[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm surprised that you'd still say Obama was a better choice over McCain. Your second paragraph doesn't follow your first one.

Started writing a reply to this, and then realized that I hadn't actually put all that much deep though into the issue so the reply started rambling and going on a bit... Long story short, unlike most people who voted for him, I voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils, and though I'm no longer convinced he was, I'm also not convinced that McCain would have been better.

If nothing else, Obama is doing a good job of improving our relations with other nations, and I believe that McCain would have continued to alienate the international community. So in that regard, I prefer Obama, but pretty much in that regard only. As a corollary to that, I'm also well convinced that Obama is doing a much better job than McCain would have at improving our relationships with Muslim nations (though I wish he would do it without pushing Israel aside, which I think would still be possible if slightly less effective). On Iran, in particular, I think McCain had the wrong approach: bombing Iran, or even just electing a president who would so lyrically and light-heartedly suggest that we do so, prior to the Iranian elections could well have pushed the Iranian people into actually supporting Ahmedinajad and strengthened the Ayatollah's stranglehold on Iranian society. Who knows what will happen in Iran now, but I can't see it as anything but a good sign that the people of Iran would protest against their government; I also can't help but see it as an opportunity for the US (and other Democratic nations) to support the People of Iran and maybe kill two birds with one stone by removing a horrible dictator and simultaneously engendering democracy in the Middle East.

Other than that one particular issue, I think you're right: McCain would have been a better choice than Obama. (I must say, you're extremely good at getting me to reexamine my positions on things... Keep it up! )

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you're suggesting we vote for the unelectable parties, there are two major problems with that:

1. It is effectively the same thing as not voting. The person still won't get elected, but it wastes more of your time than sitting at home and having a beer.
2. The people in smaller parties are even bigger cretins, because they didn't have the good sense to join a party in which they might be able to make a difference. I don't mean this just theoretically — third-party candidates tend to be wackos without a pragmatic bone in their body. Even if I agree with them philosophically, I still don't want these kooks elected any more than the big boys. A smart libertarian will run as a Republican, like Ron Paul did.

Voting for the other parties makes the majors sit up and look at why their votes are going to others. They then adjust their policies to head in the direction that the most votes went.
Without this, both parties head for the middle ground in order to battle for the fence-sitters. It's happened here. It's happened there.

Those smart libertarians running as Republican are ignored by their party, which means they'll never get anywhere. If Dr Paul wasn't an evil Republican, how many Dem votes would he have picked up?

Break the chain. Don't reinforce it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How's about you folks realise that all major party politicians are complete cretins and promise yourselves that you're never going to vote for any of them again?

Really. Not joking. Break that chain. Do it.

The extremely sad truth is that even the other options tend to be just as bad. Every election since I came of voting age I've watched the so-called third parties intensely and they always make the same stupid mistakes as the Big Two: compromising their values to nominate someone 'electable' not realizing that their only value in the political system, and their only chance at actually achieving anything is to be the party that finally nominates a good candidate.

Edit:
More specifically, I would have happily voted for Gary Nolan, but the Libertarians nominated Moonbat Badnarik instead. I would also have happily voted for Mary Ruwart or George Phillies, but the Libertarians nominated Neocon Bob Barr. I was completely unwilling to vote for either of those candidates, and after the travesty that was Barr's nomination followed by the current rise of his running mate Wayne Allen Root I've divested myself of all faith in and connection to the Libertarian party.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The extremely sad truth is that even the other options tend to be just as bad.

That's not the point. You don't want the third parties running things - you simply want to scare the majors off their current path. You're essentially taking away from the majors, not giving to the minors.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's not the point. You don't want the third parties running things - you simply want to scare the majors off their current path. You're essentially taking away from the majors, not giving to the minors.

True. But, to stick with the example of the Libertarians, to have voted for them in the past two elections would probably have sent the wrong message to the Republicans. I want the Republicans to move toward libertarianism, not the neo-con anti-liberty bullshit that those two nominees represented.

I wish we had either proportional representation, or some form or runoff voting (or both!) to provide us a little more freedom in expressing our political will.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Remember, I don't buy the idea he wasn't born here. There sure is some reason though why Obama won't go a tiny extra yard and release a document that probably has additional information that would help clarify the situation though, and for THAT I'm not feeling sorry for him that these "birthers" won't shut up.

Speculation among the "birthers" is that Frank Marshall Davis or unknown is listed as father.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And his Birth Certificate wouldn't be on that list, right?

*sigh*

It's on the same list with the explosives Bush used to blow up levees in New Orleans, the cave where the real 911 aircraft, crew and passengers are hidden, and the missiles that hit the WTC and Pentagon.

That is- the list of things only kooks believe in and keep ranting about.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Voting for the other parties makes the majors sit up and look at why their votes are going to others. They then adjust their policies to head in the direction that the most votes went.

Actually, it's more likely they laugh at the side that very stupidly split their vote and allowed them to win.

Witness: Clinton, 1992, 43% of the vote.

[Dork.]

Where's McCain's birth certificate? Huh? I think that he may have been born in a foreign country. What's he hiding?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Where's McCain's birth certificate? Huh? I think that he may have been born in a foreign country. What's he hiding?

I bet there is a lot of profanity on it.

[ort888]

McCain was born in Panama.

[Big Mac]

To two American citizens.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

To two American citizens.

Then we'll need to see their birth certificates, too!

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Tell it to the Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health:

The Doctor seems to claim to have seen a document that has yet to be released. What a kook!!!!

Reading is fundamental. The records are electronic. She's seen the electronic records. There's no discrepancy here.

And you of course ignored, again, the fact that the records on file *can't* be released, because of Hawaii state law. The document that was released is the same document that anybody, President or not, gets when requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. It's official and legal. There is no need to release any other document, except for satisfying lunatics who won't be satisfied no matter what. Even if they could release the electronic document, some idiot going by the handle "psdwrrkkrr12256" or something would post on his blog about how "fake" the documents are.

Count on it.

See above. That's what Obama could order released and squash most of the speculative by all but the nuttiest of the "birthers". He CHOOSES not to, and it's my belief it's because there is additional information in the "original vital records" which he doesn't want released. There's really no other rational explanation. He could order a copy of the document that Fukino says he saw released (which hasn't been released) and shut most everyone up.

So you are buying into a different conspiracy, which says there is "something in the records he wants hidden". I see. Some nefarious thing Obama did as a newborn, that he must keep away from the world lest they see the truth, perhaps?

And you have the nerve to talk about kooks?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

To two American citizens.

Yes, but that doesn't make him a natural born citizen.

[Big Mac]

Ah, yes it certainly does. You're a natural born citizen either by birth (two American parents was the old standard, now it's just one) or by soil. Or do you think that the child of two American citizens who happens to be born abroad isn't considered natural born?

It's a little frustrating when people fire off uninformed opinions blindly.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Voting for the other parties makes the majors sit up and look at why their votes are going to others. They then adjust their policies to head in the direction that the most votes went.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

That's not the point. You don't want the third parties running things - you simply want to scare the majors off their current path. You're essentially taking away from the majors, not giving to the minors.

You've contradicted yourself. First, you say that only the one that wins ("most votes") matters, then you say you don't want the third party winning. So, the third party that loses is useless in your statements because they didn't get the most votes, so the major party still won and thinks they're what everyone wants.

[Chuckit]

Doofy is saying that the major parties will go in the direction of the minor party that they perceive as taking the most votes from them. It's similar to how Bush ripped off a bunch of McCain's talking points in 2000 because he saw them working.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

You've contradicted yourself.

No contradiction there. Chuck explains above.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Doofy is saying that the major parties will go in the direction of the minor party that they perceive as taking the most votes from them. It's similar to how Bush ripped off a bunch of McCain's talking points in 2000 because he saw them working.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No contradiction there. Chuck explains above.

Yup. Look at the '68 elections to see an even bigger rip off; Wallace had the potential to not just split the Democrats but split them AND the Republicans enough to actually win. Between them, the Dems and Reps managed to alter their own platforms and talking points enough to sound an awful lot like George Wallace by November.

A single third party generally doesn't have a chance-look at what happened with Nader. But a number of different, smaller parties can and have influenced the direction of campaigns exactly the way Chuckit says, by forcing one or the other major party to alter its platform toward what they perceive to be the successes of those smaller parties.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ort888 

McCain was born in Panama.

McCain was born on a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone, not the country of Panama. The Zone was also US territory.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

[


McCain was born on a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone, not the country of Panama. The Zone was also US territory.

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess he can run for President after all.

I also find it funny that Hawaii had only been a state for TWO YEARS when 0bama was born there. Pretty convenient if you ask me. How deep does this conspiracy go?

If you rearrange the words "Barrack Hussein Obama" you get "Barbarian Scum as Hoke".

What does it all mean???????

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

McCain was born on a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone, not the country of Panama. The Zone was also US territory.

That's just a conspiracy theory perpetuated by an anti-birther like you.

[Chongo]

Goldwater's citizenship was challenged as well. He was born in Arizona prior to statehood.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's a little frustrating when people fire off uninformed opinions blindly.

Like a lot of the nonsense by the birthers.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That's just a conspiracy theory perpetuated by an anti-birther like you.

Au contraire! I was stationed in Panama in '87 through '89, and as part of our introduction to the country, the whole history of the canal and the zone were very thoroughly explained. The US BOUGHT all the land 5 miles on either side of the proposed canal in 1904, and that strip became "the Canal Zone." US property, qualified as a US base. The Canal Zone ownership passed to Panama at noon on December 31, 1999.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Au contraire! I was stationed in Panama in '87 through '89, and as part of our introduction to the country, the whole history of the canal and the zone were very thoroughly explained. The US BOUGHT all the land 5 miles on either side of the proposed canal in 1904, and that strip became "the Canal Zone." US property, qualified as a US base. The Canal Zone ownership passed to Panama at noon on December 31, 1999.

Prove it.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

McCain was born on a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone, not the country of Panama. The Zone was also US territory.

No, it wasn't.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

No, it wasn't.

It was.
Territories of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Prove it.

I think he already did.

[besson3c]

I'm not writing any more into this thread until you guys post copies of your birth certificates, I'm sick and tired of this fooling around.

[besson3c]

This was almost as bad as that time that stupid Obama forgot to wear a flag pin and tried to get away with it by lying about not needing a flag pin to show how patriotic he is!

[besson3c]

If anybody ever wants to write a book on why the left and right can't seem to get along, they need not look further than this thread. If there ever was an issue that would be a good candidate for the right to back away from and let go, it would be this one, yet this still persists and it appears that many of the right (and Lou Dobbs) just won't let it die.

[sek929]

Most sensible members of the 'right' here have been calling for an end to this BS too, it's only the usual gang of loonies that keep pressing the issue.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think he already did.

nuh uh

I want more proof. What is he trying to hide?

[Rumor]

I was born in Hawaii. I requested an official copy of my Birth Certificate three or four years ago.

It lists:

Certificate Number
My name
Date of Birth
Hour of Birth
Sex
City of Birth
Island of Birth
County of Birth
Mother's maiden name
Mother's Race
Father's name
Father's Race
Date accepted by State Registrar

It looks exactly the same as his (except it has my information, not his). Therefore, I claim this BS about it not being "valid" as what it is, BS.

[Rumor]

Oh, and at the bottom, it says:

"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]

[Rumor]

By the way, I am looking at my official birth certificate as I write this. So to those that say it isn't "official", it is time for you to STFU.

[besson3c]

What I want to know is what the point is of using a zero in Obama's name? Is Obama supposed to be a zero or equal to zero or something because there is a zero in his name? Is the zero supposed to be some sort of indication of how certain people feel about him? Do you spell Pelosi as "Pel0si"? Al Gore as "Al G0re"? Joe Biden as Joe "B1den"?

Just trying to figure this cleverness out...

[besson3c]

How about Nobama? I guess the "no" is supposed to indicate something negative - some sort of generic negative? How about Obummer? Obummer doesn't even sound or look close to Obama, so I'm not really following that. Could you just throw whatever word you want after an O?

Who makes up these things anyway? Is it the same guy that coined "buffon3c"? That was Eug, right?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

There's a perfectly rational explanation: by law, Hawaii can't release the information you want...

They can if Obama requests. He refuses to request.

...and if Obama requests it and releases it, like you ask, the birthers will insist it's a forgery anyway, since it's not from an official source.

There's no reason why the State of Hawaii can't release the document with Obama's approval, and if kooks want to argue that the State has forged the document after they'd do so, then let that be their argument. Presently, their argument is that there is an official document on file with the State of Hawaii that has precise information about the birth of the President which he refuses to request be released, and they are 100% correct. The former argument isn't very credible and doesn't really leave a rational person to wonder. The latter does not, given that if there's nothing to hide, then there should be no reason not request the document's release.

Again, for some reason unknown to anyone and not explained by Obama, he refuses to request the release of his original birth records. This only fuels the fire of conspiracy kooks and makes rational people ask what he's hiding.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

No kidding... In no way is it a good thing for one of the two major political parties in the United States to nominate someone so completely unqualified.

I agree. This last election was a perfect example of what happens when someone who has no real experience doing anything substantial for more than just a year or so gets put into the highest office in the land.

Disaster.

[Dork.]

He "refuses" to request it because he knows it won't really help matters. (Besides, I'm still not 100% convinced that he can request that the "long form" be shown in the manner you ask -- it's possible that can only happen in a legal proceeding, and when that request is made, all that would happen is that the official in charge would look at the official record and testfy, under oath, that it matches the short form or where there are discrepancies)

Folks aren't interested in the truth, they're only interested in perpetuating the myth that Obama is somehow not qualified for office.

As for 0bama, hopefully folks will forget that ever happened, just like we all forgot that some immature folks went around calling Bush "shrub" for eight years....

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Reading is fundamental. The records are electronic. She's seen the electronic records. There's no discrepancy here.

And you of course ignored, again, the fact that the records on file *can't* be released, because of Hawaii state law.

What records? I thought you said that they'd already released an exact duplicate copy of the "original", "electronic" records? Even you claimed there was a "long form" on record, which is the one that the Director in question stated she saw. Please make up your mind.

But, I digress. The fact is that while they may very well have converted all the informaion to digital form, it's normally not operating procedure to also destroy the "original" birth documentation. It's likely not something as readily available as the short (but legal) digital statement, but it is most likely still available (unless as Dobbs has claimed that it's been mysteriously destroyed). The reason the info is digitized is because it's easier to retreive and duplicate, not because they want to destroy the original records

They can release whatever private information exists if requested by Obama.

The document that was released is the same document that anybody, President or not, gets when requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. It's official and legal. There is no need to release any other document, except for satisfying lunatics who won't be satisfied no matter what. Even if they could release the electronic document, some idiot going by the handle "psdwrrkkrr12256" or something would post on his blog about how "fake" the documents are.

See above. Already responded to this line of reasoning.

So you are buying into a different conspiracy, which says there is "something in the records he wants hidden". I see. Some nefarious thing Obama did as a newborn, that he must keep away from the world lest they see the truth, perhaps?

And you have the nerve to talk about kooks?

I'm not buying into anything other than the fact that when someone refuses to release information there's generally a reason for it, and that reason is almost always that the information isn't something they want made public.

[BadKosh]

Actually, something his parents did to hide the fact of where he was born, and playing the system.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not buying into anything other than the fact that when someone refuses to release information there's generally a reason for it

How about: responding to every kook's request on the internet is a great way to hasten your irrelevancy.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

How about: responding to every kook's request on the internet is a great way to hasten your irrelevancy.

I won't respond to this, because I'm taking your post to heart.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I won't respond to this, because I'm taking your post to heart.

-t

Touché!

[ym_edk22]

He's an American citizen, born in Hawaii, Honolulu. The guy had to scan and post his own birth certificate online http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordp...rtificate1.jpg to end these old wives stories from "Birthers". What else needs to be done to shut those big mouths up and for good?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ym_edk22 

He's an American citizen, born in Hawaii, Honolulu. The guy had to scan and post his own birth certificate online http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordp...rtificate1.jpg to end these old wives stories from "Birthers". What else needs to be done to shut those big mouths up and for good?

I think I've figured it out! He's not actually Barack Hussein Obama II, he's just plain old Barack Hussein Obama and he's immortal! This is all just an attempt to cover that up by pretending that he's his own son!