Obama Makes Jimmy Carter Look Good

[Diogenes]

Now I just don't know HOW you prove something is real, rather than what some judge decided you should see.

I think that summarizes the ultimate conclusion of the deeply rooted birthers. There simply is NO amount of proof that would be enough. Sadly, the logical extension they refuse to make is that applying the same rules evenly instead of solely against Obama, would equally disqualify every single candidate there has and will ever be for the position...

Yeah, I keep hearing that used as an excuse to cover up the fact that people are still playing games with their birth certificate.

This is what a real one looks like. If we had not been playing games we would have submitted THIS document.

Well that seems perfectly reasonable. Here's an image of a Birth Certificate that claims to be that of someone born just hours after Obama at the same hospital. You apparently take this image as valid, true and convincing. Can you explain exactly what it is about the source of this image that makes you believe it is so much more reliable, accurate and trustworthy than the documents for Obama that have been repeatedly testified to as being accurate by all manner of officials? Who's verification is it exactly that you have seen for your posted image that leads you to put so much more trust in it than what Obama has presented?

Oh right, as you've already stated it's a circle and there is no end....

Yeah, the woman that produced it was not trying to run for President using a peculiarly weak document. She claims that it was produced by the State of Hawaii in 1961, and it's appearance seems to confirm that, and she has saved it since then. Also she has two of them. The Nordyke's were twins.

On the testimony of the woman who presented this for everyone to see, and on the strength of the official witness signatures, and regarding the text that attests that it is an TRUE and CORRECT copy, given the obvious assumption that it is an official document from the state of Hawaii, There is hardly any manner in which it's authenticity can be doubted.

If we didn't want a circular merry-go-round of speculation, he should have submitted a document that looked like this in the first place. Don't blame the people who have trouble believing what a serial liar says, or the documents he produces.

[Ivy Matt]

Actually, they are both clearly photocopies, presumably of originals that are on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health. The green hash marks that are overlaid on Obama's certificate of live birth (identical to those on his certification of live birth obtained in 2008) are clearly a modern addition by the Hawaii State Department of Health. It might be impossible nowadays for Obama to obtain a copy of his birth certificate that looks just like the ones produced for the Nordyke twins. Even if Hawaii wanted to, the equipment that produced the earlier certificates may be gone.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes, here's the document released yesterday. It looks pretty much identical to what you posted above as what you want. Can you explain your objections that still exist??????

I think this document is going to end the discussion about this issue. (Mostly.) But how can you assert it looks like the other document?

The one which is of more certain veracity attests that it is an "True and Correct" copy of the original record.

The one which Obama has produced has a contemporary rubber stamped weasle clause in it. It OUGHT to say it is a "True and Correct copy of the Original record. "

Instead it says it is either a "true copy of a record on file" or it is an "abstract" of a record on file. Not very confidence instilling words in my opinion. It is "damned by faint praise" if you are familiar with the phrase.


I've already mentioned countless times how the "record on file" gets changed when a Judge orders it. What is wrong with seeing a "True and Correct copy of the Original record? " Why does there always have to be something weasley about this guy?

[Diogenes]

Actually, they are both clearly photocopies, presumably of originals that are on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health. The green hash marks that are overlaid on Obama's certificate of live birth (identical to those on his certification of live birth obtained in 2008) are clearly a modern addition by the Hawaii State Department of Health. It might be impossible nowadays for Obama to obtain a copy of his birth certificate that looks just like the ones produced for the Nordyke twins. Even if Hawaii wanted to, the equipment that produced the earlier certificates may be gone.

You mean they can't just look in the file? Funny. Other people who have been born in Hawaii have not had difficulty in obtaining an ORIGINAL copy. I would give you a link but I have to track it down again.

[Ivy Matt]

From what I've been able to find, the Nordyke twins' birth certificates were obtained in 1966, so there's no point in comparing them with Obama's, except for the information that is contained directly on the photocopied original. I guess the question is, what does a certificate of live birth from Hawaii, obtained in 2011, look like? They don't all have those green hash marks? They don't all have the same phrasing?

What does an original copy look like? Is it just a photocopy, with no security features, or any of that stuff?

[bcglorf]

On the testimony of the woman who presented this for everyone to see, and on the strength of the official witness signatures, and regarding the text that attests that it is an TRUE and CORRECT copy, given the obvious assumption that it is an official document from the state of Hawaii, There is hardly any manner in which it's authenticity can be doubted.


So that's your stance on one image. Is it still true if we change it a touch:

On the testimony of the man who presented this for everyone to see, and on the strength of the official witness signatures, and regarding the text that attests that it is an TRUE COPY or abstract of the RECORD ON FILE, given the obvious assumption that it is an official document from the state of Hawaii, There is hardly any manner in which it's authenticity can be doubted.

It seems you DO take issue with the small change of wording. It seems that it would NOT have been good enough for you if he'd released this exact document even before announcing his candidacy. It seems the most accurate summation you've given is that NOTHING will be good enough. What you won't seem to admit is that this was true from the VERY START!



I don't know nor really care anymore were you stand. Most likely it seems your issue is that he's from the wrong party. Regardless of that, the utterly INSANE ravings of all the birthers like you are being used as a smoke screen by a swarm of racists whose sole problem is the color of his skin. Fortunately America is a country were those masses are too afraid to come out and say their problem is the color of his skin. Lucky for them, there is a whole movement for them to line up behind and vent their hatred through. Although the real unAmerican thing about Obama for them isn't his birth certificate but the color of his skin. The more evidence that is released, the more concentrated the birther movement becomes with people solely there because of their irrational and indefensible hatreds they are too afraid to come out and say directly.

[D Tibbets]

I notice that many birthers- D. Trump as an example, are not giving up, just shifting targets. The new mantra seems to be - " How could Obama have gone to Harvard, I 'heard' that he was a terrible student, that he has not released his transcripts must surely prove this!".

There is no end. Is racism the underling motivator? Yes, in some cases. Though you don't have to invoke this to explain the hatred and bigotry. Recall how Clinton was demonized. Look how enemies , the 'Others' are demonized in wars, etc. Many people need this divide and justification in order to sustain their 'moral high ground'. It is a matter of faith and has nothing to do with reality. It is additionally sad that pundits play off of this weakness to reinforce their agenda.

Dan Tibbets

[seedload]

Regardless of that, the utterly INSANE ravings of all the birthers like you are being used as a smoke screen by a swarm of racists whose sole problem is the color of his skin. Fortunately America is a country were those masses are too afraid to come out and say their problem is the color of his skin. Lucky for them, there is a whole movement for them to line up behind and vent their hatred through. Although the real unAmerican thing about Obama for them isn't his birth certificate but the color of his skin. The more evidence that is released, the more concentrated the birther movement becomes with people solely there because of their irrational and indefensible hatreds they are too afraid to come out and say directly.

Really? They have to be racists? Not sure where that jump came from.

As an example:

Clearly, there are people in this country who insanely rave that Bush organized/faked an attack on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 just so he could go to war with Iraq. Does there insane raving make them racists? Obviously not, because Bush isn't black.

Clearly insane raving can exist without racism. The only real evidence that you have that people who question Obama's eligibility are racists is the color of his skin. Who does that make the racist again?

regards

[bcglorf]

Regardless of that, the utterly INSANE ravings of all the birthers like you are being used as a smoke screen by a swarm of racists whose sole problem is the color of his skin. Fortunately America is a country were those masses are too afraid to come out and say their problem is the color of his skin. Lucky for them, there is a whole movement for them to line up behind and vent their hatred through. Although the real unAmerican thing about Obama for them isn't his birth certificate but the color of his skin. The more evidence that is released, the more concentrated the birther movement becomes with people solely there because of their irrational and indefensible hatreds they are too afraid to come out and say directly.

Really? They have to be racists? Not sure where that jump came from.

As an example:

Clearly, there are people in this country who insanely rave that Bush organized/faked an attack on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 just so he could go to war with Iraq. Does there insane raving make them racists? Obviously not, because Bush isn't black.

Clearly insane raving can exist without racism. The only real evidence that you have that people who question Obama's eligibility are racists is the color of his skin. Who does that make the racist again?

regards

I was going to call into question your reading ability. Then I looked closer at your quoting of me and it looks more like you DELIBERATELY misrepresented what I said. I've italicized the bit you cut out here below:

I don't know nor really care anymore were you stand. Most likely it seems your issue is that he's from the wrong party. Regardless of that, the utterly INSANE ravings of all the birthers like you are being used as a smoke screen by a swarm of racists whose sole problem is the color of his skin.

Plainly you can see that I guess Diogenes birther roots are related to Obama's party, not his skin color.

I never painted birthers as racists. I stated that racists are using the birther movement to vent their hate because they are too scared to come out and decry Obama for his skin color. It's not even much of a leap for them since crying about how an African isn't an American and can't be president fits the racists world view just fine.

Take a flipping introduction to logic course. I stated many birthers are racists. I did NOT say that ALL birthers are racists. It's the same as saying many people are women. It's not the same as saying ALL people are women. It's not the same as saying that you can't be classed as a person unless you are a women.

[Ivy Matt]

What does an original copy look like? Is it just a photocopy, with no security features, or any of that stuff?

Well, what do you know?:



Oh, and: sitting presidents have been vilified for a long time before now.

[seedload]

Regardless of that, the utterly INSANE ravings of all the birthers like you are being used as a smoke screen by a swarm of racists whose sole problem is the color of his skin. Fortunately America is a country were those masses are too afraid to come out and say their problem is the color of his skin. Lucky for them, there is a whole movement for them to line up behind and vent their hatred through. Although the real unAmerican thing about Obama for them isn't his birth certificate but the color of his skin. The more evidence that is released, the more concentrated the birther movement becomes with people solely there because of their irrational and indefensible hatreds they are too afraid to come out and say directly.

Really? They have to be racists? Not sure where that jump came from.

As an example:

Clearly, there are people in this country who insanely rave that Bush organized/faked an attack on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 just so he could go to war with Iraq. Does there insane raving make them racists? Obviously not, because Bush isn't black.

Clearly insane raving can exist without racism. The only real evidence that you have that people who question Obama's eligibility are racists is the color of his skin. Who does that make the racist again?

regards

I was going to call into question your reading ability. Then I looked closer at your quoting of me and it looks more like you DELIBERATELY misrepresented what I said. I've italicized the bit you cut out here below:

I don't know nor really care anymore were you stand. Most likely it seems your issue is that he's from the wrong party. Regardless of that, the utterly INSANE ravings of all the birthers like you are being used as a smoke screen by a swarm of racists whose sole problem is the color of his skin.

Plainly you can see that I guess Diogenes birther roots are related to Obama's party, not his skin color.

I never painted birthers as racists. I stated that racists are using the birther movement to vent their hate because they are too scared to come out and decry Obama for his skin color. It's not even much of a leap for them since crying about how an African isn't an American and can't be president fits the racists world view just fine.

Take a flipping introduction to logic course. I stated many birthers are racists. I did NOT say that ALL birthers are racists. It's the same as saying many people are women. It's not the same as saying ALL people are women. It's not the same as saying that you can't be classed as a person unless you are a women.

I did not intentionally change your wording. I just cut it to the more general part. I did miss the phrase "smoke screen" so I guess you can question my reading ability if you want to. I can't prove it, but I am saying it to be so. Obviously, the words "smoke screen" are more important to my general response rather than the deletion of the specific stuff to an individual because I never reference that individual in my post. It was not intentional, and as you say, I am obviously a bad reader because I missed "smoke screen".

Not that it matters much, because if your claim is that Birthers are being used as a smoke screen for racism, you aren't saying anything at all. This "logic" can be applied to ALL opposition to Obama, or to any black man, and is therefore worthless.

You oppose Obamacare - racist smoke screen.
You oppose closing Guantanamo - racist smoke screen.
You think Obama is misleading - racist smoke screen.
You don't believe in re-distributive policies - racist smoke screen.
You are a Tea Partier - racist smoke screen.

Blah blah blah blah ... with the only thing on the mind of the person making these kinds of statements being the color of the Obama's skin.

And the only reason for the person to make the argument being a specific intention to draw an association to racism.

Take a flipping introduction to logic course.

Your claim that you are not painting Birthers as racists is BS and you know it. You are specifically bringing race into the discussion of "Birthers" in order to make the association - to paint them.

I wish your little example of set theory applied, but it doesn't, because the real question is one of intention and, to me, your intention was clear.

BTW, I have never doubted Obama's eligibility. Rather, I am offended by the consistent application of racist undertones to ANY opposition of Obama. It is left leaning political hackery, no different from some of the ridiculous tactics the right uses.

And the "I didn't say ALL of you were racists" defense is utterly predictable.

regards

[bcglorf]

You oppose Obamacare - racist smoke screen.
You oppose closing Guantanamo - racist smoke screen.
You think Obama is misleading - racist smoke screen.
You don't believe in re-distributive policies - racist smoke screen.
You are a Tea Partier - racist smoke screen.

None of those let you say Obama is not an American because, in reality he is African. The Birther movement does.
None of those can be refuted with hard evidence. The birther movement has been.

I don't think those are minor differences to be glossed over, they are compelling.


Your claim that you are not painting Birthers as racists is BS and you know it. You are specifically bringing race into the discussion of "Birthers" in order to make the association - to paint them.

Not to paint them, but to state the truth.

It is a movement that has been refuted with every form of evidence that any human being could possibly produce.

It is a movement that allows racists to publicly chant "Obama can't be president because an African-American is barred by the constitution", so long as they say African loud and mumble the American bit.

Don't give me BS about how it's not PC to point out when an organization is wildly attractive and popular amongst racists wanting to forward their agenda.

[AcesHigh]

Regardless of that, the utterly INSANE ravings of all the birthers like you are being used as a smoke screen by a swarm of racists whose sole problem is the color of his skin. Fortunately America is a country were those masses are too afraid to come out and say their problem is the color of his skin. Lucky for them, there is a whole movement for them to line up behind and vent their hatred through. Although the real unAmerican thing about Obama for them isn't his birth certificate but the color of his skin. The more evidence that is released, the more concentrated the birther movement becomes with people solely there because of their irrational and indefensible hatreds they are too afraid to come out and say directly.

Really? They have to be racists? Not sure where that jump came from.

As an example:

Clearly, there are people in this country who insanely rave that Bush organized/faked an attack on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 just so he could go to war with Iraq. Does there insane raving make them racists? Obviously not, because Bush isn't black.

Clearly insane raving can exist without racism. The only real evidence that you have that people who question Obama's eligibility are racists is the color of his skin. Who does that make the racist again?

regards

I was going to call into question your reading ability. Then I looked closer at your quoting of me and it looks more like you DELIBERATELY misrepresented what I said. I've italicized the bit you cut out here below:

I don't know nor really care anymore were you stand. Most likely it seems your issue is that he's from the wrong party. Regardless of that, the utterly INSANE ravings of all the birthers like you are being used as a smoke screen by a swarm of racists whose sole problem is the color of his skin.

Plainly you can see that I guess Diogenes birther roots are related to Obama's party, not his skin color.

I never painted birthers as racists. I stated that racists are using the birther movement to vent their hate because they are too scared to come out and decry Obama for his skin color. It's not even much of a leap for them since crying about how an African isn't an American and can't be president fits the racists world view just fine.

Take a flipping introduction to logic course. I stated many birthers are racists. I did NOT say that ALL birthers are racists. It's the same as saying many people are women. It's not the same as saying ALL people are women. It's not the same as saying that you can't be classed as a person unless you are a women.

my native language is portuguese and I could understand everything you said. How a native english speaker could have misunderstood what you said as "birthers are racists" is beyong my comprehension.

[Jccarlton]

I think we need a "Sharpton's Law": ie anybody who uses racism claims in an attempt to win an argument has already lost the argument. Especially being like Sharpton, in other words, a big fat turd.

[hanelyp]

I think we need a "Sharpton's Law": ie anybody who uses racism claims in an attempt to win an argument has already lost the argument.

Indeed. Given how racism is the default response to criticism of the occupier of the white house, we have to assume they have to proper challenge to much of the criticism.