[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

yes, which only appears to mean anything to people who desperately want to see Obama removed from office. Even the Republican House Majority Leader doesn't find those "facts" convincing.

When he was asked if a document that could legally be obtained by someone who is not eligible for citizenship should be enough to prove citizenship, what did he say?

A lot of people don't want to open that "can of worms." It might be time consuming and keep legislators away from seeing to it that those who paid for them to get into office get paid back with government dollars.

However, your argument would be much more compelling if it contained something that showed that Obama was actually born here, instead of just ridiculing those who point out there really is no certifiable evidence (at least that's been presented). If you'd like to look up "logical fallacies" in Google, I figure you can discover which one that is.

Originally Posted by screener 

I don't believe you do, but it's still there along with the Hussein bit brought up continuously by some birthers.
Google,
Barack Hussein Obama - Google Search
I can't or hope you don't think you're in good company.

"Poisoning the well" fallacies never have worked on me very well either.

So...at this point, we are done here? No one can provide me vouched for documentation that could only be gotten by someone born in Hawaii, or even an impartial third party who will go on record as having witnessed Mrs. Obama in Hawaii right before, during or after President Obama's birth? Are we conceding that all that is left is an attempt to ridicule instead of providing a rational rebuttal?

If you guys have real evidence, post it and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, save the taunts and the jibes for the playground.

[screener]

Seems like there are a lot of you guys out there.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...se_US_0215.pdf

A 51% majority of national GOP primary voters [erroneously think President Obama was not born in the U.S. 28% know that he was.
With the latter, Palin’s favorability rating is 41-52—other than Ron Paul, the only candidate these voters view negatively. But with birthers, she has a soaring 83-12, far higher than for any of the others.

“Any thought that the birther theory has been put to rest can be thrown out the window
with this poll,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “That view is still
widely held in Republican circles.”

Birthers and Palin, not surprising.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Seems like there are a lot of you guys out there.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...se_US_0215.pdf

Birthers and Palin, not surprising.

I guessing that the Obama supporters who put this poll together realize that as long as Obama hides his past, that the issue isn't going to go away and might hurt him in 2012.

Much like how they have decided to go after Issa with personal attacks to blunt their dishonesty, they're going to try to do the same with people who ask for transparency in this matter. That's the way the mob always worked when they knew that they were caught red handed. It's the modus operandi that the Democrats have always used when their people where on the wrong side of the truth. The dishonest attacks against Ken Starr come to mind.

All these folks have to do is show us evidence that proves he was born here. The best they've done is give us a document that non-citizens could have gotten. I asked for ANYONE to provide this here. No one could. So you have people questioning the credibility of people who have shown that there's no proof that Obama is legally entitled to be President. Talk about irony!

I don't even get the "birthers and Palin, not surprising" comment. Sounds like the typical "poisoning the well" whine from left-wing haters. What a bore....

[Dork.]

Now that I think about it, I don't think I ever saw evidence of George Washington's long-form birth certificate! I wonder what he was hiding?

[besson3c]

snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate

Which part of that link actually refutes or rebuts anything I've posted in this thread, or provides certifiable evidence that Obama was born in the US? The best seems to be a woman who claimed she once talked to a Doctor who mentioned that Obama's mother had birthed a child, but didn't specifically say he was the delivering Doctor.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which part of that link actually refutes or rebuts anything I've posted in this thread, or provides certifiable evidence that Obama was born in the US?

Nothing, given that you're using fabricated requirements.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't even get the "birthers and Palin, not surprising" comment. Sounds like the typical "poisoning the well" whine from left-wing haters. What a bore....

Not surprising.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Nothing, given that you're using fabricated requirements.

Which part is fabricated? The point is what is being relied upon is something that does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. According to the laws at the time and the Constitution, it's not good enough for him to have just had his parents live in Hawaii for a year.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Not surprising.

Your mother dresses you funny.

[ebuddy]

Obama is nothing if not a shrewd politician. Why would Obama go out of his way to produce what some view as adequate proof of his citizenship when it has proven such an effective wedge issue with Republicans? They lose the independent vote with the "birther" tag and the closer we get to 2012, the more you'll see this exploited by those who would love nothing more than to see mutiny within the GOP.

Here's the main crux of the issue afaic; a signed affidavit from his mother claiming he was born to a pack of wolves in the USSR would not be enough to remove him from office under the "birther" supposition at this point. No matter how obligated some feel to this ideal and regardless of their intentions, the inevitable result will be the "extremism" and "racism" tags the left needs to detract from their own failures. Simply put, it is too late and attention given to anything other than this Administration's incompetence will be in vain.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which part is fabricated? The point is what is being relied upon is something that does not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.

That's the part being fabricated. When previous points are disproved, the birthers always seem to come up with another.

Once again, nobody in a position of authority is convinced about that point. Even Fox News and the Republican Speaker of the House appear to believe that Obama has done everything necessary to prove his natural born citizenship.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Obama is nothing if not a shrewd politician. Why would Obama go out of his way to produce what some view as adequate proof of his citizenship when it has proven such an effective wedge issue with Republicans? They lose the independent vote with the "birther" tag and the closer we get to 2012, the more you'll see this exploited by those who would love nothing more than to see mutiny within the GOP.

Here's the main crux of the issue afaic; a signed affidavit from his mother claiming he was born to a pack of wolves in the USSR would not be enough to remove him from office under the "birther" supposition at this point. No matter how obligated some feel to this ideal and regardless of their intentions, the inevitable result will be the "extremism" and "racism" tags the left needs to detract from their own failures. Simply put, it is too late and attention given to anything other than this Administration's incompetence will be in vain.

Nice, and well put.

[The Final Dakar]

If Obama presented some other birth certificate, the majority of birthers would still come up with a reason not to believe its contents.

There's no point in producing it.

[Chongo]

Photochopping at it's best/worst.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That's the part being fabricated.

I'm sorry, but I posted the law in regards to what was required to get the document in question. It came with a direct link to the State of Hawaii's own website. Nothing has been fabricated, other than the notion that some kind of certifiable evidence of a birth in the US has been presented.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Here's the main crux of the issue afaic; a signed affidavit from his mother claiming he was born to a pack of wolves in the USSR would not be enough to remove him from office under the "birther" supposition at this point. No matter how obligated some feel to this ideal and regardless of their intentions, the inevitable result will be the "extremism" and "racism" tags the left needs to detract from their own failures. Simply put, it is too late and attention given to anything other than this Administration's incompetence will be in vain.

I agree that there is probably not anything to cause his removal. However, he has to be re-elected to office. Several states are implementing plans which would require more strenuous evidence of citizenship. If he can't or refuses to submit such evidence, I think that will hurt him a lot more than it will hurt his opposition. He's already likely killed the trust a lot of people had in him in 2008 by ditching most of his campaign promises. I'm pretty sure going on record as having something to hide in 2012 won't do him any favors.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm sorry, but I posted the law in regards to what was required to get the document in question. It came with a direct link to the State of Hawaii's own website. Nothing has been fabricated, other than the notion that some kind of certifiable evidence of a birth in the US has been presented.

Except, nobody in a position of authority in the matter seems to agree with your assertion that the documentation presented TO THOSE WITH AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER doesn't satisfy the requirements.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your mother dresses you funny.

[BadKosh]

WTF??? The SCOTUS is having a discussion about his eligibility!

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

WTF??? The SCOTUS is having a discussion about his eligibility!

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look

Stunner! Not even Fox News appears to consider this worth reporting on.
Search for obama+supreme+court

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

WTF??? The SCOTUS is having a discussion about his eligibility!

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look

Gee, that's a credible source for news.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree that there is probably not anything to cause his removal. However, he has to be re-elected to office. Several states are implementing plans which would require more strenuous evidence of citizenship. If he can't or refuses to submit such evidence, I think that will hurt him a lot more than it will hurt his opposition. He's already likely killed the trust a lot of people had in him in 2008 by ditching most of his campaign promises. I'm pretty sure going on record as having something to hide in 2012 won't do him any favors.

Obama will be on the ballot in all 50 states in 2012. Those states don't have the right to ask for anything more than what Hawaii has offered -- an official statement that Obama's birth credentials exist and that he was born in Hawaii. If any of those states actually implement those plans, I assume it will go to the Supreme Court (being, esentially, a dispute among states), and the states with the new policy will lose. If Hawaii says Obama was born there, then no matter what you or anyone else may think of the quality of their record-keeping in the 60's, the matter is closed.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Except, nobody in a position of authority in the matter seems to agree with your assertion that the documentation presented TO THOSE WITH AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER doesn't satisfy the requirements.

We've already went over this line of argument. I referred to it as the "married siblings" rebuttal and it doesn't go towards answering the problem in question.

I will guarantee you that if you've got a brother and sister with different last names, who get a marriage license - if you ask anyone in a "positition of authority" in the matter they'll tell you that the marriage certificate in their possession is all that is required to get legal status as being "married."

The question is, once you find out that lax vetting in getting the document was the reason the status was procurred, and those in question really weren't eligible, does that mean they can keep the status. I know that in this case, the few times I've heard of it happening the answer is "no."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

WTF??? The SCOTUS is having a discussion about his eligibility!

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look

As they should. I don't believe that the huge loophole in the law in the State of Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth was really widely known until recently. As I stated, I believe that changes things.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Obama will be on the ballot in all 50 states in 2012. Those states don't have the right to ask for anything more than what Hawaii has offered -- an official statement that Obama's birth credentials exist and that he was born in Hawaii. If any of those states actually implement those plans, I assume it will go to the Supreme Court (being, esentially, a dispute among states), and the states with the new policy will lose. If Hawaii says Obama was born there, then no matter what you or anyone else may think of the quality of their record-keeping in the 60's, the matter is closed.

I'm guessing they won't, given the facts revolving around Hawaii's laws regarding citizenship. It isn't unreasonable to ask for actual proof of citizenship instead of a document that could have been gotten by people who had no right to citizenship and the states have the right to offer up to the electoral college the candidate of their choice.

Also, Obama's refusal and taking it to the Supreme Court will look bad - even to a lot of Democrats. There's already been a call by many prominent ones for Obama to stop hiding whatever it is he doesn't want known. I can't imagine once this gets played out in the media - explaining that the Hawaii document in question could be gotten legally by foreign born applicants, and that Obama refuses to allow the release of the document (if it exists, and if it doesn't he likely isn't a legal citizen) which would clear this up - won't hurt republicans - it will make people trust Obama even less.

Like I said, there's something there to cover-up. Otherwise, he would have just released the info and been done with it. Unless you where born yesterday, there really isn't a better explanation.

[Dork.]

What you're missing is that this is not about Obama and what he can release. This is about Hawaii, and whether you (or Arizona, to name one state that's been connected with not putting Obama's name on the ballot) can trust Hawaii's birth records. He may or not have something embarrassing there. But the State of Hawaii says he was born there, and if that's not good enough for the State of Arizona then that will go to the Supreme Court.

In fact, I think once a state passes a law like that, it will get challenged right away, because it is technically imposing additional requirements on presidential eligibility than what is in the Constitution, since the Constitution mentions nothing about long-form certificates.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We've already went over this line of argument. I referred to it as the "married siblings" rebuttal and it doesn't go towards answering the problem in question.

I will guarantee you that if you've got a brother and sister with different last names, who get a marriage license - if you ask anyone in a "positition of authority" in the matter they'll tell you that the marriage certificate in their possession is all that is required to get legal status as being "married."

The question is, once you find out that lax vetting in getting the document was the reason the status was procurred, and those in question really weren't eligible, does that mean they can keep the status. I know that in this case, the few times I've heard of it happening the answer is "no."

Naming your rebuttals doesn't make them more valid. If you can't trust the people with authority in these matters to make the right calls, then your system is completely broken and you've got far bigger problems than a President who might not qualify to hold the office based on missing 1 or 2 years of US residency after the age of 18 by his mother.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

What you're missing is that this is not about Obama and what he can release. This is about Hawaii, and whether you (or Arizona, to name one state that's been connected with not putting Obama's name on the ballot) can trust Hawaii's birth records.

I quoted the law. There's a huge loophole in the law where people not eligible for US citizenship could legally get a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth. I don't think that there's anyone who doesn't trust that Hawaii's birth records are accurate. It's just that the evidence is that based on the law at the time, they do not adequately prove that a person was eligible for citizenship, just as a marriage certificate given to a brother and sister via lax vetting doesn't prove that they were legally entitled to be married.

He may or not have something embarrassing there. But the State of Hawaii says he was born there, and if that's not good enough for the State of Arizona then that will go to the Supreme Court.

The State of Hawaii says he has a Certificate of Live Birth there. The State of Hawaii at the time of his birth also allowed people not born in the State of Hawaii to get this document. GIven the fact, the State of Hawaii can't actually certifiably make any claims as to where he was born with just the COLB.

In fact, I think once a state passes a law like that, it will get challenged right away, because it is technically imposing additional requirements on presidential eligibility than what is in the Constitution, since the Constitution mentions nothing about long-form certificates.

The Constitution requires citizenship. It has been shown that due to Hawaiian laws, people who are not eligible based on the the Constitutional requirements could get the document Obama has used to claim he was born on U.S. soil. It's hardly "imposing additional requirements" when there are (or should be) public records on file which would show (or not) that Obama was actually born on U.S. soil and the document he does have could be gotten by people who do not meet the Constitutional requirements.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Naming your rebuttals doesn't make them more valid.

I did it as a time saving device, since the same rebutted line of argument gets thrown out time and again.

If you can't trust the people with authority in these matters to make the right calls, then your system is completely broken and you've got far bigger problems than a President who might not qualify to hold the office based on missing 1 or 2 years of US residency after the age of 18 by his mother.

I trust them. I think that there may have been mistakes made in 2008 due to people not really understanding the issue and not realizing that the document provided by Obama does not really prove he was born on U.S. soil since the law at the time allowed anyone who lived in Hawaii for a year to get a Hawaiian COLB by showing evidence of that, and filling out the forms. It appears that the SCOTUS and states may correct the problems in 2012 though and we may really find out if Obama is eligible or not.

Mistakes happen. The responsible thing is to verify that no mistakes where made and get to the truth of the matter. What would a reasonable person have against that? Why on earth would Obama fight against having all the facts out on the table?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The State of Hawaii says he has a Certificate of Live Birth there. The State of Hawaii at the time of his birth also allowed people not born in the State of Hawaii to get this document. GIven the fact, the State of Hawaii can't actually certifiably make any claims as to where he was born with just the COLB.

Here's where you're ignoring evidence that contradicts what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

[Dork.]

I wonder if stupendousman has read Article Four of the Constitution.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Here's where you're ignoring evidence that contradicts what you want to believe.

Doesn't contradict anything. Unless Obama has a hospital generated birth certificate, then Dr. Chiyome Fukino can't credibly make a statement in regards to where he was born, given the evidence and the law. If he does have a hospital generated birth certificate, then what violation of law would be committed by just verifying it's existence without releasing it - something no one will go on record to do.

I wonder if the Dr. even knew what the laws of the State of Hawaii where at the time of Obama's birth. I'm guessing not. I don't think that most people did know until it was uncovered recently. I know it wasn't reported in the mainstream press.

Like I've said before, if you simply asked an official if John Smith and Jill Jones (brother and sister), who applied for a marriage license and where married in the State of Hawaii if they had a marriage certificate on record and if the state considered them legally married, there would be no reason for the official to say that they were not. Not unless you had more information and knew that the couple had possibly been the recipient of status due to a loophole allowing lax vetting to give them that status. Then the answer might be different. Until recently, there was really no reason to believe that having a Hawaiian COLB did not mean that the person in question was born in Hawaii.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I wonder if stupendousman has read Article Four of the Constitution.

I'm wondering how that applies when there are circumstances now and in the past where federal and state governments have required more than just a COLB for identification purposes?

I'm pretty sure if Hawaii creates a law allowing people personal licenses to kill, that somehow despite Article Four, other states would find a way to not honor them. I'm guessing that if it can be shown that Hawaiian state law violated federal law, and possibly the Constitution itself, that there are options above and beyond Article four.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm guessing that if it can be shown that Hawaiian state law violated federal law, and possibly the Constitution itself, that there are options above and beyond Article four.

I agree. Where we differ is that you're convinced that this loophole is real, and I'm skeptical that it could really be used to fake a birth record. (I believe that there may have been a mechanism to register births abroad in Hawaii, but that would have registered the proper place of birth, and would not be proof of citizenship, so if that had happened with Obama than the Hawaiian authorities would have no basis to make the claims they have made.)

But if a state like Arizona implements a law that requires more documentation than Hawaii has provided, it will become an Article 4 issue that the Supreme Court will hear. Maybe you can file a brief with your loophole in it. At least we know Clarence Thomas won't question it.

[besson3c]

That's because Clarence Thomas wasn't born in this country.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I agree. Where we differ is that you're convinced that this loophole is real, and I'm skeptical that it could really be used to fake a birth record. (I believe that there may have been a mechanism to register births abroad in Hawaii, but that would have registered the proper place of birth, and would not be proof of citizenship, so if that had happened with Obama than the Hawaiian authorities would have no basis to make the claims they have made.)

The loophole is real. I quoted the law. All that was required by law was for the applicant to prove that a parent lived in the state for the past year.

The rationale behind this mechanism was that there would be people born outside of the hospital system - to midwives and in circumstances where the location of the mother made it difficult to get immediate medical care from a hospital. The state still needed to get these people on the books somehow and it was likely that some of the rural, native Hawaiians didn't have extensive caches of documents proving their citizenship.

But if a state like Arizona implements a law that requires more documentation than Hawaii has provided, it will become an Article 4 issue that the Supreme Court will hear. Maybe you can file a brief with your loophole in it. At least we know Clarence Thomas won't question it.

I'm guessing they already know about it. I'd suggest that maybe since they now realize that a COLB isn't the cut-and-dried certifiable proof most thought it was previously, that they are willing to take a closer look.

[screener]

If you push this retardedness, Obama will win.
You lose, the US loses.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The rationale behind this mechanism was that there would be people born outside of the hospital system - to midwives and in circumstances where the location of the mother made it difficult to get immediate medical care from a hospital. The state still needed to get these people on the books somehow and it was likely that some of the rural, native Hawaiians didn't have extensive caches of documents proving their citizenship.

So, let's say that this long form doesn't exist for Obama. Wouldn't that only prove that he wasn't born in a US hospital? Based on what you've said above, lack of a long form birth certificate wouldn't prove that he wasn't born in the US. You'd still have to prove that he wasn't born in the US, using something other than speculation.

Unless you want to argue that anyone born by midwife in US or in circumstances where the location of the mother made it difficult to get immediate medical care from a hospital in the US isn't eligible to hold the office of President.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, let's say that this long form doesn't exist for Obama. Wouldn't that only prove that he wasn't born in a US hospital?

I would think so.

Based on what you've said above, lack of a long form birth certificate wouldn't prove that he wasn't born in the US. You'd still have to prove that he wasn't born in the US, using something other than speculation.

It would prove that he wasn't born in a Hawaiian hospital, as is his claim and would show that he likely knew this at the time he decided to run for President and lied about it. All major candidates have teams who investigate "opposition research", not only on your opposition but on the candidate himself so that the team knows how to handle potential attacks.

If there is no "long form" the chances are very slim that he doesn't know this, know what the ramifications are, and is engaging in a cover-up because there is really no other certifiable evidence that he was born in the US, and possibly not eligible for office.

Unless you want to argue that anyone born by midwife in US or in circumstances where the location of the mother made it difficult to get immediate medical care from a hospital in the US isn't eligible to hold the office of President.

Not "anyone." Anyone who wants to be President, whose Father was not a US citizen, and whose grandmother claimed they were born outside the US. I think those are pretty special and specific instances where additional verification isn't unreasonable.

[screener]

Supreme Court Rejects Obama Birth Case Appeal
Please let it go now.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Supreme Court Rejects Obama Birth Case Appeal
Please let it go now.

We'll see what happens with the state issues.

It's not me you need to have "let go."

There's a bunch of people who see "blood" in the water since it's clear that Obama is hiding something, likely damaging to him. Either Obama has to pony up the goods or these people aren't going to stop, and it's really not going to hurt the people who don't choose to engage on this issue. It will however make clear at some point that Obama isn't being honest.

[Wiskedjak]

I doubt there's a single senior politician who isn't hiding something damaging to them.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I doubt there's a single senior politician who isn't hiding something damaging to them.

I agree. However, for their political opponents to exploit it to their advantage, they have to know where to look.

Obama has put a big target on "where to look." There's a treasure map to political damage for Obama and he's put the "X" on the spot due to his clear desire not to let the truth come out. That can't be a good thing for him.

[andi*pandi]

This thread = chronic hysteresis.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's a bunch of people who see "blood" in the water since it's clear that Obama is hiding something, likely damaging to him.

These people are fringe whackos, and will never be satisfied. They are in the same vein as those convinced that Bush stole the election against Gore.

What side are you on again? Fringe whackos don't make good bedfellows my friend.

[OAW]

Jeez is this retarded thread still going on?

Ok ..... as has been made abundantly clear the "birther" crowd is not subject to reason. Fine. Whatever. How about we see if we can put the issue to "rest" for the moment? Not to argue the point ... just put it on pause for a while. My suggestion is is to put a little action on the table ....

If President Obama seeks re-election in 2012, will he or will he not be on the ballot in all 50 states?

Just a simple wager for forum bragging rights.*

My bet .... YES.

OAW

* - then perhaps we can resurrect this thread in 2012 to see who's right and who's wrong and put this issue to bed permanently.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by sek929 

These people are fringe whackos, and will never be satisfied. They are in the same vein as those convinced that Bush stole the election against Gore.

Some are.

Some are not.

I could easily be satisfied. So could those democrats I've previously quoted who wanted Obama to release the info.

This isn't a very compelling argument for continuing to stonewall. Obama could take all reasonable actions to clarify the issue. He chooses not to. There's a reason for this, and it doesn't rationally seem to be about "fringe wackos."

What side are you on again? Fringe whackos don't make good bedfellows my friend.

How about you stick to the facts, and stop relying on generalizations and personal attacks against people you don't know? This says as much about your ability to deal with the facts as it does the "fringe."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Jeez is this retarded thread still going on?

Ok ..... as has been made abundantly clear the "birther" crowd is not subject to reason. Fine. Whatever.

In this thread, and even among some reasonable democrats, all that's been asked of Obama was a reasonable request: authorize the release of documents that contain information about your birth.

This would likely take a minute or two of his time, and provide more clarity and evidence that he's been telling the truth if that is the case.

So, we have a reasonable request which can be done with a reasonable amount of effort, and Obama refuses.

The only one that seems to be immune to reason is Obama. That's why even many Democrats have scratched their heads at his refusal to cooperate. If you want to attack those who point out Obama's irrational behavior as "unreasonabe," that's your prerogative. However, I don't think that many people who understand the issue or are looking at this from an unbiased angle will accept your attempts to tag people who want him to do what's reasonable as being "unreasonable." They'll get that your attempts are just as partisan and unreasonable as those who never could be satisfied regardless of the evidence that is provided.

It's easier though to dismiss the issue, I understand, if you can engage in a personal attack against those who point it out. In the long run though, that never works. Obama is either going to have to put up, or shut up. EVEN HE can't seem to let go of it....

Barack Obama jokes about ‘birther’ debate - Yahoo! News

[The Final Dakar]

Bottom line: A bunch of peeps have presumed him guilty and want him to prove his innocence. Sorry chaps, it doesn't work that way in America.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Bottom line: A bunch of peeps have presumed him guilty and want him to prove his innocence. Sorry chaps, it doesn't work that way in America.

pwned

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Bottom line: A bunch of peeps have presumed him guilty and want him to prove his innocence. Sorry chaps, it doesn't work that way in America.

It's not a matter of guilt or innocence. It's a matter of qualifications and verifying them. A refusal to allow this to happen to a reasonable extent infers that the person in question is hiding something, and the issue would seem to rationally require additional investigation.

It's like a guy tells a someone that he's a Harvard Grad to get some plum position and then cries that he's being presumed "guilty" of not having gone there because they want to verify it with transcripts.

It's that sort of argument is what rates as getting "pwned" around here, I'm not sure some of you guys are worth the trouble. I'll debate my 5 year old daughter instead.