Did not see if anyone posted this. Interesting article:

Obama Birth Certificate!

Starting to look like Rathergate.


My newly released report examines the metadata and object code of Obama's long-form birth certificate PDF file and explains how this information corroborates the claim that Obama's PDF file never originated as a paper document, but rather was born in cyberspace or was -- to put it another way -- digitally manufactured. The only time Obama's long-form birth certificate image exists as a paper document is when a computer user selects Print from the File menu. Obama's PDF file, like everything else from this administration, is a composite, a lie, an illusion -- even down to the deceptive colors presented in the file.

Read more: Articles: New Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Proof in the Layers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/new_obama_birth_certificate_forgery_proof_in_the_layers.html#ixzz210Tfpbxa)

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Obama_LFBC_Report_MaraZebest_2012-07-04.pdf

Wirelessly posted

Did not see if anyone posted this. Interesting article:

Obama Birth Certificate!

Starting to look like Rathergate.


My newly released report examines the metadata and object code of Obama's long-form birth certificate PDF file and explains how this information corroborates the claim that Obama's PDF file never originated as a paper document, but rather was born in cyberspace or was -- to put it another way -- digitally manufactured. The only time Obama's long-form birth certificate image exists as a paper document is when a computer user selects Print from the File menu. Obama's PDF file, like everything else from this administration, is a composite, a lie, an illusion -- even down to the deceptive colors presented in the file.

Read more: Articles: New Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Proof in the Layers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/new_obama_birth_certificate_forgery_proof_in_the_layers.html#ixzz210Tfpbxa)

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Obama_LFBC_Report_MaraZebest_2012-07-04.pdf

Nice regurgitation of the same old BS. Completely laughable and long ago debunked, but by all means stay the course. :yay:

For those that lack reading comprehension.

Arpaio: Obama birth certificate is fake - FOX 10 News - Phoenix, AZ | KSAZ-TV (http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19042196/arpaio-zullo-to-give)

Nice regurgitation of the same old BS. Completely laughable and long ago debunked, but by all means stay the course. :yay:


Are you talking about Bain or the birth certificate thing?














Bazinga.

Wisch also said that "not only are Hawaii's vital records some of the best managed, but they also have some of the strongest restrictions on access to prevent identity theft and fraud.

Seems to me that the certificate would have been presented when it was first asked for then, I mean, if they are some of the best managed and all.
Only took me about an hour (plus travel time) to get my from DC when I needed it about 10 years ago.

However, the government and the democrats have a great interest in keeping the lie going, if it is discovered that they knew about this, those involved would be sharing a cell right next to obama.

The liberal voters have an interest it in too, all of the freebies that obama has given away would have to be taken back.

Nice regurgitation of the same old BS. Completely laughable and long ago debunked, but by all means stay the course. :yay:
Sorry that you just can't see the truth, apparently. Bolded below, just for you. :howdy:

Seems to me that the certificate would have been presented when it was first asked for then... However, the government and the democrats have a great interest in keeping the lie going, if it is discovered that they knew about this, those involved would be sharing a cell right next to obama. The liberal voters have an interest it in too, all of the freebies that obama has given away would have to be taken back.
I'll bet that most (real) Americans have their (real) birth certificate somewhere in their homes. I STILL say that he changed or covered up something when he went to Hawaii after his "affirmation"...

Sorry that you just can't see the truth, apparently. Bolded below, just for you. :howdy:

I'll bet that most (real) Americans have their (real) birth certificate somewhere in their homes. I STILL say that he changed or covered up something when he went to Hawaii after his "affirmation"...

of course things were changed and covered up, why else would it take 3 years and countless attempts at getting one that looked real enough to pass.

Wirelessly posted

Nice regurgitation of the same old BS. Completely laughable and long ago debunked, but by all means stay the course. :yay:


Are you talking about Bain or the birth certificate thing?














Bazinga.

Both, idiots on both sides get fixated on the propaganda their side spews.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Nice regurgitation of the same old BS. Completely laughable and long ago debunked, but by all means stay the course. :yay:

It is not the same old BS. It puts in to the spot light that the presented BC that was altered. Why was it necessary for them to alter it?

You mean that "layer" theory that was debunked months ago? Like I said, just regurgitation of the same old tired BS.

For those that lack reading comprehension.

Arpaio: Obama birth certificate is fake - FOX 10 News - Phoenix, AZ | KSAZ-TV (http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19042196/arpaio-zullo-to-give)

Good ole' attention whore Arpaio.....:killingme He has been busy lately whoring! I think he wants to wrestle George Lopez!




Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio isn't laughing at George Lopez's new one-man show on HBO in which the comedian blasts the Maricopa County lawman for his position on immigration and his "birther" stance.

In fact, Arpaio is daring the comedian, via the media, to stop hiding behind the mike and "meet me face to face."

The controversial sheriff said he and his wife were flipping through the channels Saturday night when they paused to linger on Lopez's show, "George: It's Not Me, It's You." Arpaio said he was shocked at the potty-mouthed language coming from the comedian and switched to another channel without realizing the diatribe was aimed at him.

Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio dares George Lopez: Say it to my face - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sheriff-joe-arpaio-george-lopez-20120717,0,3846778.story)

:crazy:

So much for talking about the issues.

Good ole' attention whore Arpaio.....:killingme He has been busy lately whoring! I think he wants to wrestle George Lopez!




Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio isn't laughing at George Lopez's new one-man show on HBO in which the comedian blasts the Maricopa County lawman for his position on immigration and his "birther" stance.

In fact, Arpaio is daring the comedian, via the media, to stop hiding behind the mike and "meet me face to face."

The controversial sheriff said he and his wife were flipping through the channels Saturday night when they paused to linger on Lopez's show, "George: It's Not Me, It's You." Arpaio said he was shocked at the potty-mouthed language coming from the comedian and switched to another channel without realizing the diatribe was aimed at him.

Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio dares George Lopez: Say it to my face - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sheriff-joe-arpaio-george-lopez-20120717,0,3846778.story)

He'll ask to see Lopez's papers.

How about Romney releases more TAX info that the Dems keep asking for, and all Obama has to do is simply release his real birth certificate. Simple, to the point and if it is real it will shut up the birthers.

:crazy:

So much for talking about the issues.

Would you agree there is just as much speculation around the Bain/Romney thing as there is around the Obama/BC thing? When you consider there are folks on boths sides of this that believe the accusations are true. If there is any truth to either then consider:

Being wealthy and running a corporation that may have laid people off and even outsourced isn't a disqualifier.

Not being a natural-born citizen is.

....you have got to be kidding,ok, where is Alan Funt???:smack:

....you have got to be kidding,ok, where is Alan Funt???:smack:

Kidding about as much as claiming Romney is a felon.

Now you know what stupid looks like.

Or do you?

Wirelessly posted

:crazy:

So much for talking about the issues.

Would you agree there is just as much speculation around the Bain/Romney thing as there is around the Obama/BC thing? When you consider there are folks on boths sides of this that believe the accusations are true. If there is any truth to either then consider:

Being wealthy and running a corporation that may have laid people off and even outsourced isn't a disqualifier.

Not being a natural-born citizen is.

And you would agree that Obama has proven that he is a natural born citizen, correct?

Wirelessly posted

How about Romney releases more TAX info that the Dems keep asking for, and all Obama has to do is simply release his real birth certificate. Simple, to the point and if it is real it will shut up the birthers.

Obama did that in 2008 and then went the extra mile to get and release the long form. It didn't shut up the birthers.

Wirelessly posted



And you would agree that Obama has proven that he is a natural born citizen, correct?

I don't agree that Obama has proven it, but considering other factors reported he is likely. What is cause for concern is why things are not being provided or shared when for most people they are easily available. Additionally, why are they being doctored?

Wirelessly posted



Obama did that in 2008 and then went the extra mile to get and release the long form. It didn't shut up the birthers.

Obama did not go any extra mile.

Obama did not go any extra mile.

Of course he did.

He's gone to great length and expense to hide his past

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



And you would agree that Obama has proven that he is a natural born citizen, correct?

I don't agree that Obama has proven it, but considering other factors reported he is likely. What is cause for concern is why things are not being provided or shared when for most people they are easily available. Additionally, why are they being doctored?

The BC was not doctored.

Wirelessly posted



The BC was not doctored.



So, Joe and his posse are what, just making #### up? Can we all agree that O has not dealt with this, and other, issues in a fashion that engenders trust and inspires confidence?

The BC was not doctored.

(Just to begin - not a birther. It's hard to fake citizenship your entire life, especially when Hillary Clinton is on your case).

I don't think it was either. I do however think that the document being offered as his was created out of whole cloth. You seem to think the "layered" theory was debunked. I've read the "debunking" - they do not address any of the legitimate concerns. In fact, they dodge them poorly.

(For example, I don't know why a scanned document would create a layer for the state seal, as if it knew what it was, or worse, create a background layer that is complete and homogeneous, which is the pictorial equivalent of lifting a house out of a photograph and revealing a swingset in the backyard. A *scanned* document doesn't know what's behind something).

This latest observation - that the codes on the document must clearly refer to another document - because they indicate uncompleted fields which have been completed (possibly because the forger didn't know what they meant anymore than anyone else did) further suggests it was created.

Where his original is, or what the original in Hawaii says, I have no idea, but there's no logical reason to not come forth with it.

It's otherwise fairly hypocritical to insist on tax records from Romney when something as innocuous as a birth certificate took years to arrive. Every state transaction I conduct requires one from me; passports, petitions, and so forth. They don't care what I paid in taxes.

I don't have the answers for some of these stories surrounding Obama. I don't know why he has the Social Security number he has. I think the data regarding his Selective Service status is manufactured. And I can't imagine why a man whom his supporters and well, probably himself included, is supposed to be so brilliant has made access to his academic record off-limits.

But his staff has insisted that they think Romney needs to release more than two years' worth of tax returns. Moreover, they seem to think there's more truth regarding Bain Capital than what has been shown.

Maybe they should be called "Bainers".

The Hawaii Dept of Vital Records could print copies and mail them directly to major news outlets and that still wouldn't be good enough for the birther crowd.

(Just to begin - not a birther. It's hard to fake citizenship your entire life, especially when Hillary Clinton is on your case).

I don't think it was either. I do however think that the document being offered as his was created out of whole cloth. You seem to think the "layered" theory was debunked. I've read the "debunking" - they do not address any of the legitimate concerns. In fact, they dodge them poorly.

(For example, I don't know why a scanned document would create a layer for the state seal, as if it knew what it was, or worse, create a background layer that is complete and homogeneous, which is the pictorial equivalent of lifting a house out of a photograph and revealing a swingset in the backyard. A *scanned* document doesn't know what's behind something).

This latest observation - that the codes on the document must clearly refer to another document - because they indicate uncompleted fields which have been completed (possibly because the forger didn't know what they meant anymore than anyone else did) further suggests it was created.

Where his original is, or what the original in Hawaii says, I have no idea, but there's no logical reason to not come forth with it.

It's otherwise fairly hypocritical to insist on tax records from Romney when something as innocuous as a birth certificate took years to arrive. Every state transaction I conduct requires one from me; passports, petitions, and so forth. They don't care what I paid in taxes.

I don't have the answers for some of these stories surrounding Obama. I don't know why he has the Social Security number he has. I think the data regarding his Selective Service status is manufactured. And I can't imagine why a man whom his supporters and well, probably himself included, is supposed to be so brilliant has made access to his academic record off-limits.

But his staff has insisted that they think Romney needs to release more than two years' worth of tax returns. Moreover, they seem to think there's more truth regarding Bain Capital than what has been shown.

Maybe they should be called "Bainers".

you must have read different articles about layering becasue the ones i read explained that stuff.


But here is the thing, he released his BC in 2008, that wasn't a forgery and hawaii backed it up then. Now he has released his long form, Hawaii again says its authentic. In that repsect he produced his BC when asked it is only the birthers who haven't accpeted it. that really isn't his problem, haters gonna hate.


as for bain issue, i doubt there is anything to it. I do find it hypocritical for the obama camp to be calling for the release of these documents when he hasn't been forthcoming with some of his records. I also find it hypocritical that the folks on the right aren't demanding to see romney's tax returns. Many have been all up in arms over Obamas school records etc, but are giving romney a pass on this.

The Hawaii Dept of Vital Records could print copies and mail them directly to major news outlets and that still wouldn't be good enough for the birther crowd.

Not given what Arpaio is saying, the ease of fraud and so on as well as all the technical details he claims are wrong.

None of this, repeat, none of it is going on today had OUR president chose to be totally transparent and totally forthcoming from the get go. Fact is, he has fought this, yes? Fact us he has not handled this in any way that speaks to being forthcoming and having nothing to hide, yes?

We all know how lies and cover ups work and our president has acted like he has something to hide from the get go. Agreed?

The Hawaii Dept of Vital Records could print copies and mail them directly to major news outlets and that still wouldn't be good enough for the birther crowd.

Romney could produce every financial record about every transaction he's ever made, and that wouldn't be enough for the Bainer crowd. He gave them two years, and they want more, declaring that he hasn't released anything on TV.

Touche.

For some reason, if you're a rich guy from Massachusetts and you're a Democrat, you get a pass. If you're a rich guy from Massachusetts and you're a Republican, you're wicked, greedy, heartless and you're out of touch.

If you're a rich guy who was born into wealth but made your fortune by marrying well, that's ok. If you're a rich guy because you've actually made millions on your own, that's terrible.

The Hawaii Dept of Vital Records could print copies and mail them directly to major news outlets and that still wouldn't be good enough for the birther crowd.

You know that the be fact..how exactly?

You know that the be fact..how exactly?

the fact that obama released his BC in 2008 and his long for more recently and that BOTH have been verifed by Hawaii, yet the birthers are still going strong certainly points to the validity of awpitt's statement.

You know that the be fact..how exactly?

The HI state govt has confirmed it. That's how, exactly.

Not given what Arpaio is saying, the ease of fraud and so on as well as all the technical details he claims are wrong.

None of this, repeat, none of it is going on today had OUR president chose to be totally transparent and totally forthcoming from the get go. Fact is, he has fought this, yes? Fact us he has not handled this in any way that speaks to being forthcoming and having nothing to hide, yes?

We all know how lies and cover ups work and our president has acted like he has something to hide from the get go. Agreed?

I will agree that Obama could've handled it better; however, he met the requirements of each of the 50 states has had the other candidates. Regardless of how Obama handled it, the BC thing is an issue that has been settled. There are some who just won't come to that realization.

The HI state govt has confirmed it. That's how, exactly.

Well the Cold Case Posse says otherwise, so that's how we know otherwise.

He said. She said. Sorry, but we're supposed to just take the word of a single state official that, yeah, it's in there, and no, you can't look at it.

And it doesn't at all address whether the document in question is fake.

I will agree that Obama could've handled it better; however, he met the requirements of each of the 50 states has had the other candidates. Regardless of how Obama handled it, the BC thing is an issue that has been settled. There are some who just won't come to that realization.

I don't think it's ever been settled definitively - I think people just got tired of being stonewalled and gave up, which seems to be the main reason for stonewalling for three years.

What I don't get is why they took so long to make such a bad fake.

I will agree that Obama could've handled it better; however, he met the requirements of each of the 50 states has had the other candidates. Regardless of how Obama handled it, the BC thing is an issue that has been settled. There are some who just won't come to that realization.

So, Joe and the boys are just making #### up?

Well the Cold Case Posse says otherwise, so that's how we know otherwise.

He said. She said. Sorry, but we're supposed to just take the word of a single state official that, yeah, it's in there, and no, you can't look at it.

And it doesn't at all address whether the document in question is fake.

Well the "Cold Case Posse" thinks that Elvis is still alive. I'll stick with the word of the HI state govt.

Birthers are still hilarious. I love how they refuse to let go of an issue that's long been settled. Each time they come back for another round, they look even more pathetic and :dork: than the last time.

"Cold Case Posse". :roflmao:

I don't think it's ever been settled definitively - I think people just got tired of being stonewalled and gave up, which seems to be the main reason for stonewalling for three years.

What I don't get is why they took so long to make such a bad fake.

Like I said, there are some who just haven't come to reality.

Like I said, there are some who just haven't come to reality.

Indeed. After all this time, they still think it isn't a fake when it's been proven otherwise.

Look, I don't care if he was born here or not. The document is a fake. It might as well be signed by Mickey Mouse.

So, Joe and the boys are just making #### up?

Well, none of their theories have been proven. If they're so sure, why don't they sue the govt of HI for access to the BC records.

Indeed. After all this time, they still think it isn't a fake when it's been proven otherwise.

Look, I don't care if he was born here or not. The document is a fake. It might as well be signed by Mickey Mouse.

None of this has been proven.

Well, none of their theories have been proven. If they're so sure, why don't they sue the govt of HI for access to the BC records.

What constitutes proof to you? Data clearly showing it's been manufactured or a biased witness who just says so, without documentation?

This is like ignoring the fingerprints on the gun and sticking with the eyewitness.

And you would agree that Obama has proven that he is a natural born citizen, correct?

I have stated it from almost the beginning of this whole thing that I believe he was born in Hawaii. Nothing has convinced me differently. I don't think he has proven anything one way or the other. I think he has done some dodging and side-stepping. Devoid of proof to the contrary, we have to believe he was born in America.

I am far more concerned about what he is trying to do to this country. And folks from the left can't keep going around perpetuating lies about Romney/Bain while getting all :jameo: over things like the 'birther' movement. Fact is, both sides feel they have credibility while folks like me are sitting on the outside going :confused: Is this really what you people have? Calling Romney a felon? Accusing Obama of not being born in the US?

We have some very serious issues that so many Americans are suffering from; and these issues are the fault of a government that has over-stepped its boundaries. Obama is now president. He and his proxies are doing all they can to avoid talking about the real issues and Obama's record in trying to solving these issues. Obama refuses to step up to the plate and admit he has failed and articulate what his plans are for the future. His mouthpieces have admitted that this would be their campaign tactic: to relentlessly attack Romney. I look forward to the debates to see how all these juvenile issues play out. I want Romney to defend his record at Bain. I want Obama to defend his record as president. I want both to articulate, in simple terms, what they intend to do to address the failures of government, massive debt and deficits, and how they intend to apply government in solving these problems.

What constitutes proof to you? Data clearly showing it's been manufactured or a biased witness who just says so, without documentation?

This is like ignoring the fingerprints on the gun and sticking with the eyewitness.

In this country, the burden of proof falls on the accuser. So far, that burden has not been met. If there was anyone who would've found something wrong with the BC, it would've been Hillary's 2008 campaign. They didn't. 50 state Secretaries of State certified Obama to be on the ballot. Get over it, already.

Well, none of their theories have been proven. If they're so sure, why don't they sue the govt of HI for access to the BC records.

They can't. Which is why they are trying to get congress to do their job; they can.

In this country, the burden of proof falls on the accuser. .

Tell that to TSA and DHS and that sheriff that murdered that guy in his own home the other day in a case of mistaken identity meets police state.

We are a people that care about one and only one thing; security above all else.

In this country, the burden of proof falls on the accuser.

And again, what constitutes proof?

One of the reasons I prefer scientific method is there should, in any theory, be at least one observation that would prove it false. A good theory cannot be "unfalsifiable". If it is, it's not theory. It's dogma.

As Grissom used to say on CSI - "Follow the evidence. People lie. Evidence doesn't lie".

Evidence shows it's not only fake, but it should have been faked better.

In this country, the burden of proof falls on the accuser. So far, that burden has not been met. If there was anyone who would've found something wrong with the BC, it would've been Hillary's 2008 campaign. They didn't. 50 state Secretaries of State certified Obama to be on the ballot. Get over it, already.

In this nation, there is guilty as charge, not guilty as charged and innocent. That Hillary couldn't prove it, that she was suffering in the polls when Team Obama started calling Bill Clinton, of all people, a racist and backed off, at best, puts Obama and his word in the 'not guilty' column.

Our nation is a shattered place adrift in a cold melting pot of cultural identity above assimilation, economic suicide, the resurrection of the ghosts of Vietnam, the emergence of a police state doing all sorts of previously unimaginable things out of overt distrust of we, the people, and the ever growing leviathan of federal power and want for leadership. Bush lead us over a cliff. Obama has stepped on the gas. Mitt is a green eye shade guy, not a 'follow me!' type. Congressional leadership is Baynor, Pelosi, Reid and McConnell. The court just gave us a brilliant decision forcing us to deal with our own mess and now they, the one place that has shown responsibility, is being lambasted.

And there sits Mr. Hopey Changey, playing golf and playing politics 24/7 as the abject failure of his leadership, his exacerbation of existing problems he was elected to fix, still, 4 years later, still dicking around with an issue ONLY he can put to rest.

When your calling card is trust and transparency, you can NOT lead this way.

In this nation, there is guilty as charge, not guilty as charged and innocent. That Hillary couldn't prove it, that she was suffering in the polls when Team Obama started calling Bill Clinton, of all people, a racist and backed off, at best, puts Obama and his word in the 'not guilty' column.
And there sits Mr. Hopey Changey, playing golf and playing politics 24/7 as the abject failure of his leadership, his exacerbation of existing problems he was elected to fix, still, 4 years later, still dicking around with an issue ONLY he can put to rest.
When your calling card is trust and transparency, you can NOT lead this way.
If releasing his state issued BC and having the state that issued it verify it doesn't put this to rest what will?

And again, what constitutes proof?

One of the reasons I prefer scientific method is there should, in any theory, be at least one observation that would prove it false. A good theory cannot be "unfalsifiable". If it is, it's not theory. It's dogma.

As Grissom used to say on CSI - "Follow the evidence. People lie. Evidence doesn't lie".

Evidence shows it's not only fake, but it should have been faked better.


or at least that is what you read on the internet :killingme

or at least that is what you read on the internet :killingme

What's your reason to believe it? Because you want it to be true?

What part of their analysis is incorrect - or do you believe it to be wrong, because you believe it is wrong without looking at it?

If releasing his state issued BC and having the state that issued it verify it doesn't put this to rest what will?

Good question. I started to write several responses but, the sum total of who he is, having not addressed this openly from the beginning, his college stuff, his style and manner, his leaping for the race card on the Gates thing and the Marton/Sharpton fiasco, Holder, Geithner, his mean spirited dealings from his Chicago days, throwing his pastor and grandmother and others under his political expediency bus, the general divisiveness he gins up from health care to taxes to his incessant whining and blaming of others, and well, most everything he wants, coupled with his policy choices and the results, I do not like him, do not trust him and am stuck with the same analysis I had nearly 4 years ago; he seems to be a good dad and he likes basketball.

I think he's been a poor leader and all I can do is hope that Mitt does a lot better.

What's your reason to believe it? Because you want it to be true?

What part of their analysis is incorrect - or do you believe it to be wrong, because you believe it is wrong without looking at it?

my reason to beleive it is that it was released in 2008 and VERIFIED BY THE RESPONSIBLE HAWAII OFFICAL. The long form was released and AGAIN VERIFIED BY THE RESPONSIBLE HAWAII OFFICAL.

I read an article that debunked the layer theory. combine that with the FACT THAT HAWAII SAYS HE WAS BORN THERE, and there really isn't a question in my mind.

If releasing his state issued BC and having the state that issued it verify it doesn't put this to rest what will?

You've just admitted Obama could have put this to rest if only he released his TRUE DC. This shows that he seems to be hiding something. That keeps my suspicions up.

my reason to beleive it is that it was released in 2008 and VERIFIED BY THE RESPONSIBLE HAWAII OFFICAL. The long form was released and AGAIN VERIFIED BY THE RESPONSIBLE HAWAII OFFICAL.

I read an article that debunked the layer theory. combine that with the FACT THAT HAWAII SAYS HE WAS BORN THERE, and there really isn't a question in my mind.

Is it possible that this ‘RESPONSIBLE HAWAII OFFICAL’ is an Obama sympathizer and will do and say anything to protect Obama? Devoid of Obama’s TRUE BC, don’t you think it’s fair to ask these questions?

Good question. I started to write several responses but, the sum total of who he is, having not addressed this openly from the beginning, his college stuff, his style and manner, his leaping for the race card on the Gates thing and the Marton/Sharpton fiasco, Holder, Geithner, his mean spirited dealings from his Chicago days, throwing his pastor and grandmother and others under his political expediency bus, the general divisiveness he gins up from health care to taxes to his incessant whining and blaming of others, and well, most everything he wants, coupled with his policy choices and the results, I do not like him, do not trust him and am stuck with the same analysis I had nearly 4 years ago; he seems to be a good dad and he likes basketball.

I think he's been a poor leader and all I can do is hope that Mitt does a lot better.

so you are saying nothing will put this to rest?

BTW, he did deal with this issue directly and openly, he issued his BC in 2008 when it came up. :shrug:

You've just admitted Obama could have put this to rest if only he released his TRUE DC. This shows that he seems to be hiding something. That keeps my suspicions up.

he did release his true BC, TWICE!!! thats my point, even still some aren't satisfied.

You know… when we have a president that is willing to fabricate things like Romney being a felon in order to win, can we trust that he would tell the truth about something as serious as not being born in the US?

he did release his true BC, TWICE!!! thats my point, even still some aren't satisfied.

Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I've seen is a 'Certification of Live Birth'. That is NOT the same thing as a birth certificate. Can you show me this actual BC? Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen the actual BC.

Birthers are still hilarious. I love how they refuse to let go of an issue that's long been settled. Each time they come back for another round, they look even more pathetic and :dork: than the last time.

"Cold Case Posse". :roflmao:

I know... sort of like those 'feloners'; you know... those people that believe Romney is a felon? :killingme I mean really, what people believe these days :killingme






BTW... Romney believes the birthers are wrong. Obama has yet to apologize for this abject lie about Romney :ohwell:

my reason to beleive it is that it was released in 2008 and VERIFIED BY THE RESPONSIBLE HAWAII OFFICAL. The long form was released and AGAIN VERIFIED BY THE RESPONSIBLE HAWAII OFFICAL.

I read an article that debunked the layer theory. combine that with the FACT THAT HAWAII SAYS HE WAS BORN THERE, and there really isn't a question in my mind.


Well I believe Eric Holder, because he said so.
George Bush was our President, and if he said so, it's right.

Need I go further? If the EVIDENCE says its a fake, you still trust the word of a single state official? You read an article debunking it, but you can't point to a single bit of the analysis that is false.

As much as you want to ridicule people for believing something because it was on the Internet, your response has been, I believe something I read on the Internet - and a state official said so.

I believe the evidence shows it is a fake. I don't care where he was born or what his reason is - I think the document is a fake. I don't care WHY he did it. Just that it is a fake.

so you are saying nothing will put this to rest?

BTW, he did deal with this issue directly and openly, he issued his BC in 2008 when it came up. :shrug:

Not for me. I don't trust him and I do trust that Joe Arpaio, a person I've known about for years now, wouldn't be doing this, in my view, absent solid evidence. And I also think Sam is right in pointing out that the evidence, cold hard facts, indicate problems.

But for me, I do not think well of Barack Obama and for the reasons listed.

:buddies:

Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I've seen is a 'Certification of Live Birth'. That is NOT the same thing as a birth certificate. Can you show me this actual BC? Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen the actual BC.

My youngest was born at Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu Hawaii... The only thing we got from the Hawaiian State Govt, was a "Certificate of Live Birth"...

Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I've seen is a 'Certification of Live Birth'. That is NOT the same thing as a birth certificate. Can you show me this actual BC? Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen the actual BC.


seriously, the COLB argument again?
Both the COLB and the long form have been released and verified

Well I believe Eric Holder, because he said so.
George Bush was our President, and if he said so, it's right.

Need I go further? If the EVIDENCE says its a fake, you still trust the word of a single state official? You read an article debunking it, but you can't point to a single bit of the analysis that is false.

there has been plenty to debunk this BS
PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate - By Nathan Goulding - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding)

Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate Is Legit | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/)

Graphics pros challenge Obama birth certificate (http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292673/)


As much as you want to ridicule people for believing something because it was on the Internet, your response has been, I believe something I read on the Internet - and a state official said so.

Make that 3 officals.....
Hawaii Department of Health spokeswoman Janet Okubo explained to WND in an email that the certified copy issued to Obama is a photocopy on safety paper “of the original Certificate of Live Birth.”

She confirmed the state’s previous statement that Department of Health Director Linda Fuddy “personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies.”

Okubo added that Alvin Onaka, the state registrar, whose signature is on the Obama document, “certified the copies.”





I believe the evidence shows it is a fake. I don't care where he was born or what his reason is - I think the document is a fake. I don't care WHY he did it. Just that it is a fake.

so your "evidence" is easily explained away AND the responsibile officals in hawaii certify that the Long Form IS A COPY OF WHAT THEY HAVE ON FILE

there has been plenty to debunk this BS
PDF Layers in Obama’s Birth Certificate - By Nathan Goulding - The Corner - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding)

Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate Is Legit | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/)

Graphics pros challenge Obama birth certificate (http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/292673/)


Make that 3 officals.....





so your "evidence" is easily explained away AND the responsibile officals in hawaii certify that the Long Form IS A COPY OF WHAT THEY HAVE ON FILE

This is why I think Mitt has nothing to lose releasing all his tax returns and much to gain; It won't matter one way or another with the political wings and it will look good to the moderates.

My youngest was born at Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu Hawaii... The only thing we got from the Hawaiian State Govt, was a "Certificate of Live Birth"...

We're dealing with terminology here. As I understand it a “Certificate of Live Birth” is a Birth Certificate. A “Certification of Live Birth” (which is what was revealed by Obama) is only representation that someone was born in Hawaii. In other words, as I understand it, anyone can go to Hawaii and request a “Certification of Live Birth” without much of any proof that they were actually born in Hawaii.

What is the difference between a certification of live birth and a birth certificate in the state of Hawaii (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_certification_of_live_birth_and_a_birth_certificate_in_the_state_of_Hawaii)


A "Certification of Live Birth" is a short-form birth certificate. The information included in the document may differ from state to state. A "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii will include the name and sex of the person, date of birth, hour of birth, island of birth, county of birth, mother's maiden name, mother's race, father's name, father's race, date accepted by registrar, a certificate number and seal. The seal may be different depending on the year it was printed.

A "Certificate of Live Birth" is the long-form birth certificate and contains more detailed information, including signatures of doctor(s), witnesses, vital statistics (length and weight), etc.

we're dealing with terminology here. As i understand it a “certificate of live birth” is a birth certificate. A “certification of live birth” (which is what was revealed by obama) is only representation that someone was born in hawaii. In other words, as i understand it, anyone can go to hawaii and request a “certification of live birth” without much of any proof that they were actually born in hawaii.

both the colb and the long form were verified by hawaii.

both the colb and the long form were verified by hawaii.

I know you've said this in the past, but I've yet to see it. Where is it? Claiming Hawaii verified it is like accepting that you believe Romney is a felon because someone said so.

You might want to read the report. It does address the layering issues and also brings in the color inconsistency to support why the layers are their. Something NOT addressed in your link posts. Having worked in this area in the past, the report has some creditability and I think makes a reasonable compelling case to at least ask the question. Sam Spade seems to be on the same page with this. I am interested to see where this goes even if there is a few extremist behind it.


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Obama_LFBC_Report_MaraZebest_2012-07-04.pdf

your position totally ignores the fact that the hawaii offical says that the document is valid
Hawaii Department of Health spokeswoman Janet Okubo explained to WND in an email that the certified copy issued to Obama is a photocopy on safety paper “of the original Certificate of Live Birth.”

She confirmed the state’s previous statement that Department of Health Director Linda Fuddy “personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies.”

Okubo added that Alvin Onaka, the state registrar, whose signature is on the Obama document, “certified the copies.”

your position totally ignores the fact that the hawaii offical says that the document is valid

That would never hold up in a court of law. And it certainly doesn't hold up in peoples' minds. They want to SEE it with their own eyes. Too much cronyism and corruption exists to trust someone that says so.

I know you've said this in the past, but I've yet to see it. Where is it? Claiming Hawaii verified it is like accepting that you believe Romney is a felon because someone said so.

Hawaii Again Declares Obama Birth Certificate Real | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/28/hawaii-declares-obama-birth-certificate-real/)
"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."



Read more: Hawaii Again Declares Obama Birth Certificate Real | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/28/hawaii-declares-obama-birth-certificate-real/#ixzz2156oB453)

I have referenced the hawaii officals statements about the long form several times already in this thread

That would never hold up in a court of law. And it certainly doesn't hold up in peoples' minds. They want to SEE it with their own eyes. Too much cronyism and corruption exists to trust someone that says so.

actually, that would hold up in a court of law. the state is certifiying that a state issued docuemnt is valid. thats about as good as you are going to get.

there has been plenty to debunk this BS

Gotta give you props for citing typically conservative outlets to prove your point. You tried.

On the other hand the cited articles all more or less deal with the same conern, which has been addressed in the more recent challenges while raising many new ones. And that's because the "debunking" articles are well over a year old.

Let me ask you - if Bush refused to release records, and the only people testifying on his behalf were a handful of state officials from Texas - while handwriting experts and document experts said otherwise - who would YOU believe?

I'm inclined to go with the evidence. Let's hear it out. Right now, folks like you keep shouting it down, because you want to ignore it. You read an article a year ago that said "layers are ok" and you made up your mind on the matter. That was never the point, and more has come up.

And honestly I think the argument regarding his Selective Service data is even more indicative of fraud, but since it's not going to lead to anything like jail, it's generally overlooked.

Gotta give you props for citing typically conservative outlets to prove your point. You tried.

On the other hand the cited articles all more or less deal with the same conern, which has been addressed in the more recent challenges while raising many new ones. And that's because the "debunking" articles are well over a year old.

Let me ask you - if Bush refused to release records, and the only people testifying on his behalf were a handful of state officials from Texas - while handwriting experts and document experts said otherwise - who would YOU believe?

I'm inclined to go with the evidence. Let's hear it out. Right now, folks like you keep shouting it down, because you want to ignore it. You read an article a year ago that said "layers are ok" and you made up your mind on the matter. That was never the point, and more has come up.

And honestly I think the argument regarding his Selective Service data is even more indicative of fraud, but since it's not going to lead to anything like jail, it's generally overlooked.

thats right, the theory you are buying into was debunked over a year ago by even conservative news outlets. there is really nothing new in this "report".

And still you ignore that the state is verifying a state document. Your bush parrelel doesn't work because Obama was not the Gov. of hawaii, Obama DID RELEASE his BC when asked, and Obama didn't really have any connection to hawaii at the time of the controversy.

Hawaii Again Declares Obama Birth Certificate Real | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/28/hawaii-declares-obama-birth-certificate-real/)


I have referenced the hawaii officals statements about the long form several times already in this thread

I see… so because Dr. Chiyome Fukino said so people are to believe it. It seems the OP of this thread refutes this. Devoid of seeing the actual Certificate of Live Birth, you refuse to see how some folks are still in doubt. Like I said, because some ‘expert’ said so would not hold up in a court of law.

Look, I don’t really have a ball in this dodge ball game. I’m simply pointing out why there is doubt. No one has seen this “Birth Certificate”. Going on what someone says without actually producing the document for everyone to see raises more doubt.

I see… so because Dr. Chiyome Fukino said so people are to believe it. It seems the OP of this thread refutes this. Devoid of seeing the actual Certificate of Live Birth, you refuse to see how some folks are still in doubt. Like I said, because some ‘expert’ said so would not hold up in a court of law.

Look, I don’t really have a ball in this dodge ball game. I’m simply pointing out why there is doubt. No one has seen this “Birth Certificate”. Going on what someone says without actually producing the document for everyone to see raises more doubt.

I dont know where you have been, but everyone who wanted to has seen Obama's BC, both the short and long form. Hawaii certified it. That is all that would be needed to hold up in court. Fukino isn't "some expert" she is the responsibile offical.

Yes considering how many techie weenies are bleeding hearts, we would have thought they could have come up with a better fake.

No one has proven it's a fake.

I dont know where you have been, but everyone who wanted to has seen Obama's BC, both the short and long form. Hawaii certified it. That is all that would be needed to hold up in court. Fukino isn't "some expert" she is the responsibile offical.

I've wanted to see the long form and haven't. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to produce it?

Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I've seen is a 'Certification of Live Birth'. That is NOT the same thing as a birth certificate. Can you show me this actual BC? Not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen the actual BC.

This is funny.

This is funny.

Glad to humor you :ohwell:

actually, that would hold up in a court of law. the state is certifiying that a state issued docuemnt is valid. thats about as good as you are going to get.

Actually, I don't think it will. I think the prosecution would demand the actual evidence. I think it's fair to ask for it.

Well I believe Eric Holder, because he said so.
George Bush was our President, and if he said so, it's right.

Need I go further? If the EVIDENCE says its a fake, you still trust the word of a single state official? You read an article debunking it, but you can't point to a single bit of the analysis that is false.

As much as you want to ridicule people for believing something because it was on the Internet, your response has been, I believe something I read on the Internet - and a state official said so.

I believe the evidence shows it is a fake. I don't care where he was born or what his reason is - I think the document is a fake. I don't care WHY he did it. Just that it is a fake.

Evidence? There is no evidence. They're claimng the bc, released by Obama, is a fake. How do we know they're actually using the bc that was released by Obama? They're basing their claims on the sample that they're presenting. How do we know that they didn't produce that bc themselves so it would look the way they wanted it to look so it would support their silly claims.

4 more years of this should be fun....:killingme

Evidence? There is no evidence. They're claimng the bc, released by Obama, is a fake. How do we know they're actually using the bc that was released by Obama? They're basing their claims on the sample that they're presenting. How do we know that they didn't produce that bc themselves so it would look the way they wanted it to look so it would support their silly claims.

Because you can just get it from the White House yourself and check it out.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

Geez.

Because you can just get it from the White House yourself and check it out.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

Geez.

Yes but how do we know that the used the one from the White House? They could've doctored up something else and claimed it came from the White House. Their own fake version of the bc.

Wirelessly posted

I dont know where you have been, but everyone who wanted to has seen Obama's BC, both the short and long form. Hawaii certified it. That is all that would be needed to hold up in court. Fukino isn't "some expert" she is the responsibile offical.

I've wanted to see the long form and haven't. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to produce it?

It's on the whitehouse.gov site and awpitt linked to it for you. When did you fall into such denial? The thing has been out and in the open for over a year.

Wirelessly posted

Because you can just get it from the White House yourself and check it out.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

Geez.

Yes but how do we know that the used the one from the White House? They could've doctored up something else and claimed it came from the White House. Their own fake version of the bc.

That is actually a really good question.

Wirelessly posted



That is actually a really good question.

Fine - get the copy, and check out what they found. How hard can that be?

It's on the whitehouse.gov site and awpitt linked to it for you. When did you fall into such denial? The thing has been out and in the open for over a year.

Why is it denial to ask legitimate questions? The OP article stipulates that, of the folks demanding to actually see this BC, no one has actually held the document in their hands; it's only been produced in 'cyber space'.

Again, I am not taking sides. Nothing has been produced by the 'birthers' to convince me they are right. The lack of actual physical evidence by Obama has caused me to have doubts there. This is not denial simply because I refuse to see things your way; I happen to believe it's an honest examination of the 'facts' as they've been produced.

Wirelessly posted

It's on the whitehouse.gov site and awpitt linked to it for you. When did you fall into such denial? The thing has been out and in the open for over a year.

Why is it denial to ask legitimate questions? The OP article stipulates that, of the folks demanding to actually see this BC, no one has actually held the document in their hands; it's only been produced in 'cyber space'.

Again, I am not taking sides. Nothing has been produced by the 'birthers' to convince me they are right. The lack of actual physical evidence by Obama has caused me to have doubts there. This is not denial simply because I refuse to see things your way; I happen to believe it's an honest examination of the 'facts' as they've been produced.

What does it matter that a few birthers haven't held a hard copy of the document? The state of Hawaii has verified it. There is nothing beyond that you would be able to get from holding the document. It doesn't matter what it looks or feels like, hawaii says it is a true copy of their record

Wirelessly posted



What does it matter that a few birthers haven't held a hard copy of the document? The state of Hawaii has verified it. There is nothing beyond that you would be able to get from holding the document. It doesn't matter what it looks or feels like, hawaii says it is a true copy of their record

Yeah, well, Sheriff Joe is an Arizona state official and he says it ain't.

Nyahh. Nanny-nanny boo-boo.

Sorry. If evidence says it's fake, I don't care if a person says it ain't. If it weren't fake, the evidence wouldn't lie.

Wirelessly posted



What does it matter that a few birthers haven't held a hard copy of the document? The state of Hawaii has verified it. There is nothing beyond that you would be able to get from holding the document. It doesn't matter what it looks or feels like, hawaii says it is a true copy of their record

Yeah, well, Sheriff Joe is an Arizona state official and he says it ain't.

Nyahh. Nanny-nanny boo-boo.

Sorry. If evidence says it's fake, I don't care if a person says it ain't. If it weren't fake, the evidence wouldn't lie.

The problem is that the evidence DOES NOT say it is fake.

Your nanny nanny comment is about on par with birthers. You can't defeat the argument that Hawaiian officials have verified the BC and this is what you resort to.

What does it matter that a few birthers haven't held a hard copy of the document? The state of Hawaii has verified it. There is nothing beyond that you would be able to get from holding the document. It doesn't matter what it looks or feels like, hawaii says it is a true copy of their record

Obama has given us a plethora of reasons to not trust him. He has a pretty long track record of connections to very shady AND criminal people. He has exercised his 'authority' that are contrary to existing law. He has condoned the activities of a lawless group of people (OWS). He worked directly for a criminal organization (ACORN). Despite his claim to be the most transparent administration in history, he has shown he is the most secretive and dishonest administration. He has connections to convicted felons, and people that are willing to destroy anyone in their path to achieve their goals.

He has given us very little reason to trust anything he says or does. When someone lies often enough, it makes it impossible to trust anything that comes from them. So, it matters.

And let me state another thing… I don’t want it to be true. The constitutional, political, and social crisis this would put us in if it turns out that Obama wasn’t a natural born American could destroy so many things so many people have worked so hard for:


How could something like this have gotten past our system and the American people?

Since Obama has decided to make everything about race, what will this do for that, being the first black president and the first president removed because of a massive lie and crime committed against the American people?

If this does turn out to be true, and Biden becomes president, was he complicit in this deception? Who else is involved in the cover-up?

The general upheaval this will cause for the American people and how this will immensely cause more distrust in the electoral system and government.


No one should want such a thing. But that doesn’t cause me to put blinders on and avoid the truth out of fear of the consequences.

Wirelessly posted

What has the great state of Hawaii done to earn your distrust?

That's is the part that is missing here. Show me the conspiracy, or at least the connection. There just isn't one. Hawaii has no reason to be lying and they have already vouched for The documents

Just saying...

Wirelessly posted



The problem is that the evidence DOES NOT say it is fake.

Your nanny nanny comment is about on par with birthers. You can't defeat the argument that Hawaiian officials have verified the BC and this is what you resort to.

You're taking this too seriously. Even an attempt at levity gets you all worked up, although at one point, I incorrectly guessed you were trying to be funny.

You know, it works on both sides.

If a Republican is under scrutiny, you don't believe them either. If the Supreme Court says Bush won, well, it's crooked. If Bush said British intelligence blah-blah Niger etc. he lied. Dan Rather blah-blah faked forgery.

On it goes. You don't believe them, we don't believe him. Just because a government official declares something, I don't necessarily follow it, especially if all I have to work with is their word.

The Bain situation? Numerous outlets claim there's no story there. Hasn't stopped speculation. Romney won't release more than two year's tax records and has accounts abroad. Speculation has taken the form of fact in the eyes of lefties. And he isn't producing them because he doesn't want to give them something to work with, since none of them are going to vote for him anyway.

I'm saying that whatever people say, the evidence to me is convincing. Awpitt was actually suggesting the investigators may have faked their copy. Well maybe the state officials faked theirs - it's the same argument. Frankly, I thought he was trying to be funny, because it's ridiculous to defend the testimony of a state official who only gives you his word, where a state law enforcement official gives evidence. (It sounded like the Marion Barry juror who said the crack cocaine was fake).

More and more evidence is coming in showing it was not only easy to fake a BC, as many as 40% of births back then WERE written as though they born in a hospital when in fact, they were born at home.

To my mind, the burden of proof has always rested with Obama. If*I* have to furnish proof of who I am, everyone else does.

Well gees, isn't that the case for this thread. It is a fake. Read the link. I think it makes a good case on the colors encoded in the document. Working with document translations, I believe they make a good case. The WH version might be based on a good original, but the version on the WH site appears to be altered with more than the so called sharping or OCR or optimization.

Again, that is not a fact. There's no proof they used the copy from the White House. Even if they did use the copy from the White House, there's no proof they didn't alter it themselves to make it support their predetermined outcomes.

You can say, "It is a fake" all you want. That's not going to make it a fact.

Yeah, well, Sheriff Joe is an Arizona state official and he says it ain't.

Nyahh. Nanny-nanny boo-boo.

Sorry. If evidence says it's fake, I don't care if a person says it ain't. If it weren't fake, the evidence wouldn't lie.

Doesn't matter what Sheriff Joe says. He's not an authority on Hawaii's vital records system.

he did release his true BC, TWICE!!! thats my point, even still some aren't satisfied.

Who were they released to?
The obviously fake document released in 2008 was verified by FactCheck.org but they're funded by Soros so they can hardly be considered impartial.

Who examined paper copy of the long form or was it only "released" as a digital image?

Every time I see this thread in the New Posts, all I can hear is Admiral Akbar in my head.

But instead of "It's a Trap!" he says, "It's a Fake!".




:/

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



The problem is that the evidence DOES NOT say it is fake.

Your nanny nanny comment is about on par with birthers. You can't defeat the argument that Hawaiian officials have verified the BC and this is what you resort to.

You're taking this too seriously. Even an attempt at levity gets you all worked up, although at one point, I incorrectly guessed you were trying to be funny.

You know, it works on both sides.

If a Republican is under scrutiny, you don't believe them either. If the Supreme Court says Bush won, well, it's crooked. If Bush said British intelligence blah-blah Niger etc. he lied. Dan Rather blah-blah faked forgery.

On it goes. You don't believe them, we don't believe him. Just because a government official declares something, I don't necessarily follow it, especially if all I have to work with is their word.

The Bain situation? Numerous outlets claim there's no story there. Hasn't stopped speculation. Romney won't release more than two year's tax records and has accounts abroad. Speculation has taken the form of fact in the eyes of lefties. And he isn't producing them because he doesn't want to give them something to work with, since none of them are going to vote for him anyway.

I'm saying that whatever people say, the evidence to me is convincing. Awpitt was actually suggesting the investigators may have faked their copy. Well maybe the state officials faked theirs - it's the same argument. Frankly, I thought he was trying to be funny, because it's ridiculous to defend the testimony of a state official who only gives you his word, where a state law enforcement official gives evidence. (It sounded like the Marion Barry juror who said the crack cocaine was fake).

More and more evidence is coming in showing it was not only easy to fake a BC, as many as 40% of births back then WERE written as though they born in a hospital when in fact, they were born at home.

To my mind, the burden of proof has always rested with Obama. If*I* have to furnish proof of who I am, everyone else does.

For the record I am a republican. I, on the right, think you birthers are stupid. It is retarded to think that a state issued BC that has been verified by stats officials does not count as proof of where Obama was born. NO ONE WOULD EVER BE REQUIRED TO OFFER MORE.

Despite what crazy joe, you and a very few birthers believe, Obama has presented his official BC, in two forms now. There is no evidence to the contrary, just crazy speculation.

For the record I am a republican. I, on the right


OW!


Coke Zero out the nose-holes hurts!

Wirelessly posted

For the record I am a republican. I, on the right


OW!


Coke Zero out the nose-holes hurts!

What kind of commie pinko drinks something with nothing in it?

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



For the record I am a republican. I, on the right, think you birthers are stupid. It is retarded to think that a state issued BC that has been verified by stats officials does not count as proof of where Obama was born. NO ONE WOULD EVER BE REQUIRED TO OFFER MORE.

Despite what crazy joe, you and a very few birthers believe, Obama has presented his official BC, in two forms now. There is no evidence to the contrary, just crazy speculation.

Well geez BTOG, I am a conservative democrat and I think it is a fake. Obviously there is proof that the WH presented version has been altered.

Mention stupid, retarded, crazy birther and look who shows up. :bigwhoop:

For the record I am a republican. I, on the right, think you birthers are stupid. It is retarded to think that a state issued BC that has been verified by stats officials does not count as proof of where Obama was born. There is no evidence to the contrary, just crazy speculation.
Sounds like you're still drinking the Kool Aid though. Get better sources for your news and you'd see how fake it really is...:howdy:

Sounds like you're still drinking the Kool Aid though. Get better sources for your news and you'd see how fake it really is...:howdy:


yeah ,try AM radio ...it's real good!:killingme:killingme:killingme

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Mention stupid, retarded, crazy birther and look who shows up. :bigwhoop:
BTOG the Anti Birther! Can't accept the fact that maybe there could be questions about what is coming out of the WH. You narrow-mindedness can only be from someone that is a bore. Just think outside the box for once. This is not about birther, it is about a continue spin to control the message, which they have done poorly in this case and have been caught.

Your fixation is laughable. This isn't coming out of the whitehouse, it's coming out if the state of Hawaii. The layer theory was debunked over a year ago and this new spin on it doesn't change anything. It's just more from crazy joe and his birther posse. No one has even tried to explain why Hawaii would be complicate in this conspiracy. It's all just a bunch if election year BS.

Why hasn't any reputable rupublican representative grabed ahold of this if there is any validity to the claims?

Wirelessly posted





Why hasn't any reputable rupublican representative grabed ahold of this if there is any validity to the claims?

...there isn't.:coffee:

, Obama has presented his official BC, in two forms now.

who examined the paper originals?

yeah ,try AM radio ...it's real good!:killingme:killingme:killingme
Thus you will remain an ignorant liberal for the rest of your life...

Why hasn't any reputable rupublican representative grabed ahold of this if there is any validity to the claims?
Because many of them are rinos?

Why hasn't any reputable rupublican representative grabed ahold of this if there is any validity to the claims?

Reputable. In context of your question, what would this mean? Political opportunist?

If I am a 'reputable' Republican representative, then, I know there are some legitimate concerns about this thing AND that Obama has handled it to look like he is hiding something. If I don't know what shell the coin is under, then, I do not risk picking the wrong one. I don't want to declare he is lying only to be clearly proven otherwise. I don't want to defend him...only to be proven otherwise. This is Obama's game. He is the one choosing to slow play, obfuscate, allow doubt, and so forth. Clearly. So, I would let HIM play the game and just sit and watch that one. There would be NO gain for me to declare one way or the other as long as the president chooses to let this thing hang.

You can argue that he has not, that he has been totally forthcoming and transparent but, it seems pretty obvious that a man who sees fit to comment on things he knows nothing about, Trayvon, Gates, the economy, has been awfully reserved about something he knows ALL about.

:buddies:

Well geez BTOG, I am a conservative democrat and I think it is a fake. Obviously there is proof that the WH presented version has been altered.

If it was altered, as you claim, it was altered after it was downloaded from the White House Website.

Wirelessly posted



Why hasn't any reputable rupublican representative grabed ahold of this if there is any validity to the claims?

Reputable. In context of your question, what would this mean? Political opportunist?

If I am a 'reputable' Republican representative, then, I know there are some legitimate concerns about this thing AND that Obama has handled it to look like he is hiding something. If I don't know what shell the coin is under, then, I do not risk picking the wrong one. I don't want to declare he is lying only to be clearly proven otherwise. I don't want to defend him...only to be proven otherwise. This is Obama's game. He is the one choosing to slow play, obfuscate, allow doubt, and so forth. Clearly. So, I would let HIM play the game and just sit and watch that one. There would be NO gain for me to declare one way or the other as long as the president chooses to let this thing hang.

You can argue that he has not, that he has been totally forthcoming and transparent but, it seems pretty obvious that a man who sees fit to comment on things he knows nothing about, Trayvon, Gates, the economy, has been awfully reserved about something he knows ALL about.

:buddies:

Reputable as in congressman or something along those lines.

The obvious argument is that Obama released his BC back in 2008, it was real then but some didn't believe it. A year ago he released his long form it is real and some won't accept it. That seems pretty forthcoming, he can't control what the fringe thinks.

Wirelessly posted



Reputable as in congressman or something along those lines.

The obvious argument is that Obama released his BC back in 2008, it was real then but some didn't believe it. A year ago he released his long form it is real and some won't accept it. That seems pretty forthcoming, he can't control what the fringe thinks.

But, then, you've answered your own question; 'reputable' folks are not lining up to support the president because?

There are either no reputable Republicans

or

Reputable Republicans know there are legitimate questions.

yes?

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Reputable as in congressman or something along those lines.

The obvious argument is that Obama released his BC back in 2008, it was real then but some didn't believe it. A year ago he released his long form it is real and some won't accept it. That seems pretty forthcoming, he can't control what the fringe thinks.

But, then, you've answered your own question; 'reputable' folks are not lining up to support the president because?

There are either no reputable Republicans

or

Reputable Republicans know there are legitimate questions.

yes?

It's obvious why republicans aren't lining up to support Obama, they might want to get reelected.

The reasons they wouldn't stand up and question if they had questions aren't so obvious.
Using your formula I guess the options are
1) there are no principled republicans
Or
2) no republicans have any questions as to Obama's BC

Wirelessly posted



It's obvious why republicans aren't lining up to support Obama, they might want to get reelected.

The reasons they wouldn't stand up and question if they had questions aren't so obvious.
Using your formula I guess the options are
1) there are no principled republicans
Or
2) no republicans have any questions as to Obama's BC

And in saying this you do, of course, acknowledge that the President has handled this in a fashion that does nothing but nurture suspicion? Or, is it clear to you that a man that runs around the world apologizing for all sorts of stuff, taking responsibility for things we didn't even do, or didn't do wrong, who knows ALL about the cops in Cambridge, intuitively, who is ALL about open-ness and transparency, a new politics, has handled this one properly?

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



It's obvious why republicans aren't lining up to support Obama, they might want to get reelected.

The reasons they wouldn't stand up and question if they had questions aren't so obvious.
Using your formula I guess the options are
1) there are no principled republicans
Or
2) no republicans have any questions as to Obama's BC

And in saying this you do, of course, acknowledge that the President has handled this in a fashion that does nothing but nurture suspicion? Or, is it clear to you that a man that runs around the world apologizing for all sorts of stuff, taking responsibility for things we didn't even do, or didn't do wrong, who knows ALL about the cops in Cambridge, intuitively, who is ALL about open-ness and transparency, a new politics, has handled this one properly?

I have no problem with the way Obama handled the BC issue. He put it out in 2008 and then defended a bunch of frivolous lawsuits. He put out his long form and still the fringe isn't happy. I don't see any way they will ever be satisfied.


Now there are a lot of other things that I think he has handled poorly, but the BC, I don't have a problem with.

[S


Now there are a lot of other things that I think he has handled poorly, but the BC, I don't have a problem with.

Fair enough.

Wirelessly posted



What kind of commie pinko drinks something with nothing in it?



The diabetic kind, who likes the fullblown sweet taste of regular coke, but has to stick his-self with a needle whenever he consumes carbohydrates.

The obvious argument is that Obama released his BC back in 2008, it was real then but some didn't believe it. A year ago he released his long form it is real and some won't accept it.
The problem is that people like you DO accept it while ignoring all the other signs and evidence that he is a fake and an alien.

This isn't coming out of the whitehouse, it's coming out if the state of Hawaii. The layer theory was debunked over a year ago and this new spin on it doesn't change anything. It's just more from crazy joe and his birther posse. No one has even tried to explain why Hawaii would be complicate in this conspiracy. It's all just a bunch if election year BS. Do you think that the process of determining eligibility that was/is used is sufficient? I mean, should any of the other 49 states accept someone's word that a candidate is eligible? Face it, the process of declaring Obama (or anyone) is eligible doesn't rest of the shoulders of a Health Department official, it rests on the shoulder's of each state's SofS. This is where the process is/has broken down. There were several SofS that explicitly said it wasn't their responsibility to verify eligibility. And the process, as I understood it to be is that the National Committee (DNC or RNC) fills out an affidavit that the candidate is eligible and this affidavit is accepted by the SofS. So its irrelevant that Obama released anything on the internet, real or faked.

Why hasn't any reputable rupublican representative grabed ahold of this if there is any validity to the claims?
IF a Republican member of congress would bring this up, they would likely be immediately labeled as a "birther". This would likely be political suicide, unless they are in a district that is Republican-proof.

Wirelessly posted

This isn't coming out of the whitehouse, it's coming out if the state of Hawaii. The layer theory was debunked over a year ago and this new spin on it doesn't change anything. It's just more from crazy joe and his birther posse. No one has even tried to explain why Hawaii would be complicate in this conspiracy. It's all just a bunch if election year BS. Do you think that the process of determining eligibility that was/is used is sufficient? I mean, should any of the other 49 states accept someone's word that a candidate is eligible? Face it, the process of declaring Obama (or anyone) is eligible doesn't rest of the shoulders of a Health Department official, it rests on the shoulder's of each state's SofS. This is where the process is/has broken down. There were several SofS that explicitly said it wasn't their responsibility to verify eligibility. And the process, as I understood it to be is that the National Committee (DNC or RNC) fills out an affidavit that the candidate is eligible and this affidavit is accepted by the SofS. So its irrelevant that Obama released anything on the internet, real or faked.

Why hasn't any reputable rupublican representative grabed ahold of this if there is any validity to the claims?
IF a Republican member of congress would bring this up, they would likely be immediately labeled as a "birther". This would likely be political suicide, unless they are in a district that is Republican-proof.

You should ask yourself why it would be political suicide. Seems like if there was anything at all to it the topic wouldn't be career poison.

If there was any chance at all that there was truth in these accusations somebody would get behind it.

Wirelessly postedYou should ask yourself why it would be political suicide. Seems like if there was anything at all to it the topic wouldn't be career poison. Because people like you would automatically start the birther talk and not give the benefit of the doubt to investigate. Secondly, I doubt the administration in general, and Obama specifically would be in any mood to help...I'd bet executive privilege would be invoked about 2 seconds after the announcement of an investigation.

If there was any chance at all that there was truth in these accusations somebody would get behind it..I'd bet executive privilege would be invoked about 2 seconds after the announcement of an investigation. Without a way to compel the POTUS to cooperate makes the investigation protracted and pen to all kinds of political spin. It would have to be a very egregious offense that had more than one political party interested in looking into to make Congress go to the extreme of forcing a sitting President to provide something he doesn't seem to want to divulge. There isn't the political will...or at least not enough of it.

Care to comment on the other part of my last post?

If it was altered, as you claim, it was altered after it was downloaded from the White House Website.

So nobody has ever seen the actual document?

Wirelessly posted



Reputable as in congressman or something along those lines.

The obvious argument is that Obama released his BC back in 2008, it was real then but some didn't believe it. A year ago he released his long form it is real and some won't accept it. That seems pretty forthcoming, he can't control what the fringe thinks.

Even I could tell the 2008 release was altered :lol:

Who examined the paper copy of the long form or was it only "released" as an electronic file?

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly postedYou should ask yourself why it would be political suicide. Seems like if there was anything at all to it the topic wouldn't be career poison. Because people like you would automatically start the birther talk and not give the benefit of the doubt to investigate. Secondly, I doubt the administration in general, and Obama specifically would be in any mood to help...I'd bet executive privilege would be invoked about 2 seconds after the announcement of an investigation.

If there was any chance at all that there was truth in these accusations somebody would get behind it..I'd bet executive privilege would be invoked about 2 seconds after the announcement of an investigation. Without a way to compel the POTUS to cooperate makes the investigation protracted and pen to all kinds of political spin. It would have to be a very egregious offense that had more than one political party interested in looking into to make Congress go to the extreme of forcing a sitting President to provide something he doesn't seem to want to divulge. There isn't the political will...or at least not enough of it.

Care to comment on the other part of my last post?

What is it exactly that the POTUS hasn't provided with respect to the BC? He has now provided both the short and long form of his BC and they have been verified by Hawaii. There is nothing to these endless allegations and that is why no republican reps are championing this cause. They all know it's a dead end.


As far as the process, it would be nice if it was defined and the same in each state. It isn't. That really isn't Obama's fault.

Even I could tell the 2008 release was altered :lol:


:bs: how so?

What is it exactly that the POTUS hasn't provided with respect to the BC?.
an actual paper birth certificate :shrug:
The claim Obama "released" his BC is laughable since nobody has seen the physical document.
:bs: how so?

It said "Void if altered" on the bottom and the serial number was photo shopped out.
Doesn't take a forensic expert to figure that out :lol:

Wirelessly posted


What is it exactly that the POTUS hasn't provided with respect to the BC?.
an actual paper birth certificate :shrug:
The claim Obama "released" his BC is laughable since nobody has seen the physical document.
:bs: how so?

It said "Void if altered" on the bottom and the serial number was photo shopped out.
Doesn't take a forensic expert to figure that out :lol:

:fail:
He did present a paper BC in 2008, go to snopes and you can read all about it. The state of Hawaii even verified it then.

:fail:
He did present a paper BC in 2008, go to snopes and you can read all about it. The state of Hawaii even verified it then.

:yawn: To FactCheck.org, part of the Annenberg foundation, funded by Soros.
You can read all about it :lol:


So has anybody actually seen the latest version or is it just an electronic fabrication?

Wirelessly posted


:fail:
He did present a paper BC in 2008, go to snopes and you can read all about it. The state of Hawaii even verified it then.

:yawn: To FactCheck.org, part of the Annenberg foundation, funded by Soros.
You can read all about it :lol:


So has anybody actually seen the latest version or is it just an electronic fabrication?

The hawaii department of health, the issuing body, has and they say it is valid.

The hawaii department of health, the issuing body, has and they say it is valid.

I will submit to you that the people demanding to see Obama’s BC do not trust the word of the Hawaiian DOH as you do.

Wirelessly posted



The hawaii department of health, the issuing body, has and they say it is valid.After the fact...
How many SofS consulted with a Hawaii state appointed official prior to Obama being placed on the ballot?

The hawaii department of health, the issuing body, has and they say it is valid.

So you're saying no one outside of the whitehouse has actually seen the paper copy.
Interesting
President Obama's birth certificate (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2011/04/politics/interactive.obama.birth.certificate/index.html)

:fail:
He did present a paper BC in 2008, go to snopes and you can read all about it. The state of Hawaii even verified it then. The hawaii department of health, the issuing body, has and they say it is valid.
Kool Aid!! You have major problems discerning the truth. Ever wonder WHY he went to Hawaii after this BC issue came out? Can you connect the dots? Can you say hide or "doctor" any evidence including Grandmama Obama? :shrug:

Wirelessly posted


:fail:
He did present a paper BC in 2008, go to snopes and you can read all about it. The state of Hawaii even verified it then. The hawaii department of health, the issuing body, has and they say it is valid.
Kool Aid!! You have major problems discerning the truth. Ever wonder WHY he went to Hawaii after this BC issue came out? Can you connect the dots? Can you say hide or "doctor" any evidence including Grandmama Obama? :shrug:

Expalin it to me, exactly wha grid Obama do in Hawaii, why did he have to do it in person, and why hasn't anyone who knows about this conspiracy come forward?

This ought to be good

Wirelessly posted

The hawaii department of health, the issuing body, has and they say it is valid.

I will submit to you that the people demanding to see Obama’s BC do not trust the word of the Hawaiian DOH as you do.

Then nothing will ever satisfy them. they can see a million hard copies but it won't matter.

Expalin it to me, exactly wha grid Obama do in Hawaii, why did he have to do it in person, and why hasn't anyone who knows about this conspiracy come forward? This ought to be good
He SAID he went to see his ailing grandmother. I believe that but you & I will never know what ELSE he did. I'm absolutely sure it was to "doctor up" anything that said he wasn't born here. YOU will never believe that because it's to bitter for Kool Aid drinkers to accept...:yay:

Wirelessly posted


Expalin it to me, exactly wha grid Obama do in Hawaii, why did he have to do it in person, and why hasn't anyone who knows about this conspiracy come forward? This ought to be good
He SAID he went to see his ailing grandmother. I believe that but you & I will never know what ELSE he did. I'm absolutely sure it was to "doctor up" anything that said he wasn't born here. YOU will never believe that because it's to bitter for Kool Aid drinkers to accept...:yay:

Right, he went to see his dying grandmother. Where are these other dots? Why did he personally have to got here to "doctor" anything up? A lot of people would have had to known about him personally going and doing whatever it is that you think he did. Why haven't any of them come forward?

You speak of truth but all you have is conspiracy theory.

Wirelessly posted
conspiracy theory.

That's all it is and ever will be... no use going back and forth with these freaks!

Then nothing will ever satisfy them. they can see a million hard copies but it won't matter.

You could be right. For a lot of the people that believe the birther thing, it may be all about simply getting Obama out of office.

Then nothing will ever satisfy them. they can see a million hard copies but it won't matter.

Who has seen the hard copy of the long form?

Wirelessly posted


Then nothing will ever satisfy them. they can see a million hard copies but it won't matter.

Who has seen the hard copy of the long form?

:yawn:


The people in Hawaii who printed it and have said that the on posted in whitehouse.gov is a genuine copy and that it represents the information they have in their state files.

That's all it is and ever will be... no use going back and forth with these freaks!

I don’t find it anymore freaky than the people that claim they are protesting in the best interest of the people by committing violence in our streets and breaks the law everywhere. They are called the OWS movement; the movement that Obama supports.

People have a right to question the people that are running our government. If there are doubts in some peoples’ minds about Obama’s origin of birth, it’s their right to pursue it. They are doing so legally and peacefully, unlike our OWS ‘FREAKS’.

:yawn:


The people in Hawaii who printed it and have said that the on posted in whitehouse.gov is a genuine copy and that it represents the information they have in their state files.

So, you don't believe in any way shape or form that this could be a forgery? No way that Obama, the guy that falsely accused Romney of being a felon, could be lying about it?

I mean I know how impossible it is to believe our politicians could actually lie about something.

Wirelessly posted



:yawn:


The people in Hawaii who printed it and have said that the on posted in whitehouse.gov is a genuine copy and that it represents the information they have in their state files.

So you're saying that because nobody has ever actually examined the currently posted long form BC it has to be legitimate.

Wirelessly posted

:yawn:


The people in Hawaii who printed it and have said that the on posted in whitehouse.gov is a genuine copy and that it represents the information they have in their state files.

So, you don't believe in any way shape or form that this could be a forgery? No way that Obama, the guy that falsely accused Romney of being a felon, could be lying about it?

I mean I know how impossible it is to believe our politicians could actually lie about something.

Obama little to nothing to do with it. You either believe the official state document is real or you don't. The state says I is. Obama is no longer the one making the claim, Hawaii is.

As far as I know Hawaii hasn't commitied any of the real or imagined crimes you want to fasten to the president. There is no reason to not believe their certification.

Right, he went to see his dying grandmother. Where are these other dots? Why did he personally have to got here to "doctor" anything up? A lot of people would have had to known about him personally going and doing whatever it is that you think he did. Why haven't any of them come forward?
You speak of truth but all you have is conspiracy theory.
Many of those people are probably afraid of losing their jobs so they drop it. He wouldn't hesitate to use AF1 to fly to California for a BB&J sandwich so why wouldn't he go there to "fix things"?

Why am I not surprised at the way people today just accept whatever the media puts out? :shrug:

Wirelessly posted


Right, he went to see his dying grandmother. Where are these other dots? Why did he personally have to got here to "doctor" anything up? A lot of people would have had to known about him personally going and doing whatever it is that you think he did. Why haven't any of them come forward?
You speak of truth but all you have is conspiracy theory.
Many of those people are probably afraid of losing their jobs so they drop it. He wouldn't hesitate to use AF1 to fly to California for a BB&J sandwich so why wouldn't he go there to "fix things"?

Why am I not surprised at the way people today just accept whatever the media puts out? :shrug:

So you are saying you have no idea what he allegedly fixed, why he had tondo it himself, or why, I one is talking, I see.

Try havin a conspiracy theory you can explain next time. :killingme

So you are saying you have no idea what he allegedly fixed, why he had tondo it himself, or why, I one is talking, I see.

Try havin a conspiracy theory you can explain next time. :killingme

:lol:

Wirelessly posted


So you are saying you have no idea what he allegedly fixed, why he had tondo it himself, or why, I one is talking, I see.

Try havin a conspiracy theory you can explain next time. :killingme

:lol:

Well then maybe you can explain exactly what obama is supposed to have change on his trip to Hawaii, why he personally needed to go, and why no one is talking about it?

It's otherwise fairly hypocritical to insist on tax records from Romney when something as innocuous as a birth certificate took years to arrive. Every state transaction I conduct requires one from me; passports, petitions, and so forth. They don't care what I paid in taxes.

I don't have the answers for some of these stories surrounding Obama. I don't know why he has the Social Security number he has. I think the data regarding his Selective Service status is manufactured. And I can't imagine why a man whom his supporters and well, probably himself included, is supposed to be so brilliant has made access to his academic record off-limits.

But his staff has insisted that they think Romney needs to release more than two years' worth of tax returns. Moreover, they seem to think there's more truth regarding Bain Capital than what has been shown.

Maybe they should be called "Bainers".

:clap:

...we're supposed to just take the word of a single state official that, yeah, it's in there, and no, you can't look at it.

And it doesn't at all address whether the document in question is fake.

^ this ^

Wirelessly posted



Well then maybe you can explain exactly what obama is supposed to have change on his trip to Hawaii, why he personally needed to go, and why no one is talking about it?

maybe you can explain what your previous post says :crazy:

maybe you can explain what your previous post says :crazy:

so you cant explain exactly what obama is supposed to have changed on his trip to Hawaii, why he personally needed to go, and why no one is talking about it, gotcha :whistle:

Obama little to nothing to do with it. You either believe the official state document is real or you don't. The state says I is. Obama is no longer the one making the claim, Hawaii is.

As far as I know Hawaii hasn't commitied any of the real or imagined crimes you want to fasten to the president. There is no reason to not believe their certification.

Obama has nothing to do with his own BC and whether it's authentic or not? :eyebrow:

I'm not fastening anything to Obama or Hawaiian officials. I have stated it over and over… until something absolutely compelling comes along, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. There are things that make me uncomfortable with it though.

- Not one person that is questioning the legitimacy has held in their hands Obama’s actual BC. Releasing an electronic copy of it and claiming THAT’S legit gives too much to question.

- Obama has a growing track record of dishonesty and connection with very dishonest people. He keeps opening that door of doubt. If he is willing to be dishonest about things like hiring tax cheats, calling Romney a felon (a very serious accusation) while having proven connections to felons, accusing Romney of outsourcing (which is legal BTW) while hiring a guy that outsources, and flashing the race card at anyone that legitimately disagrees with him, demanding Romney release his tax records while sealing his college records, claiming he is the most transparent admin in history while running his administration in very secret ways… this record of dishonesty that breeds distrust in people to not believe anything that comes from him.

When he's made his bed in dishonest ways, you have to expect people to not trust anything that comes from him.

:yawn:


The people in Hawaii who printed it and have said that the on posted in whitehouse.gov is a genuine copy and that it represents the information they have in their state files.

Wait a minute... if it's a 'genuine copy' it shouldn't 'represent' anything. It should be 'IT'.

Obama and I are about the same age… When I was born I was issued a BC that my parents held at home, then gave to me to carry wherever I went. I still have it locked in a safe. So, what’s with this ‘printed copy’ of Obama’s BC? Why can’t he pull the original that was issued when he was born?

So nobody has ever seen the actual document?

The hawaii department of health, the issuing body, has seen it.

Wait a minute... if it's a 'genuine copy' it shouldn't 'represent' anything. It should be 'IT'.

Obama and I are about the same age… When I was born I was issued a BC that my parents held at home, then gave to me to carry wherever I went. I still have it locked in a safe. So, what’s with this ‘printed copy’ of Obama’s BC? Why can’t he pull the original that was issued when he was born?

I'm around the same age as Obama. When I was born I was issued a BC that my parents held at home. The last time I saw it was when I got my learners permit. When it came time for me to sign up for the USN, my Mom couldn't find my BC. To this day, the last time I saw my BC was when my Mom put it in her purse as we were leaving the MVA in Hagerstown. When I joined the USN, they had to send for a certified copy. That's all I've ever seen since that fateful day at the MVA in Hagerstown. At one point, I needed a copy of my BC so I sent for one. Ended up getting a document that looks very simular to the one that Obama released.

Wait a minute... if it's a 'genuine copy' it shouldn't 'represent' anything. It should be 'IT'.

Obama and I are about the same age… When I was born I was issued a BC that my parents held at home, then gave to me to carry wherever I went. I still have it locked in a safe. So, what’s with this ‘printed copy’ of Obama’s BC? Why can’t he pull the original that was issued when he was born?

for someone who claims to not be a birther you cetainly seem to be a pretty bug birther :whistle:


A "genuine copy" of a BC should "represent the information the issuing state has in their files".
If you dont like the term 'represent' you can replace it with "contains", "relays", "conveys" or any other number of terms.


BTW, i am younger than Obama (not by a whole lot) and dont have the original of my BC. The state issued copy is all i have ever needed.

The Birthers are STILL at it??? :killingme

I'm around the same age as Obama. When I was born I was issued a BC that my parents held at home. The last time I saw it was when I got my learners permit. When it came time for me to sign up for the USN, my Mom couldn't find my BC. To this day, the last time I saw my BC was when my Mom put it in her purse as we were leaving the MVA in Hagerstown. When I joined the USN, they had to send for a certified copy. That's all I've ever seen since that fateful day at the MVA in Hagerstown. At one point, I needed a copy of my BC so I sent for one. Ended up getting a document that looks very simular to the one that Obama released.

Only takes a phone call for a recruiter to verify a birth or birth certificate.. (in most places)..

They can call the hospital, or the clerk of courts or the records custodian to verify..

Not sure why nobody can do the same in this instance.

Only takes a phone call for a recruiter to verify a birth by phone.. (in most places)..

They can call the hospital, or the clerk of courts or the records custodian to verify..

Not sure why nobody can do the same in this instance.

its been done:
Hawaii Verifies Obama Birth Records to Arizona - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577421840885410040.html)

btw, hawaii verified his 2008 short form too, not that anybody cares......

its been done:
Hawaii Verifies Obama Birth Records to Arizona - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577421840885410040.html)

btw, hawaii verified his 2008 short form too, not that anybody cares......

Hawaii is a place, not a person.. it's incapable of verifying or validating anything..

i.e. a recruiter couldn't put on his form "Hawaii verified birth of thatguy"

They would have to record NAME of official, their title, and the agency or hospital they represent.

Not saying this is true or not, but the lack of necessary details, and the continued use of "Hawaii said" or "Hawaii verified" goes right along the lines of Clinton saying "I did not have sex with THAT woman!"

Hawaii is a place, not a person.. it's incapable of verifying or validating anything..

i.e. a recruiter couldn't put on his form "Hawaii verified birth of thatguy"

They would have to record NAME of official, their title, and the agency or hospital they represent.

Not saying this is true or not, but the lack of necessary details, and the continued use of "Hawaii said" or "Hawaii verified" goes right along the lines of Clinton saying "I did not have sex with THAT woman!"

you really aren't trying if that is your answer:
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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...."


Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_n.htm)


like i have said numerous times, the offical responsible for issuing BCs in hawaii has verfied Obamas BC, both the short and long form.

I'm around the same age as Obama. When I was born I was issued a BC that my parents held at home. The last time I saw it was when I got my learners permit. When it came time for me to sign up for the USN, my Mom couldn't find my BC. To this day, the last time I saw my BC was when my Mom put it in her purse as we were leaving the MVA in Hagerstown. When I joined the USN, they had to send for a certified copy. That's all I've ever seen since that fateful day at the MVA in Hagerstown. At one point, I needed a copy of my BC so I sent for one. Ended up getting a document that looks very simular to the one that Obama released.

So, when you joined the Navy I guess you simply posted a digital copy of it on the internet and told the Navy the URL of where they can look at it. :ohwell:

for someone who claims to not be a birther you cetainly seem to be a pretty bug birther :whistle:


A "genuine copy" of a BC should "represent the information the issuing state has in their files".
If you dont like the term 'represent' you can replace it with "contains", "relays", "conveys" or any other number of terms.

Let me ask you this… when the democrats demanded Romney provide his tax records do you think Romney simply posted digital copies on the internet for them to look over, or do you think he provided hard copies to the people demanding to see them? If he had posted digital copies would that have been acceptable?

BTW, i am younger than Obama (not by a whole lot) and dont have the original of my BC. The state issued copy is all i have ever needed.

And when you’ve had to show it, you have to provide an actual hard copy. If you go to the MVA to get a driver’s license you can’t tell them your BC is on some website for them to look at.

you really aren't trying if that is your answer:

Hawaii: Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_n.htm)


like i have said numerous times, the offical responsible for issuing BCs in hawaii has verfied Obamas BC, both the short and long form.

I haven't been trying at all as far as the BC goes..

Other than reading the forums.. Totally disinterested. And this is the first time I've seen a name associated with the verification.. thanks!

I think Obama revels in the fact we are still discussing it, as it takes away from real discussion on the REAL issues that effect all of us.

I haven't been trying at all as far as the BC goes..

Other than reading the forums.. Totally disinterested. And this is the first time I've seen a name associated with the verification.. thanks!

I think Obama revels in the fact we are still discussing it, as it takes away from real discussion on the REAL issues that effect all of us.

I’m sort of in the same place. Where I really come down on this is the hypocrisy of the left how they are so :jameo: over Romney’s taxes and personal finances, as if it were a constitutional matter. Then they claim the birthers are a bunch of weirdoes for demanding to see an actual hard copy of Obama’s BC; an actual matter of constitutionality.

Wirelessly posted

for someone who claims to not be a birther you cetainly seem to be a pretty bug birther :whistle:


A "genuine copy" of a BC should "represent the information the issuing state has in their files".
If you dont like the term 'represent' you can replace it with "contains", "relays", "conveys" or any other number of terms.

Let me ask you this… when the democrats demanded Romney provide his tax records do you think Romney simply posted digital copies on the internet for them to look over, or do you think he provided hard copies to the people demanding to see them? If he had posted digital copies would that have been acceptable?

BTW, i am younger than Obama (not by a whole lot) and dont have the original of my BC. The state issued copy is all i have ever needed.

And when you’ve had to show it, you have to provide an actual hard copy. If you go to the MVA to get a driver’s license you can’t tell them your BC is on some website for them to look at.

I also didn't have a bunch of idiots who didn't think he MVA did a good enough job demanding to see a hard copy they have no right to have a copy of. As far as I can tell, every state that has requested verification, including Arizona, has gotten it to their satisfaction. The only people who aren't satisfied are the birthers.

Wirelessly posted

I haven't been trying at all as far as the BC goes..

Other than reading the forums.. Totally disinterested. And this is the first time I've seen a name associated with the verification.. thanks!

I think Obama revels in the fact we are still discussing it, as it takes away from real discussion on the REAL issues that effect all of us.

I’m sort of in the same place. Where I really come down on this is the hypocrisy of the left how they are so :jameo: over Romney’s taxes and personal finances, as if it were a constitutional matter. Then they claim the birthers are a bunch of weirdoes for demanding to see an actual hard copy of Obama’s BC; an actual matter of constitutionality.

:Bs:
This has nothing to do with romeny or the lefts hypocrisy. The birthers have been going nuts over this since 2008.
BTW, there is no requirement in the constitution that says a candidate for president has to show anyone a hard copy of his BC

:Bs:
This has nothing to do with romeny or the lefts hypocrisy. The birthers have been going nuts over this since 2008.
BTW, there is no requirement in the constitution that says a candidate for president has to show anyone a hard copy of his BC

Maybe it doesn't for you. For me it does. I've told you already - several times - I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. Until the birthers prove otherwise, that's where I stand. What I'm left with is how honesty plays into this whole thing. There has been very little honesty to come out of this administration, and gives me reason to have doubts about anything they claim is their version of the truth.

And you know darned well what I meant by the constitutionality of Obama's origin of birth. Perhaps it should be one of the requirements for anyone to run. If I have to provide a BC to get something as simple as a driver's license, then I don't think it should be too much to ask candidates prove their citizenship. Last I checked, it is a requirement set out in the constitution.

I also didn't have a bunch of idiots who didn't think he MVA did a good enough job demanding to see a hard copy they have no right to have a copy of. As far as I can tell, every state that has requested verification, including Arizona, has gotten it to their satisfaction. The only people who aren't satisfied are the birthers.

There you have it... anyone that questions Obama is an idiot.

You MUST provide a hard copy of your BC to get a driver's license. Tell you what though, next time you have to provide one I suggest you simply point them to a website that shows a 'representation' of your BC. Let's see how idiotic they get then.

Only takes a phone call for a recruiter to verify a birth or birth certificate.. (in most places)..

They can call the hospital, or the clerk of courts or the records custodian to verify..

Not sure why nobody can do the same in this instance.

As was mentioned. It was done in this instance. Nobody, not even the USN, has seen my original BC. The most that will ever leave the vital records building is a certified copy. In fact, about two weeks ago, I took my son to get his learners permit. Just now, I pulled out his birth certificate. The one I used at the MVA. The one we got when he was born. It is a certified copy. The original resides at the Division of Vital Records. The one I get to show around or scan into a PDF is a certified copy, not the original. Anyone who says they have their original BC is either misinformed or they stole it from their respective division of vital records. If the original is not on file at the division of vital records, there's no way for the to produce a certified copy when needed.

Wirelessly posted

I also didn't have a bunch of idiots who didn't think he MVA did a good enough job demanding to see a hard copy they have no right to have a copy of. As far as I can tell, every state that has requested verification, including Arizona, has gotten it to their satisfaction. The only people who aren't satisfied are the birthers.

There you have it... anyone that questions Obama is an idiot.

You MUST provide a hard copy of your BC to get a driver's license. Tell you what though, next time you have to provide one I suggest you simply point them to a website that shows a 'representation' of your BC. Let's see how idiotic they get then.

:yawn:

Obama's BC was available in hard copy back in 2008. If you actually believe that he was born in Hawaii the HE HAS BEEN HONEST ABOUT THIS. he put out the BC he had in 2008 and he released his long form, both indicate that he was born where you think he was. What is dishonest about that?

As for idiots, yes, it is now down to only idiots who are questioning Obama's birth place. The information is there, choosing to go against all the evidence and logic is idiotic.

So, when you joined the Navy I guess you simply posted a digital copy of it on the internet and told the Navy the URL of where they can look at it. :ohwell:

No, the USN verified it with the division of vital records. The USN never saw my original BC. It was not the business of the general public so I didn't post it on the Internet. Besides, the Internet wasn't around at that time. At least not in the way we know it today.

So you are saying you have no idea what he allegedly fixed, why he had tondo it himself, or why, I one is talking, I see.
Is that you Lance? :shrug:

BTW, i am younger than Obama (not by a whole lot) and dont have the original of my BC. The state issued copy is all i have ever needed.
Maybe you're not legal either?

Obama birth certificate is real - USATODAY.com[/url] like i have said numerous times, the offical responsible for issuing BCs in hawaii has verfied Obamas BC, both the short and long form.
USA today? Good source there skippy!!

The forgery is what he went over there to fix! He has NO BC from here!! And I'm sure YOU think he has the most transparent administration to date, right? Only he and his regime know what he DID fix. This is why he took soo long to produce something and that something was a fake document!

All he had to do is produce the orginal or a decent copy of it but he didn't AND he made it abundantly clear that he didn't have to. I't sad how you sheep accept whatever is put in front of you and how you can't see the evidence that is glaringly clear to the rest of us.

And you know darned well what I meant by the constitutionality of Obama's origin of birth. Perhaps it should be one of the requirements for anyone to run. If I have to provide a BC to get something as simple as a driver's license, then I don't think it should be too much to ask candidates prove their citizenship. Last I checked, it is a requirement set out in the constitution.
It should have been produced and verified as authentic before he was ever allowed to run as a politician. The DNC was soo in a hurry to ram this alien through that they didnt care if he was from Mars...

No, the USN verified it with the division of vital records. The USN never saw my original BC. It was not the business of the general public so I didn't post it on the Internet. Besides, the Internet wasn't around at that time. At least not in the way we know it today.

I'm going to disagree. Far more than just a verification with the division of vital records is required. Someone in the Navy saw your BC:

Citizenship Requirements for Enlistment (http://www.navycs.com/blogs/2011/02/02/navy-citizenship-requirements)

Birth Certificates
A birth certificate must meet all of the following criteria to be considered valid:


Full Name – First, Last, and Middle Name(s). Birth records must have your complete first and last names. Birth records without a middle name or where the middle name is represented by an initial are acceptable.

Birth Date. All birth certificates must include the date of birth.

Birth Place. State, County and/or City. Some birth records do not list the birthplace city or town. These records are adequate so long as they list the county, province or State of birth.


Birth Record Validation. A birth record must bear appropriate validation markings for use as primary verification evidence. The government agency or hospital may accomplish authentication or certification with original or machine-produced signatures or raised, impressed, embossed, or multicolored seals or stamps, or a combination of these. Any one combination of these official validation methods is acceptable.

Note 1: Hospital birth certificates signed by a hospital administrator or physician and short form birth verification cards issued by vital statistics offices, with or without raised, impressed, embossed, or multicolored seals or stamps are acceptable for enlistment.

It should have been produced and verified as authentic before he was ever allowed to run as a politician. The DNC was soo in a hurry to ram this alien through that they didnt care if he was from Mars...

What irks me about this whole thing is there is far more scrutiny put on someone wanting get a driver's license then there is to be president.

But being things as they are, I don’t think Obama should be required to do any more than any president in the past has. Of course if evidence were to arise that questions a president’s citizenship it should be pursued through legal channels. I just know if this birther thing rises to that level.

Our system is so full of flaws that who knows could slip through the law. I suppose it’s the price we pay for having a system that simply TRUSTS our politicians. But it’s still the best system in the world.

I'm going to disagree. Far more than just a verification with the division of vital records is required. Someone in the Navy saw your BC:

They saw a certified copy of my BC. The one one my Mom lost was a certified copy. If the USN wanted to see the original, a USN representative would have to visit the division of vital records in order to view my orginal BC. They would have grounds to see it since I was wanting to join the USN.

They saw a certified copy of my BC. The one one my Mom lost was a certified copy. If the USN wanted to see the original, a USN representative would have to visit the division of vital records in order to view my orginal BC. They would have grounds to see it since I was wanting to join the USN.

Well, that’s a bit of a change in your story. You made it sound like someone from the Navy called the ‘division of vital records’ and they said ‘yup, awpitt is legit’. Someone actually held a copy in their hands.

So, my point is, no one that has filed the complaint about Obama’s BC has actually held the document in their hand to verify it. Now, I’m not saying the one on Whitehouse.gov is fake. I’m no expert. But, you have to realize it’s extremely easy to doctor things up on the internet. It’s easy to fabricate something and put it on the internet and make it believable. All I am saying is there is so much rampant dishonesty from this president that I can understand why people have doubts about the picture shown on the website.

Wirelessly posted

They saw a certified copy of my BC. The one one my Mom lost was a certified copy. If the USN wanted to see the original, a USN representative would have to visit the division of vital records in order to view my orginal BC. They would have grounds to see it since I was wanting to join the USN.

Well, that’s a bit of a change in your story. You made it sound like someone from the Navy called the ‘division of vital records’ and they said ‘yup, awpitt is legit’. Someone actually held a copy in their hands.

So, my point is, no one that has filed the complaint about Obama’s BC has actually held the document in their hand to verify it. Now, I’m not saying the one on Whitehouse.gov is fake. I’m no expert. But, you have to realize it’s extremely easy to doctor things up on the internet. It’s easy to fabricate something and put it on the internet and make it believable. All I am saying is there is so much rampant dishonesty from this president that I can understand why people have doubts about the picture shown on the website.

So that's your point now?
None of the people on the list of complainants were reaponsilbe for verifying Obama's eligibility as far as I know. I dont see what giving any of them a hard copy would have done to end it.

But again I have to ask, if you believe hat Obama was born in Hawaii, what has he done that was dishonest on this issue?

Wirelessly posted



So that's your point now?
None of the people on the list of complainants were reaponsilbe for verifying Obama's eligibility as far as I know. I dont see what giving any of them a hard copy would have done to end it.

But again I have to ask, if you believe hat Obama was born in Hawaii, what has he done that was dishonest on this issue?

Good question.

Makes one wonder why someone who has nothing to hide would spend hundeds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to prevent people from examining a document he "released"

Well, that’s a bit of a change in your story. You made it sound like someone from the Navy called the ‘division of vital records’ and they said ‘yup, awpitt is legit’. Someone actually held a copy in their hands.


There was no change in my story. I said the USN verified my BC. I didn't go into specifics as to how they did it. You made an assumption.





So, my point is, no one that has filed the complaint about Obama’s BC has actually held the document in their hand to verify it. Now, I’m not saying the one on Whitehouse.gov is fake. I’m no expert. But, you have to realize it’s extremely easy to doctor things up on the internet. It’s easy to fabricate something and put it on the internet and make it believable. All I am saying is there is so much rampant dishonesty from this president that I can understand why people have doubts about the picture shown on the website.

Well, the problem with your point is that no one that has filed the complaint about Obama’s BC actually has a right to see or hold Obama's BC. If the birthers want to hold Obama's BC, that's just though. They have no more right to hold his BC than they have to hold my BC.

The individuals responsible for certifying presidential candidates for the ballot are the 50 state Secretaries of State and those of the territories. All of them certified Obama for the ballots in all 50 states in '08. That process will happen again once the nominations are official at the conventions. Let's see what happens then.

Good question.

Makes one wonder why someone who has nothing to hide would spend hundeds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to prevent people from examining a document he "released"


Because there come a time when someone has to say, ït's none of your business".

Because there come a time when someone has to say, ït's none of your business".

I guess when you're the most transparent administration in history it's so much easier to spend a half a million in legal fees to prevent someone from examining a document you have already "released" instead of spending $20 and setting a legal precedent

Well, the problem with your point is that no one that has filed the complaint about Obama’s BC actually has a right to see or hold Obama's BC. If the birthers want to hold Obama's BC, that's just though. They have no more right to hold his BC than they have to hold my BC.

The individuals responsible for certifying presidential candidates for the ballot are the 50 state Secretaries of State and those of the territories. All of them certified Obama for the ballots in all 50 states in '08. That process will happen again once the nominations are official at the conventions. Let's see what happens then.

As I have stated over and over, I believe Obama was born in HI. I have also stated that it is the right of any voter, any citizen to question the legitimacy of a sitting public official. Saying it’s no one’s business is absolutely false. Arpaio filed a lawsuit, something that is his right to do. So far he has failed to created a case in good standing. This is not because it’s none of his business; it’s because he has not provided credible evidence.

What I find strange is how you liberals feel Obama’s BC is no one’s business, yet you feel it’s your business to know all the details of Romney’s financial dealings. Where do you stand on that?

Wirelessly posted

Because there come a time when someone has to say, ït's none of your business".

I guess when you're the most transparent administration in history it's so much easier to spend a half a million in legal fees to prevent someone from examining a document you have already "released" instead of spending $20 and setting a legal precedent

Yep, typical birther bs, get your ass handed to you with all the evidence and switch to criticizing Obama for daring to defend himself against fivilous lawsuits.
So let's recap:
Obama released his BC in 2008
This document was verified by Hawaii as valid
Obama released his long form in 2011
This document was also validated by Hawaii

Wirelessly posted

Well, the problem with your point is that no one that has filed the complaint about Obama’s BC actually has a right to see or hold Obama's BC. If the birthers want to hold Obama's BC, that's just though. They have no more right to hold his BC than they have to hold my BC.

The individuals responsible for certifying presidential candidates for the ballot are the 50 state Secretaries of State and those of the territories. All of them certified Obama for the ballots in all 50 states in '08. That process will happen again once the nominations are official at the conventions. Let's see what happens then.

As I have stated over and over, I believe Obama was born in HI. I have also stated that it is the right of any voter, any citizen to question the legitimacy of a sitting public official. Saying it’s no one’s business is absolutely false. Arpaio filed a lawsuit, something that is his right to do. So far he has failed to created a case in good standing. This is not because it’s none of his business; it’s because he has not provided credible evidence.

What I find strange is how you liberals feel Obama’s BC is no one’s business, yet you feel it’s your business to know all the details of Romney’s financial dealings. Where do you stand on that?

Standing doesnt have anything to do with credible evidence. It's been a long time since I took constitutional law, but as I remember standing had to do with who can or can not bring a suit. For instance, if you got in a car accident and were injured I, beikg unrelated and not a party to the accident, would not have standing to sue the other driver for damages.

From what I have understood from the various suits against Obama, none of those folks have been found to have standing. It would probably take a SoS, but crazy joe sure ain't it.

[ It's been a long time since I took constitutional law, .

:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme

Standing doesnt have anything to do with credible evidence. It's been a long time since I took constitutional law, but as I remember standing had to do with who can or can not bring a suit. For instance, if you got in a car accident and were injured I, beikg unrelated and not a party to the accident, would not have standing to sue the other driver for damages.

From what I have understood from the various suits against Obama, none of those folks have been found to have standing. It would probably take a SoS, but crazy joe sure ain't it.

Good or bad standing does not prevent someone from launching a lawsuit. I honestly would prefer Arpaio and his ilk would let it go so we can focus on issues truly affecting our lives; but just like other issues like abortion and gay marriage, there are going to be people in our society that feel deeply about their importance.

When it comes to our public officials, it’s our duty to question them, it’s OUR responsibility to call them out when we feel we’ve been lied to. There are so many lies that come out of Washington and most of us sit idly by and just allow them to get reelected over and over again just so they can further destroy this country. As annoying as this birther thing may be, I salute people like Arpaio for having the courage to follow his heart in this way. But there does come a time to let it go.

Wirelessly posted

Standing doesnt have anything to do with credible evidence. It's been a long time since I took constitutional law, but as I remember standing had to do with who can or can not bring a suit. For instance, if you got in a car accident and were injured I, beikg unrelated and not a party to the accident, would not have standing to sue the other driver for damages.

From what I have understood from the various suits against Obama, none of those folks have been found to have standing. It would probably take a SoS, but crazy joe sure ain't it.

Good or bad standing does not prevent someone from launching a lawsuit. I honestly would prefer Arpaio and his ilk would let it go so we can focus on issues truly affecting our lives; but just like other issues like abortion and gay marriage, there are going to be people in our society that feel deeply about their importance.

When it comes to our public officials, it’s our duty to question them, it’s OUR responsibility to call them out when we feel we’ve been lied to. There are so many lies that come out of Washington and most of us sit idly by and just allow them to get reelected over and over again just so they can further destroy this country. As annoying as this birther thing may be, I salute people like Arpaio for having the courage to follow his heart in this way. But there does come a time to let it go.

So now you are saying birthers should let it go?


Anyone can bring a suit over just about anything that doesn't mean that you are going to win or even have standing to demand evidence. Obama was right to defend these frivouls lawsuits and he was right to not bend to the fringe.
Like I said before, if you actually believe that Obama was born in Hawaii then he has done nothing but be honest on this issue.

Obama was right to defend these frivouls lawsuits and he was right to not bend to the fringe.
Like I said before, if you actually believe that Obama was born in Hawaii then he has done nothing but be honest on this issue.

Do you understand the concept of a legal precedent?
You provide evidence, settle the matter once and any further legal action gets dismissed because the matter has been settled. It would seem that when you're the most transparent administration in history it's so much easier to spend a half a million in legal fees to prevent someone from examining a document you have already "released" instead of spending $20 and setting a legal precedent.

It would also seem that there are also fools that think that makes sense.

Wirelessly posted

Obama was right to defend these frivouls lawsuits and he was right to not bend to the fringe.
Like I said before, if you actually believe that Obama was born in Hawaii then he has done nothing but be honest on this issue.

Do you understand the concept of a legal precedent?
You provide evidence, settle the matter once and any further legal action gets dismissed because the matter has been settled. It would seem that when you're the most transparent administration in history it's so much easier to spend a half a million in legal fees to prevent someone from examining a document you have already "released" instead of spending $20 and setting a legal precedent.

It would also seem that there are also fools that think that makes sense.

It's pretty clear you don't understand the idea of legal precedent. Precedents are more about principles of law and legal doctrine as established by previous decisions.

Besides you and i both know that the lawsuits would never end if Obama gave in to one of these kooks. He would be hit from every side by every birther, transcripter, etc.

So now you are saying birthers should let it go?


Yes. Far bigger fish to fry.

Anyone can bring a suit over just about anything that doesn't mean that you are going to win or even have standing to demand evidence. Obama was right to defend these frivouls lawsuits and he was right to not bend to the fringe.
Like I said before, if you actually believe that Obama was born in Hawaii then he has done nothing but be honest on this issue.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the whole thing could have been true? Is there anything you've wanted to pursue because you absolutely believed it was true, even when others were telling you to let it go? I have been working for the military for about 27 years now and have run into this kind of thing more times than I can count; trying to prove something I know is true, just to be told "let it go".

When it comes to president, when someone questions something you've done, the best thing is to just open the flood gates of information. Shut them up quickly and emabarrass the living daylights out of them. Obama didn't do this. He let it drag on for years; giving the birther crowd plenty of reason to doubt him.

I am on the side of the truth; which I can't say I know what that is. Devoid of absolute proof, I am left with believing Obama has satisfied his case. but he has also given me reason to believe he has a hard time telling the truth about a great many things.

Wirelessly posted



It's pretty clear you don't understand the idea of legal precedent. Precedents are more about principles of law and legal doctrine as established by previous decisions.

Besides you and i both know that the lawsuits would never end if Obama gave in to one of these kooks. He would be hit from every side by every birther, transcripter, etc.

I'm sure it makes more sense to you to spend a half million in legal fees to prevent anyone from examining a document you have "released" instead of actually releasing the document and settling the matter in court once and for all.

The argument that "we won't do it because then we'll have to do it again" is absurd. That's not how our legal system works.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



It's pretty clear you don't understand the idea of legal precedent. Precedents are more about principles of law and legal doctrine as established by previous decisions.

Besides you and i both know that the lawsuits would never end if Obama gave in to one of these kooks. He would be hit from every side by every birther, transcripter, etc.

I'm sure it makes more sense to you to spend a half million in legal fees to prevent anyone from examining a document you have "released" instead of actually releasing the document and settling the matter in court once and for all.

The argument that "we won't do it because then we'll have to do it again" is absurd. That's not how our legal system works.

"that's how our legal system works" coming from the guy who doesn't understand precedent. :killingme

"that's how our legal system works" coming from the guy who doesn't understand precedent. :killingme

prec·e·dent (prs-dnt) n.

a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
b. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases

yeah.... keep thinking I'm the one that's confused :lol:

Wirelessly posted

So now you are saying birthers should let it go?


Yes. Far bigger fish to fry.

Anyone can bring a suit over just about anything that doesn't mean that you are going to win or even have standing to demand evidence. Obama was right to defend these frivouls lawsuits and he was right to not bend to the fringe.
Like I said before, if you actually believe that Obama was born in Hawaii then he has done nothing but be honest on this issue.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the whole thing could have been true? Is there anything you've wanted to pursue because you absolutely believed it was true, even when others were telling you to let it go? I have been working for the military for about 27 years now and have run into this kind of thing more times than I can count; trying to prove something I know is true, just to be told "let it go".

When it comes to president, when someone questions something you've done, the best thing is to just open the flood gates of information. Shut them up quickly and emabarrass the living daylights out of them. Obama didn't do this. He let it drag on for years; giving the birther crowd plenty of reason to doubt him.

I am on the side of the truth; which I can't say I know what that is. Devoid of absolute proof, I am left with believing Obama has satisfied his case. but he has also given me reason to believe he has a hard time telling the truth about a great many things.

He put the BC out in 2008. There was no delay, he didn't drag it on for years. The birthers in the other hand have, even in the face of all the evidence.

What If someone really believes Obama is an alien and they sue to force a DNA test proving the he is from mars, are you singing the same tune? He should just concede to the test?

He put the BC out in 2008.

Then why spend all that money to prevent it from being examined?

He put the BC out in 2008. There was no delay, he didn't drag it on for years. The birthers in the other hand have, even in the face of all the evidence.

What If someone really believes Obama is an alien and they sue to force a DNA test proving the he is from mars, are you singing the same tune? He should just concede to the test?

Well, I suppose if we're going to believe something put out on the internet is true then:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/drudge-headline-shocker-obama-born-in-kenya-and-raised-in-indonesia-and-hawaii/

Grandmother says Obama born in Kenya - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bloHSojeLAw)

:shrug:

Wirelessly posted

He put the BC out in 2008. There was no delay, he didn't drag it on for years. The birthers in the other hand have, even in the face of all the evidence.

What If someone really believes Obama is an alien and they sue to force a DNA test proving the he is from mars, are you singing the same tune? He should just concede to the test?

Well, I suppose if we're going to believe something put out on the internet is true then:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/drudge-headline-shocker-obama-born-in-kenya-and-raised-in-indonesia-and-hawaii/

Grandmother says Obama born in Kenya - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bloHSojeLAw)

:shrug:

You really are a birther, stop denying it.

Wirelessly posted


"that's how our legal system works" coming from the guy who doesn't understand precedent. :killingme

prec·e·dent (prs-dnt) n.

a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
b. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases

yeah.... keep thinking I'm the one that's confused :lol:

What is funny is that you think you understand what that definition means.

As I have stated over and over, I believe Obama was born in HI.

Then why are you even arguing this?


I have also stated that it is the right of any voter, any citizen to question the legitimacy of a sitting public official. Saying it’s no one’s business is absolutely false.

If a voter, citizen wants to question a candidate's legitimacy, they need to take that up with their state Secretary of State. That is who's responsible for certifying a presidential candidate to be on the ballot.




What I find strange is how you liberals feel Obama’s BC is no one’s business, yet you feel it’s your business to know all the details of Romney’s financial dealings. Where do you stand on that?

I'm not a liberal so I can't speak to their thinking on this matter. The fact is that Obama's candidacy was certified by all of the state Secreteries of State in 2008. If you have a problem with that, they are the folks you need to gripe to. As far as Romney, he made his "business sucess" an issue in this campaign; therefore, he made his finances fair game.

Wirelessly posted



Yep, typical birther bs, get your ass handed to you with all the evidence and switch to criticizing Obama for daring to defend himself against fivilous lawsuits.
So let's recap:
Obama released his BC in 2008
This document was verified by Hawaii as valid
Obama released his long form in 2011
This document was also validated by Hawaii


Hey! What do you expect. Hawaii isn't a "real" state. If Obama had been born in Mississippi, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What is funny is that you think you understand what that definition means.

What is funny is that you think spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent someone from examining a document that has been, according to you, "released" is a smart thing to do because someone else might want to see the "released" document. :crazy:


:shortbus: your ride is here :lol:

What is funny is that you think spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent someone from examining a document that has been, according to you, "released" is a smart thing to do because someone else might want to see the "released" document. :crazy:


:shortbus: your ride is here :lol:


.......we know why your'e a single dad now.

.......we know why your'e a single dad now.

As well we know that a lot more chlorine should have been poured in to your gene poool..

Wirelessly posted


What is funny is that you think you understand what that definition means.

What is funny is that you think spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent someone from examining a document that has been, according to you, "released" is a smart thing to do because someone else might want to see the "released" document. :crazy:


:shortbus: your ride is here :lol:

Well at least You aren't pretending like you understand that definition anymore. :killingme

Then why are you even arguing this?

I am bothered by the long-running attempt of Obama not coming out with the BC in the very beginning. He made it look like he had something to hide.

The flaming hypocrisy by people on the left claiming Obama’s records (college and BC) are his own business while getting all :jameo: over Romney’s financial records; even as much so to accuse him of being a felon. Claiming Romney somehow has something to hide about his taxes while Obama hired as his chief tax officer (Geithner), who was a tax cheat. Screaming about Romney's outsourcing while Obama has hired as his chief jobs czar as one of the biggest outsourcers in this country. If you're going to play this game of 'do as I say not as I do' then you'd better people to make your life miserable.

The birthers aren’t going to let it go. Perhaps if you ignore them, they will go away. If you feel Obama has satisfied the request then why are you bothering?

If a voter, citizen wants to question a candidate's legitimacy, they need to take that up with their state Secretary of State. That is who's responsible for certifying a presidential candidate to be on the ballot.

Arpaio has legal counsel and apparently felt it was most appropriate to launch a lawsuit. You’ll have to ask him why he didn’t take it up with his state’s SecState. Or maybe he did and SecState turned it down.

I'm not a liberal so I can't speak to their thinking on this matter. The fact is that Obama's candidacy was certified by all of the state Secreteries of State in 2008. If you have a problem with that, they are the folks you need to gripe to. As far as Romney, he made his "business sucess" an issue in this campaign; therefore, he made his finances fair game.

You sound like thatguy. Why do liberals have such a hard time admitting they're liberal? Sorry, but if it quacks like a duck…

Why wouldn’t Romney make his business success an issue? It’s the cornerstone of his candidacy. But even if he didn’t I think his financial records are completely and legitimately in play. I think anything a candidate did or was, within a reasonable past, is fair game. If you are going to be a public figure you had better be prepared for your entire life to be public. My beef is the hypocrisy on the left.

The flaming hypocrisy by people on the left claiming Obama’s records (college and BC) are his own business while getting all over Romney’s financial records; even as much so to accuse him of being a felon.

Once again, Romney is the one who has made his business success an issue in the campaign. The business success is the reason why he is wealthy. He opened the door.
BTW, Obama did not call Romney a felon. Someone in the Obama campaign said that IF Romney misrepresented his dates of tenure at Bain to the S.E.C. that would be a felony crime. They said IF that were the case. They did not call Romney a felon.

Arpaio has legal counsel and apparently felt it was most appropriate to launch a lawsuit. You’ll have to ask him why he didn’t take it up with his state’s SecState. Or maybe he did and SecState turned it down.

I don't need to ask him anything.


You sound like thatguy. Why do liberals have such a hard time admitting they're liberal? Sorry, but if it quacks like a duck…
It’s apparent you don’t know me. I don’t wear labels. I’m neither conservative nor liberal. I’m my own thinker. Accordingly, I hold conservative views on some issues and liberal views on other issues. As an example, I’m pro-choice on a woman’s right to choose and I’m very pro 2nd Amendment.

Why wouldn’t Romney make his business success an issue? It’s the cornerstone of his candidacy.
I didn’t say he shouldn’t. The fact is, he did. He opened the door so he needs to talk about all aspects of that area.

Once again, Romney is the one who has made his business success an issue in the campaign. The business success is the reason why he is wealthy. He opened the door.
BTW, Obama did not call Romney a felon. Someone in the Obama campaign said that IF Romney misrepresented his dates of tenure at Bain to the S.E.C. that would be a felony crime. They said IF that were the case. They did not call Romney a felon.

Do you even read what you post? He is using his SUCCESS and you make it sound like a liability. I thought the American dream was to achieve success. Romney epitomizes that. Someone’s success should be a standard in which we all strive for. He has done nothing illegal and has had great success with almost everything he has done: as owner of Bain, the Olympics, and as Governor of MA. The only people that are making it an issue are liberals like you (yes you’re a liberal if you think someone’s success is an issue and liability).

As far as the felony charge: Stephanie Cutter is one of Obama’s campaign managers. She accused Romney of committing a felony; A CRIME. There have been no formal charges, no investigation, not even a police report. It was an abject lie. Romney demanded an apology from Obama and Obama refused

It’s apparent you don’t know me. I don’t wear labels. I’m neither conservative nor liberal. I’m my own thinker. Accordingly, I hold conservative views on some issues and liberal views on other issues. As an example, I’m pro-choice on a woman’s right to choose and I’m very pro 2nd Amendment.

Identifying yourself as a conservative or liberal is not labeling yourself. It is claiming core political and social values. If you don’t identify yourself somewhere along those lines then you lack these values. I have yet to see anything from you that resembles a conservative.

Well at least You aren't pretending like you understand that definition anymore. :killingme

I posted the definition, you apparently lack the basic skills necessary to understand the concept

Wirelessly posted


Well at least You aren't pretending like you understand that definition anymore. :killingme

I posted the definition, you apparently lack the basic skills necessary to understand the concept

You know how to post a definition, problem is you still don't understand it.

Your example from your precious post was not an example of precedent. But what does that matter, you haven't accepted that you were wrong on the BC why would I expect you to know that you are wrong now. :bigwhoop:

Do you even read what you post? He is using his SUCCESS and you make it sound like a liability. I thought the American dream was to achieve success. Romney epitomizes that. Someone’s success should be a standard in which we all strive for. He has done nothing illegal and has had great success with almost everything he has done: as owner of Bain, the Olympics, and as Governor of MA. The only people that are making it an issue are liberals like you (yes you’re a liberal if you think someone’s success is an issue and liability).

You’re the one that needs to read what I post. I never characterized Romney’s business success as a liability. I said that he needs to talk about all aspects of his business experience. IF that success involved outsourcing jobs overseas, he needs to own up to it instead of saying he owned a company but isn’t responsible for what that company does. That’s a cop-out. One of his landmark achievements as governor was healthcare reform. Now, he runs away from it. That’s a cop-out.

As far as the felony charge: Stephanie Cutter is one of Obama’s campaign managers. She accused Romney of committing felony. There have been no formal charges, no investigation, not even a police report. It was an abject lie. Romney demanded an apology from Obama and Obama refused.
Yes, Stephanie Cutter is the one who I was talking about. She did not accuse Romney of committing a felony. She said IF Romney misrepresented his dates of tenure at Bain to the S.E.C. that would be a felony crime. She said IF that were the case. She did not call Romney a felon.

Identifying yourself as a conservative or liberal is not labeling yourself. It is claiming core political and social values. If you don’t identify yourself somewhere along those lines then you lack these values. I have yet to see anything from you that resembles a conservative.
Because I don’t identify strictly with the left or the right does not mean I lack values. It is arrogant of you to suggest that. The people who know me and see how I live my life would not say I lack values. Because you have yet to see anything from me that resembles a conservative does not mean that I don’t have conservative views on certain issues.

You know how to post a definition, problem is you still don't understand it.

Your example from your precious post was not an example of precedent. But what does that matter, you haven't accepted that you were wrong on the BC why would I expect you to know that you are wrong now. :bigwhoop:

What was I wrong about?

Do think it's smart to spend over half a million dollars to prevent anybody from examining a document you have "released"?
Do you think that settling the matter in court doesn't settle the matter in court?

You’re the one that needs to read what I post. I never characterized Romney’s business success as a liability. I said that he needs to talk about all aspects of his business experience. IF that success involved outsourcing jobs overseas, he needs to own up to it instead of saying he owned a company but isn’t responsible for what that company does. That’s a cop-out. One of his landmark achievements as governor was healthcare reform. Now, he runs away from it. That’s a cop-out.

You said Romney made his business dealings an issue. That’s a negative not a positive. If I had Romney’s success I would be bragging it up and down. Outsourcing is legal. Making that an issue is nonsense. There is nothing to ‘own up to’. Nearly every large company in this country outsources to some degree. And I bet you spend your money in these businesses. The hypocrisy is Obama making a big deal about Romney’s outsourcing while he has hired a guy as his JOBS CZAR (a guy that was hired to bring jobs back to the US) while he is the biggest outsourcer in the country.

On Romney’s record as governor… I am not going to say I support everything he did. All I’m saying is he has a lot he can brag about as governor: jobs, spending, taxes…

Yes, Stephanie Cutter is the one who I was talking about. She did not accuse Romney of committing a felony. She said IF Romney misrepresented his dates of tenure at Bain to the S.E.C. that would be a felony crime. She said IF that were the case. She did not call Romney a felon.

Cutter’s statement: “Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investment,”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “What Stephanie said, rightfully so, was that either Mitt Romney was lying on SEC forms and misrepresenting to his investors, which could be a felony,”

These are serious accusations, that are completely baseless. If you’re going to throw such charges out there, you had better be able to back them up. They have been unable to. In fact, they know the whole thing was a lie. Romney still stands as the GOP presumptive nominee without charges of any sort. And making excuses for such blatant fabrications is nothing more than pandering to their leftist base.

Because I don’t identify strictly with the left or the right does not mean I lack values. It is arrogant of you to suggest that. The people who know me and see how I live my life would not say I lack values. Because you have yet to see anything from me that resembles a conservative does not mean that I don’t have conservative views on certain issues.

I was not saying you lack values. I am certain you are an honest, upstanding American. I was saying you seem to lack certain political and social values that identify you as either conservative or liberal. I am sorry I wasn’t more clear about that.

I don't want this to come across as personal. It's not. Please understand that my comments regarding your political stance are simply observations.

You said Romney made his business dealings an issue. That’s a negative not a positive. If I had Romney’s success I would be bragging it up and down. Outsourcing is legal. Making that an issue is nonsense. There is nothing to ‘own up to’. Nearly every large company in this country outsources to some degree. And I bet you spend your money in these businesses. The hypocrisy is Obama making a big deal about Romney’s outsourcing while he has hired a guy as his JOBS CZAR (a guy that was hired to bring jobs back to the US) while he is the biggest outsourcer in the country.




When I said that Romney made his business dealings an issue, it was not a negative or a positive. I was stating a fact. He should brag about it. I would too if it were me; however, though it’s not illegal, the possible outsourcing is something that doesn’t sit well with many Americans given the current unemployment levels. If part of Romney’s wealth is a result of jobs being taken from Americans and being outsourced overseas, that needs to be discussed as part of the campaign and, yes, Romney needs to own up to it if it is true.




On Romney’s record as governor… I am not going to say I support everything he did. All I’m saying is he has a lot he can brag about as governor: jobs, spending, taxes…



Yes, but he should stand by what he did as governor. He wasn’t some bystander in the healthcare reform in Mass. He was the point man. He was the architect. If it weren’t for Mitt Romney, there would not have been healthcare reform in Mass. It was his initiative. Now, he’s running away from it. Why? To please a different audience. That’s a cop-out.



Cutter’s statement: “Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investment,”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “What Stephanie said, rightfully so, was that either Mitt Romney was lying on SEC forms and misrepresenting to his investors, which could be a felony,”
These are serious accusations, that are completely baseless. If you’re going to throw such charges out there, you had better be able to back them up. They have been unable to. In fact, they know the whole thing was a lie. Romney still stands as the GOP presumptive nominee without charges of any sort. And making excuses for such blatant fabrications is nothing more than pandering to their leftist base.

Both of those statements said either-or. Neither said, “Mitt Romney is a felon”. The fact is Romney claims he left Bain in Feb ’99. Yet he’s signing S.E.C. filings as the owner (or whatever) in 2001. He can say all he wants baout how he wasn’t involved with this or that on a regular basis. The fact is, he was still the owner and, as the owner, he was responsible for what was going on within that company.




I was not saying you lack values. I am certain you are an honest, upstanding American. I was saying you seem to lack certain political and social values that identify you as either conservative or liberal. I am sorry I wasn’t more clear about that.
I don't want this to come across as personal. It's not. Please understand that my comments regarding your political stance are simply observations.

Thank you for saying this. I really appreciate it. And I feel you’re an honest and upstanding American as well. The fact that you take part in these forum debates means that you care about our country. That says a lot. I do lack certain political and social values from each side of the political spectrum. That’s why I can’t identify with one or the other. On each issue, I just look for what’s right. I don’t care whether it falls in the conservative or liberal side. Neither of those sides have ALL the right answers, or values.

Wirelessly posted

I am bothered by the long-running attempt of Obama not coming out with the BC in the very beginning. He made it look like he had something to hide.

Seriously, back to this BS again? You really are a birther, that's all there is to it. You have gone full circle on his more than once and you just cant stop.

So I will ask you again, if you believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, then how can you say that he didn't produce his BC from the beginning? The one he peodeced in 2008 was valid. There was no long running attempt to not come out with it, just a long running case of denial among birthers.

Seriously, back to this BS again? You really are a birther, that's all there is to it. You have gone full circle on his more than once and you just cant stop.

Yet you keep coming back for more :lol:

I don’t think having suspicions equates to being a birther. But if that’s what you want to believe I honestly don’t care.

So I will ask you again, if you believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, then how can you say that he didn't produce his BC from the beginning? The one he peodeced in 2008 was valid. There was no long running attempt to not come out with it, just a long running case of denial among birthers.

Because he didn’t. He produced a short form in the beginning. It was deemed a fraud. He then (as aps has tried to point to you) decided to spend massive amounts in legal fees trying to avoid showing the long form. If Obama believed (as you do) that his short form ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was enough he would have just left it at that. He finally came out with his long form. I’m glad he did. But the whole game he was playing made it look like he had something to hide.

I’m not going to deny that this raises suspicions in my mind. But AGAIN, until Arpaio and his crowd come up with something more compelling I am on Obama’s side with this. But, along with so many of his other dishonest moves, it raises suspicions.

Wirelessly posted

Seriously, back to this BS again? You really are a birther, that's all there is to it. You have gone full circle on his more than once and you just cant stop.

Yet you keep coming back for more :lol:

I don’t think having suspicions equates to being a birther. But if that’s what you want to believe I honestly don’t care.

So I will ask you again, if you believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, then how can you say that he didn't produce his BC from the beginning? The one he peodeced in 2008 was valid. There was no long running attempt to not come out with it, just a long running case of denial among birthers.

Because he didn’t. He produced a short form in the beginning. It was deemed a fraud. He then (as aps has tried to point to you) decided to spend massive amounts in legal fees trying to avoid showing the long form. If Obama believed (as you do) that his short form ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was enough he would have just left it at that. He finally came out with his long form. I’m glad he did. But the whole game he was playing made it look like he had something to hide.

I’m not going to deny that this raises suspicions in my mind. But AGAIN, until Arpaio and his crowd come up with something more compelling I am on Obama’s side with this. But, along with so many of his other dishonest moves, it raises suspicions.

Who deemed Obama's shirt form a fraud? The state of Hawaii verified it back in 2008.

And this is why birthers have no credibility, you make crap up and deny the facts about this issue, all the while claiming that you personally believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. You can't even stand behind the conspiracy that you have bought into, it's just too ridiculous.

So I will ask you again, if you believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, then how can you say that he didn't produce his BC from the beginning? The one he peodeced in 2008 was valid. There was no long running attempt to not come out with it, just a long running case of denial among birthers.

I also think he was born there. I do also think the document they came out with is a fake, because the evidence supports it. I could just as easily produce eleven "witnesses" who saw Joseph Smith's golden plates. If the evidence says it's fake, it's fake.

There are other reasons OTHER than whether or not he was born in Hawaii to produce a fake document. For example - as someone in Hawaii once attested - as many people in Hawaii were often not born in a hospital at that time (one figure says as many as 40%), there may not be any actual proof he was born in one - thus, one could never actually prove he was born here, even if he was. One state official somewhere along the line declared there wasn't one in there. Perhaps his father is someone else.

I don't know WHY someone would produce a fake - I am not making that judgment. I think the sum of the evidence says that it is a forgery. And that is all I have ever said.

Wirelessly posted


So I will ask you again, if you believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, then how can you say that he didn't produce his BC from the beginning? The one he peodeced in 2008 was valid. There was no long running attempt to not come out with it, just a long running case of denial among birthers.

I also think he was born there. I do also think the document they came out with is a fake, because the evidence supports it. I could just as easily produce eleven "witnesses" who saw Joseph Smith's golden plates. If the evidence says it's fake, it's fake.

There are other reasons OTHER than whether or not he was born in Hawaii to produce a fake document. For example - as someone in Hawaii once attested - as many people in Hawaii were often not born in a hospital at that time (one figure says as many as 40%), there may not be any actual proof he was born in one - thus, one could never actually prove he was born here, even if he was. One state official somewhere along the line declared there wasn't one in there. Perhaps his father is someone else.

I don't know WHY someone would produce a fake - I am not making that judgment. I think the sum of the evidence says that it is a forgery. And that is all I have ever said.

The sum of the evidence being sheriff joe and his antiobama posse say so. Despite the fact that the state of Hawaii has verified it, even to the satisfaction of the SoS of Arizona.

All the while distancing yourself from the birthers by claiming to believe that Obama was. Iran in Hawaii. :bigwhoop:

Who deemed Obama's shirt form a fraud? The state of Hawaii verified it back in 2008.

Anybody with a brain.

It had the serial number photoshopped out and said "Void if Altered" on the bottom.

What part of "void if altered" did you find confusing?

void/void/
Adjective: Not valid or legally binding.

Noun: A completely empty space: "the black void of space".

Verb: Declare that (something) is not valid or legally binding: "the Supreme Court voided the statute".

Synonyms: adjective. vacant - empty - invalid - unoccupied - vacuous - null

noun. emptiness - vacuum - vacancy - blank - gap - vacuity

verb. annul - nullify - cancel - empty - invalidate - quash

The sum of the evidence being sheriff joe and his antiobama posse say so.

I don't care if they blather in pig latin. It's not their say so that matters. It's the evidence. It's not because they say so - I can examine the document for myself.


All the while distancing yourself from the birthers by claiming to believe that Obama was. Iran in Hawaii. :bigwhoop:


When did he arrive in Iran? :bigwhoop:

Wirelessly posted


The sum of the evidence being sheriff joe and his antiobama posse say so.

I don't care if they blather in pig latin. It's not their say so that matters. It's the evidence. It's not because they say so - I can examine the document for myself.


All the while distancing yourself from the birthers by claiming to believe that Obama was. Iran in Hawaii. :bigwhoop:


When did he arrive in Iran? :bigwhoop:

So now YOU have examined it and based on YOUR EXPERT OPINION it is a fake?

:killingme

So now YOU have examined it and based on YOUR EXPERT OPINION it is a fake?

No, it means I can take the document and observe the same things they observed, using the same tools they used.

The only response you KEEP RESPONDING with is "somebody said this, and I believe them". I'm saying, look at the list of errors, examine the evidence, and reach your own conclusions. Look at the refutation of evidence and see if it it is sound. Gather the data and decide for yourself what is more credible.

I don't care a fig where he was born - the document has been faked, or minimally, tampered with. A state worker whose signature is on the document claimed as the birth certificate says it was tampered with.

Wirelessly posted

So now YOU have examined it and based on YOUR EXPERT OPINION it is a fake?

No, it means I can take the document and observe the same things they observed, using the same tools they used.

The only response you KEEP RESPONDING with is "somebody said this, and I believe them". I'm saying, look at the list of errors, examine the evidence, and reach your own conclusions. Look at the refutation of evidence and see if it it is sound. Gather the data and decide for yourself what is more credible.

I don't care a fig where he was born - the document has been faked, or minimally, tampered with. A state worker whose signature is on the document claimed as the birth certificate says it was tampered with.

I have looked at the "evidence" and so have a whole slew of experts. The only ones that see a problem with it are joe's posse and you birthers.

Let's see your "evidence" about that sig claim.

When I said that Romney made his business dealings an issue, it was not a negative or a positive. I was stating a fact. He should brag about it. I would too if it were me; however, though it’s not illegal, the possible outsourcing is something that doesn’t sit well with many Americans given the current unemployment levels. If part of Romney’s wealth is a result of jobs being taken from Americans and being outsourced overseas, that needs to be discussed as part of the campaign and, yes, Romney needs to own up to it if it is true.

As long as Obama is going to hire and cling to people (like Immelt) that outsource, and actually used tax dollars to outsource failing 'green projects', he cannot use outsourcing as an issue when he is equally guilty of supporting. In fact, using American taxes makes Obama look even more guilty. From a political standpoint, no matter how uncomfortable Americans may be about something, the two battling factions can’t claim the other side is dirty when they are dirty. It’s just plain hypocrisy. In that light, I fail to see what Romney has to own up to.

Yes, but he should stand by what he did as governor. He wasn’t some bystander in the healthcare reform in Mass. He was the point man. He was the architect. If it weren’t for Mitt Romney, there would not have been healthcare reform in Mass. It was his initiative. Now, he’s running away from it. Why? To please a different audience. That’s a cop-out.

I’m not sure I agree that healthcare reform wouldn’t have happened MA if not for Romney. You have to remember that RIt’s a very liberal state and it’s what the people wanted. But I am extremely bothered that he passed and still claims he is a conservative.

Both of those statements said either-or. Neither said, “Mitt Romney is a felon”. The fact is Romney claims he left Bain in Feb ’99. Yet he’s signing S.E.C. filings as the owner (or whatever) in 2001. He can say all he wants baout how he wasn’t involved with this or that on a regular basis. The fact is, he was still the owner and, as the owner, he was responsible for what was going on within that company.

Mincing words on this doesn’t change what Cutter said. You can’t go around throwing accusations like that unless you have facts to back it up. Regardless of whether it’s either/or, the comment still gives weight to the belief that he ‘is’. Even you are implying that Romney may have done something illegal, or at a minimum, unethical. Bain has already refuted the charge that Romney was involved in any decisions while he was running the Olympics. And this also goes back to the outsourcing bit. That’s what this is all about, that during this period Bain did some outsourcing and somehow Romney made this happen. Even if it were true, Obama needs to remove the plank from his own eye before trying to remove the splinter from Romney’s. As long as Obama is participating in outsourcing, this is a non-issue.

Thank you for saying this. I really appreciate it. And I feel you’re an honest and upstanding American as well. The fact that you take part in these forum debates means that you care about our country. That says a lot. I do [/SIZE][/FONT][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]lack certain political and social values from each side of the political spectrum. That’s why I can’t identify with one or the other. On each issue, I just look for what’s right. I don’t care whether it falls in the conservative or liberal side. Neither of those sides have ALL the right answers, or values.

If you’re looking for what’s right then I would think you’d be calling Obama out for his hypocrisy. If you’re looking for what’s right then you should be outraged at the blatant dishonesty no matter where it comes from. As of now, I’ve seen nothing from Romney that indicates he has been dishonest about Bain’s outsourcing and his involvement in Bain during the Olympic period. I found the assertion that Romney may have committed a felony as being abjectly dishonest and shows the Obama camp will say and do anything to win political points. I’m not trying to paint Romney as some sort of perfect political specimen, but of what I have seen he has run a very honest business, his work with the Olympics was outstanding, and he ran things very honestly as governor. I don’t like his political leanings on a whole bunch of things, and he has flip-flopped on a lot of issues – and those things point to calling his credibility into question. Matching Romney and Obama side by side politically I see very little difference. Matching Romney and Obama side by side in terms of honesty, Romney looks like a saint.

Who deemed Obama's shirt form a fraud? The state of Hawaii verified it back in 2008.

I had doubts about the short form. I am in no position to trust one way or the other. However, if the ‘birthers’ were asking for Obama’s BC I would think Obama would say “Let’s put this to rest right away; give them the real deal”, not some short form. People saw this as stonewalling. Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he put that short form out there.

I am not doubting the state’s verification of Obama BC. As I have tried to tell you, nothing has been proven otherwise to me. However, given Obama’s ongoing desire to be most distant from transparent, given his ongoing desire to be dishonest, and given his connections to known convicted felons and very questionable people, this makes a lot of people believe he wont stop at anything to manipulate the truth and that there aren’t a lot of people that will willingly play along.

People seem to fall into two categories when it comes to honesty:

1. If you lie often enough people will begin to believe you.

2. If you lie so often that nothing you can do will make people believe you.

And this is why birthers have no credibility, you make crap up and deny the facts about this issue, all the while claiming that you personally believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. You can't even stand behind the conspiracy that you have bought into, it's just too ridiculous.

And as I have been trying to point out, Obama has no credibility. What seems ridiculous to me is how you can’t at least see why there are people that can’t get themselves to trust Obama.

Wirelessly posted

Who deemed Obama's shirt form a fraud? The state of Hawaii verified it back in 2008.

I had doubts about the short form. I am in no position to trust one way or the other. However, if the ‘birthers’ were asking for Obama’s BC I would think Obama would say “Let’s put this to rest right away; give them the real deal”, not some short form. People saw this as stonewalling. Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he put that short form out there.

I am not doubting the state’s verification of Obama BC. As I have tried to tell you, nothing has been proven otherwise to me. However, given Obama’s ongoing desire to be most distant from transparent, given his ongoing desire to be dishonest, and given his connections to known convicted felons and very questionable people, this makes a lot of people believe he wont stop at anything to manipulate the truth and that there aren’t a lot of people that will willingly play along.

People seem to fall into two categories when it comes to honesty:

1. If you lie often enough people will begin to believe you.

2. If you lie so often that nothing you can do will make people believe you.

And this is why birthers have no credibility, you make crap up and deny the facts about this issue, all the while claiming that you personally believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. You can't even stand behind the conspiracy that you have bought into, it's just too ridiculous.

And as I have been trying to point out, Obama has no credibility. What seems ridiculous to me is how you can’t at least see why there are people that can’t get themselves to trust Obama.

The short form is and was his BC. Obama released it and Hawaii verified it. That really should have been all there was to it. The long form is no more valid and no more official than the short form was.

On this issue Obama was nothing but honest AND he wasn't the one who you had to trust anyway, Hawaii was.

The short form is and was his BC. Obama released it and Hawaii verified it. That really should have been all there was to it. The long form is no more valid and no more official than the short form was.

On this issue Obama was nothing but honest AND he wasn't the one who you had to trust anyway, Hawaii was.

Let’s put things in a little different perspective…

Remember the Black Panther voter intimidation thing? These thugs were standing outside a polling place in Philadelphia? They were charged with voter intimidation. Holder is an Obama appointee and dedicated Obama supporter. The whole thing was caught on video. These guys committed a felony. Holder let them walk.

The Obama administration allowed a felony to happen. This being part of our election process.

If Obama is willing to allow an obvious and overt felony be committed and be dismissed by his own guy, if he is willing to allow crimes to be committed on his behalf in order to protect his election bid, is it not reasonable to believe Hawaiian officials can act on behalf of Obama and do all they can to protect him? From that aspect, how hard would it be to fabricate a BC? Do you have any idea how many felons Obama is connected to? Does this make him a felon? No! Does this mean people wouldn’t be willing to commit crimes on his behalf? :shrug:

I am, by no means saying this is what happened with his BC. I am saying that this is what’s in the minds of those that keep pursuing this issue. Given Obama’s willingness to overlook crimes committed in this country; given that he’s willing to refuse to enforce some of our laws; given he has ties to known felons and very shady people; this gives plenty of reason not to trust anything that comes from him.

I am going to end this conversation with this… I found an article on factcheck.org that claims they have held the actual document in their hands and verified it as legit. So I’m good with it. I’m done. You are obviously not going to see my point on this. You can have the last word.

FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/)

The short form is and was his BC. Obama released it and Hawaii verified it. That really should have been all there was to it. The long form is no more valid and no more official than the short form was. I'll have to disagree on this point. As I understand it, in 1961 Hawaii, it would have been possible for a person to obtain the short form (aka "Certification of Live Birth") without actually having been born in Hawaii. That's why everyone wanted to see the long form (aka "Certificate of Live Birth"). A "Certification of Live Birth" is nothing more than an affidavit from someone claiming the information on the form is correct. There was no way to validate the information as being 100% factual. I suppose it could be possible for either a "Certification of Live Birth" or a "Certificate of Live Birth" but it would be infinitely many times easier to fake a "Certification of Live Birth" than a "Certificate of Live Birth" IMO.

Now before you start throwing out the "birther" talk, I'm just pointing out that what Obama first presented could have hidden a birth in some place other than Hawaii. It wouldn't have mattered if Hawaiian officials validated that particular document as authentic because it would have been an authentic document with false information. The "Certificate of Live Birth" (long form) should have ended this issue, but with the way Obama has handled the issue he left the door open for people to be skeptical. Had he been a true leader from the get-go and put the issue to rest during the 2008 campaign, then we wouldn't be having this conversation today. I'm sure there would have been some out there clinging onto this as a conspiracy (see Kennedy, Moon landings, WTC, etc.) but for the most part would have been summarily dismissed.

On this issue Obama was nothing but honest AND he wasn't the one who you had to trust anyway, Hawaii was.Again I'll disagree with you on this. Obama has been far from honest, in that he has let this issue continue. He has obfuscated the situation. Being forthcoming is a part of being honest. Obama is the one we NEED to trust. We NEED to be able to trust the President. We don't NEED to trust Hawaii.

The short form is and was his BC. Obama released it and Hawaii verified it. That really should have been all there was to it. The long form is no more valid and no more official than the short form was.

On this issue Obama was nothing but honest AND he wasn't the one who you had to trust anyway, Hawaii was.

If a document say "Void if Altered" on it and it has obviously altered, why would you claim it's a valid document?


FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/)

"A project of the Annenbereg Public Policy Center"

Where have we heard that before????
Oh yeah, the Annangerg project in Chicago was where Obama worked with the terrorist Bill Ayers who launched his political career.

So the ONLY people to have actually examed the obviously invalid document are the same people who started his career

Seems legit :crazy:

Wirelessly posted

The short form is and was his BC. Obama released it and Hawaii verified it. That really should have been all there was to it. The long form is no more valid and no more official than the short form was. I'll have to disagree on this point. As I understand it, in 1961 Hawaii, it would have been possible for a person to obtain the short form (aka "Certification of Live Birth") without actually having been born in Hawaii. That's why everyone wanted to see the long form (aka "Certificate of Live Birth"). A "Certification of Live Birth" is nothing more than an affidavit from someone claiming the information on the form is correct. There was no way to validate the information as being 100% factual. I suppose it could be possible for either a "Certification of Live Birth" or a "Certificate of Live Birth" but it would be infinitely many times easier to fake a "Certification of Live Birth" than a "Certificate of Live Birth" IMO.

Now before you start throwing out the "birther" talk, I'm just pointing out that what Obama first presented could have hidden a birth in some place other than Hawaii. It wouldn't have mattered if Hawaiian officials validated that particular document as authentic because it would have been an authentic document with false information. The "Certificate of Live Birth" (long form) should have ended this issue, but with the way Obama has handled the issue he left the door open for people to be skeptical. Had he been a true leader from the get-go and put the issue to rest during the 2008 campaign, then we wouldn't be having this conversation today. I'm sure there would have been some out there clinging onto this as a conspiracy (see Kennedy, Moon landings, WTC, etc.) but for the most part would have been summarily dismissed.

On this issue Obama was nothing but honest AND he wasn't the one who you had to trust anyway, Hawaii was.Again I'll disagree with you on this. Obama has been far from honest, in that he has let this issue continue. He has obfuscated the situation. Being forthcoming is a part of being honest. Obama is the one we NEED to trust. We NEED to be able to trust the President. We don't NEED to trust Hawaii.

Actually, back in 2008 the Hawaii department of health director issued two statements, the first said that she had seen and verified Obama's original BC. The second said that she had verified that Obama was born in Hawaii. The second statement came out because the birthers didn't accept the info and made he same COLB claim you just did.

The matter was dead then, and that was 2008.

Wirelessly posted


The short form is and was his BC. Obama released it and Hawaii verified it. That really should have been all there was to it. The long form is no more valid and no more official than the short form was.

On this issue Obama was nothing but honest AND he wasn't the one who you had to trust anyway, Hawaii was.

If a document say "Void if Altered" on it and it has obviously altered, why would you claim it's a valid document?


FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A. (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/)

"A project of the Annenbereg Public Policy Center"

Where have we heard that before????
Oh yeah, the Annangerg project in Chicago was where Obama worked with the terrorist Bill Ayers who launched his political career.

So the ONLY people to have actually examed the obviously invalid document are the same people who started his career

Seems legit :crazy:

Putting an electronic black box over a number in a PDF doesn't change he document itself. The hard copy that factcheck reviewed and posted pictures of was not altered.

I'll have to disagree on this point. As I understand it, in 1961 Hawaii, it would have been possible for a person to obtain the short form (aka "Certification of Live Birth") without actually having been born in Hawaii. That's why everyone wanted to see the long form (aka "Certificate of Live Birth"). A "Certification of Live Birth" is nothing more than an affidavit from someone claiming the information on the form is correct. There was no way to validate the information as being 100% factual. I suppose it could be possible for either a "Certification of Live Birth" or a "Certificate of Live Birth" but it would be infinitely many times easier to fake a "Certification of Live Birth" than a "Certificate of Live Birth" IMO.

Now before you start throwing out the "birther" talk, I'm just pointing out that what Obama first presented could have hidden a birth in some place other than Hawaii. It wouldn't have mattered if Hawaiian officials validated that particular document as authentic because it would have been an authentic document with false information. The "Certificate of Live Birth" (long form) should have ended this issue, but with the way Obama has handled the issue he left the door open for people to be skeptical. Had he been a true leader from the get-go and put the issue to rest during the 2008 campaign, then we wouldn't be having this conversation today. I'm sure there would have been some out there clinging onto this as a conspiracy (see Kennedy, Moon landings, WTC, etc.) but for the most part would have been summarily dismissed.

Again I'll disagree with you on this. Obama has been far from honest, in that he has let this issue continue. He has obfuscated the situation. Being forthcoming is a part of being honest. Obama is the one we NEED to trust. We NEED to be able to trust the President. We don't NEED to trust Hawaii.

Obama’s half sister, born in Indonesia, has a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth

Right Truth: Obama (http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/07/obamas-half-sister-born-in-indonesia-has-a-hawaiian-certification-of-live-birth.html)

Wirelessly posted



Putting an electronic black box over a number in a PDF doesn't change he document itself. The hard copy that factcheck reviewed and posted pictures of was not altered.

and why would you black out the serial number?

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Putting an electronic black box over a number in a PDF doesn't change he document itself. The hard copy that factcheck reviewed and posted pictures of was not altered.

and why would you black out the serial number?

I see you don't understand the term redacted either :bigwhoop: