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 (2 Viewers)

The logic that racism drove in this topic is less compelling than the argument that Obama was hiding something.
Wrong.
Well that makes it compelling. :thumbup:
If you can answer a question, maybe I'll continue in here.What reason did Obama's mother & grandparents have for lying about his place of birth?
Access to state health care, schools, and other benefits of being a US citizens.
Obama didn't need to be born here to be a U.S. citizen. His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would have become one no matter where he was born. Whether or not he would have been eligible for POTUS, had he been born elsewhere, is another question. Do you believe the mom and grandparents considered this at the time?
But of course. Every little mixed-race kid born in 1961 had the dream of one day growing up to be POTUS.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/467913/baraks_kindergarten_dreams_may_come.html?cat=75
the Clinton campaign discovered that Barak Obama had his eye on the Presidency since he was five years old. Yes indeed, Barak Obama has been trying to conceal his conspiratorial aspirations to run for President since he was a toddler.
 
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?
Back before the recession 42% of thge people believed that Bush was manipulating gas prices. That probably puts it nortb of 60% of Democrats. Th economy was humming along just fina, and people believed it
The economy was at no point under the eight years of W, or the Clinton year prior, or the Obama years since "humming along just fine" no matter what people believed or how much they were able to make on Wall Street.
:loco:I guess 4% unemployment and years of uninteruppted growth just suck.
 
Now did we elect Barrack Hussein Obama II, or did we elect his father? I don't recall seeing the "II" on the ballot. :unsure:
Did the Minnesota gubernatorial ballot a few years back say James Geoge Janos or Jesse Ventura?I'm not sure what your point is here
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
:loco:

I guess 4% unemployment and years of uninteruppted growth just suck.
Worst job growth of any President since WWII? And it wasn't close?Yah. That just sucks.
Or maybe you were looking at other measures?
The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.
when you're ecomy is running at essentially full employemnt for most of his term, how much more growth do you need?Bottom line is that even in good economic times, the "Bush is manipulating gas" conspiracy theory was widely believed.

 
I predict this "issue" is dead as of tonight. I would be surprised if 40% of Republicans continued to believe in this. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think those numbers now are going to go wayyyyyy down.

 
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
'Rove! said:
:loco:

I guess 4% unemployment and years of uninteruppted growth just suck.
Worst job growth of any President since WWII? And it wasn't close?Yah. That just sucks.
Or maybe you were looking at other measures?
The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.
As with anything, it depends on the time interval you consider. If you look at a graph over the two terms, there was definitely economic growth and decent employment until the housing crisis.
 
'Bronco Billy said:
'The Commish said:
Prove to me that the doctor's sig is legit :shrug: See how this goes?? It's absurd to question this single instance of the document. They'd done millions of these things over the years, yet I don't hear people clamoring to "prove" folks in Hawaii are citizens. It was dumb.
I must have missed the Constitutional requirement that people living in Hawaii had to prove that they were naturally born Hawaiians. Perhaps you could cite that for me.
Ask the person who asserted it, not me. Perhaps you could reread what I posted, unless this is just a bad fishing trip in which case good luck with it.
 
'jon_mx said:
'Christo said:
'jon_mx said:
'timschochet said:
'jon_mx said:
'Christo said:
'jon_mx said:
'Christo said:
'jon_mx said:
The logic that racism drove in this topic is less compelling than the argument that Obama was hiding something.
Wrong.
Well that makes it compelling. :thumbup:
If you can answer a question, maybe I'll continue in here.What reason did Obama's mother & grandparents have for lying about his place of birth?
Access to state health care, schools, and other benefits of being a US citizens.
Obama didn't need to be born here to be a U.S. citizen. His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he would have become one no matter where he was born. Whether or not he would have been eligible for POTUS, had he been born elsewhere, is another question. Do you believe the mom and grandparents considered this at the time?
Maybe his racist grandma did not want a Kenyan as a grandchild or even worse a Canadian or a Brit. :unsure:
Pathetic :thumbdown: :bye:
Obama is the one who threw Grandma under thebus as a racist.
He's talking about your logic....not that you called his grandmother racist. The rest of us agree. Stop digging dude...it's over. Just ask to be buried in the hole and be done with it. He asked you for reasons they'd lie and you responded with brutally poor logic proving his point.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i thought it was established earlier in the thread that Stanley Obama was too young to automatically confer citizenship on her son due to the Five years of residency after the age of fourteen rule.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
brutally poor logic
Pretty much the sub-theme of this entire thread.
The theme of this thread is "facts" shifting like the sandsThe BC was destroyed, no it wasn'tThere is only one BC for Hawaii, no wait there's twoHe couldn't release if he wanted to, no wait, he canNobosd has access to it not even Obama, no wait those with tangible interest doNobody is allowed to photocopy or reproduce the long-form, but wait what about all of those pictures of people holding their long formThere no baby pictures, no wait there they areAnd now after couteless postings of the relevant statutes there is no establishment of whether or not citizenship would automatically be conveyed.No wonder this is 71 pages, the whole thing just goes in circles and while one side is correct about the end result, neither side is really interested in facts (with maybe one or two exceptions).
 
brutally poor logic
Pretty much the sub-theme of this entire thread.
The theme of this thread is "facts" shifting like the sandsThe BC was destroyed, no it wasn'tThere is only one BC for Hawaii, no wait there's twoHe couldn't release if he wanted to, no wait, he canNobosd has access to it not even Obama, no wait those with tangible interest doNobody is allowed to photocopy or reproduce the long-form, but wait what about all of those pictures of people holding their long formThere no baby pictures, no wait there they areAnd now after couteless postings of the relevant statutes there is no establishment of whether or not citizenship would automatically be conveyed.No wonder this is 71 pages, the whole thing just goes in circles and while one side is correct about the end result, neither side is really interested in facts (with maybe one or two exceptions).
Most of these facts were conjured up by birthers in the first place and then bounced around their little world.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i thought it was established earlier in the thread that Stanley Obama was too young to automatically confer citizenship on her son due to the Five years of residency after the age of fourteen rule.
Who gives a crap about conferring citizenship? If you are born in on U.S. soil - of illegal aliens, or even of foreign nationals who are here on vacation - you are a natural born American citizen. Once the birth certificate was produced, showing Obama was born in the U.S. state of Hawaii, it is utterly meaningless and moot what nationality or citizenship his parents were.
 
brutally poor logic
Pretty much the sub-theme of this entire thread.
The theme of this thread is "facts" shifting like the sandsThe BC was destroyed, no it wasn'tThere is only one BC for Hawaii, no wait there's twoHe couldn't release if he wanted to, no wait, he canNobosd has access to it not even Obama, no wait those with tangible interest doNobody is allowed to photocopy or reproduce the long-form, but wait what about all of those pictures of people holding their long formThere no baby pictures, no wait there they areAnd now after couteless postings of the relevant statutes there is no establishment of whether or not citizenship would automatically be conveyed.No wonder this is 71 pages, the whole thing just goes in circles and while one side is correct about the end result, neither side is really interested in facts (with maybe one or two exceptions).
Most of these facts were conjured up by birthers in the first place and then bounced around their little world.
Most of those I listed were conjured up by the anti-birthers I left out a fewHis Obstetrician was Dr west based on some crazy lady's recollection of a conversation that took place four years ago - actually it wasn't (anti)The website image has watermarks from photoshop - actuually when WND's own experts looked it did not (birthers)
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i thought it was established earlier in the thread that Stanley Obama was too young to automatically confer citizenship on her son due to the Five years of residency after the age of fourteen rule.
Who gives a crap about conferring citizenship? If you are born in on U.S. soil - of illegal aliens, or even of foreign nationals who are here on vacation - you are a natural born American citizen. Once the birth certificate was produced, showing Obama was born in the U.S. state of Hawaii, it is utterly meaningless and moot what nationality or citizenship his parents were.
This in response to the christo/mx sidebar before it got sidetracked into irrelevant crap
 
I predict this "issue" is dead as of tonight. I would be surprised if 40% of Republicans continued to believe in this. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think those numbers now are going to go wayyyyyy down.
Ultimately they're going to believe whatever Fox News feeds them. I wouldn't say with a whole lot of confidence that those folks are going to let anything go.
 
I predict this "issue" is dead as of tonight. I would be surprised if 40% of Republicans continued to believe in this. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think those numbers now are going to go wayyyyyy down.
Ultimately they're going to believe whatever Fox News feeds them. I wouldn't say with a whole lot of confidence that those folks are going to let anything go.
To be fair to Fox News, they have never pushed the Birther story.
 
I predict this "issue" is dead as of tonight. I would be surprised if 40% of Republicans continued to believe in this. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think those numbers now are going to go wayyyyyy down.
Ultimately they're going to believe whatever Fox News feeds them. I wouldn't say with a whole lot of confidence that those folks are going to let anything go.
To be fair to Fox News, they have never pushed the Birther story.
Jumping on relatively late doesn't mean they never pushed it. Whenever they decide to jump off is when everybody else will.
 
I predict this "issue" is dead as of tonight. I would be surprised if 40% of Republicans continued to believe in this. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think those numbers now are going to go wayyyyyy down.
Ultimately they're going to believe whatever Fox News feeds them. I wouldn't say with a whole lot of confidence that those folks are going to let anything go.
To be fair to Fox News, they have never pushed the Birther story.
No...they pushed it, until the documents were presented a couple years ago. Then they (as a whole) dropped it as they should have. It still popped up from time to time with Hannity, Beck and company.
 
I predict this "issue" is dead as of tonight. I would be surprised if 40% of Republicans continued to believe in this. Perhaps I'm naive, but I think those numbers now are going to go wayyyyyy down.
Ultimately they're going to believe whatever Fox News feeds them. I wouldn't say with a whole lot of confidence that those folks are going to let anything go.
To be fair to Fox News, they have never pushed the Birther story.
:bs:But Obama did nail Trump at the press corp dinner on this when he said "now that Trump has solved this dillemma, he'll be moving onto other great unsolved mysteries like did we really land on the moon? :own3d:
 
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
'Matthias said:
'Rove! said:
:loco:

I guess 4% unemployment and years of uninteruppted growth just suck.
Worst job growth of any President since WWII? And it wasn't close?Yah. That just sucks.
Or maybe you were looking at other measures?
The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.
As with anything, it depends on the time interval you consider. If you look at a graph over the two terms, there was definitely economic growth and decent employment until the housing crisis.
So if you look at his Presidency as a whole, it looks ok until it doesn't? Or put another way, things look fine when it's bubbling until the bubble pops?The article cited in the article I cited (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301.html) looks at all 8 years of his presidency.
The original premise was that conspracies take hold when things are bad. With pretty much full employment and solid growth, these were not hard times. You can argue that some underlying issues need to be addressed and that the crisis made his overall numbers look worse, but those are irrelevant. People did not have motivation, from an economic standpoint, to gravitate towards conspiracy theories.In good economic conditions (perceived or otherwise), the conspiracy that Bush was manipulating gas prices was widely believed.

 
Who gives a crap about conferring citizenship? If you are born in on U.S. soil - of illegal aliens, or even of foreign nationals who are here on vacation - you are a natural born American citizen.
wrong
no u r wrong. the above is a true statement about birthright citizenship.
And I thought you were a lawyer. ;)

There are exceptions to bestowing automatic citizenship on births within US borders. The Constitution reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

Anyone born in the US, but not subject to US jurisdiction, isn't automatically a citizen. The two most common exceptions come from children born to foreign diplomats (since they have "diplomatic immunity", they are not subject to US laws, children born in the US to diplomats are citizens of their home country), and children born to foreign military stationed within the US (whether through cooperation... like a Canadian officer training with the USAF who brings his family with him to the base, if his wife gives birth the kid is Canadian; or foreign astronauts training at NASA... or whether through military invasion, like the wives of British officers who accompanied them over in 1812, had any given birth while in hostile occupation, their kids would remain British subjects). I'm sure there are other instances I'm not aware of.

 
The original premise was that conspracies take hold when things are bad. With pretty much full employment and solid growth, these were not hard times. You can argue that some underlying issues need to be addressed and that the crisis made his overall numbers look worse, but those are irrelevant. People did not have motivation, from an economic standpoint, to gravitate towards conspiracy theories.In good economic conditions (perceived or otherwise), the conspiracy that Bush was manipulating gas prices was widely believed.
Whether or not the "official stats" looked good or not doesn't mean that the masses perceived the economy as "humming along". Rising gas cost alone are enough to destroy any silly argument that the economy could not have been perceived bad enough to give rise to conspiracy theories about rising fuel costs. And at the time there were plenty of discussions on these boards here where plenty of posters held alternative views as to the health of the economy, so I stand by my assertion that at no point since the combined dot com bust and the end of the Y2K infrastructure in January 2000 (under Clinton) until now was the economy in any stable shape. Smoke and mirrors like near negative interest rates and various tax cuts, rebates, credit schemes may have delayed the collapse, but the house of cards nature of the economy had been identified by many well before it came tumbling down. So maybe the economy was great for the top 1% or even top 10%, but both the unsound fundamentals and the main street reality was quite different.
 
Don't want you guys to forget about the 9th Circuit hearing today:

Two attorneys who remain unconvinced that President Barack Obama was born in the United States took their case to a Pasadena courtroom today, asking an appellate court panel to reinstate their lawsuit challenging his citizenship and asking for closer examination of his birth certificate.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in Santa Ana dismissed their case in 2009, ruling that the court was not the proper place to challenge a president's election—echoing a ruling by a federal judge in Georgia.

But attorneys Gary Kreep and Orly Taitz continued to press their case today—even though Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate last week.

"The only recourse for the people is the courts," Kreep, who is based in Ramona, told the panel. "Nobody has been willing to take on Mr. Obama."

Taitz, of Rancho Santa Margarita, added, "Mr. Obama, the evidence shows, committed a fraud."

Assistant U.S. Attorney David DeJute insisted that the courts were not the proper venue to challenge the president, saying only Congress can do so through the impeachment process.

The panel heard about an hour of arguments, then took the matter under submission.

Kreep and Taitz have lost several legal efforts to disqualify the president from holding that office, and have faced sanctions for abusing the federal court system. Taitz was fined $20,000 by a judge in Georgia.

Taitz said today she was surprised by the treatment she has received from the courts and federal prosecutors.

"I come from the Soviet Union,'' she said. "I would expect that in the Soviet Union. I would not expect it here."

Although the original lawsuit sought release of the birth certificate, the pair now want a forensic expert to examine the birth certificate released by Obama last week.

Taitz has three separate court actions pending to challenge Obama's qualifications to serve as president. She told City News Service last week that she questions the birth certificate's authenticity because it lists the president's father's race as African, instead of negro.

Kreep and Taitz also challenge the president's citizenship because they believe he was adopted by a foster father while living in Indonesia as a child, according to the United States Justice Foundation. Kreep is the foundation's executive director.

 
Tim asked earlier whether releasing the long-form document would change the poll numbers regarding beliefs about whether Obama was born in the U.S.

The first post–long-form poll results are in.

Will the release of Obama's long form birth certificate this week change any of these attitudes? "The odds aren't good," says Brendan Nyhan, pointing to a series of experiments that he conducted with fellow political scientist Jason Reifler. Their experiments, Nyhan writes, "found that corrective information in news articles often fails to reduce misperceptions among the ideological or partisan group that is most vulnerable to the false belief" and, in some cases, made those misperceptions worse.

Nyhan's expectation is consistent with an overnight national poll conducted on Wednesday by the firm SurveyUSA. Their poll (which combined automated calls to landlines and live interviewer calls to cell phones) finds 19 percent of adults, and 33 percent of Republicans, still believe Obama was definitely or probably born outside the United States. About half as many -- 10 percent of adults and 18 percent of Republicans -- tell SurveyUSA that they are "sure the birth certificate newly released by the White House is a forgery."

Similar results from Zogby:
Sixteen percent of all voters and 30% of Republicans do not believe President Barack Obama has proven he was born in the U.S., even after release of his long-form birth certificate, a new IBOPE Zogby interactive survey finds.

 
Tim asked earlier whether releasing the long-form document would change the poll numbers regarding beliefs about whether Obama was born in the U.S.

The first postlong-form poll results are in.

Will the release of Obama's long form birth certificate this week change any of these attitudes? "The odds aren't good," says Brendan Nyhan, pointing to a series of experiments that he conducted with fellow political scientist Jason Reifler. Their experiments, Nyhan writes, "found that corrective information in news articles often fails to reduce misperceptions among the ideological or partisan group that is most vulnerable to the false belief" and, in some cases, made those misperceptions worse.

Nyhan's expectation is consistent with an overnight national poll conducted on Wednesday by the firm SurveyUSA. Their poll (which combined automated calls to landlines and live interviewer calls to cell phones) finds 19 percent of adults, and 33 percent of Republicans, still believe Obama was definitely or probably born outside the United States. About half as many -- 10 percent of adults and 18 percent of Republicans -- tell SurveyUSA that they are "sure the birth certificate newly released by the White House is a forgery."

Similar results from Zogby:
Sixteen percent of all voters and 30% of Republicans do not believe President Barack Obama has proven he was born in the U.S., even after release of his long-form birth certificate, a new IBOPE Zogby interactive survey finds.
It's a huge drop

I suspect it will continue to drop

Had they allowed Hawaii to release it rather than the WH, I suspect those number would have dropped more

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The original premise was that conspracies take hold when things are bad. With pretty much full employment and solid growth, these were not hard times. You can argue that some underlying issues need to be addressed and that the crisis made his overall numbers look worse, but those are irrelevant. People did not have motivation, from an economic standpoint, to gravitate towards conspiracy theories.In good economic conditions (perceived or otherwise), the conspiracy that Bush was manipulating gas prices was widely believed.
Whether or not the "official stats" looked good or not doesn't mean that the masses perceived the economy as "humming along". Rising gas cost alone are enough to destroy any silly argument that the economy could not have been perceived bad enough to give rise to conspiracy theories about rising fuel costs. And at the time there were plenty of discussions on these boards here where plenty of posters held alternative views as to the health of the economy, so I stand by my assertion that at no point since the combined dot com bust and the end of the Y2K infrastructure in January 2000 (under Clinton) until now was the economy in any stable shape. Smoke and mirrors like near negative interest rates and various tax cuts, rebates, credit schemes may have delayed the collapse, but the house of cards nature of the economy had been identified by many well before it came tumbling down. So maybe the economy was great for the top 1% or even top 10%, but both the unsound fundamentals and the main street reality was quite different.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-confidenceConsumer confidence in late 2006 was in the 100-108 range.The April 2011 number is in the lower 60s
 
Pam Geller at World Net Daily continues to bring the crazy, claiming that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he can't be President because he was an illegitimate child.

The release of Barack Hussein Obama I's immigration file is stunning in what it reveals and the questions it poses. BHO I's visa expired Aug. 8, 1961 (Barack Junior was born Aug. 4, 1961) - is that why he married Obama's mother? Stanley Ann Dunham was a white girl in a family way with a mixed-race child, desperate for legitimacy in a culture that condemned such behavior as abject immorality, and Barack Obama Sr. was a con man from Kenya desperate to stay in the USA. Was the marriage merely a business arrangement (she was 17 when she got pregnant)? Is that why it was so important to place the ads in the Hawaiian papers announcing the birth of the future president - because his father was about to be deported? ...

It is interesting to note that BHO I claims in the documents to have divorced first wife, Kezia, "verbally." According to the Shariah, a man can divorce his wife by repeating it three times. Further, when BHO I returned to Kenya, he apparently lived with his first Kenyan wife and his American third wife, suggesting that the "divorce" he ostensibly secured to marry Dunham was a transitory ruse.

That would make the president illegitimate. In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights. There is no way the founders of this great nation intended for an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land.

All this means that President Barack Hussein Obama is not natural born. His father was not a U.S. citizen; he is, by that very fact, disqualified to serve as president of the United States. Those who believe that the "natural born" requirement is no longer relevant in our modern age are wrong. The Founding Fathers added this to the requirements for someone serving as president to make it difficult for a spy or traitor to attain the highest office in the land. Clearly, from Obama's performance, this is a considerable cause for concern.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights. There is no way the founders of this great nation intended for an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land.
This sounds like transcript taken from a Klan rally.
 
In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights. There is no way the founders of this great nation intended for an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land.
This sounds like transcript taken from a Klan rally.
"How's about I roll back that Bin Laden thing?" -- BHO
 
In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights. There is no way the founders of this great nation intended for an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land.
This sounds like transcript taken from a Klan rally.
In the future we should demand date-stamped visual documentation of the sexual act that produced the candidate so we can, ummm, confirm his legitimacy. Let's close the loopholes, people!
 
All this means that President Barack Hussein Obama is not natural born. His father was not a U.S. citizen; he is, by that very fact, disqualified to serve as president of the United States. . . . The Founding Fathers added this to the requirements for someone serving as president to make it difficult for a spy or traitor to attain the highest office in the land.
Huh? Your parents being citizens was assurance that you wouldn't be a spy or traitor?
 
In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights. There is no way the founders of this great nation intended for an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land.
So their argument is that Obama belongs to a certain class of people whom the founders never intended to become president? ####, I could've told you that just by looking at him.
 
In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights. There is no way the founders of this great nation intended for an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land.
So their argument is that Obama belongs to a certain class of people whom the founders never intended to become president? ####, I could've told you that just by looking at him.
:lmao: :goodposting: :lmao:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top