[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ym_edk22 

old wives stories from "Birthers".

Hogwash. I'm sure many of these people are single and live in some sort of communal bunker arrangement.

[besson3c]

Hey, it's Obama's birthday soon!! Whoo hoo!!

[ort888]

"Alleged" birthday.

[besson3c]

ort888: why is it that we refer to him as Barack Obama when his real name hasn't even been confirmed? I say that for now on we just refer to him as John Doe.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hey, it's Obama's hatch-day soon!! Whoo hoo!!

fixed that for ya

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ort888: why is it that we refer to him as Barack Obama when his real name hasn't even been confirmed? I say that for now on we just refer to him as John Doe.

Because he doesn't look anything like John Doe: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...er-could-love/

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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.

You still can't seem to read. Once again, for the cheap seats:

There is an official document that every Hawaii resident who requests their birth certificate gets. This is the document that the Obama campaign has, and has been released and posted on the internet. This document, which has been seen and verified and confirmed as legal and official by most observers, except for the nutcases, is all anybody needs to establish US citizenship according to the State Department.

There is additional information, in electronic form, residing with the State of Hawaii's Health Department. That additional information cannot be released according to state law.

Got it?

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.

The ONLY reason anybody is requesting the so-called "long-form" is because they believe the official, legal birth certificate already released is fake. You've claimed you don't believe the birthers have a valid case. So are you agreeing with the birthers and you think the birth certificate he already released is fake? Otherwise, what's the point of also seeing the "long-form" other than inane curiosity?

[Chongo]

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?

As I have posted before I have both forms. When i went to get a copy for my trip to Canada I found out that the short for was NOT acceptable for crossing the border, let alone obtaining a passport that is now required. as far as long forms, here is the page I found all my aunts' and uncles' long form certificates. They are the one with parents Antonio Perez and Antonia/Rufina Gallegos

http://genealogy.az.gov/search.htm?query=%28%40lastname+*PEREZ*%29&years={ bcounty%3A%3DAPACHE}{dcounty%3A%3DAPACHE}&lfather= undefined&ffather=undefined&lmother=undefined&fmot her=undefined&once=0

[Gee-Man]

Now that I've read this thread, I've changed my mind and I think the "birthers" have a point. It seems clear that Barack Hussein Obama is not only not a US citizen, but not a male either. Obama refuses to release photos of his genitals to disprove my theory. Therefore, I can only assume that he is hiding something until my demands are met.

I shall contact Orly Taitz at once to help me pursue legal angles to this problem of a male-impersonator being president of the United States.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

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

Not "every kook's request". Simply allow the state of Hawaii to release the original document in question. After that, they've eliminated everything but conspiracy theories.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not "every kook's request". Simply allow the state of Hawaii to release the original document in question. After that, they've eliminated everything but conspiracy theories.

They already have eliminated everything but conspiracy theories. The state of Hawaii has already said that his birth records are in order and that he was born in Honolulu. If you're saying that Hawaii is covering something up, then that's a conspiracy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

There is an official document that every Hawaii resident who requests their birth certificate gets. This is the document that the Obama campaign has, and has been released and posted on the internet.

Right. It's the "short form" that's a duplicate copy of what was entered into the computers digitally by employees of the State of Hawaii. It's what often times is issued if you just need a simple proof of birth.

Gotcha.

This document, which has been seen and verified and confirmed as legal and official by most observers, except for the nutcases, is all anybody needs to establish US citizenship according to the State Department.

I'm not really sure about that. As it's been said, typically you need the original "long form". I'm not going to debate that though.

Got it?

Yeah. From day one. That still doesn't answer why Obama doesn't just request that the State of Hawaii release a copy of his original birth record. The debate is whether there is additional information, or information has been changed from the digital copy from the original. Your insistence on going over this point time and time again when it isn't being debated is pretty frustrating.

The ONLY reason anybody is requesting the so-called "long-form" is because they believe the official, legal birth certificate already released is fake.

..or not accurate, or that there's additional information on the "long-form" which might reveal additional information about Obama's past, or...any number of things. A sure way to stop most all but the most silly of questions is just to release the "long form".

You've claimed you don't believe the birthers have a valid case. So are you agreeing with the birthers and you think the birth certificate he already released is fake? Otherwise, what's the point of also seeing the "long-form" other than inane curiosity?

See above. It would have taken a couple of minutes for Obama to request the long-form be released months and months ago and essentially quiet all but the biggest kooks. He won't, and when people refuse to release info there's normally a reason for it. That stokes conspiracy fires. There's one final, reasonable, easy step Obama could take in order to assuage the crazies (and those who smell something fishy) and he has steadfastly refused to do it. It's my belief that there has to be a real reason why, based on what is in that document. For instance, it could list both parents as "Muslim" and he originally didn't want that to confuse the issue regarding his own faith. I don't really know, but I do know that Obama could have done more and has choosen not to. I don't think that's by accident. Normally, information in politics isn't withheld unless it could be damaging.

[ort888]

He's just giving you guys something to do. You should thank him.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A sure way to stop most all but the most silly of questions is just to release the "long form".

No, the short form did that.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yeah. From day one. That still doesn't answer why Obama doesn't just request that the State of Hawaii release a copy of his original birth record. The debate is whether there is additional information, or information has been changed from the digital copy from the original. Your insistence on going over this point time and time again when it isn't being debated is pretty frustrating.

Wow.

..or not accurate, or that there's additional information on the "long-form" which might reveal additional information about Obama's past, or...any number of things. A sure way to stop most all but the most silly of questions is just to release the "long form".

The title of this thread is "0bama NOT A CITIZEN??!!". The question at hand is whether Obama was born in the US, and is therefore a citizen. A document has been released that conclusively proves that he was, in fact, born in the US, and therefore is a citizen.

See above. It would have taken a couple of minutes for Obama to request the long-form be released months and months ago and essentially quiet all but the biggest kooks.

As you've clearly demonstrated by your persistence here, releasing clear evidence has no effect on people like you. The document that was released conclusively proves he is a US citizen, born in Hawaii when he said he was born. If there was some "debate" about the name of his doctor or some other random information that's on the so-called "long form", maybe you'd have a point. But the name of his doctor, or any other bit of useless trivia about his birth is irrelevant, and you know it. You're just unwilling to concede anything because you hate Obama so much you're even willing to lay down with the birther idiots if it means something negative about Obama.

He won't, and when people refuse to release info there's normally a reason for it. That stokes conspiracy fires. There's one final, reasonable, easy step Obama could take in order to assuage the crazies (and those who smell something fishy) and he has steadfastly refused to do it. It's my belief that there has to be a real reason why, based on what is in that document. For instance, it could list both parents as "Muslim" and he originally didn't want that to confuse the issue regarding his own faith. I don't really know, but I do know that Obama could have done more and has choosen not to. I don't think that's by accident. Normally, information in politics isn't withheld unless it could be damaging.

I'm still waiting on those pics of Obama's genitals. He has steadfastly refused to release them. There must be some reason he hasn't released them yet and proven, once and for all, that he is indeed male.

After all, the pictures could show that he has a vagina, or maybe both a penis and vagina. Or no genitals at all. I don't really know, but I do know Obama could have done more and has chosen not to. I don't think that's by accident. Normally, pictures of the president's genitals in politics aren't withheld unless it could be damaging.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That still doesn't answer why Obama doesn't just request that the State of Hawaii release a copy of his original birth record.

We shall not negotiate with terrorists.

[Laminar]

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?

That birth certificate is no good by its own definition.

[Gee-Man]

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

Photo of the birth certificate

[Laminar]

That's a pretty good forgery.(Also, is his mom's real name Stanley?)

[Dork.]

Actually, her real first name was Stanley.

Ann Dunham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[SpaceMonkey]

"Wait a second. Barack Obama is a Connecticut vampire?"

[OldManMac]

Even prominent Republicans and Obama detractors are coming down on these nutcases. To those who believe this, grow up, and accept reality. Good grief!

http://digg.com/d3z05x

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't know, turtle, the American people were stupid enough to elect him the first time around. I realized that I agree with Bill Maher on that point but for the completely opposite reason.

I don't think the American people are stupid as much as too friggin' distracted by their own prosperity to see the attack against it. I think the American public is getting a read on things, but they didn't want to believe it almost like a pathetic schoolgirl convinced she can "change" her convict boyfriend.

If Republicans can offer up a candidate who doesn't use the word "also" as if it were a conjunction, someone under the age of 115 years old, and someone who can articulate his/her conservative views with a degree of confidence that something completely stupid won't come out; Obama will be a one-term President and the replacement will have an abundant group of inspired Republicans to work with in Congress.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think the American people are stupid as much as too friggin' distracted by their own prosperity to see the attack against it. I think the American public is getting a read on things, but they didn't want to believe it almost like a pathetic schoolgirl convinced she can "change" her convict boyfriend.

If Republicans can offer up a candidate who doesn't use the word "also" as if it were a conjunction, someone under the age of 115 years old, and someone who can articulate his/her conservative views with a degree of confidence that something completely stupid won't come out; Obama will be a one-term President and the replacement will have an abundant group of inspired Republicans to work with in Congress.

Way too many "ifs" there. The Republicans seem to be in the same position the Democrats were in 2000; completely lost and clueless. This is good in a way, but it'll hold 'em back badly until they can find the kind of person you describe (they do exist, but I don't know if any of them wants to put up with the carc that goes along with the whole process). It would also be good for the national level of the party to put about three astronomical units of distance between "The Republican Party of the United States" and Sarah Palin...after that "farewell speech," I think most people think she needs her meds changed-very significantly.

[besson3c]

What the Republican party needs is not just a charismatic new figurehead, but a whole new image.

The Republican party has become a fairly narrow non-inclusive party. By this I don't necessarily mean racially/ethnically so don't get your panties in a bunch, but I mean people with a more diverse set of backgrounds and offering a more diverse representation of viewpoints (on this I agree with Meghan McCain). If you are Christian, staunchly anti-abortion, anti-intellectual/academic, staunchly pro gun, anti gay, whatever, the Republican party is perfect for you. I realize that these are very crude generalizations, I'm not defending them, but these seem to be common perceptions.

For the sake of having something we can debate that is more than my gut feeling, let's look at intellectualism. What voice on the right projects a strong intellectual force these days? I'm sure there are some (maybe Christopher Hitchens?!), but they seem to be overshadowed by many of these other yahoos these days (the usual suspects).

One reason why Obama won: he came across as being smart and skillful. I know that many of you will respond with your rants about how Obama is a big dummy, but there is a huge difference between you disagreeing with him and him actually lacking a solid, well presented rational argument. You can go on and on about teleprompters all day, prepared speeches, whatever, but at the end of the day nobody on the right was making brilliant speeches and making deep arguments designed for more than getting some knees to jerk and a clever talking point that the politician would no doubt have difficulty substantiating when pressed despite the fact that you had every opportunity to. You can play sour grapes about how Obama's words are empty and they are just words and blah blah blah, but talk to people that voted for Obama and why they did so, and somewhere in their explanation they will tell you that he managed to convince people that he is smarter and more capable than they are. Whether this is right or wrong, important or unimportant, these are perceptions.

There are some people that don't want to vote for somebody who they might want to have a beer with, but somebody who is genuinely smarter than your average dim witted American. The Republicans can go on at length about how the government can't do anything right, that it's best to not have them involved in anything, etc. but at the end of the day I think most people realize that whatever role the government plays, we need smart and capable people in there, we need them to do what they do well - we need the best of the best. Your arguments about how Obama is not the best of the best will carry much more weight when you come up with alternatives... Not just somebody to vote for, but actual ideas that traction can be built from. Like ghporter said, the Republican party is lost.

The Republican party will make big strides when they put forth somebody that really comes across as the best of the best. Not just a pretty good politician ala Kerry or McCain, but somebody who really stands out.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Way too many "ifs" there. The Republicans seem to be in the same position the Democrats were in 2000; completely lost and clueless. This is good in a way, but it'll hold 'em back badly until they can find the kind of person you describe (they do exist, but I don't know if any of them wants to put up with the carc that goes along with the whole process). It would also be good for the national level of the party to put about three astronomical units of distance between "The Republican Party of the United States" and Sarah Palin...after that "farewell speech," I think most people think she needs her meds changed-very significantly.

I agree with you to an extent, but IMO what is happening here is the majority of the American public is quietly becoming the "Republican" party. They represent many walks of life that are finding solidarity in opposition to much of what this Administration is doing. As stupid as we are, we have a knack for coming together in a crisis. (at least, for a day or two until the issue can be manipulated by a political interest; enter stupidity) The time is ripe for a Republican figure to capture the pulse, but this will have to be one special individual. Palin is not it IMO.

Where I'm inclined to agree is in the amount of distance the Republicans need to move to regain some level of respect from the public. I think the pinnacle of disaster was Jindal's speech in response to Obama's speech. This was an all-time PR low for the Republican Party.

[Dork.]

It's always easier to be against something than for something.

It is notoriously difficult to let Liberals to agree on anything, but they were all in agreement that Bush was a poopyhead. (I believe that's the exact word they used, too. )Now that the liberals actually have to govern (and have the majority to do it without the opposition if need be), they are bickering amongst themselves while the Republicans can unite in opposition against Obama and his teleprompter.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What the Republican party needs is not just a charismatic new figurehead, but a whole new image.

The Republican party has become a fairly narrow non-inclusive party. By this I don't necessarily mean racially/ethnically so don't get your panties in a bunch, but I mean people with a more diverse set of backgrounds and offering a more diverse representation of viewpoints (on this I agree with Meghan McCain). If you are Christian, staunchly anti-abortion, anti-intellectual/academic, staunchly pro gun, anti gay, whatever, the Republican party is perfect for you. I realize that these are very crude generalizations, I'm not defending them, but these seem to be common perceptions.

It would be easier to accept your analysis if the majority of Americans weren't Christian, anti-abortion, pro gun, and anti-gay. Of course, they would likely express these as Christian, pro-life, pro Second Amendment, and generally in support of traditional marriage. In regards to intellectuals, conservatives have long been shunned by the academic community, but most aren't aware of who the folks in this community are. I'll explain in more detail below, but I think the party simply needs a charismatic new figurehead to deliver the Conservative message. A message that always has and likely always will resonate well with the majority of Americans.

For the sake of having something we can debate that is more than my gut feeling, let's look at intellectualism. What voice on the right projects a strong intellectual force these days? I'm sure there are some (maybe Christopher Hitchens?!), but they seem to be overshadowed by many of these other yahoos these days (the usual suspects).

Who are these stalwart intellectuals who helped Obama get elected? The importance of this may matter to a few fellows @ Berkeley, but this is not in any way connected to Obama's success IMO.

One reason why Obama won: he came across as being smart and skillful.

Another reason is he came off as black. (as long as we're warning people about going off half-cocked with the rants. ) The increase of 5 million votes between 2008 and 2004 are almost entirely accounted for by minority turn-out. This becomes especially evident when breaking down the demographics of the red states that went to Obama. This combined with a woefully unmotivated base on the right for McCain, a bumbleheaded campaign suspension move basically stole all the steam out of whatever momentum he had prior. IMO it's really just this simple. There is no over-arching, deep, intellectualist movement behind any of this. Obama campaigned on tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, transparency, and bipartisanship. He also campaigned on healthcare reform and in moving the fight in the Middle East, but opinions are not supporting the notion that his healthcare agenda was mandated and things are not going well in Afghanistan at all.

He was able to deliver this popular platform on the heals of an Administration that lacked most of this platform and a new candidate unable to express these as effectively as Obama.

I know that many of you will respond with your rants about how Obama is a big dummy, but there is a huge difference between you disagreeing with him and him actually lacking a solid, well presented rational argument. You can go on and on about teleprompters all day, prepared speeches, whatever, but at the end of the day nobody on the right was making brilliant speeches and making deep arguments designed for more than getting some knees to jerk and a clever talking point that the politician would no doubt have difficulty substantiating when pressed despite the fact that you had every opportunity to. You can play sour grapes about how Obama's words are empty and they are just words and blah blah blah, but talk to people that voted for Obama and why they did so, and somewhere in their explanation they will tell you that he managed to convince people that he is smarter and more capable than they are. Whether this is right or wrong, important or unimportant, these are perceptions.

Honestly besson most of what you heard was about his appearance, his eloquence, and his Kennedy-esque gravitas. People paying close attention to Obama were calling for more substance early on. The problem was that McCain was not able to distance himself enough from Obama. When push came to shove, they were saying much of the same things with Obama expressing them 10 times more effectively. With Palin as a running mate and McCain running around in Washington to sign off on the same unpopular legislation as Obama, they enjoyed equal footing on platform; entirely unequal footing on representation. For many voters it was a no-brainer.

There are some people that don't want to vote for somebody who they might want to have a beer with, but somebody who is genuinely smarter than your average dim witted American. The Republicans can go on at length about how the government can't do anything right, that it's best to not have them involved in anything, etc. but at the end of the day I think most people realize that whatever role the government plays, we need smart and capable people in there, we need them to do what they do well - we need the best of the best. Your arguments about how Obama is not the best of the best will carry much more weight when you come up with alternatives... Not just somebody to vote for, but actual ideas that traction can be built from. Like ghporter said, the Republican party is lost.

I agree with the above paragraph insomuch as it is saying what I've been saying. We need a more capable, well-articulated, charismatic new figure for the Republican party.

The Republican party will make big strides when they put forth somebody that really comes across as the best of the best. Not just a pretty good politician ala Kerry or McCain, but somebody who really stands out.

true.

[BadKosh]

Anyone can get elected IF they can demonstrate morality, integrity, honesty, and intelligence. So far, these traits are NOT currently part of the politicians make-up

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Anyone can get elected IF they can demonstrate morality, integrity, honesty, and intelligence.

You can't run a successful political campaign while holding to those values.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You can't run a successful political campaign while holding to those values.

He didn't say anything about holding those values, just demonstrating them.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What the Republican party needs is not just a charismatic new figurehead, but a whole new image.

The Republican party has become a fairly narrow non-inclusive party. By this I don't necessarily mean racially/ethnically so don't get your panties in a bunch, but I mean people with a more diverse set of backgrounds and offering a more diverse representation of viewpoints (on this I agree with Meghan McCain). If you are Christian, staunchly anti-abortion, anti-intellectual/academic, staunchly pro gun, anti gay, whatever, the Republican party is perfect for you. I realize that these are very crude generalizations, I'm not defending them, but these seem to be common perceptions.

The Republicans have nominated someone like this, three times and lost. Ford in 76, Dole in 96, and Miss McCain's father in 2008. When they nominate some like Reagan you get theses results:


Anyway

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What the Republican party needs is not just a charismatic new figurehead, but a whole new image.

TOTALLY disagree.

The Republican's problem was that their image was TOO successful. Just a few years back, they had virtually every majority in the land.

People who didn't believe in the republican "image" even glommed onto it so they too could succeed and pretended to be a part of that mindset. The past few elections EVEN THE DEMOCRATS have been getting in on the game and that's why Obama is having the problems he's having now even with the majorities he has.

The problem isn't that the Republican party's "image" is not right, the problem is that many in the Republican party who either never believed in the "image" in the first place, or after being serenaded by the left-wing media and those of the limousine set after being in office too long simply forgot what it meant to be conservative and lost votes. Whether it was participating in "tax and spend" along with the Democrats, or getting caught up in corruption, they lost the edge they had and it made them no different politically than their opposition.

Obama even pretended to be a moderate so that he could positively compare himself to John McCain who held a lot of views on the issues that the majority supported. Of course, he went back to the traditional democrat "image" after being elected and his poll numbers are doing a nosedive while the Republicans who oppose him are going up in the polls.

This "non-inclusive" stuff is just pure media/left driven bigoted BS, fueled by the bigotry of those who claim it, and based on bigoted notions on what issues intelligent minorities should march in lockstep to like slaves of old. Spare me the pap....

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

As you've clearly demonstrated by your persistence here, releasing clear evidence has no effect on people like you.

I'm convinced. I said that from the word go.

..as far as whether or not he's a legal citizen. I'm just staying that it's pretty clear that there's something about the original birth document that Obama doesn't want people to know about, otherwise we'd see a copy of it. If it's as Lou Dobbs says, the document has been destroyed, which actually would lead to questions and credibility to those who ARE NOT convinced about his citizenship.

Let's make everything transparent. Just release the document. Case closed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If Republicans can offer up a candidate who doesn't use the word "also" as if it were a conjunction, someone under the age of 115 years old, and someone who can articulate his/her conservative views with a degree of confidence that something completely stupid won't come out; Obama will be a one-term President and the replacement will have an abundant group of inspired Republicans to work with in Congress.

ebuddy for president!

[sek929]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Just release the document. Case closed.

The case has been closed for a while. Only the most ridiculous of partisan quacks like yourself keep pressing the issue, even when your Conservative comrades here have said they'd like it dropped.

By all means, continue to make an ass out of yourself, it's fun to watch.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The case has been closed for a while. Only the most ridiculous of partisan quacks like yourself keep pressing the issue, even when your Conservative comrades here have said they'd like it dropped.

By all means, continue to make an ass out of yourself, it's fun to watch.

What I'd like to know is whether he thinks that we are supposed to think that his attempt at objectivity is supposed to provide some persuasion, and whether we are supposed to think that this isn't simply more of his Obama hating?

I mean, let's just cut through all of this, this is another opportunity to put chinks in Obama's armor, so he is trying to capitalize on this. Like I said months ago, he needs to pace himself. You can't just jump aboard each opportunity big or small with such fervor and expect people to not start to pick up on these sorts of patterns. Obviously he did not heed this advice, and right now I think consequently nobody can take anything he says terribly seriously except for his strong partisan base who are all for his anti-Obama stuff regardless. Then again, a monkey could rile up a partisan base. Many do

[besson3c]

Some day I'm going to resuscitate my big ass list of reasons to not vote for Obama that I started in campaign season. We can add many more things onto the end of the list to go along with flag pins and ACORN and secret Muslim stuff, including secret hatched non-American!

[ort888]

The Republicans and Democrats both need to do the same thing to stay on top. Convince the middle 5% who can never make their minds up for **** to vote for them. That's all any election boils down to anyway. The other 95% just vote for the letter next to the name.

[OAW]

Bill Maher put out a nice op-ed in the LA Times today on this topic. Some good excerpts ...

Originally Posted by Bill Maher

Never underestimate the ability of a tiny fringe group of losers to ruin everything.

For the last couple of weeks, we've all been laughing heartily at the wacky antics of the "birthers" -- the far-right goofballs who claim Barack Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii and therefore the job of president goes to the runner-up, former Miss California Carrie Prejean.

Also, when Obama was sworn in as president, he forgot to give his answer in the form of a question.

And yet, every week, the chorus of conservatives demanding to see his birth certificate grows. It's like they're the Cambridge police, Obama's in his house -- the White House -- and they need to see some ID.

And there's nothing anyone can do to convince these folks. You could hand them, in person, the original birth certificate and have a video of Obama emerging from the womb with Don Ho singing in the background ... and they still wouldn't believe it.

Originally Posted by Bill Maher

That's why it's so important that we the few, the proud, the reality-based attack this stuff before it has a chance to fester and spread. This isn't a case of Democrats versus Republicans. It's sentient beings versus the lizard people, and it is to them I offer this deal: I'll show you Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The case has been closed for a while. Only the most ridiculous of partisan quacks like yourself keep pressing the issue, even when your Conservative comrades here have said they'd like it dropped.

I'm not "pressing the issue". I'm just pointing out where Obama is being less than transparent, in ways that fuels conspiracy theories and kooks unnecessarily, without (?) a real rational reason to do so. It's this sort of stupid inability to just take care of business from the "get go" that is hurting him in other areas as well.

I'm not demanding or excpecting he do anything. He and the media can continue to spend time on this and these kooks, and not in areas where he wants action all they want. I assure you, I'm not losing sleep over this.

I'll show you Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma.

Oh, that Bill Maher is a real funny jokester!

I really do miss Johnny Carson.

[CreepDogg]

Maher delivered this op-ed on his show last night.

Bill Maher on the 'Birthers'

My favorite was the sentence right before last...

Originally Posted by Bill Maher

This isn't a case of Democrats versus Republicans. It's sentient beings versus the lizard people.

Yes, I think that's funny, and also sad...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not "pressing the issue". I'm just pointing out where Obama is being less than transparent, in ways that fuels conspiracy theories and kooks unnecessarily, without (?) a real rational reason to do so. It's this sort of stupid inability to just take care of business from the "get go" that is hurting him in other areas as well.

I'm not demanding or excpecting he do anything. He and the media can continue to spend time on this and these kooks, and not in areas where he wants action all they want. I assure you, I'm not losing sleep over this.



Oh, that Bill Maher is a real funny jokester!

I really do miss Johnny Carson.

If he's gone above and beyond to the point of releasing his birth certificate to the public (is it really necessary for everyone to know how much he weighed at birth?), AFTER the courts had (per the Constitution-remember that document?) determined that all was kosher, how is he or his administration NOT being transparent?

And after Sarah's "farewell speech," I'm wondering if she needs to check back into the hospital to have her meds checked. Proving she'd graduated from high school would not be enough to settle my worries that this woman was on the national political scene. I would certainly be embarrassed to be an Alaskan and have someone who gaffes like she's enjoying it for my governor-and George W Bush WAS MY GOVERNOR... 'Nuff said?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not "pressing the issue". I'm just pointing out where Obama is being less than transparent, in ways that fuels conspiracy theories and kooks unnecessarily, without (?) a real rational reason to do so. It's this sort of stupid inability to just take care of business from the "get go" that is hurting him in other areas as well.

I'm not demanding or excpecting he do anything. He and the media can continue to spend time on this and these kooks

It seems like you're the one who wants him to keep spending time on this in the name of "transparency." Nothing will satisfy these people. They've gotten more info than they have a right to know and no reason to want any more except some bizarre, rabid hatred of the man. And it's because he's stopped wasting time on them that they're not going to get it.

[besson3c]

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me the cleverness behind the zero in Obama's name?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me the cleverness behind the zero in Obama's name?

0'Rly ?

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If he's gone above and beyond to the point of releasing his birth certificate to the public (is it really necessary for everyone to know how much he weighed at birth?), AFTER the courts had (per the Constitution-remember that document?) determined that all was kosher, how is he or his administration NOT being transparent?

I'm not arguing that the documentation he has isn't enough to prove him a citizen. Let me give you another example of how stupidly clinging to the notion that these types of distractions will just go away if you ignore them. Case in point: Bush's service during the Vietnam War.

All documentation showed he served and had an honorable discharge according to the rules. He had all the paperwork signed by all the appropriate and responsible government/military officials. There were rumors and accusations though that despite all official records stating that Bush did everything "legal" that he didn't do what the government claimed. Conspiracy theories abounded, but Bush chose to try to ignore everything. Even then, I was saying that they should just authorize the military to release ALL the documents in regards to his service in the interest of transparency. They drug their feet because even though all the I's where dotted and T's where crossed, the details still wasn't going to make Bush look like any kind of war hero.

Finally, when they did release all the documents and there was no "smoking gun" showing Bush did not do what he and the government claimed, the kooks had to resort to forging documents to keep this an issue. At that point, even the media who WHERE the kooks dropped the matter and it was no longer really an issue. Bush had done everything he could to be transparent in the matter (latter unfortunately rather than sooner) and the issue went away.

That's what Obama is going to have to do, or he's going to have to deal with the kooks for the next 3 years or so. It may be that whatever is in his original birth records (if they do exist) is more damaging than whatever distractions the kooks cause. That's the only reason I can think of for not requesting the State of Hawaii release ALL the information on file regarding the President's birth.

And after Sarah's "farewell speech," I'm wondering if she needs to check back into the hospital to have her meds checked. Proving she'd graduated from high school would not be enough to settle my worries that this woman was on the national political scene. I would certainly be embarrassed to be an Alaskan and have someone who gaffes like she's enjoying it for my governor-and George W Bush WAS MY GOVERNOR... 'Nuff said?

We've got Joe Biden instead, so your worries shouldn't go unfettered. Sarah steps out and gaffes every 6 months or so - Joe gives us a golden nugget nearly every time he's allowed near a microphone. I'll take the former any day, especially since she doesn't even have any real political power now. It less embarrassing in small doses.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What the Republican party needs is not just a charismatic new figurehead, but a whole new image.

The Republican party has become a fairly narrow non-inclusive party. By this I don't necessarily mean racially/ethnically so don't get your panties in a bunch, but I mean people with a more diverse set of backgrounds and offering a more diverse representation of viewpoints (on this I agree with Meghan McCain). If you are Christian, staunchly anti-abortion, anti-intellectual/academic, staunchly pro gun, anti gay, whatever, the Republican party is perfect for you. I realize that these are very crude generalizations, I'm not defending them, but these seem to be common perceptions.

For the sake of having something we can debate that is more than my gut feeling, let's look at intellectualism. What voice on the right projects a strong intellectual force these days? I'm sure there are some (maybe Christopher Hitchens?!), but they seem to be overshadowed by many of these other yahoos these days (the usual suspects).

One reason why Obama won: he came across as being smart and skillful. I know that many of you will respond with your rants about how Obama is a big dummy, but there is a huge difference between you disagreeing with him and him actually lacking a solid, well presented rational argument. You can go on and on about teleprompters all day, prepared speeches, whatever, but at the end of the day nobody on the right was making brilliant speeches and making deep arguments designed for more than getting some knees to jerk and a clever talking point that the politician would no doubt have difficulty substantiating when pressed despite the fact that you had every opportunity to. You can play sour grapes about how Obama's words are empty and they are just words and blah blah blah, but talk to people that voted for Obama and why they did so, and somewhere in their explanation they will tell you that he managed to convince people that he is smarter and more capable than they are. Whether this is right or wrong, important or unimportant, these are perceptions.

There are some people that don't want to vote for somebody who they might want to have a beer with, but somebody who is genuinely smarter than your average dim witted American. The Republicans can go on at length about how the government can't do anything right, that it's best to not have them involved in anything, etc. but at the end of the day I think most people realize that whatever role the government plays, we need smart and capable people in there, we need them to do what they do well - we need the best of the best. Your arguments about how Obama is not the best of the best will carry much more weight when you come up with alternatives... Not just somebody to vote for, but actual ideas that traction can be built from. Like ghporter said, the Republican party is lost.

The Republican party will make big strides when they put forth somebody that really comes across as the best of the best. Not just a pretty good politician ala Kerry or McCain, but somebody who really stands out.

I actually agree with this.

The Republican party is going to suffer if they don't find a presidential candidate for the 2012 elections that can really recapture what the party is about.

Too many Republicans today are overly concerned with things they really have no control over, like abortion, or things that make no sense to be against, like gay marriage/civil unions. Choosing who gets your vote based on issues like these (regardless of your chosen candidate's party) is idiotic - you should be voting on things that are actually going to be changed.

Obama's campaign people did a damn good job of capitalizing on Bush's huge popularity dive in his last years in office, as well as getting the word out to twentysomething students who previously didn't really care enough to vote. We'll need to do much the same if we're going to have a chance of beating out Obama in 2012.

The Republican party needs to get back to what matters in the long run - things like economic policy, which everyone seems to have largely forgotten about (until this whole nationalized health care issue came into the limelight, at least). Instead, the Republicans with any voice to speak of are nutbags, which is why Republicans are so quickly generalized as being gun-toting, woman-hating, gay-bashing retards who are stuck in the late 1880s instead of getting with modern times.

[besson3c]

shif: the problem is as much as we like to huff and puff about the economy, most of us don't really understand it. I know I don't, and I know that Joe sixpack doesn't either. All they care about is how they are doing personally. If the economy is in fairly good shape by the time the next election roles around, it will be hard to get people to care enough to vote for the other guy on this basis alone (and if it does, Obama could credit his legislation as being partially responsible for this, rightfully or not). If you really want to base a campaign around the economy, you also have to demonstrate enough understanding of it to be manipulative. This goes beyond sharing basic philosophy, but actually coming up with actionable plans and giving thorough enough arguments coming from all angles to be convincing. The Joe the Plumber/socialism garbage is enough to fool a few people, but I think you need to go further than this.

[BadKosh]

For what motive would 0bamas parents have had to hide his true place of birth? Perhaps a complete hatred of the USA and a lack of respect for honesty in filing the live birth claim. His dad had his own set of issues, and I'm pretty sure the mom is a radical too.