[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wouldn't REALLY this all be cleared up if they'd just release the one document that they refuse to release for some reason?

I'm pretty sure the conspiracy theorists would find something wrong with it. They apparently already believe that the State of Hawaii has falsified its records, continues to lie about it, and that someone managed to plant a fake birth announcement in a 40-some year-old newspaper, so I doubt that a piece of paper "alleging" to be Obama's original birth certificate would satisfy them. That's how conspiracy theories work. It doesn't matter what the evidence actually is. It's about speculation.

So far there is no legal reason for Obama to release his original birth certificate, and that's good enough for me.

[goMac]

Hawaii has said they have the original on file. Lou Dobbs is full of crap.

Hawaii, as law, will not release the original from archives, only the short form. The short form is the most proof one can show that they were born in Hawaii.

[Dork.]

Obviously, whoever drafted that law in Hawaii is in on it, too.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

THAT is why the controversy continues. I say he DOESN'T have proof. That would make his time as Senator and President as fraud. I don't know the constitutional law, but what happens to any bills signed by a non-citizen?

There is no controversy, just you and a few kooks babbling on the Internet.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

There is no controversy, just you and a few kooks babbling on the Internet.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

[Gee-Man]

It is unbelievable what some people are willing to believe - evidence, logic, and all common sense be damned.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Apparently Lou Dobbs has reported that the original birth certificate was destroyed for some reason. That of course, would make for some pretty interesting political intrigue.

The state of Hawaii went electronic in 2001. Nobody born in Hawaii after 1908 has paper copies of their birth certificate on file.

Perhaps you'd like to argue that every Hawaii citizen's birth certificates were converted to electronic form in some kind of conspiracy in anticipation of Illinois State Senator Barack Obama running for president 7 years later?

It's my understanding is that Obama's grandma says he was born in Kenya,

No. No. No. Obama's grandma did not say he was born in Kenya - there was a translation error, and she repeated that he was born in America several times on the tape you're talking about. The Birther conspiracy sites you apparently read keep clipping the tape before she corrects the interviewer in a vain attempt to "prove" that she claims he was born in Kenya.

...and all there is to prove he was born in Hawaii was a certificate made by an official in Hawaii that is supposed to affirm what's on the official birth certificate. For some reason, they won't release the entire birth record.

There is no "long-form" record other than the electronic one, and Hawaii state law forbids anyone from releasing it to anyone who doesn't have a direct relevant interest in it. Internet bloggers do not count.

The form that was released IS the official birth certificate.

Wouldn't REALLY this all be cleared up if they'd just release the one document that they refuse to release for some reason? Why won't they? THAT is the one million dollar question.

They've already released the document that proves Obama was born in Hawaii. A year ago. The document that was released is an official, legal form that proves Obama was born in Hawaii. Period. It is the same form that other Hawaiians born at the same time get. The only "controversy" is that some people refuse to accept the official, legal form, because they refuse to believe reality.

The document has been verified repeatedly by several fact-checker organizations, officials from the state of Hawaii, and several courts in throwing out frivolous lawsuits on this matter. There is a birth announcement in 2 different local Hawaii papers from the time he was born. The case, if there ever was one in the first place, is CLOSED. Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

Anybody who continues to peddle this "not a citizen" nonsense is, quite frankly, an idiot.

[BadKosh]

I guess the libs and barry supporters will give the liar a pass on this like all the other BS we've been hearing from the White House. The difference between the Live birth document is that for the Live Birth all you need is a baby. It doesn't state WHERE the baby was born. The Birth Certificate from Hawaii, and the details of who was the doctor, where the baby was born etc would be on that form. IF such a form exists, and it DOES SHOW Barry born in Hawaii then why not show it? It has not been shown. With all the other crap being pulled by this administration why should I trust his word? The Birth Certificate must not actually exist, or it would have been shown instead of the Live Birth short form. Where is the scan of the original document? Don't keep telling me I'm wrong, when you can't produce anything to prove Barry was born in Hawaii, Just that the baby showed up there.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I guess the libs and barry supporters will give the liar a pass on this like all the other BS we've been hearing from the White House. The difference between the Live birth document is that for the Live Birth all you need is a baby. It doesn't state WHERE the baby was born. The Birth Certificate from Hawaii, and the details of who was the doctor, where the baby was born etc would be on that form. IF such a form exists, and it DOES SHOW Barry born in Hawaii then why not show it? It has not been shown. With all the other crap being pulled by this administration why should I trust his word? The Birth Certificate must not actually exist, or it would have been shown instead of the Live Birth short form. Where is the scan of the original document? Don't keep telling me I'm wrong, when you can't produce anything to prove Barry was born in Hawaii, Just that the baby showed up there.

Your logic and argument are flawless.

[ort888]

[SpaceMonkey]

Another troubling aspect of No-Bama's whole Hawaii birth "story" is that I think modern teleprompter technology (as in computer-based rather than paper-based) only appeared in the late 1970s or early '80s. Everyone knows he's an idiot, so I find it hard to believe he could have managed to be born without this assistance.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Another troubling aspect of No-Bama's whole Hawaii birth "story" is that I think modern teleprompter technology (as in computer-based rather than paper-based) only appeared in the late 1970s or early '80s. Everyone knows he's an idiot, so I find it hard to believe he could have managed to be born without this assistance.

Clearly, the nurse had to hold up hand-written cue cards letting newborn O'Bummer that he was supposed to cry.

[Dork.]

The folks at this communist dirtrag have something to say about it:

Born in the U.S.A. by The Editors on National Review Online

(I think they're all wrong. Obama couldn't have been born in the USA, because he was never born -- he hatched!)

[hyteckit]

Obama wasn't even born on Earth.

He was sent to us from the Heavens.

He doesn't even have a belly button.

[SpaceMonkey]

I'm going with time-traveling alien, myself.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Don't keep telling me I'm wrong

"Wrong" would be too kind.

[hyteckit]

The title should be: Obama, not born in the USA

Obama, not a citizen? WTF?

[sek929]

What I find genuinely hilarious are the parallels between the "Obama wasn't born in the US" crowd and the "GWB stole the election in 2001" crowd.

Both are/were throwing a wittle temper tantrum because their guy didn't win, and it's absolutely pathetic to hear the same debunked bullsh!t every two days, from either side.

Obama is the motherf**king president now, un-bunch your panties and get on with your life.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by sek929 

What I find genuinely hilarious are the parallels between the "Obama wasn't born in the US" crowd and the "GWB stole the election in 2001" crowd.

Both are/were throwing a wittle temper tantrum because their guy didn't win, and it's absolutely pathetic to hear the same debunked bullsh!t every two days, from either side.

Obama is the motherf**king president now, un-bunch your panties and get on with your life.

You’re making sense, being sensible, touting the smart move, saying the wise thing, and being a reasonable adult, all at the same time.

Have you any idea how many infractions such behaviour will get you here? This is the PWL, man!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Obama is the motherf**king president now, un-bunch your panties and get on with your life.

He ain't black enough to be my president.

There.

-t

[stupendousman]

edit...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe that there's a reason they aren't producing it, but that it's not necessarily because he wasn't born when and where he claims. Othewise, they would have just ordered it's release aleady.

Maybe he was born as a girl ?
Or black ?

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Okay, I'll say to my fellow right-wingers what leftists never say when their side of the spectrum beats a dead conspiracy horse like this:

KNOCK IT OFF. You are acting like kooks. It's a dead horse. No one cares. The whole subject is just about as "appealing" as claiming George W Bush stole the election(s)/planned 911/ blew up levees in New Orleans / (take your pick of lefty kook conspiracies).

Please focus your attention on something real.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Please focus your attention on something real.

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

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm pretty sure the conspiracy theorists would find something wrong with it.

I agree. Though, I really don't buy into the conspiracy theory myself (that he wasn't born in Hawaii) and I'm smart enough to see that there's SOME reason that this document that several other people have claimed to have viewed isn't being released. That's enough even to get reasonable people to start scratching their heads and only serves to add fuel to the conspiracy fires.

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

It is unbelievable what some people are willing to believe - evidence, logic, and all common sense be damned.

The state of Hawaii went electronic in 2001. Nobody born in Hawaii after 1908 has paper copies of their birth certificate on file.

Perhaps you'd like to argue that every Hawaii citizen's birth certificates were converted to electronic form in some kind of conspiracy in anticipation of Illinois State Senator Barack Obama running for president 7 years later?

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

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

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

There is no "long-form" record other than the electronic one, and Hawaii state law forbids anyone from releasing it to anyone who doesn't have a direct relevant interest in it. Internet bloggers do not count.

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.

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.

[Dork.]

There's a perfectly rational explanation: by law, Hawaii can't release the information you want, 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. It might satisfy you, but there's simply no way to end this without going around to all the people who still believe this and beating them mercilessly with a clue bat.

Besides, what exactly would get accomplished when we all get a look at the original record, and the word "birth" is crossed out everywhere and replaced with "hatching"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

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

There were announcements in at least two papers, available on microfiche in Hawaii dated 1961. C'mon man. You started by quoting a story about some "damning" bombshell evidence that was going to be produced on tape back in... 2008. Where's the "damning" evidence? If we're going to be a stickler for irrefutable proof, why not as critical of the evidence against his US citizenship?

Obama is a US citizen. C'mon people.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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.

Shut who up? 25 kooks on the Internet? He doesn't care about them. No one of any significance is continuing to pursue this issue. People need to get over their narcissism. Just because you have a blog doesn't mean your ideas need to be addressed by anyone else, or that ignoring your asinine statements is a sign of hiding something. You want to be able to demand evidence? Either get a lawyer and go to court or do something to earn the respect of enough people such that they listen to what you have to say. Until such time, this is nothing more than a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

If there were anything to this, his Republican enemies would be all over it.

[Big Mac]

The Birthers should spend their time finding and supporting a viable Republican candidate to successfully take him on and make him a one term president.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Birthers should spend their time finding and supporting a viable Republican candidate to successfully take him on and make him a one term president.

Oh come on! What fun is it to do something productive when you can whine and complain about something? That's like....work or something. Sheesh!


<for the sarcasm impaired, this post rates 98 on the 0-100 sarcasm scale...>

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The Birthers should spend their time finding and supporting a viable Republican candidate to [...] make him a one term president.

The Obama administration doesn't need any help with the "one term presidency" thing. They are doing just fine on that task thank you very much.

-t

[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.

[BadKosh]

...and ignore all the crap he and his administration are doing to screw us for the rest of our days. Life is good for the Liberal.

See a liberal in California explain how to fix everything....

CF Economics: How To Solve All of California's Problems

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The Obama administration doesn't need any help with the "one term presidency" thing. They are doing just fine on that task thank you very much.

-t

See George W Bush. Unless the Republicans can produce someone more compelling than Sarah Palin, Obama will get two terms.

[nonhuman]

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.

If the Republican Party can actually manage to field a reasonable candidate, then maybe we can get dispose with Obama. I think a lot of people voted for him for the very campaign promises which he has so blatantly not only broken, but not even put in the effort of appearing to try to keep.

I will say that though I'm severely disappointed in Obama's presidency so far, I still think he was a better choice than McCain. Of course it's entirely possible that McCain's election persona was as completely different from his Presidential persona as Obama's has proven to be in which case all bets are off.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

See George W Bush. Unless the Republicans can produce someone more compelling than Sarah Palin, Obama will get two terms.

You guys have to stop dreaming about Palin getting the nomination.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If the Republican Party can actually manage to field a reasonable candidate, then maybe we can get dispose with Obama. I think a lot of people voted for him for the very campaign promises which he has so blatantly not only broken, but not even put in the effort of appearing to try to keep.

I will say that though I'm severely disappointed in Obama's presidency so far, I still think he was a better choice than McCain. Of course it's entirely possible that McCain's election persona was as completely different from his Presidential persona as Obama's has proven to be in which case all bets are off.

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

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You guys have to stop dreaming about Palin getting the nomination.

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. A good Republican candidate versus a good Democratic candidate is the best thing for everyone.

(Barring the possibility of a good third party candidate actually getting elected, of course...)

[colourfastt]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I guess the libs and barry supporters will give the liar a pass on this like all the other BS we've been hearing from the White House. The difference between the Live birth document is that for the Live Birth all you need is a baby. It doesn't state WHERE the baby was born. The Birth Certificate from Hawaii, and the details of who was the doctor, where the baby was born etc would be on that form. IF such a form exists, and it DOES SHOW Barry born in Hawaii then why not show it? It has not been shown. With all the other crap being pulled by this administration why should I trust his word? The Birth Certificate must not actually exist, or it would have been shown instead of the Live Birth short form. Where is the scan of the original document? Don't keep telling me I'm wrong, when you can't produce anything to prove Barry was born in Hawaii, Just that the baby showed up there.

I hate to burst your bubble but if you need a copy of birth certificate the states now send you the abstract, also known as the 'short form.' Neither my brother nor I could find our 'originals' so we ordered copies from Virginia and 'lo and behold they were the so-called 'short forms' ... there is no option to order a copy of the so-called 'long form'.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The Obama administration doesn't need any help with the "one term presidency" thing. They are doing just fine on that task thank you very much.

-t

Dude, Bush bent us over and made us call him daddy and still we re-elected him. Don't be so cocky that being a lousy president means you won't be re-elected.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You guys have to stop dreaming about Palin getting the nomination.

Palin is the last thing I'd want. I'd like to vote for an actual, sensible conservative. Apparently, none of them have the balls to stand up to the current Republican Party.

[Chuckit]

I'm hopeful that McCain/Palin's failure will make the smarter conservatives sit up and say, "Hey, maybe they're waiting for someone like me."

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Dude, Bush bent us over and made us call him daddy and still we re-elected him. Don't be so cocky that being a lousy president means you won't be re-elected.

But now we got change

-t

[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.

[Chuckit]

I don't see how not voting will help anything.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't see how not voting will help anything.

Read it again.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't see how not voting will help anything.

No, I think the implication is that you vote for someone like Ron Paul, who would destroy the country at a much faster pace.

[Big Mac]

How would Paul possibly "destroy the country at a much faster pace"? By returning the federal government to its Constitutional limits? I'm pretty sure people would learn to get by without grossly unconstitutional government taxing them up the arse and generally interfering with their lives.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Read it again.

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.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

No, I think the implication is that you vote for someone like Ron Paul, who would destroy the country at a much faster pace.

Uh oh. Another candidate for the "Why this country is in trouble" thread. It's in English - go read it again.

If the implication was to vote for Ron Paul, then as Biggie says I don't see how your country could be destroyed faster than it's already going. Perhaps you don't know just how fast you're going down the tubes.