[screener]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay, that post was too rude, even for the PL. Take some time and chill out, maybe get some ice cream and watch Firefly, or something.

That post was right on the money.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I dont see anything wrong with the post. Its a stupid topic, of all the things to be dealing with, budget, health care, defense, economy no a Birth Certificate lol, its very comical. The man is a American and yet people still try to say he isn't.

Originally Posted by screener 

That post was right on the money.

We're a little more polite than that around here, in general. In the past, I've been infracted for less than what he said. Of course, he's edited it now, which is a good thing. I purposely didn't quote him to give him the chance to recant some of it..

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I reiterate, he had to produce details. The "long form" certificate has never been required of a candidate.

It wasn't required of Obama either.

However, in the interest of transparency, he should have produced it when there was some controversy as McCain did. McCain released all the info he could, and the controversy pretty much ended. That was the smart move for someone who doesn't have anything major to hide.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually I, and plenty of other people around here, have debunked your so-called "arguments".

Your opinion is noted. As we'll see, the facts don't support your opinion.

But I'll do it "one mo' gin" to unequivocally demonstrate just how deep your "stuck on stupidness" goes.

1. In your OP you cite Jerome Corsi and WND.com to try to claim that President Obama's "long form, hospital generated birth certificate" didn't exist.

The "devil" is in the "details" and you ALWAYS seem to get them wrong. That's why your "debunking" is no such thing. You debunk strawmen and things in your own head then pat yourself on the back for a job well done. Congrats on that, but that has little effect on my argument.

NO WHERE in the OP did I cite anyone to CLAIM that the birth certificate DID NOT EXIST. I cited the article in question to show that it COULD possibly not exist, and him still get a "short form" birth certificate. While the OP is RELATED to claims that it did not exist, THAT WAS NOT THE CLAIM IN THE OP I made as you falsely submit.

I then asked for others to come in and rebut the facts he gave or find a flaw in his theory because I was keeping an open mind about it. No one could. All we got was lame arguments centered around the fact that all that was needed was a "short form."

Really, when you start off spewing falsehoods and engaging in name calling at the get go, is there really any reason to go on showing that you don't have a clue? I don't mind debating points - even inconsequential ones, but giving trolls more to feed on isn't my idea of a good time.

[besson3c]

This thread is becoming legendary.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This thread is becoming legendary.

Hasn't gotten there yet. I think to get there, someone has to accuse Obama of being a foreign agent.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Hasn't gotten there yet. I think to get there, someone has to accuse Obama of being a foreign agent.

Is that an invitation? You know I'll do it...

If Abe weren't dead and decided to make this case this thread would probably triple in length.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay, that post was too rude, even for the PL. Take some time and chill out, maybe get some ice cream and watch Firefly, or something.

You know what? You have a point. I don't usually adopt such a hard tone around here. It seems that I had one last nerve left when it comes to this foolishness and I'll be damned if this dude didn't get right on it. It certainly can be difficult to debate against utterly ridiculous positions and not come off as unnecessarily insulting. I have failed in that endeavor and for that I apologize to the board in general and to Stupendousman in particular.

Having said that … I stand by the substance of my comments. If dude insists on pushing this nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary then that's on him.

OAW

PS: And for the record, I only edited my post to make spelling corrections etc. Not to change the substance of what I said. Do trust and believe … every comment that was originally there is still there.

[besson3c]

OAW: do you think that Obama is a foreign agent?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

NO WHERE in the OP did I cite anyone to CLAIM that the birth certificate DID NOT EXIST. I cited the article in question to show that it COULD possibly not exist, and him still get a "short form" birth certificate. While the OP is RELATED to claims that it did not exist, THAT WAS NOT THE CLAIM IN THE OP I made as you falsely submit.

As Richard Pryor once said, this post falls into the category of …

"Who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

You start out by quoting an article that claimed that the current governor of Hawaii can't find the "long form". Then you pose this crazy theory that the "short form" could be obtained documenting a Hawaiian birth even if he wasn't actually born in Hawaii. You then toss out "birther conspiracy theory #2" and claim that there must be something embarassing on the "long form". But then you return to "birther conspiracy theory #1" by saying the following phrase TWICE:

"Absent the long form…"

Your entire "married sibling" theory is predicated on the notion that President Obama could receive a "short form" … "absent the long form" … because if the "long form" was absent then that would mean he wasn't born in Hawaii because hospitals create the "long form" and there was a "security loophole" that allowed any legal resident of Hawaii to get the "short form" even if the kid was born outside Hawaii. "The nutty birthers could still be right!" you claimed. And the nutty birthers have claimed from Day 1 that President Obama was born in KENYA! How could President Obama be "legally ineligible to be President" if he was born in a Hawaiian hospital? And if he was born in a Hawaiian hospital why even raise the "married sibling" theory at all? And then ride it till the wheels fall off throughout a 10+ page thread? Why even say that the "long form" COULD possibly not exist when the director and registrar of the Hawaii Dept. of Health along with the GOP governor said that it DID exist?

But I suppose you think we all don't see that. Just like you apparently think (or hope) that we don't notice that you didn't even ATTEMPT to respond to my absolute destruction of your "married sibling" theory. The fundamental flaw in your bogus theory is the erroneous ASSUMPTION you made that a Hawaii ISSUED "short form" would reflect a Hawaiian BIRTH. Even if the kid was born elsewhere. That is FALSE! Unless, of course, you think you know better than the Director of Communications of the Hawaiian Dept. of Health and have BACKUP to prove it. So until you can man up and acknowledge that you are in error on that point then …

OAW

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

OAW: do you think that Obama is a foreign agent?

OMG this explains why he keeps his personal blackberry on him. Its a spy device sending everything it sees to the Romulans. Galactic invasion is coming.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

As Richard Pryor once said, this post falls into the category of …

"Who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

No one's eyes are lying, except for maybe yours.

You start out by quoting an article that claimed that the current governor of Hawaii can't find the "long form".

The part of the article I cited had NOTHING to do with that, so that's pretty much irrelevant. You're really reaching.

Then you pose this crazy theory that the "short form" could be obtained documenting a Hawaiian birth even if he wasn't actually born in Hawaii.

Crazy? It was based on the requirements listed in state law. You couldn't refute that those where the only limitations the law required....

...but we're getting off course here. YOU JUST CLAIMED ABOVE, that in the OP, I cited someone to support my claim that a "'long form, hospital generated birth certificate' didn't exist." Your current rebuttal has nothing to do with this. You've yet to show how the argument I JUST MADE ABOVE is not true. You're trying to change the subject to another debate point (which I didn't respond to in your last post), because you were AGAIN shown to simply not have been paying attention and making up your own points of debate and there's no getting around that. The facts aren't on your side here.

Just go ahead and admit you're making this all up in your head, arguing against the imaginary person and imaginary arguments the voices in your head whisper to you. You sure as heck aren't debating the points I've offered.

You then toss out "birther conspiracy theory #2" and claim that there must be something embarassing on the "long form".

I offered that as a possible explanation for his irrational refusal to act transparently, true.

But then you return to "birther conspiracy theory #1" by saying the following phrase TWICE:

"Absent the long form…"

Meaning, if there happened to have not been one. The whole OP was supposition based on whether or not a long form could not exist and there still be a short form. Based on the interpretation of state law as given (which I requested rebuttal of and got nothing of substance at the time) it would appear that there were circumstances where someone could get a short form without ever having produced a long form. This still appears to be the case. You still haven't rebutted this.

Your entire "married sibling" theory is predicated on the notion that President Obama could receive a "short form" … "absent the long form" … because if the "long form" was absent then that would mean he wasn't born in Hawaii because hospitals create the "long form" and there was a "security loophole" that allowed any legal resident of Hawaii to get the "short form" even if the kid was born outside Hawaii. "The nutty birthers could still be right!" you claimed.

...and you failed to rationally rebut. I claimed that COULD be the case. I never claimed in my OP, as you falsely stated, that there WAS NO LONG FORM. Again, the devil is in the details and you keep coming up short.

And the nutty birthers have claimed from Day 1 that President Obama was born in KENYA!

Great. Go find someone who has claimed that and debate them. This has nothing to do with me.

How could President Obama be "legally ineligible to be President" if he was born in a Hawaiian hospital?

He couldn't. I conceded this from the outset.

And if he was born in a Hawaiian hospital why even raise the "married sibling" theory at all?

The "married siblings" rebuttal isn't what you claim it was. I used that as a standard dismissal of the notion that if someone got documentation via a loophole or lax vetting, that such a thing guaranteed them continued rights under the status they falsely where granted. It would be like a brother and sister with different last names taking advantage of a loophole to get a marriage license, then trying to claim eligibility for legal marriage rights once it's found out that they actually did not meet the requirements for the status in question.

You can't seem to get any of these points right, as I've already stated.

Really...at what point should I just give up trying? How many false statements and strawmen does it take to just reply to your posts with a rolling eyes smiley and move on?

[Wiskedjak]

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We're a little more polite than that around here, in general.

Priceless.

[screener]

Location: Wasilla, Alaska?

Priceless.

[besson3c]

Brief intermission time, unrelated image:

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Really...at what point should I just give up trying?

About 9 pages ago would be nice.


...on second thought, nah, keep going! It's entertaining to see how deep you'll dig your hole.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

About 9 pages ago would be nice.


...on second thought, nah, keep going! It's entertaining to see how deep you'll dig your hole.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Brief intermission time, unrelated...

I think that describes most every post you offer here.

Are you under the impression that your contributions are clever or entertaining?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think that describes most every post you offer here.

Are you under the impression that your contributions are clever or entertaining?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I started this party. If you are bored with the guests, you are welcome to leave.

Do you know what you call someone who has no real interest in a forum thread, but inserts posts anyways in an attempt to derail the discussion? A troll. No one likes a troll, and posts have little to do with the actual content of a discussion is what Besson is best known for. A post that debates content from Besson seems to be the exception, not the rule.

I added my own Zzzz smiley above because the person I replied to only offered a person jibe, and nothing to add otherwise.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you know what you call someone who has no real interest in a forum thread, but inserts posts anyways in an attempt to derail the discussion? A troll.

I can think of someone else who fits that description. Someone who starts a thread by claiming "I'm also not trying to fan the flames that fuels the fires of nutty conspiracy theorists" and then proceeds to do exactly that. Starts with S, ends in "tupendousman."

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I started this party. If you are bored with the guests, you are welcome to leave.

Do you know what you call someone who has no real interest in a forum thread, but inserts posts anyways in an attempt to derail the discussion? A troll. No one likes a troll, and posts have little to do with the actual content of a discussion is what Besson is best known for. A post that debates content from Besson seems to be the exception, not the rule.

I added my own Zzzz smiley above because the person I replied to only offered a person jibe, and nothing to add otherwise.

He's not trolling, he's threadcrapping.

If you want to debate solid points, he will, but just as you're trying to set up rules for what you feel is an appropriate means of discourse, he's going to do the same. As you may have surmised, his are different than yours.

But that's the point of having your parties in public, isn't it? Let's see how passive-aggressive stream of consciousness guy mixes with self-righteous venom magnet guy.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I can think of someone else who fits that description. Someone who starts a thread by claiming "I'm also not trying to fan the flames that fuels the fires of nutty conspiracy theorists" and then proceeds to do exactly that. Starts with S, ends in "tupendousman."

"I'm not sayin', I'm just asking questions!"

[andi*pandi]

Relevant:

This Thread Theme Song

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I can think of someone else who fits that description. Someone who starts a thread by claiming "I'm also not trying to fan the flames that fuels the fires of nutty conspiracy theorists" and then proceeds to do exactly that. Starts with S, ends in "tupendousman."

I started a thread. As the OP, I stated what the discussion should be about. I then stayed on topic. Anyone not wanting to discuss the matter at hand didn't have to participate.

What you describe, even in the highly biased, and in my opinion, inaccurate way - isn't what I was describing. Nice try though.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

He's not trolling, he's threadcrapping.

Tomato, tomato.

Someone comes in adding off-topic or irrelevent "noise" - whether you call them a troll or a threadcrapper isn't all that relevant. The point is that they are trying to derail the discussion.

If you want to debate solid points, he will, but just as you're trying to set up rules for what you feel is an appropriate means of discourse, he's going to do the same. As you may have surmised, his are different than yours.

As do all trolls. Correct.

[Wiskedjak]

Are false accusations of a coverup of a crime worse than hypothetical damages of a hypothetical coverup of a hypothetical crime?

[BadKosh]

I wonder why Obama made those hasty trips to Hawaii back last year and before.
Ya think he could have been hiring the people to swap his real BC for the Desktop publishing job offered at his press conference ?
Maybe he had to bring a few tons of money to pay off those involved?
Maybe Obama is from Venus? Seems more likely than Mars.

[Athens]

And if Obama was white, the debate about him being American would never have even started. Sad.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The part of the article I cited had NOTHING to do with that, so that's pretty much irrelevant. You're really reaching.

I think Wiskedjak put it quite succinctly when he posted this .....





And I know I really should just allow you to persist in this stupidity in peace .... but since CreepDogg is apparently enjoying seeing your squirm I figure I'll "facilitate" that for a bit longer. So for our collective amusement, let me address this latest foolishness you've posted.

First of all you didn't "cite" anything from the article in your OP. That is a lie. Plain and simple.

cite - v. quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, esp. in a scholarly work.

At no point did you do anything of the sort with this article. You didn't quote anything from it! You see ... this is what a "quote" looks like:

Something like this ....

or .....

"Something like that ..."

Neither /quote tags nor quotation marks (outside of a few "air quotes" to emphasize a word) appear anywhere in your OP. At all. Not even a little bit. So you didn't "cite" a single sentence from the article. The only thing you did was link to said article. An article that is centered on the Hawaii Governor's supposed inability to "find" President Obama's "long form" ....

Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate

You then write 2 paragraphs of personal commentary where you deliver "birther conspiracy theory #2" .... Obama must have something to hide that's why he's not releasing the "long form". Now anyone who follows that link can easily read for themselves that it has nothing in it even remotely related to President Obama supposedly "hiding" something. It's entire raison d'etre is to suggest that his "long form" does not exist. Which would explain why Gov. Abercrombie supposedly couldn't find it. It makes mention of the law that supposedly allows foreign born children to get a "short form" documenting a Hawaiian birth.

WND has reported that in 1961, Obama's grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.

Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama's birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.

And what did you do? You pivoted right back to "birther conspiracy theory #1" which is that the "long form" doesn't exist where you said this ...

Originally Posted by Stupendousman

Apparently after much investigation, the fact has been discovered that that you could get someone who was not born in Hawaii a certificate of live birth for Hawaii just by going down to the Health Department and showing you had been a Hawaii resident for the past year. The address that the COLB uses is that of his grandparents who lived there at the time - not either of his parents.

You continue with "Absent a long form ... this". And "Absent a long form ... that". Blah blah blah. Let me explain why your irrelevancy claims regarding the headline of the article you linked to (along with its entire first half of text) is completely bogus:

The inflammatory and misleading headline and the first half of the article's text levels the accusation that President Obama's "long form" can't be found. The second half of the article, the part that you did not "cite" but that you clearly co-signed on with your comments ... proffers up an explanation as to why President Obama's "long form" is supposedly missing. Namely, that he was able to obtain a "short form" due to this supposed "security loophole". In other words ... the "long form" doesn't exist because he was actually born in Kenya! And don't try to say you weren't on this BS too ... because on more than one occasion in this thread you've repeated the thoroughly debunked claim that "Obama's grandmother said he was born in Kenya". Out of that entire OP of yours with over 10 paragraphs in it ... you devote only 2 to the "Obama must have something to hide" notion. The entire remainder of your OP ... including the article you linked to ... is solely devoted to the notion that "Obama's 'long form' can't be found".

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Crazy? It was based on the requirements listed in state law. You couldn't refute that those where the only limitations the law required....

Here is the statute. Again.

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

Clearly it says "PROOF of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate" does it not? Being born in Honolulu is an "event". Being born to a father named Barack Hussein Obama is an "event". How does the language in this statute allow a birth certificate to claim a Honolulu birth if there is no PROOF that it happened? Again, since you apparently think you know better than the Director of Communications for the Hawaii Dept. Of Health. Let's review her statement ....

Originally Posted by Janice Okubo

If you were born in Bali (or Kenya), for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali (or Kenya). You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.

There is a difference between a Hawaii issued "short form" birth certificate documenting a Hawaiian birth .... versus one documenting a foreign birth. The statute that you and the linked article are referencing is NOT APPLICABLE to President Obama. If he was, in fact, born in Mombasa, Kenya as you and your "birther" cohorts apparently believe then the Hawaii issued "short form" birth certificate would list a "City, Town, or Location of Birth" of "Mombasa, Kenya"! If he was born in "Deez Nuts, CA" then that's what it would list!!.


You see there are two types of US citizenship. Birthright citizenship ... and Naturalized citizenship. Simply put, the former includes those who were born citizens and the latter includes those foreign born who became citizens later in life. Now of those who have birthright citizenship ... that can occur by two means. Jus Soli (Latin: right of the soil)... or Jus Sanguinis (Latin: right of blood). IOW, by being born in the US and/or by being born to a US citizen. Most of us have birthright citizenship by both means. We are born in the US to US citizens. Some only have US citizenship by means of Jus Soli ... namely, children born in the US to foreign parents. Some only have US citizenship by means of Jus Sanguinis ... namely, children born to US citizen parents out of the country. If a US citizen was traveling overseas and had a baby while visiting Timbuktu ... her child would still be a US citizen by means of Jus Sanguinis. This is the scenario that this Hawaiian statute is designed to address. If said woman was a legal resident of Hawaii she could get a Hawaiian issued "short form" birth certificate for her child ... but the "City, Town, or Location of Birth" on the document would not list Honolulu, Maui, or any other place in Hawaii. It would list Timbuktu! And thus, it is NOT a "security loophole" as you so foolishly assert.

Is this finally registering with you now?

[Chris Tucker voice]

Do you hear the words that are coming out of my mouth!!!

[/Chris Tucker voice]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I offered that as a possible explanation for his irrational refusal to act transparently, true.

Well it seems to those of us that didn't ride the "short bus" to school that the irrational thing is going hard in the paint throughout a 10+ page thread over a statute that did not even exist until 20 years after President Obama was even born.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Meaning, if there happened to have not been one. The whole OP was supposition based on whether or not a long form could not exist and there still be a short form. Based on the interpretation of state law as given (which I requested rebuttal of and got nothing of substance at the time) it would appear that there were circumstances where someone could get a short form without ever having produced a long form. This still appears to be the case. You still haven't rebutted this.

OIC. You weren't claiming that President Obama's "long form" did NOT exist. It was just "supposition" on your part as to why that might be the case? But you see the thing is with you "birthers" ... that's a distinction without a difference. Your entire modus operandi is rooted in "supposition", "rumor", "innuendo", "crackpottery" and downright "fabrication".

You say I still haven't rebutted this. Well, unfortunately for you wishing doesn't make it so. Merely asserting that someone hasn't rebutted you doesn't mean that it didn't quite obviously go down. There's an old saying ....

Some people just don't believe that fat meat is greasy.

You've made it abundantly clear that you most definitely fall into this category when it comes to this topic. But if you wish to PROVE and not merely ASSERT that I haven't rebutted you on this, then feel free to do the following:

1. Demonstrate how this statute you've been d*ckriding throughout this entire thread is even remotely applicable since it didn't even exist until the 1980s.

2. Demonstrate how the language of this statute allows a Hawaii issued "short form" to list the "City, Town, or Location of Birth" of a foreign born child as being within Hawaii ... especially when one considers the fact that it would be falsified information?

Orrrrrrrrr ........

You can try to regain a smidgen, an iota, a scintilla, a tad bit worth of credibility by simply conceding the point and keeping it moving.

OAW

[besson3c]

Hey, did you guys hear that Obama's birth certificate might not be valid?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And if Obama was white, the debate about him being American would never have even started. Sad.

Possibly, but as I have pointed out, Obama was not the first person to have is eligibility questioned.
Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned

Chester A. Arthur (1829–1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada.

Christopher Schürmann (born 1848 in New York) entered the Labor primaries during the 1896 Presidential election. His eligibility was questioned in a New York Tribune article, because he was born to alien parents of German nationality.

The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862–1948) was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, and published in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen.

* Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state.

George Romney (1907–1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney's grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus-sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.


* Lowell Weicker (born 1931), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.

John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone.

[stupendousman]

Dude...you are making this WAAAAAYY to simple for me. I almost think someone is setting me up here. If this where April 1st, I'd know I was being had.

Originally Posted by OAW 

First of all you didn't "cite" anything from the article in your OP. That is a lie. Plain and simple.

So you, YOURSELF are calling yourself a liar in regards to what you accuse me of. From this very page of rebuttals...

Originally Posted by OAW 

1. In your OP you cite Jerome Corsi and WND.com to try to claim that President Obama's "long form, hospital generated birth certificate" didn't exist.

Again, at the point I see you can't even keep your arguments straight on a single page of this thread and accuse YOURSELF of lying, I really can't be bothered to go rebutting the rest of the reply with facts I've already offered. At some point and time, you're going to need to pull up your "big boy pants" and learn to debate with your thinking cap on. At that time, I'll bother with a full post's worth of rebuttals. Until that time, keep practicing with someone else.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are false accusations of a coverup of a crime worse than hypothetical damages of a hypothetical coverup of a hypothetical crime?

Maybe.

However, I made it clear that I was accusing him of not being transparent in this matter, which was the truth. I only gave the possibility it was potentially part of a cover-up of a criminal matter as an explanation as to why he'd continue hiding the information in question. I gave other possibilities as well.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Dude...you are making this WAAAAAYY to simple for me. I almost think someone is setting me up here. If this where April 1st, I'd know I was being had.

So you, YOURSELF are calling yourself a liar in regards to what you accuse me of. From this very page of rebuttals...

Ok. Apparently, this is an issue of SEMANTICS but I won't use that as an excuse. Unlike yourself, I'm actually quite capable of acknowledging when I'm in error on a particular point. So I will say right here and now that I was wrong to say you were lying when you said you "cited" the WND.com article. Clearly I was being too specific with regard to the term in my last post … even when I myself have used the term more loosely earlier in the thread. Fine. I concede that particular point.

In order to get on the same page, instead of the term "quote" or "cite" let's go with the term "reference" shall we? With that in mind let's revisit what kicked this particular tangent off in the first place:

Originally Posted by Stupendousman

Originally Posted by OAW

You start out by quoting an article that claimed that the current governor of Hawaii can't find the "long form".

The part of the article I cited had NOTHING to do with that, so that's pretty much irrelevant. You're really reaching.

So I stand by the SUBSTANCE of this portion of my previous post. The entire article ... headline and text … was about the Hawaii governor's supposed inability to find the "long form". The second half of the text outlined Mr. Corsi's "theory" as to why this might be the case. This is the part that you "referenced" in your OP and have been co-signing throughout this entire thread! You can NOT sit here and claim that the Hawaiian statute that you have been harping on all this time "has nothing to do with" the governor supposedly not being able to find the "long form"! It was offered as an EXPLANATION for how President Obama could have a "short form" and still be foreign born. And if that were the case that would be the EXPLANATION for the governor not being able to find the "long form" … because those are "hospital generated" and a foreign born child wouldn't be delivered in a Hawaiian hospital. The latter part if the article that you "referenced" simply makes no logical sense outside the context of the former. If the "long form" exists, and hence the governor could find it, then the entire second half of the article is a moot point.

Originally Posted by Stupendousman

Again, at the point I see you can't even keep your arguments straight on a single page of this thread and accuse YOURSELF of lying, I really can't be bothered to go rebutting the rest of the reply with facts I've already offered. At some point and time, you're going to need to pull up your "big boy pants" and learn to debate with your thinking cap on. At that time, I'll bother with a full post's worth of rebuttals. Until that time, keep practicing with someone else.

Tell yourself whatever you got to tell yourself dude. We all know a cop out when we see it. You aren't addressing the rest of my previous post because there is no comeback! The best thing you could do now is simply concede the point that you are fundamentally in error about the Hawaiian statute. Alternatively, a good thing to do would be to just let the thread die and convince yourself that you really told me with your "big boy pants" remark. The absolute worst thing you could do would be to persist in your foolishness and try to argue the point about this statute.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Maybe.

However, I made it clear that I was accusing him of not being transparent in this matter, which was the truth.

You're right. He also hasn't been transparent in showing us his marriage certificate. What could he be hiding there?!?!?

I only gave the possibility it was potentially part of a cover-up of a criminal matter as an explanation as to why he'd continue hiding the information in question. I gave other possibilities as well.

The only possibilities you were willing to consider were those the spoke to some sort of conspiracy. All of which turned out to be nothing more than tinfoil hat speculation. Even speculating that he's hiding something because of the amount of time he took to appease the demands of the conspiracy theorists smacks of desperation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're right. He also hasn't been transparent in showing us his marriage certificate. What could he be hiding there?!?!?

Has any of the members of his family questioned if he were actually married? Is there ANY reason to believe that he might not really be married - even the slightest? I know his dad was a polygamist, but that doesn't mean he was.

The only possibilities you were willing to consider were those the spoke to some sort of conspiracy.

Not necessarily a conspiracy. Just trying to hide something about yourself that you don't want known isn't necessarily a "conspiracy."

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ok. Apparently, this is an issue of SEMANTICS but I won't use that as an excuse. Unlike yourself, I'm actually quite capable of acknowledging when I'm in error on a particular point.

I can too. I made it clear that any suspicion I may have had about him hiding something that might directly be uncovered by the release of his birth certificate was not correct. I conceded my satisfaction in the matter despite my initial suspicion.

However, "semantics" really do not cover the vast number of times and circumstances where you either got something wrong, attacked a strawman in rebuttal to me, or engaged in circular arguments. Let's - you and me - agree to disagree. I'd be happy to debate others.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I made it clear that any suspicion I may have had about him hiding something that might directly be uncovered by the release of his birth certificate was not correct. I conceded my satisfaction in the matter despite my initial suspicion.

And, yet, you're still trying desperately to cling to your suspicions, transferring them from the *lack* of release of the document to *how long* it took before Obama gave in and released the document.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, yet, you're still trying desperately to cling to your suspicions...

As long as someone continues to act suspicious (refusing to allow any reasonable vetting of their background from anything other than materials they can not stop the distribution of - remember, they did this same thing to Bush), they will be regarded suspiciously. Just because one of the possible rationales behind the suspicious behavior has been cleared, doesn't mean that the suspicious behavior should just be ignored.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As long as someone continues to act suspicious (refusing to allow any reasonable vetting of their background from anything other than materials they can not stop the distribution of - remember, they did this same thing to Bush), they will be regarded suspiciously. Just because one of the possible rationales behind the suspicious behavior has been cleared, doesn't mean that the suspicious behavior should just be ignored.

Exactly. So, you haven't been satisfied at all, then. You've simply given up on one manufactured avenue of attack since it's no longer viable.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Just because one of the possible rationales behind the suspicious behavior has been cleared, doesn't mean that the suspicious behavior should just be ignored.

Jesus H .....
The right is going to use the same tactics used against Clinton.
Continual investigation until something sticks, no pun intended.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Exactly. So, you haven't been satisfied at all, then.

Which part of my stating that I'm satisfied that Obama is a legal citizen of the United States didn't you understand?

You've simply given up on one manufactured avenue of attack since it's no longer viable.

My position on the issues revolving around Obama's refusal to allow access to any information not readily available to the public, for vetting purposes, has remained pretty consistent. Sorry if consistency on my part is causing you frustration.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Jesus H .....
The right is going to use the same tactics used against Clinton.

You mean the guy that was doing most all the stuff he was accused of, and got away with it - even including federal perjury?

Continual investigation until something sticks, no pun intended.

Welcome to the Presidency. Not just Bill Clinton and Obama. They all get this sort of examination. It's part of the job, really.

[Wiskedjak]

57% of Americans are unsure if Donald Trump was born in the US? I wonder what he could be hiding?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ident-poll.htm

[lpkmckenna]

So we all now know why Obama decided to release his "long form" now: to make a mockery of Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner. The timing was just too good to pass up.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So we all now know why Obama decided to release his "long form" now: to make a mockery of Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner. The timing was just too good to pass up.

Quite the kneeslapper! Obama's using up all his good ammo against someone who will never be an actual political opponent of his. It's like sending in nukes to thwart mosquitoes. Quite the brain that one has!

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And if Obama was white, the debate about him being American would never have even started. Sad.

No, I disagree. His radical ideas and the lack of hard evidence from his past made him the target.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

57% of Americans are unsure if Donald Trump was born in the US? I wonder what he could be hiding?
Poll: What kind of president would Donald Trump make? - USATODAY.com

Wow, that's a load of morons.

is that the same group that voted for Obama ?

-t

[turtle777]

Ok, guys, can someone explain me how typewriters in the 1960s were ablemto do kerning ?

They really used a magic typewriter on Obama's birth certificate:



Tickerguy Flips A-A [A-A-K-x-x Board] (Birth Certificate) in [Market-Ticker]

Guys, this whole thing stink.

-t