Is this close to the truth?

• majorspark

  

  stlouiedipalma;750310 wrote:How is this any different from those societies who demanded that people provide their "papers" to the authorities?

  Come on louie. You know the difference. Those were papers demanded by the state from the people to travel freely and commerce within the state. Those papers were required by the state (in the context you are referring) to weed out and detain those that may be a threat to the state's authority. Not so in this case. In fact you have just the opposite. You have a small group of citizens demanding that an officer of the state provide the people papers. Before you label me a birther nutbag refer to my earlier posts on this thread.
  
  As for providing papers to the state. My wife and I did a lot of that this last year. My son got his driving permit last October. He had to submit his papers to the state. A birth certificate and social security card. My wife also had to show her laminated papers proving she was his legal parent. Our papers were submitted in the context of maintaining law and order. Not the state maintaining totalitarian authority over its citizenry. Its easy to distinguish the two.
  
  I know you are a good guy who wants what is best for our country. We may disagree on how that is achieved. But your statement that I quoted (with all due respect) is as nutty as any of the birthers.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I Wear Pants;750334 wrote:First, let me say that I am disappointed in the lack of transparency from the Obama administration. However, he's certainly not the least transparent president in history.
  
  And second, even if he would release all of that it's not like any of this would stop because many of the people demanding to see them would cry that they're fake or somehow invalid. It's a lose/lose either way.
  
  What in the hell would he be hiding anyway?

  
  I don't know what he might be hiding...which is the whole point of releasing documents MOST presidents in US history have routinely released. Why should Obama be any different?
  
  And IF some folks wouldn't be satisfied even after he released all those documents (he won't, but we're imagining a real transparent president, not the fake one who's in office now) it would be his own fault for obfuscating for so long.
  
  You earn trust...he hasn't.
• I Wear Pants

  I'd like a link to Bush's birth certificate.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Bush's family history is well documented. Not even close to the same situation.
• stlouiedipalma

  majorspark;750335 wrote:Come on louie. You know the difference. Those were papers demanded by the state from the people to travel freely and commerce within the state. Those papers were required by the state (in the context you are referring) to weed out and detain those that may be a threat to the state's authority. Not so in this case. In fact you have just the opposite. You have a small group of citizens demanding that an officer of the state provide the people papers. Before you label me a birther nutbag refer to my earlier posts on this thread.
  
  As for providing papers to the state. My wife and I did a lot of that this last year. My son got his driving permit last October. He had to submit his papers to the state. A birth certificate and social security card. My wife also had to show her laminated papers proving she was his legal parent. Our papers were submitted in the context of maintaining law and order. Not the state maintaining totalitarian authority over its citizenry. Its easy to distinguish the two.
  
  I know you are a good guy who wants what is best for our country. We may disagree on how that is achieved. But your statement that I quoted (with all due respect) is as nutty as any of the birthers.

  
  Of course I know the difference. What has me perplexed in this situation is that, even though he has provided proof of his birth, it's not enough for some who DEMAND that the legally elected President of this country show even more, to jump through the hoops like a show dog. It's like the polls which show that many Republicans believe he wasn't born here and those which show many believe him to be a Muslim. I'm not even going to go into the whole conspiracy thing here, but there comes a point where common sense and decency has to take over, but not with this President. From the moment his candidacy was announced several years ago I just knew he would face terrible scrutiny from the right, but I am amazed at the level of idiocy which accompanies this scrutiny. What's even more damning, in my opinion, is that the so-called Republican leaders allow their party to go on the way they do. Obama gave it to Rep. Ryan the other week in his speech and the top Republicans were aghast that he would do such a thing, yet they allow all of this nonsense to go on without one word to stop it. The level of disrespect toward the office itself is IMO the worst I have seen in my time.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Oh please, louie. Spare me the righteous indignation.
  
  Obama skated to the White House as the most UNscrutinized President in modern times. The media pretty much anointed him as their guy and looked the other way. Nobody did ANY due diligence with regard to his competence to be President (experience, education, etc.)
  
  Every other candidate underwent very close examination by the media, digging up any and all things they could about their past history. That was not the case with Obama. While the tone in most of those other stories was adversarial (which it is supposed to be), virtually every interview with Obama was as soft and bland as vanilla frozen yogurt.
• I Wear Pants

  Writerbuckeye;750538 wrote:Bush's family history is well documented. Not even close to the same situation.

  It's exactly the same situation.
  
  In fact, I'd like a link to any past president's birth certificate.
  
  And that's ignoring the fact that a birth certificate has already been produced. One that's verified as real by the only people who can do so and is valid for every instance that we use birth certificates for (license, passport, etc). So the fact that people on the internet who already hate the dude cry that it's somehow not good enough doesn't matter at all. They don't matter.
  
  The lack of transparency in this matter I don't really give a shit about because it doesn't make any difference. I do care about the lack of transparency in other matters though, they could have been better with the health care debate, with GITMO they could be better, they could more clearly make known their positions regarding telecommunications and network neutrality. Do not for one second confuse me thinking this birth certificate "contraversy" is fucking stupid with me being satisfied with the level of disclosure this administration has so far had. I'm not.
• Abe Vigoda

  

  Dr. Chiyome Fukino, a former director of the Hawaii Department of Health and a Republican, told CNN in her most extensive comments to date that she has "no doubt" Obama was born in the state.

  I think this one finally puts it to rest. Only the people who believe we did not land on the moon and we blew up the World Trade center would think otherwise.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/index.html
  
  [video][/video]
• stlouiedipalma

  Writerbuckeye;750728 wrote:Oh please, louie. Spare me the righteous indignation.
  
  Obama skated to the White House as the most UNscrutinized President in modern times. The media pretty much anointed him as their guy and looked the other way. Nobody did ANY due diligence with regard to his competence to be President (experience, education, etc.)
  
  Every other candidate underwent very close examination by the media, digging up any and all things they could about their past history. That was not the case with Obama. While the tone in most of those other stories was adversarial (which it is supposed to be), virtually every interview with Obama was as soft and bland as vanilla frozen yogurt.

  So how do a pair of really good political operatives like Bill and Hillary Clinton miss the birth business? Did they also decide to give Barry a free pass on that as well? I've got to believe that if there were any truth to this at all they would have skewered him over a slow fire. The fact that they didn't tells me one of two things:
  
  1. There was no truth to it at all
  2. They were in on the most massive conspiracy in modern times
  
  And as much as you dislike the role of the national media these days, how did the birther business escape anyone in the media, including those on the right? Were they in on it too?
• jhay78

  

  Abe Vigoda;750731 wrote:I think this one finally puts it to rest. Only the people who believe we did not land on the moon and we blew up the World Trade center would think otherwise.
  
  Dr. Chiyome Fukino, a former director of the Hawaii Department of Health and a Republican, told CNN in her most extensive comments to date that she has "no doubt" Obama was born in the state.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/index.html
  
  [video][/video]

  
  Well then that settles it. One person has "no doubt" he was born in Hawaii. Birthers really are crazy.
• I Wear Pants

  The people who have said that it's real have been the only people with the authority to do so.
  
  Who that is credible and privvy to the official information has said he wasn't born there? Birthers are crazy.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  So your argument is that if the Clintons couldn't find any dirt on Obama he must be clean?
  
  How laughable.
  
  We saw how quickly the Clinton "machine" fell apart in Iowa...and it was all downhill from there.
  
  My point stands: Every presidential candidate should undergo the type of media scrutiny that Sarah Palin had to endure. And the same type of adversarial interviews...over and over again.
  
  That is what a true Fourth Estate is supposed to do.
  
  Obama saw nothing in the same hemisphere as that type of adversarial relationship with the press, and nowhere near the scrutiny. Hell, it was only after the conservative media (mostly on the Internet) raised holy hell about Obama's relationship with the Rev. Wright that we heard anything about it in the MSM. They ignored it as long as they could -- and then basically let Obama throw the good Rev. under the bus (beside Obama's grandma) and dropped it.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  WTF are we still talking about birthers?
  It does not matter.
  Repeat.
  It does not matter.
  
  Politics today.....
• stlouiedipalma

  Writerbuckeye;750867 wrote:So your argument is that if the Clintons couldn't find any dirt on Obama he must be clean?
  
  How laughable.
  
  We saw how quickly the Clinton "machine" fell apart in Iowa...and it was all downhill from there.
  
  My point stands: Every presidential candidate should undergo the type of media scrutiny that Sarah Palin had to endure. And the same type of adversarial interviews...over and over again.
  
  That is what a true Fourth Estate is supposed to do.
  
  Obama saw nothing in the same hemisphere as that type of adversarial relationship with the press, and nowhere near the scrutiny. Hell, it was only after the conservative media (mostly on the Internet) raised holy hell about Obama's relationship with the Rev. Wright that we heard anything about it in the MSM. They ignored it as long as they could -- and then basically let Obama throw the good Rev. under the bus (beside Obama's grandma) and dropped it.

  
  Writer, I have respect for you as a journalist but don't, don't use Sarah Palin as an example of "adversarial interviews".
  
  What did Palin have, two interviews with your "mainstream media"? And they were conducted by those journalistic icons Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. Once they "worked her over" she quit talking to anyone but Fox.
  
  And as for the scrutiny she had to endure? She brought all of that on herself (with help from McCain's handlers) because she didn't have a clue. Not a single frickin' clue. She was running for the second-highest office in the land and she didn't even know what newspapers she read. Now she's in it for the celebrity, something she used to deride the Democrats for.
  
  BTW, I'm still waiting for that definitive, proof-positive link about how Obama spent millions to hide his identity. Take your time, I can wait.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  You'll be waiting forever on me. I'm not looking for it. I've already said I don't care if it was millions or a penny. Any time spent fighting its release, and any time spent fighting release of his college records, is too much. It shows he has something he doesn't want out there.
• I Wear Pants

  I think the money and time was spent fighting lawsuits trying to get him kicked out of office more than the release of documents. And it's not like they can ignore that.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;750977 wrote:You'll be waiting forever on me. I'm not looking for it. I've already said I don't care if it was millions or a penny. Any time spent fighting its release, and any time spent fighting release of his college records, is too much. It shows he has something he doesn't want out there.

  This. It's not about the amount of money spent but BHO's seeming unwillingness to produce a simple, legal document. If he cannot do that, what else is the most transparent POTUS in American history hiding?
  
  You can bet the ranch that if BHO were a Republican POTUS the media would be taking great pains to "discover" the truth.
• I Wear Pants

  He did produce the legal document.
• Bigdogg

  believer;751297 wrote:This. It's not about the amount of money spent but BHO's seeming unwillingness to produce a simple, legal document. If he cannot do that, what else is the most transparent POTUS in American history hiding?
  
  You can bet the ranch that if BHO were a Republican POTUS the media would be taking great pains to "discover" the truth.

  
  Like so many things you believe, you are wrong but I doubt that this will convince you.
  

  Facing continued questions about whether he was born in Hawaii, President Barack Obama has released his original birth certificate showing he was born in a Honolulu hospital in August 1961.

  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/apr/27/obama-releases-birth-certificate/
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;751364 wrote:He did produce the legal document.

  Not good enough. Obama needs to produce the video of his mother actually giving birth to him in Hawaii.
• Bigdogg

  Sad but true!
• stlouiedipalma

  I see where The Donald is taking credit for bringing this to light. Not a big surprise there.
  
  Now he's demanding to see Obama's college transcripts. Not a big surprise there either. This "carnival barker" will use any lowest common denominator ruse he can think of to gain the trust of the Tea Party faithful. The birth conspiracy has been debunked completely, now he needs to further his Jerry Fletcher impersonation by somehow showing that Columbia University and Harvard University were in on the deception.
  
  The sad truth is that there are actually folks here on this forum who swallow it hook, line and sinker.
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;751492 wrote:I see where The Donald is taking credit for bringing this to light. Not a big surprise there.
  
  Now he's demanding to see Obama's college transcripts. Not a big surprise there either. This "carnival barker" will use any lowest common denominator ruse he can think of to gain the trust of the Tea Party faithful. The birth conspiracy has been debunked completely, now he needs to further his Jerry Fletcher impersonation by somehow showing that Columbia University and Harvard University were in on the deception.
  
  The sad truth is that there are actually folks here on this forum who swallow it hook, line and sinker.

  
  I don't think I've seen one person on this forum who was a "birther", could you point them out please?
• stlouiedipalma

  I'll be happy to, just as soon as I get that proof-positive link showing how Obama spent millions hiding his birth record and identity. No one on this forum has been able to do so yet.
• Con_Alma

  Where the guy was born is of no interest to me. The guy being who I thought he was when he campaigned is of great concern to me.