever asked for was if there was some third party verification in the records which established Obama was born there. And now that that was finally released, the issue is over.
:lmao: You are one sorry, self deluded mess jonnay. Do they keep baby pictures in those records? How about witnesses and statements from friends? Are those in the records? Cuz you spent plenty of time asking for those too. On top of all the things you were "positive" or "absolutely convinced" about. Now you want to minimize and diminish your zeal on the topic? :lmao: "All I ever asked for..." what a joke! PS No one's buying it from you either jon, just so you know since your self delusion is so thorough, I wasn't sure if you would catch that. HTH
You are the biggest #######. It was not an AND but an OR. I would have accepted anything which established Obama was in Hawaii during that time.
 
What do you mean by distancing? All I ever asked for was if there was some third party verification in the records which established Obama was born there. And now that that was finally released, the issue is over.
So you're happy with the form shown even though anyone and everyone can just walk down and have a BC issued in Hawaii? Him showing this long form does nothing to change the laws in Hawaii. Not sure why an official doc from such a lax state now satisfies you. Remember, Obama originally released a doc that didn't satisfy you and it was based on the doc that satisfies you.
Unlike the short form, the long form showed a doctor's signature. Prior to this it was quite possible that the only thing which established Obama being born in Hawaii was a statement from his family. This is the source documentation. The short form is meaningless unless you know what it is based upon. If it was just mom or grandma saying that he was born there, it could have been factually untrue. I am really not sure what is so hard to comprehend.
 
What do you mean by distancing? All I ever asked for was if there was some third party verification in the records which established Obama was born there. And now that that was finally released, the issue is over.
So you're happy with the form shown even though anyone and everyone can just walk down and have a BC issued in Hawaii? Him showing this long form does nothing to change the laws in Hawaii. Not sure why an official doc from such a lax state now satisfies you. Remember, Obama originally released a doc that didn't satisfy you and it was based on the doc that satisfies you.
Unlike the short form, the long form showed a doctor's signature. Prior to this it was quite possible that the only thing which established Obama being born in Hawaii was a statement from his family. This is the source documentation. The short form is meaningless unless you know what it is based upon. If it was just mom or grandma saying that he was born there, it could have been factually untrue. I am really not sure what is so hard to comprehend.
It could still be "factually untrue." They could have found a doctor to lie for them. See how this works? Following your thinking, the long form is meaningless unless we can prove the doctor wasn't lying. The fact that you are now satisfied simply because you've seen a signature doesn't mean that you weren't being unreasonable in not accepting the short form.
 
It could still be "factually untrue." They could have found a doctor to lie for them. See how this works? Following your thinking, the long form is meaningless unless we can prove the doctor wasn't lying. The fact that you are now satisfied simply because you've seen a signature doesn't mean that you weren't being unreasonable in not accepting the short form.
It was always known that a source document existed which established the fact. I really don't see what was unreasonable in asking for that. It is about 1000 times more likely that a family member would lie about a birth to obtain benefits from being a citizen than a doctor who would risk his medical license for such an act. The long form with a doctor's or nurse's signature provides enormous credibility to the facts. You are not being too honest if you don't acknowledge that.
 
It could still be "factually untrue." They could have found a doctor to lie for them. See how this works? Following your thinking, the long form is meaningless unless we can prove the doctor wasn't lying. The fact that you are now satisfied simply because you've seen a signature doesn't mean that you weren't being unreasonable in not accepting the short form.
It was always known that a source document existed which established the fact. I really don't see what was unreasonable in asking for that. It is about 1000 times more likely that a family member would lie about a birth to obtain benefits from being a citizen than a doctor who would risk his medical license for such an act. The long form with a doctor's or nurse's signature provides enormous credibility to the facts. You are not being too honest if you don't acknowledge that.
You characterize it how you want. I'll put my credibility up against yours any day of the week.
 
Thank you, golddigger for keeping this issue and thread alive and kicking. Noone in the history of this forum has matched your goal post moving skills.Jon mx apparently is no longer up to the task (desperate to distance himself from his posts in this thread), so I want to thank you for sticking this out. :popcorn:
He's also the one that wishes "this issue would just go away"....funny how all that works.
You are better than Pickles who plays games rather than provide substance.The point isn't the birth certificate so much is that Obama wasn't vetted like the other presidential candidates in the past. That is why we elected such a crappy leader. Obama refused to provide college transcripts and the press not only isn't interested, they go on the offensive even though it has been standard protocol for other Presidential candidates . (The press made a big deal about Bush'e mediocre grades) Not only that they let Obama get by with the statement that he will have the most open and transparent administration ever. Points:1. Obama wasn't vetted;2. Vetting a Presidential candidate is important and an isn't extremist or racists POV;3. Press was complicit with the lack of vetting;4. The press's narratives are radically different for Democrats and Republicans on the same issue; 5. Obama promised to be open and transparent.The issue of the Birth Certificate is just part of a much larger and more important narrative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you, golddigger for keeping this issue and thread alive and kicking. Noone in the history of this forum has matched your goal post moving skills.Jon mx apparently is no longer up to the task (desperate to distance himself from his posts in this thread), so I want to thank you for sticking this out. :popcorn:
He's also the one that wishes "this issue would just go away"....funny how all that works.
You are better than Pickles who plays games rather than provide substance.The point isn't the birth certificate so much is that Obama wasn't vetted like the other presidential candidates in the past. That is why we elected such a crappy leader. Obama refused to provide college transcripts and the press not only isn't interested, they go on the offensive even though it has been standard protocol for other Presidential candidates . (The press made a big deal about Bush'e mediocre grades) Not only that they let Obama get by with the statement that he will have the most open and transparent administration ever. Points:1. Obama wasn't vetted;2. Vetting a Presidential candidate is important and an isn't extremist or racists POV;3. Press was complicit with the lack of vetting;4. The press's narratives are radically different for Democrats and Republicans on the same issue; 5. Obama promised to be open and transparent.The issue of the Birth Certificate is just part of a much larger and more important narrative.
Noone in the history of this forum has matched your goal post moving skills.
PS - I'm not pickles, golddigger.
 
Where was the GOP's very own news channel when all this supposed "vetting" was supposedly not being done by the press?

How come Donald Trump's the first guy to think of checking out Barack Obama, two and a half years after he was sworn in? :lmao: :lmao:

Such a load :lmao:

 
...But then you lump people with legitimate concerns about how we vet our presidential candidates ...
You mean those people that want to create new government "solutions" to imaginary issues? Presidential campaigns now dominate the news for about a year before the election, take some personal responsibility to find out what you need to know and, if necessary spread the word. The only legitimate concern is the laziness of the electorate. That laziness has gotten your friends into high places your entire life so why is it suddenly a concern now?
I have no clue where you are coming from here - except to try to annoy me.
He's saying this has never really been a problem/concern in the past and the fact that a bunch of whackos tried to make it one this time around doesn't really mean there is a problem/concern now.
Now let's take the same logic and apply it to the environmental movement.I don't think that is what he is saying at all. I think though, that the Birther "Conspiracy" has identified a concern that we aren't vetting eligibility for POTUS in a consistent and transparent way. No matter whether this issue was brought to our attention by some whackos, or not, it is a hole that needs plugging. Every time I have to prove citizenship or that I am who I say I am, there is a list of approved documents that will satisfy the requirement. I see no reason why we shouldn't have the same thing to prove natural born citizenship. That I couldn't find said guidelines on the FEC site tells me there is an oversight here that needs correcting. How hard could it be to fix it? It doesn't require a whole new governemnt agency. It just requires that some bureaucrat somewhere fix a damn form.

 
OK I'll bite. Why are you vetting a sitting president's school grades? Didn't anybody do that when he was running? You guys even have your own channel with supposed journalists and everything.Seems like the only people who made any attempt to "vet" Obama were Hillary's camp. What the right is doing now is not vetting, it's just the usual turd slinging. And yes going on the attack because someone may have benefited long ago from minority college programs can be called racist and extremist. Not sure what else you would call it.
From what I have seen, few people want to see his grades. What they do want to see are his admissions forms. I'd certainly be interested to see what Obama as an adult proclaimed himself to be in order to gain whatever possible benefits he could from the system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK I'll bite. Why are you vetting a sitting president's school grades? Didn't anybody do that when he was running? You guys even have your own channel with supposed journalists and everything.Seems like the only people who made any attempt to "vet" Obama were Hillary's camp. What the right is doing now is not vetting, it's just the usual turd slinging. And yes going on the attack because someone may have benefited long ago from minority college programs can be called racist and extremist. Not sure what else you would call it.
From what I have seen, few people want to see his grades. What they do want to see are his admissions forms. I'd certainly be interested to see what Obama as an adult proclaimed himself to be in order to gain whatever possible benefits he could from the system.
You think he put "female" on there?
 
The strategy of attacking Obama's birth, school records or career path just doesn't work. I understand for someone who can't stand that this guy, of all people, got elected president those issues feel like they matter, but to everyone else it is just a big joke.

 
You think he put "female" on there?
:lol:No. Odd that you'd consider this a possibility, though.
:shrug: Just curious what your suspicion is. He IS black. What might he have put?
I prefer to see the truth than to continue guessing. But it seems that to some questioning our politicians is out-of-bounds - conveniently dependent upon party affiliation, and there are certainly reasonable questions about this man's past.
 
The strategy of attacking Obama's birth, school records or career path just doesn't work. I understand for someone who can't stand that this guy, of all people, got elected president those issues feel like they matter, but to everyone else it is just a big joke.
Yeah I'm just curious where the muckrakers are going with this admissions form thing..As far as I know anybody who's born here, over 35 and not a criminal is qualified to run and be elected as president. Widely considered one of the great things about the place..
 
You think he put "female" on there?
:lol:No. Odd that you'd consider this a possibility, though.
:shrug: Just curious what your suspicion is. He IS black. What might he have put?
I prefer to see the truth than to continue guessing. But it seems that to some questioning our politicians is out-of-bounds - conveniently dependent upon party affiliation, and there are certainly reasonable questions about this man's past.
OK so nothing.
 
I just heard an interesting line from Arrianna Huffington regarding this issue. She's a woman I tend to disagree with much more than I agree with, but she said:

"In times of great economic anxiety, people become more likely to believe conspiracy theories."

This makes sense, but it never occurred to me that it might be one of the sources of this issue. The reason it didn't is because the Truther movement developed at a time of less economic anxiety (though there was certainly international anxiety), and other conspiracies (Vince Foster, JFK) weren't developed in times of economic crisis either. Still, Huffington may be onto something in terms of anxiety in general resulting in increased numbers of people willing to accept implausible storylines- i.e., conspiracies. I still believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots of this specific conspiracy, but our growing economic problems may have something to do with it as well.

Thoughts?

 
It could still be "factually untrue." They could have found a doctor to lie for them. See how this works? Following your thinking, the long form is meaningless unless we can prove the doctor wasn't lying. The fact that you are now satisfied simply because you've seen a signature doesn't mean that you weren't being unreasonable in not accepting the short form.
It was always known that a source document existed which established the fact. I really don't see what was unreasonable in asking for that. It is about 1000 times more likely that a family member would lie about a birth to obtain benefits from being a citizen than a doctor who would risk his medical license for such an act. The long form with a doctor's or nurse's signature provides enormous credibility to the facts. You are not being too honest if you don't acknowledge that.
You characterize it how you want. I'll put my credibility up against yours any day of the week.
It is how I characterized it from day 1. We knew a document existed, but yet it wasn't provided. We heard numerous stories from the state of Hawaii on whether the document still existed or not and whether it was archived or not. We heard a couple stories from which hospital he was born in. We had a media which falsely insisted the document was already released and there was nothing else. The inconsistencies and misleading spin raised enough questions to me that something was not right. Sure most people were satisfied with the short form, but enough of the people were not it should have been something that was dealt with a long time ago. You didn't see anything from me insisting Obama was born in Kenya or the state documents were forged. I acknowledged all along that Obama was most likely born in Hawaii and all the released documents were accurate.
 
I just heard an interesting line from Arrianna Huffington regarding this issue. She's a woman I tend to disagree with much more than I agree with, but she said:

"In times of great economic anxiety, people become more likely to believe conspiracy theories."

This makes sense, but it never occurred to me that it might be one of the sources of this issue. The reason it didn't is because the Truther movement developed at a time of less economic anxiety (though there was certainly international anxiety), and other conspiracies (Vince Foster, JFK) weren't developed in times of economic crisis either. Still, Huffington may be onto something in terms of anxiety in general resulting in increased numbers of people willing to accept implausible storylines- i.e., conspiracies. I still believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots of this specific conspiracy, but our growing economic problems may have something to do with it as well.

Thoughts?
I think that a significant part of the population hates Obama just as much as a significant part of the population hated Bush and both sides will do whatever they can do discredit and emasculate. And both have.
 
I just heard an interesting line from Arrianna Huffington regarding this issue. She's a woman I tend to disagree with much more than I agree with, but she said:"In times of great economic anxiety, people become more likely to believe conspiracy theories."This makes sense, but it never occurred to me that it might be one of the sources of this issue. The reason it didn't is because the Truther movement developed at a time of less economic anxiety (though there was certainly international anxiety), and other conspiracies (Vince Foster, JFK) weren't developed in times of economic crisis either. Still, Huffington may be onto something in terms of anxiety in general resulting in increased numbers of people willing to accept implausible storylines- i.e., conspiracies. I still believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots of this specific conspiracy, but our growing economic problems may have something to do with it as well. Thoughts?
Well we've been in an economic ####storm since before he was elected.I believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots in any conspiracy related to his personal history. It's all they have on him. There were conspiracies related to GWB and Clinton's personal histories as well, but by and large those were well earned.
 
I just heard an interesting line from Arrianna Huffington regarding this issue. She's a woman I tend to disagree with much more than I agree with, but she said:

"In times of great economic anxiety, people become more likely to believe conspiracy theories."

This makes sense, but it never occurred to me that it might be one of the sources of this issue. The reason it didn't is because the Truther movement developed at a time of less economic anxiety (though there was certainly international anxiety), and other conspiracies (Vince Foster, JFK) weren't developed in times of economic crisis either. Still, Huffington may be onto something in terms of anxiety in general resulting in increased numbers of people willing to accept implausible storylines- i.e., conspiracies. I still believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots of this specific conspiracy, but our growing economic problems may have something to do with it as well.

Thoughts?
Well we've been in an economic ####storm since before he was elected.I believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots in any conspiracy related to his personal history. It's all they have on him.

There were conspiracies related to GWB and Clinton's personal histories as well, but by and large those were well earned.
'Bronco Billy said:
Okay, since you insist on remaining blissfully ignorant, here you go. I challenge you to refute any of this with documented facts that show otherwise:

Obama was born in Hawaii, but it wasn’t under the circumstances he invents in his book. Evidence demonstrates that Stanley Anne Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr were not married. That would explain why he can’t produce a birth certificate – he probably wasn’t born in a hospital (much less being born in 2 different hospitals, which is what he has claimed on different occasions). Therefore there was no filing for an official birth certificate. Children born out of wedlock were a disgrace for the parents, especially the mother, back then. That wouldn’t prevent a grandparent from calling the papers and making an announcement back then, however. And that certificate of live birth? Hawaii issues it to any resident upon request. And the designation of race: African on it is positively laughable. As is his statement that his father and grandfather hugged as his father left when he was 2 years old. Documentation shows conclusively that Stanley Anne Dunham left for college in Washington State with Obama a couple of weeks after he was born. His father was long gone by the time he was two. This would also explain why Obama has spent roughly 2 million dollars in legal fees in preventing people from uncovering his long form birth certificate rather than simply producing it when requested.

The above would also explain why two different independent investigators have found an identical SS number for Obama - a number issued by Connecticut, a state Obama or his family had never been in at the time of issuance. That SS number was actually issued sometime between 1977 and 1979 for someone who was born in 1890 and probably needed it for benefits. It isn’t unusual in the case of identity theft that a SS number like this is chosen – there is no one to challenge it, they have already passed on. This is also likely the reason why when one looks at Obama’s Federal Income tax return that the SS number is left blank rather than redacted.

Then we have the Western Kentucky professor who stated that he tried to look up Obama's birth certificate when he was an election official in Hawaii, and has stated that he found that such a birth certificate did not exist - a professor who has nothing to gain from the revelation and has used it to defend Obama from his attackers in his own peculiar way. Or the nine workers for the US Department of Education in Iowa who are indicted for accessing Obama's student loan records - each on separate occassions. I suppose the first found nothing at all revealing about Obama and the other 8 just had to break the law to take a look themselves...

We know Obama went to public school in Indonesia under the guidance of his adopted father, and attended as Barry Sotero. We also know without question that to attend Indonesian public schools that one had to be Muslim, and that religious education in the Muslim faith was part of Indonesian curriculum.

We know Obama went to Occidental college starting in 1979 and that he left for Columbia in 1981. Obama himself admits that he struggled in school, partied, and did not get good grades while at Occidental. Despite repeated requests, Obama will not release his admission forms or transcripts from Occidental, or his admission forms or transcripts from Columbia.

We know for a fact that Obama took a trip to Pakistan in 1981 – when Pakistan would not admit Americans into their country or accept American passports.

We know that Obama – despite getting an education with self-admitted mediocre credentials from a small liberal arts school like Occidental – was admitted to Ivy League school Columbia in 1981.

We know all about Obama’s seeking company with people like Bill Ayers – a fellow Alinskyite and former domestic terrorist, and his relationship for 2 decades with Jeremiah Wright, whom he chose for spiritual guidance for he and his family.

We know about Obama’s disdain for the middle class – his intentionally made public statements about the “bitter clingers” in the Midwest, those he named derisively as pathetically relying on their belief in Christianity as well as the Second Amendment when he spoke in San Francisco.

We know about Obama’s repeated public references to “shared prosperity”, and how income should be capped at a level he determines for any and all Americans.

We know about Michelle Obama reinforcing Obama’s disdain for America with her, “for the first time in her adult life she is proud of her country”. Obama shares her shame of America, as he showed so aptly in his whirlwind tour of Europe.

We know about Obama’s vision of this country – how he believes in the strong control by a Federal government (run by him, of course), how financial success should be capped and penalized in order to provide more for the less “fortunate”. We know he believes in governmental control of private businesses. He has demonstrated all this amply through numerous statements and examples.

We have seen his vision of health care created, and despite his alleged Constitutional scholarship he has placed this program directly in the face of Constitutional challenges – challenges that have every appearance of having sound basis and strong foundation. He enthusiastically supports a Federal government that mandates through strong-arm tactics that each and every citizen has to purchase a specific product or service under penalty of fine and/or jail for failure to do so – something that has never happened in the history of this country.

We know that Obama made the slip of “57 states” – a Muslim reference – when he was talking about campaigning in the US. He also publicly called America the world’s largest Muslim country while speaking in Europe. He has bowed before the Saudi royalty but he actively has publicly disrespected Netanyahu. He has done virtually nothing to impede the progress of Iran’s nuclear weapon program, which Iran has specifically stated they will use to destroy Israel.

We know that Obama refuses without exception to use the terms “radical” “Islamic” and “terrorist” strung together. Neither will any of his staff use that string of words in any form despite being cornered and questioned specifically at length about it. He has had any reference to those words strung together stricken from public records.

He has had his administration allow confessed Islamic terrorist leaders and active members – responsible for the direct death of thousands of Americans or attempting direct action that would result in the mass murder of numerous Americans - the same rights under United States law as US citizens, and wants to have showcase trials for them under criminal jurisdiction rather than using military tribunals – knowing full well what the course of the defense for these actions will be in a very public setting.

Now we see that he does not believe in State's Rights as specifically designated in the 14th Amendment, and has instead unleashed the Justice Department on Arizona despite Arizona's illegal immigration law being a virtual mirror of Federal immigration laws that he refuses to allow to be enforced.

*********************************************

Any one of these items by themselves would seem to be the workings of a crackpot, or a conspiracy theorist, and rightfully so I might add if they did indeed stand alone. But when you create an amalgam, the parameters change a bit – or they should to an impassionate rational viewpoint.

So there are your dots. Tell you what – you connect them and tell me what you come up with - unless of course you can prove them to have no foundation.

I’ll look forward to your conclusions either way.
 
I just heard an interesting line from Arrianna Huffington regarding this issue. She's a woman I tend to disagree with much more than I agree with, but she said:"In times of great economic anxiety, people become more likely to believe conspiracy theories."This makes sense, but it never occurred to me that it might be one of the sources of this issue. The reason it didn't is because the Truther movement developed at a time of less economic anxiety (though there was certainly international anxiety), and other conspiracies (Vince Foster, JFK) weren't developed in times of economic crisis either. Still, Huffington may be onto something in terms of anxiety in general resulting in increased numbers of people willing to accept implausible storylines- i.e., conspiracies. I still believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots of this specific conspiracy, but our growing economic problems may have something to do with it as well. Thoughts?
Americans inherently don't trust government. Conspiracies theories about every president exist. FDR knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor but let it happen. He was one of the most beloved Presidents of all time, and yet people hold on to that theory to this day. There is no evidence that this is a racial issue outside of your belief that it is.
 
You think he put "female" on there?
:lol:No. Odd that you'd consider this a possibility, though.
:shrug: Just curious what your suspicion is. He IS black. What might he have put?
I prefer to see the truth than to continue guessing. But it seems that to some questioning our politicians is out-of-bounds - conveniently dependent upon party affiliation, and there are certainly reasonable questions about this man's past.
OK so nothing.
I understand you & your political allies not wanting anyone digging around in Obama's past. The embarrassment of getting a black Dem finally elected President and then having him turn out to be a fraud would be a supreme disgrace and set the Dems back a long ways on the national stage. The same goes for the LSM media who overtly refused to do their jobs and do some digging on this guy instead of giving him a carte blanche pass.But that doesn't preclude the American people from asking questions when there are documented inconsistencies in what he said and wrote that his past was, and when documentation of actual events turn out to be otherwise - especially since he has announced a re-election run. American have a obligation to ask questions of our politicians. Actually, if Obama's supporters are so certain that he has been candidly forthcoming about past events in his life you would think that they would actually welcome the questions being asking rather than resorting to Alinski-ite methods for discouraging the questioners.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just heard an interesting line from Arrianna Huffington regarding this issue. She's a woman I tend to disagree with much more than I agree with, but she said:"In times of great economic anxiety, people become more likely to believe conspiracy theories."This makes sense, but it never occurred to me that it might be one of the sources of this issue. The reason it didn't is because the Truther movement developed at a time of less economic anxiety (though there was certainly international anxiety), and other conspiracies (Vince Foster, JFK) weren't developed in times of economic crisis either. Still, Huffington may be onto something in terms of anxiety in general resulting in increased numbers of people willing to accept implausible storylines- i.e., conspiracies. I still believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots of this specific conspiracy, but our growing economic problems may have something to do with it as well. Thoughts?
Well we've been in an economic ####storm since before he was elected.I believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots in any conspiracy related to his personal history. It's all they have on him. There were conspiracies related to GWB and Clinton's personal histories as well, but by and large those were well earned.
Clinton and Bush ran drugs were a well earned conspiracies? Clinton body count was a well earned conspiracy? Bush plotting 9-11 was a well-earned conspiracy? Please, this birther 'conspiracy' is tame compared to the crap which was thrown at Bush and Clinton. Obama has gotten an easy ride if the situation surrounding his birth is all they have. Obama's ties to radical leftists throughout his life is a much more interesting conspiracy. I would like to see those developed some more. :thumbup:
 
You think he put "female" on there?
:lol: No. Odd that you'd consider this a possibility, though.
:shrug: Just curious what your suspicion is. He IS black. What might he have put?
I prefer to see the truth than to continue guessing. But it seems that to some questioning our politicians is out-of-bounds - conveniently dependent upon party affiliation, and there are certainly reasonable questions about this man's past.
OK so nothing.
I understand you & your political allies not wanting anyone digging around in Obama's past. The embarrassment of getting a black Dem finally elected President and then having him turn out to be a fraud would be a supreme disgrace and set the Dems back a long ways on the national stage. The same goes for the LSM media who overtly refused to do their jobs and do some digging on this guy instead of giving him a carte blanche pass.But that doesn't preclude the American people from asking questions when there are documented inconsistencies in what he said and wrote that his past was, and when documentation of actual events turn out to be otherwise - especially since he has announced a re-election run. American have a obligation to ask questions of our politicians.

Actually, if Obama's supporters are so certain that he has been candidly forthcoming about past events in his life you would think that they would actually welcome the questions being asking rather than resorting to Alinski-ite methods for discouraging the questioners.
Yeah this all just baloney. Inconsistencies! Fraud! Nothing he could ever release would ever satisfy you, as long as there was nothing there. It would still be what about this? What about that? ad nauseum. What a snore.Sour grapes. All it boils down to IMO.

It's only racist because it's all you guys have. If only he was a shady philanderer like Bill, or a silver spoon draft dodger like GW.

 
I just heard an interesting line from Arrianna Huffington regarding this issue. She's a woman I tend to disagree with much more than I agree with, but she said:"In times of great economic anxiety, people become more likely to believe conspiracy theories."This makes sense, but it never occurred to me that it might be one of the sources of this issue. The reason it didn't is because the Truther movement developed at a time of less economic anxiety (though there was certainly international anxiety), and other conspiracies (Vince Foster, JFK) weren't developed in times of economic crisis either. Still, Huffington may be onto something in terms of anxiety in general resulting in increased numbers of people willing to accept implausible storylines- i.e., conspiracies. I still believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots of this specific conspiracy, but our growing economic problems may have something to do with it as well. Thoughts?
Well we've been in an economic ####storm since before he was elected.I believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots in any conspiracy related to his personal history. It's all they have on him. There were conspiracies related to GWB and Clinton's personal histories as well, but by and large those were well earned.
Clinton and Bush ran drugs were a well earned conspiracies? Clinton body count was a well earned conspiracy? Bush plotting 9-11 was a well-earned conspiracy?
I'm talking about conspiracies that actually have traction with normal people. The birther conspiracy grew enough legs to at least be brought up by his leading presidential opponent.If you want to get into lunatic conspiracies, you guys have PLENTY of those about Obama.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just heard an interesting line from Arrianna Huffington regarding this issue. She's a woman I tend to disagree with much more than I agree with, but she said:"In times of great economic anxiety, people become more likely to believe conspiracy theories."This makes sense, but it never occurred to me that it might be one of the sources of this issue. The reason it didn't is because the Truther movement developed at a time of less economic anxiety (though there was certainly international anxiety), and other conspiracies (Vince Foster, JFK) weren't developed in times of economic crisis either. Still, Huffington may be onto something in terms of anxiety in general resulting in increased numbers of people willing to accept implausible storylines- i.e., conspiracies. I still believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots of this specific conspiracy, but our growing economic problems may have something to do with it as well. Thoughts?
Well we've been in an economic ####storm since before he was elected.I believe that race and Obama's name are the key roots in any conspiracy related to his personal history. It's all they have on him. There were conspiracies related to GWB and Clinton's personal histories as well, but by and large those were well earned.
A distinction should be made between the nature of the conspiracy and the level of growth of the conspiracy. You and I agree that the nature of this conspiracy has to do with Obama's name and race. But what causes a conspiracy to grow? Take a look at the four largest modern American conspiracies before this one:1. FDR knew about or plotted Pearl Harbor.2. JFK was assassinated by the U.S. government.3. Vince Foster was assassinated by Bill or Hillary Clinton4. Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, or planned it. What distinguishes all of these conspiracies from the Birther movement is that they all involve a sudden and shocking event: the event happens, a rational explanation is given, and then the conspiracy begins as people challenge that explanation. Inconsistencies are brought up, and alternative theories are established. This has been the traditional pattern for conspiracies. But the Birther movement has no such sudden and shocking event: this makes it rather unique. It's pattern of growth is also somewhat unique as well. Prior to Obama's election, the general public was largely unaware of questions about his birth. Some people involved in politics did bring this up, but as a general issue it went unnoticed. Within 6 months after his election, it was a national story. Within a year after his election, 40% of Republicans believed him to be born outside of the United States- still a stunning number of people within so short of time and lacking any information whatsoever. And we still don't know if those numbers have changed at all with Obama releasing the long form.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top