"Life is too short and Proust is too long."

Lol. I feel the same way about Joyce's Ulysses

-David

https://wwwx.cs.unc.edu/~hays/humor/crawling_up_everest.html

121 comments? Wow. OK, I promise to read them all, but after the birth certificate release, most of this is moot anyways, so I probably won't comment on them... (sorry for being so tardy, it's been a busy week...)

-CW

Whups ... it should read "Obama's fathers' nationality"

Freudian slip?? :D

Kinda like when Obama had said that McCain never question his (Obama's) Muslim faith... :D

Michale.....

Coulda swore that was me...

You did not directly admit your bias, you pointed out that others pointed out your bias to you. similarly I have alluded to but never directly stated my bias. To that we are even...

Bull crap... It took 2 days...

The time it took is not what I was alluding too.

Imminently logical.

Spock would be proud.. :D

Michale.....

Whups ... it should read "Obama's fathers' nationality"

I can't speak for others, but that's not my issue with the argument.

I say "Fox News" and ya'all go, "Oh well, it's Fox News. There ya go..."

I disagree.

I didn't do that at all.

I do exactly what I said above and try to apply these same criteria to any argument. Here's a decent writeup on validity (well-formedness) which is similar (but probably better) than what I was trying to convey:

http://www.ling.rochester.edu/~feldman/philosophy105/03-validity.html

Here's how I would apply this to your argument.

Premise 1: The Long Form Birth Certificate lists Obama's nationality rather than his race

Ok. That looks good. I'd even agree that this premise is true.

Now, what can you conclude from this premise?

Can you conclude from this premise that the document is a fake and Obama wasn't born in America? That seems like a stretch.

It seems more likely to me that there were other reasons.

Now lets look at some of the other facts.

Premise 2 The state of Hawaii has certified the Long Form and Short form birth certificates
Premise 3 No evidence exists to show he wasn't born in America
Premise 4 His birth was announced in the Hawaii papers
Premise 5 The Short Form can be used for a drivers license or passport by anyone born in Hawaii

Now, as you yourself stated, it seemed like there was a more likely reason why his birth father was listed as African on the long form ... because it was based on how he himself described himself.

Can you ever know this for sure? No. But it seems like a highly probable explanation as you stated.

So no one is disputing your statement about Obama's fathers' race. But to draw any conclusions from this in the face of other evidence is a stretch. To your credit, you didn't.

That's why my dispute is not with you. Its with the birthers.

The birthers ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with their belief -- the majority of the premises listed above. And, they don't offer any evidence to support their claim.

Which is why I don't believe it and likely why you don't believe it either.

Now ...

None of this has anything to do with Right or Left. None of this has anything to do with Fox News or Media Matters. None of this even has anything to do with Barack Obama or George W. Bush. It has to do with what makes a valid argument.

The cool thing about these rules is that you can apply them to any argument.

QED :)
-David

As did Obama..

Congress defunded Obama's Czars.. Obama said he was going to ignore that.

How is that NOT doing an end run around Congress???

You don't admit your bias against Obama

Really???

So, who said "That's my whole point.. Ya'all are in the bag for Obama just as you point out that I am in the bag AGAINST Obama..

The only difference is, I admit my bias and ya'all claim to have none..."

Coulda swore that was me...

As to the rest of your last post: research what was required for him to actually have his long form released.

Bull crap... It took 2 days...

Michale.....

Is this what Captain Louis Renault from Casablanca called a "tactical retreat"?

So you admit that Obama has always been against GITMO?

Nice try though. Bush used signing statements to do an end run around congress. Obama registered his strong opposition to it and said he would work with congress to seek it's repeal in his.

Do you see the difference or are you still blinded by bias?

Regardless of how you try and make this about birther crap, that's not what it's about at all.
I have made it a point that this issue is NOT about where Obama was born.

For me, it's always been about how ya'all are so set and entrenched in your support for Obama that you will not even CONSIDER evidence that paints him and Democrats in a bad light..

Really? Then why have you brought it up?

I opened the long form in illustrator. Did you? Or did you just go off what ever birther website painted the worst picture? You just don't like that my opinion of the evidence is not what you wanted. That is text book bias...

That tells me that your issues with Bush was never about Gitmo, Warrantless Surveillance, Rendition, Signing Statements and all the other "crimes" that ya'all blamed Bush for..

Make assumptions much? That is exactly why I did not like Bush. I don't worship politicians or look to follow leaders. I have my own agenda that is similar to but not an exact match with the democrats. All I really care about is what legislation will be put forward, how the leader will vote when it's time and a general feel of competence should the commander and chief roll comes in to play. So far, though not perfect, Obama has done a decent job.

The more and more I research this the more and more it becomes apparent how Obama is a replica of Bush...

Except where it matters: see above.

That's the only logical explanation for why you give Obama a hall pass for all the things that you bashed Bush about..

And that is your most basic logical flaw, you are stuck in binary opposition land. There is almost always more than two reasons for anything. You can't seem to get over the FACT that everyone on the "left" does not think exactly the same. Same goes for the right. There are as many motivations behind opinions as there are opinions. So when you try to boil it down in to the "left" does this, or "ya'all" does that, you are already logically slightly in the right and mostly in the wrong.

The fact that the Long Form Birth Certificate is suspect because it lists a person's nationality when it should list race is a credible argument.

Further research showed us why this might have happened so that line of reasoning was discarded...
But, that credible argument was pooh-poohed away immediately simply because it was against Barack Obama.

I did assume there was a reason for it and made a guess as to why (and labeled it as a guess). Because the state of Hawaii had already confirmed the form. Yes, I was biased, not because of Obama but because of the State of Hawaii. Do you see the difference?

But the difference between us is I admit my biases and try not to let them color my arguments.

Ya'all refuse to concede that you are biased in favor of Barack Obama and, therefore, ANY argument that is against Obama is immediately discarded even though they are credible arguments...

Sometimes but not always. You don't admit your bias against Obama and you don't admit the shear number filibusters by the republicans in the Senate and how they have affected Obama's campaign promises. You do the opposite, and blame Obama for any failures regardless of the realities of how the government works.

As to the rest of your last post: research what was required for him to actually have his long form released. Kind of kills most your argument...

You're right. It's a juvenile and immature attack.. And the Left just ate it up... :D

So let's talk about what makes a valid argument. Now "valid" in the logical sense simply means well-formed. It does not mean "true" or "false". In fact, it says nothing about being true or false, but it does tell you if you can use that argument to reason "true" or "false".

Well-formed is not really a good criteria, IMNSHO. A lot of people have good ideas, but have trouble putting them into words, so the idea comes across as moronic..

I think the criteria I would like to settle on is "credible"...

That's a concept that can be established w/o regard to who is bringing it up or why..

I'll give you a perfect example..

The fact that the Long Form Birth Certificate is suspect because it lists a person's nationality when it should list race is a credible argument.

Further research showed us why this might have happened so that line of reasoning was discarded...

But, that credible argument was pooh-poohed away immediately simply because it was against Barack Obama.

A credible argument should stand on it's own, regardless of who puts forth the argument or why..

Now, I will be the first to admit that I am as guilty of that as the next person..

I say "Fox News" and ya'all go, "Oh well, it's Fox News. There ya go..."

Now ya'all will say, "Media Matters" and my first instinct is to say, "Oh well, it's Media Matters. There ya go."

So, I am as guilty of that as ya'all are..

But the difference between us is I admit my biases and try not to let them color my arguments.

Ya'all refuse to concede that you are biased in favor of Barack Obama and, therefore, ANY argument that is against Obama is immediately discarded even though they are credible arguments...

I know that we have been all over the map in this thread, what with Birth Certificates in Hawaii, Democrats in Massuchusetts and signing statements in the White House.

But there is a common denominator in all these credible arguments.

The integrity of Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and the Left in general...

I have provided fact after fact after fact that calls into question real and credible issues with the afore..

And it just chaps my hide that ya'all STILL won't admit it...

p.s. I apologize if at any point during this post, I've come off as a dick.

Wow, if THAT's yer idea of coming off as a dick, I can only imagine what ya think of MY posts!! :D

I think what happens is I implicitly see the birther argument as not well formed and wonder why the media spends so much dang time on it (Ok, I know why ... because it's entertainment and that's what they've become *sigh*).

Obama is as much, if not more to blame, than anyone else..

Don't you wonder why he didn't nip this in the bud years ago???

And the manner in which he went about it? My gods, Obama had the biggest story of the century!! OK, maybe not biggest, but he had a HUGE win.. He had a genuine American Hero coming over to Team Obama. By taking Patreus into Team Obama, he had a big, a HUGE political win...

He could have gotten a HUGE atta-boy from the vast majority of Independents and NPAs and, likely, even some grudging admiration from quite a few Republicans?

But, Obama threw that all away so he could get into a pissing contest with a "carnival barker" to see who had the (or is the) bigger dick..

And he did it RIGHT from the Presidential Podium!

And he wasn't even done... He jet-setted to Chicago so he could regale Oprah with the long and sordid tale of his birth certificate...

For someone who claimed that this birth certificate crap is "silly", Obama sure has been silly the last couple days...

Obama had a huge win.. But he threw it all away for a chance to having a pissing contest with The Donald....

OK, I think I have gotten that outta my system..

I am thru being a dick... :D

Michale.....

I think what happens is I implicitly see the birther argument as not well formed and wonder why the media spends so much dang time on it (Ok, I know why ... because it's entertainment and that's what they've become *sigh*).

So I still don't get your criteria. Are you saying that an unfair attack makes fun of the person? And a valid political argument ...?

Ok ... let me take a stab.

Bush binoculars: This isn't a political argument so I'm going to put it in another category. Political humor or something. And yes, I'd agree with you that its intended more to make fun of the person. There's one of Clinton doing the same thing.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/binoculars.asp

p.s. Hahahahah! Did he really do that? That's kind of funny. Ok ... sorry, back to the post.

So let's talk about what makes a valid argument. Now "valid" in the logical sense simply means well-formed. It does not mean "true" or "false". In fact, it says nothing about being true or false, but it does tell you if you can use that argument to reason "true" or "false".

I believe a valid argument starts with facts. You can look at these facts to then come to a conclusion. Here's how it works in your SFGate argument:
- The fact is that the White House banished a new media reporter
- The White House, in particular, Obama has gone on record as being for social media
- The conclusion is that the author wonders what type of guidelines the Obama admin is using (NOTE: From the facts, you're not able to tell. There just seems to be an inconsistency. But this is good, the author doesn't SPECULATE much.

Looking at the components, I'd agree this is a valid argument. It starts with facts and leads towards a reasoned conclusion.

Now, I'm going to apply this same criteria to the birther movement.

- Birthers believe that Obama was not born in the U.S.
- They used his absence of a released birth certificate to fuel their suspicion
- When the short form birth certificate was released, they called it a forgery
- They asked for more proof, even though they don't have any proof themselves, only suspicion
- Now that the long form birth certificate is released, many are saying its fake as well

This does not fit the criteria of a valid argument. It starts with suspicion and then demands proof from the accused to alleviate this suspicion. When proof is produced, new suspicions arise. This fits my definition of a conspiracy theory in which you start with a crazy theory (Bush caused 9/11); information that is confirmational is accepted; that which is contradictory is denied.

One argument is well-formed, the other is not. You can use a well-formed argument to argue true/false (remember, well-formed does not say anything about true/false, it just says that they argument is an argument which meets the definition.

If an argument is not well-formed, then technically, its not even an argument. This is my claim about the birthers and 9/11 truthers. Using this definition, "Bush Binoculars" doesn't fit into the category of an argument either. I'd call it something else ... like political humor.

Thoughts?
-David

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/17/signing_statements

The more and more I research this the more and more it becomes apparent how Obama is a replica of Bush...

Which begs the question why ya'all support Obama but didn't support Bush. Is that "-D" after Obama's name so all encompassing important to the exclusion of all else, including your own stated principles??

On the other hand, it ALSO begs the question, that if Obama is so Bush-like, why I DON'T support Obama so much... :D

But that's a question that's easy to answer...

Michale.....

Ahhh Yes... Signing Statements..

"I will not to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress"
-Barack Obama

Once again, Barack Obama is no different than Bush..

'nuff said about that.

Dude, it has passed the house on Tuesday, probably won't pass the senate.

The Left didn't have a problem with slamming the GOP before ANYTHING got passed in Wisconsin..

So, why is it OK for Democrats to do what you and the Left have castigated the Right for??

You mean we haven't fallen for all this birther nonsense? Guilty as charged. Though I am curious as to why the official confirmation of the State of Hawaii was not good enough for you? Maybe a little bias showing?

Regardless of how you try and make this about birther crap, that's not what it's about at all.

I have made it a point that this issue is NOT about where Obama was born.

For me, it's always been about how ya'all are so set and entrenched in your support for Obama that you will not even CONSIDER evidence that paints him and Democrats in a bad light..

Yet, ya'all had no problem mocking Bush for the slightest of things and criticizing Bush for every little nit-pick..

But when Obama does the exact same things that Bush has done for the exact same reasons, ya'all STILL support Obama with nary a word of protest..

How is this not hypocritical?

That tells me that your issues with Bush was never about Gitmo, Warrantless Surveillance, Rendition, Signing Statements and all the other "crimes" that ya'all blamed Bush for..

You simply wanted to bash Bush and Gitmo et al where just convenient excuses..

That's the only logical explanation for why you give Obama a hall pass for all the things that you bashed Bush about..

Michale.....

Maybe in Bizarro-land.

Are saying that you would not have criticized him for not signing the Defense Authorization Bill and sending it back to congress in hopes to have the GITMO provisions stricken while we are in two wars? Everything I have read by you says otherwise...

So, he was against it, before he was for it, before he was against it... :D

...bla bla bla

Obama has a signing statement attached to the bill that says otherwise.

You do understand that Obama is neither dictator nor King? And we have this thing called the separation of powers, right?

You won't condemn Obama for anything... As far as you are concerned, Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..

Actually I did earlier in this very thread. I just won't condemn him for every hysterical charge you throw at him...

How else do you explain not saying dick about what Democrats in MASS did to Union collective bargaining??

Dude, it has passed the house on Tuesday, probably won't pass the senate. I read nothing about it until you mentioned it. Do I really have to hawk the news and root out every odd bill a lower house passes just to appease your twisted since of hypocrisy? It would be a full time job!

Ya'all have made it clear that you won't accept ANY evidence that goes against Obama, that disputes the validity of the long form birth certificate..

You mean we haven't fallen for all this birther nonsense? Guilty as charged. Though I am curious as to why the official confirmation of the State of Hawaii was not good enough for you? Maybe a little bias showing?

So, he was against it, before he was for it, before he was against it... :D

He's the President. He said he would close it.

Now he says he is keeping it open...

And you still support him...

That tells any reasonable person that you really don't have a problem with Gitmo being open.. You just don't want a Gitmo open under a Republican...

But as this is now two and a half hours old, I think I'll wait to see the full story before I put a value judgement on it...

Oh what a load of crap... I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night..

You won't condemn Obama for anything... As far as you are concerned, Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..

How else do you explain not saying dick about what Democrats in MASS did to Union collective bargaining??

Here's the simple truth...

Ya'all have made it clear that you won't accept ANY evidence that goes against Obama, that disputes the validity of the long form birth certificate..

How is that any different than the "birthers" who, you claim, won't accept ANY evidence that Obama was born in the US??

Ya'all and the birthers are simply two sides of the same coin..

Neither of ya'all will accept ANY evidence that upsets or contradicts your respective world-views...

That about sums things up perfectly...

Michale....

Can you show me any Leftist articles castigating Obama for Gitmo in the last week or so??

You mean he signed the Defense Authorization Bill that contained provisions added by Congress that effectively keeps GITMO open but strongly opposed those provisions?

Careful, your bias is showing...

But I'll be happy to show you the courtesy that I have been denied.. :D

Not really. You asked:

What's your criteria for discarding evidence in this matter??

Well, first off posts were flying fast and free. I didn't even see it until after I posted, also I did look at the evidence and found nothing out of the ordinary so I would say my criteria is a lot higher than you give credit. But yes, my mind was made up when the state of Hawaii officially confirmed his birth certificate a while ago.

No, I am asking how you can justify your defense of Obama when, if this had been an action of the Bush Administration, you would have gone thru the roof...

So, you are making assumptions again. I generally don't go "thru the roof" on anything. Or is this directed at the general "left"? And this is not a subject I would have gone "thru the roof" if I were inclined to do so.

But as this is now two and a half hours old, I think I'll wait to see the full story before I put a value judgement on it...

But, OK.. Let's go with your way...

How many media articles from the Left against President Bush about Gitmo during the Bush years.... Hundreds, if not thousands...

How many media articles from the Left do you see today about Obama keeping Gitmo open... An announcement that was made about a month and a half
ago...

Can you show me any Leftist articles castigating Obama for Gitmo in the last week or so??

No??

How come???

Abu Ghraib vs Kill Team news stories..

Wanna run the numbers on that???

Since I know you are going to ask, here is my point..

Anyone who bashed Bush for Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, but yet still supports Obama is being hypocritical...

True or false?

Michale.....

Ahh... So, when Bush is attacked and maligned, you find that "entertaining"...

Hmmmmmmmmm

Are you asking why the entire
Left has not come out against a story that came out two hours ago on an obscure website?

No, I am asking how you can justify your defense of Obama when, if this had been an action of the Bush Administration, you would have gone thru the roof...

David,

Above, I posted a link where you claimed that it was your right to disagree with the Bush Administration.

Do you also hold true that it is any American's right to disagree with the Obama Administration??

Michale.....

Dan Rathered? CBS news'oted?

Actually I thought it was entertaining until it was proven to be false then I was disappointed in Dan Rather...

Are you honestly trying to convince me that this is no big deal???

From the article:

Posted By: Phil Bronstein (Email, Twitter) | April 28 2011 at 04:48 PM

Are you asking why the entire
Left has not come out against a story that came out two hours ago on an obscure website?

How do you make the distinction?

I asked that question of Bashi first back up in message {45}...

But I'll be happy to show you the courtesy that I have been denied.. :D

anvari.org/db/fun/Political/Bush_Binoculars.jpg

That's an unfair attack...

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978

That's a fair critique

Your turn...

Michale.....

What are your criteria for a "fair" critique and an "unfair" attack?

How do you make the distinction?

-David

Then why didn't Obama stop it??

Why didn't Obama take these steps years ago??

Why wait til now??

Why don't YOU ask those questions??

Because you don't care. Obama said he is not a crook and that is good enough for you.

Ya'all questioned EVERYTHING Bush did...

Obama has done practically everything that Bush has done and ya'all don't say BOO....

Why is that???

Michale.....

Well, considering this was during the 2004 election and Kerry was being swift boated, one has to ask, did you actively defend Kerry or come out and condemn the swift boaters?

And, once again, your bias is evident..

In your words, Kerry was "Swift Boated"...

What did you call it when CBS forged Bush's National Guard documents??

"Justified"??

With every response, you prove my point perfectly...

Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia..

Michale.....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978

If this had been done by President Bush, ya'all would be screaming to the high heavens..

Where's the Left here???

Are you honestly trying to convince me that this is no big deal???

Michale.....

Dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't.

Did you stand and defend Bush against the Left when forged military records came to light??

Well, considering this was during the 2004 election and Kerry was being swift boated, one has to ask, did you actively defend Kerry or come out and condemn the swift boaters?

I'm not buying this no action automatically means opposite bias (I'm trying to pin it on you purely for rhetorical reasons).

But as far as the birthers and Obama's birth certificate, it's just has gotten silly. It's like:

I want to see this form. [hands over form.]
I want to see this form signed. [hand over form signed]
I want to see this form in triplicate [hand over form in triplicate]
I want to see this form in triplicate, signed by an albino monkey smoking a havana cigar while in a ferrari [walks away from the crazy person]

It should have stopped once the State of Hawaii verified his birth. Period.

So why is the Downing Memo "evidence" and the points raised in the long form birth certificate preposterous??

Because one attacks Bush and the other attacks Obama..

THAT's what it all boils down to...

Michale....

Sounds a lot like lying to me.

Sounds a lot like what Obama said about Libya and Qadaffi to ME....

But, of course, you would dispute that, right??

Everything Obama = Good

Everything Bush = Bad

I would agree that everyone should be held accountable to the same standards as specified in the law.

Did you voice this when Bush was being hounded by the Left over his military records and his college transcripts??

Did you stand and defend Bush against the Left when forged military records came to light??

I don't think you did...

Therefore, why do you so aggressively defend Obama from the Right, but you throw Bush to the Leftist wolves??

You see the point??

Bashi,

Ah...no. I was going by the total number of filibusters.

Some might say that "filibusters" are a way to fight for what's right....

MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON

Ergo, some might say excessive filibusters might mean that it's the most ethical Party in the history of the Senate...

You see how your biases color your opinions??

When the Democrats are the majority, filibusters are bad...

When the Democrats are the minority, filibusters are good...

Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

I am really well and truly amazed that I have to point this out to you people...

We're all intelligent and articulate adults..

Why can't ya'all just admit that your biases are coloring your judgments and that you protect Obama from what you perceive are unfair attacks...

We should further agree that, despite our biases, we all STILL have valid points and they should not be ridiculed or dismissed out of hand...

Michale.....

Ah...no. I was going by the total number of filibusters.

Yes.

I put up discrepancies with the long form Birth Certification.

If the point is to prove Obama was not born in the U.S., you need some evidence as a basis for this belief.

The birthers put up nothing.

The birthers start with belief and then fit everything into this belief. Its very much like religion.

No, there was no credible evidence of any lying.

Now you're splitting hairs on definition. According to the memo:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Bush believed the right thing to do was to go war. So he did this irregardless of what any of the facts or intelligence said. Yet what the White House sold the public was that Saddam had WMDs.

They never came out and said, we just want to remove Saddam. Not until later. Sounds a lot like lying to me.

Would you agree that it's fair to hold Obama to the same standard that the Left held Bush to, with regards to disclosure of personal documents or records?

I will give you that I'm not sure what the standard is here. I believe financial records are required to be released by law. But I'm not sure anything else is.

I would agree that everyone should be held accountable to the same standards as specified in the law.

If its not specified by law, I believe its up to the individual. Any help clarifying the law, Michale or anyone else, would be appreciated.

(BTW- I also believe if Obama were breaking any laws, you know it would be on FOX 24/7 so I'm thinking he's likely within his rights.)

-David

Evidence - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

You put up suspicion, hearsay, and conjecture. Yet still no evidence of something which you yourself don't believe in.

Yet you still do it. Because you say, it works.

Politically.

I thought I made my point crystal clear..

Ya'all are biased in favor of Obama...

even acknowledging the single most obstructionist minority party in the history of the senate.

It's only your opinion that the GOP is the most obstructionist Party in the history of the Senate..

That opinion is formed by your bias..

My opinion is that BOTH parties are equally at fault for being obstructionist..

The facts bear out my opinion..

Yours is colored by your Leftist leanings...

In short, you see the GOP as bad and the DP as good..

I see them both as bad..

So who is the biased one here??

What do you think about the Democrats in Mass who voted to deny Unions collective bargaining rights??

:D

Michale.....

Do you have a point beyond we are all human?

I don't see you criticizing the conservatives or even acknowledging the single most obstructionist minority party in the history of the senate. Does that show your bias?

and those still questioning having ulterior motive in doing so.

Would you say that those who hounded Bush for his National Guard papers also had an ulterior motive in doing so??

Can you not conceive of the possibility that people simply want the truth about the man who is President of the United States??

Did I? You are the one trolling the archives...

I am researching yes...

And I still have yet to come across any post from you that condemned those on the Left going after Bush as you have condemned those on the Right going after Obama...

Are you sure you don't have a bias???

Michale.....

If our every utterance, our every action was recorded 24/7 for all to see, I am willing to wager that we would say or do some stuff that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE would think is pretty stoopid and ridiculous...

My point is, you give Obama a pass on it whereas with Bush, it's "We did make fun of him as kinda dumb but we would never have done it if he hadn't given us so much material to work with "

Do you see the inherent bias??

Michale.....

I stand by my graphical analysis, but I view this issue as had been dealt with long ago and those still questioning having ulterior motive in doing so.

Ahhh I see.. So you never posted anything about Bush being secretive about his school records or his military records??

Did I? You are the one trolling the archives...

Dumb Things Obama Has Said

"I am really glad to be back in Oregon. We have traveled to every corner of the country. We have been to 57 states."

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed."

Want me to go on???

Michale.....

You funny... :D

OK, let's see if we can agree on one thing..

Would you agree that it's fair to hold Obama to the same standard that the Left held Bush to, with regards to disclosure of personal documents or records?

If you don't agree with this, why not?

In general, liberals believe things like "Bush lied us into the Iraq War" because there was evidence that he did this very thing

No, there was no credible evidence of any lying...

But you prove my point for me... You put up this Downing St memo and call it evidence..

I put up discrepancies with the long form Birth Certification and all you have is ridicule..

It's as if anything against Bush is evidence and anything against Obama is preposterous...

You see the inherent bias??

Ok, ok. 'Ya got me. We did make fun of him as kinda dumb but we would never have done it if he hadn't given us so much material to work with :)

And Obama hasn't??

"I remember being born."
-Barack Obama

If Bush had said something like that, ya'all would have a field day...

But with Obama, it's perfectly acceptable and doesn't merit a mention...

You see the inherent bias??

That's my whole point.. Ya'all are in the bag for Obama just as you point out that I am in the bag AGAINST Obama..

The only difference is, I admit my bias and ya'all claim to have none...

Michale.....

You really do have too much time on your hands :)

I disagree with our administration. That is also one of my fundamental rights.

OMG. That's horrible. I can't believe I said that!

Wait ... I have no idea why you think you've caught me on something with that.

Do you need me to post my birth certificate? :D

Or is it more likely that you don't really care about secrecy, as long as it's Democrats who are being secretive.

Ok. In all seriousness, Michale & Bashi, I think there's an important distinction. I disagreed with Bush because Bush did things like authorize illegal wire taps which was a Federal offense. Personally, I think he was probably a nice guy who I could have had a beer with at a barbeque. But what he was doing was illegal.

The difference is that what you see as "attacks" was people looking evidence and disagreeing with what he was doing.

But don't believe me, Michale. Look back. See if you can find a personal attack on Bush. You might. I might have lost it and gotten personal. But I think the vast majority of the time, you'll find that liberals argued against decisions Bush made and his philosophy.

Where people lose credit in my eyes is when they attack the man. And yeah, some from the Left did this. But not like how 30% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Not like how millions of Americans claim Obama isn't born in this country. Not like how millions repeat the silliness that he's a socialist.

In general, liberals believe things like "Bush lied us into the Iraq War" because there was evidence that he did this very thing (see Downing Street memo). Or, the Bush govt. authorized illegal wiretaps because they were caught authorizing illegal wiretaps.

Ok, ok. 'Ya got me. We did make fun of him as kinda dumb but we would never have done it if he hadn't given us so much material to work with :)

-David

Ya'all castigate your fellow Americans (Liz and Kevin excepted) because they demand disclosure from Obama, yet you fail to recall how the Left raked Bush over the coals for his lack of disclosure over personal documents...

That's hypocrisy..

Just like ya'all had a conniption fit when Republicans in Wisconsin "attacked" the Unions to limit collective bargaining, yet ya'all are completely silent when Democrats do it in Massachusetts..

That's hypocrisy...

And that's my sole point..

There ARE legitimate questions regarding Obama.

Not everyone who questions Obama is a racist or has a nefarious motive...

It's really THAT simple...

Michale.....

Ahhh I see.. So you never posted anything about Bush being secretive about his school records or his military records??

Regardless, you are saying that it's OK if a President is secretive about what he did BEFORE being president, but he should be transparent when he is IN office...

Well, apparently, Obama is giving us BOTH the finger when it comes to secrets, eh?? :D

Or is it more likely that you don't really care about secrecy, as long as it's Democrats who are being secretive...

Michale....

Just thought I would mention it.. :D

Michale.....

Oh, I did all the time but mostly for what he did in office as part of his job...

It's a real eye-opener....

Bashi,

And it's amazing how quick you are to lump everyone in to a single group and make assumptions about them.

You saying you never bashed Bush for secrecy???

Michale....

I agree. It seems like the guy can't go 10 minutes without putting his foot in his mouth. Just read an article off Google news that Trump is blaming china for all his Trump branded merchandise being made in china.

All the witch hunts, all the ridiculous accusations..

It's amazing how short ya'alls memories are...

Michale.....

Bashi- Trump won't run. He's always been very secretive about his financial records (because he's usually worth far less than he tells people) and this is one of the requirements for running for office.

Its one of the reasons I think he's felt free to say any silliness that pops into his head :).

-David

Release all papers, as I have said before sounds like a huge fishing expedition coming in to an election year by a bunch of perspective candidates with half assed plans and no numbers to back them up.

On the other hand I enjoyed Rand Paul's rebuke:

“I’ve come to New Hampshire today because I’m very concerned,” Mr. Paul said. “I want to see the original long-form certificate of Donald Trump’s Republican registration.”

“I’m going to believe it when I see his embossed seal to his Republican registration,” said Mr. Paul, a rising figure in the Republican Party who is visiting New Hampshire this week during the Congressional recess. He spoke with a smile, but his words marked one of the first times that a leading Republican has challenged Mr. Trump’s ties to the party.link

Trump might just have opened a can of worms that all the Republican candidate wish he hadn't, including Trump himself.

I think Obama has nothing to gain from releasing the papers he is being called to. Most that are calling for this release, including you, are not going to vote for him anyway, why should he try to appease them, and you? The flip side is the longer this stays in the media the better chance all republican candidates will be pressured to do so...

Liz. This is a great idea. I was wondering this after the Shirley Sherrod incident, and then the NPR silliness, and also the WTC Mosque craziness.

Its always interesting to see what kind of nut-jobbery will be wheeled out next.

I wish we could submit suggestions.

My vote is to investigate the First Dog. There's something very suspicious about him. He is a Portuguese Water Dog.

And you know what that means - he's an un-American socialist!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/images/bo1_blog.jpg

Lookit him in that little rainbow outfit - which we also know what that means! (He's a homer-sexual!)

I bet he even craps on Air Force One - or should I say Air Force ... Two!

Where are your records Bo? I bet your not even a pure breed! Maybe you're a terrier-orist! Buahahahahah!

-David

WOW!

It's as if I wrote that myself! :D

Michale.....

You know that assertion is completely false

You know that assertion is completely false. And, this will not be the last thing you say on this issue. :)

OK ya got me there.. :D

Okay, I'll bite ... what on earth are they going to request now?

Everything that the Left would request from the likes of Trump and have requested from the likes of Palin..

Obama is a presidential candidate. He was not vetted at all by the MSM in 2008.

That will definitely change in 2012...

And if Obama refuses to produce requested documents, then the American people are free to speculate as to why Obama refuses to produce...

And they should be allowed to speculate without ANYONE questioning their motives...

Michale....

As such, everything that has been requested, everything that WILL be requested are perfectly reasonable requests to make.

Okay, I'll bite ... what on earth are they going to request now?

Ya'all show a quasi-religious devotion to Obama and it's never a good idea to mess with other people's religion, so this will be the last thing I say on this issue.

You know that assertion is completely false. And, this will not be the last thing you say on this issue. :)

The truth hurts and has sparked many a rant.

There has been nothing that is reasonable about the the agenda of the so-called birthers or about the nonsense that has been perpetuated about President Obama's birth certificate.

So, you buy into the myth that "many Americans" are racist..

That's complete and utter BS...

Ya'all show a quasi-religious devotion to Obama and it's never a good idea to mess with other people's religion, so this will be the last thing I say on this issue.

Obama is a candidate for President Of The United States.

Birth Certificate

School Records

College Transcripts

Student Loan Records

Tax Records

ALL of these records and so much more are perfectly acceptable requests to make of ANY candidate running for office..

If any candidate refuses to produce these records, then it is perfectly acceptable to speculate WHY a candidate won't release these records...

Obama is not a god.

Obama is not the second coming.

Obama is a candidate for the office of the President Of The United States.

As such, everything that has been requested, everything that WILL be requested are perfectly reasonable requests to make.

Se fini....

Michale.....

Many Americans are finding it extremely difficult to come to terms with the first African-American president.

And, that, my friends, is the plain and simple truth of the matter.

Perhaps instead of "guessing" you could have pointed to this...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/the-african-race/

That makes sense and, as such, I withdraw the question...

Maybe next time a little less condescending attitude and a little more facts might be in order.

Regardless, ya'alls minds are made up, regardless of the facts, so it appears that any discussion is moot...

Michale.....

"Good grief ..." - Charlie Brown :)

It's a legitimate question.. "African" is NOT a race. One would think a hospital would know that.

Maybe you can "guess" like Bashi does below...

Bashi,

I took a look at the PDF. Looks like it was cleaned up and the back ground separated probably to reduce file size and make the text readable. Acrobat and other Adobe programs will make super bloated pdf files if you give them half a chance. But it looks like the whited out text matches the black text layer above it once you include the anti-aliasing that was probably in the original scan.

What I don't understand is one some text is on one layer, but other text is on another layer..

Why layer it at all?? Scan it as a JPG and send it off...

My guess would be negro for an American born black and African for a foreign born black

Your "guess"???

Well, I guess those that pooh pooh legitimate questions are allowed "guesses", but those who ask legitimate questions are regulated to the "carnival barker" status...

I could "guess" that Obama is actually a Vulcan.. Is that sufficient???

Do you have anything to support your "guess"???

Michale.....

I saw this nit pick on a story off Google news. My guess would be negro for an American born black and African for a foreign born black. His father was born in Kenya...

I took a look at the PDF. Looks like it was cleaned up and the back ground separated probably to reduce file size and make the text readable. Acrobat and other Adobe programs will make super bloated pdf files if you give them half a chance. But it looks like the whited out text matches the black text layer above it once you include the anti-aliasing that was probably in the original scan.

Not that it will stop a good conspiracy especially when they some much invested in continuing it...

"Good grief ..." - Charlie Brown :)

Hopefully, TPTB will deem it a "legitimate" question.. :D

Why is Obama's mother's race listed as "Caucasian" but Obama's father's race is listed as "African"???

Caucasian is certainly a race, but "African" a nationality?

So, why does this birth certificate of Obama's list his mother's race, but his father's nationality??

Michale.....

The lie that Barack Obama was not born in the US has been fuelled by fringe Republicans — but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton.html

Can't hang that one on the ole GOP, now can ya?? :D

Michale.....

Well, gee whiz...

Let's see..

Obama paid the law firm of Perkins Coie something in the neighborhood of 1.3 Million dollars.

The law firm of Perkins Coie is the law firm of record in many Birth Certificate related cases..

Hmmmmmm

What can we deduce from these facts???

This is actually not a bad question.

I have my moments.. :D

I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser. This is the standard of our law.

And, what happens when the POTUS uses his office and his vast financial resources to block legitimate questions?? What then??

Ya'all are always on about the rights of the "little guy"... Doesn't that apply when the "little guy" wants an answer to a question that the POTUS won't answer??

As long as we're talking about common ground, with today's release, do you now believe Obama is a U.S. citizen?

My personal belief is that Obama is a citizen of the US. That has always been my belief..

Regardless of that, there ARE valid questions that remain..

Why has the POTUS stonewalled this issue for so long??

Why release the long form BC now instead of last month or last year??

Why does the long form BC have layers with certain elements specific to certain layers??

Would you agree that these are legitimate questions?

As I said above, my questions aren't with the act. Even if Obama WAS born in BumFuq Egypt, it matters NOT to me one iota... He was elected and that's that...

My questions pertain to the cover up...

And, all partisan BS aside, they ARE legitimate questions...

Michale......

Ah, my bad. After a quick bit of research, all that the FEC reveals is payments to the law firm. Any information that talks about what the payments were for looks like speculation as only the law firm itself seems to have that information.

No reputable news source seems willing to claim that the money was spent to "hide" his birth certificate. Only partisan sites like "Liberty Pundits". And if you read your article carefully, even they don't directly make this claim. They only insinuate it.

Do you think that LEGITIMATE questions regarding this issue should be addressed?

This is actually not a bad question.

I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser. This is the standard of our law. This was the standard in the Bush incident.

As long as we're talking about common ground, with today's release, do you now believe Obama is a U.S. citizen?

-David

We have our president saying, "I am not a crook" and ya'all are willing to take him at his word, no questions asked...

That's pretty much it in a nutshell...

Michale....

It wasn't the GOP who brought up this issue to begin with...

It was Democrats.... :D

Michale.....

As far as where my facts are from?? The Federal Election Commission...

But let's find some common ground here..

Do you think that LEGITIMATE questions regarding this issue should be addressed??

Michale.....

Where are you getting this "Obama spent a million and a half hiding his birth certificate" stuff?

This sounds pretty dubious. I call. Was he paying off the state of Hawaii to hide it? Where are you getting your "facts" from?

If he spent any money at all, my guess is that it was for lawyers to defend himself against some nutty birther lawsuit.

-David

Yes... :D

The similarity is not in the result but rather in the reasons why the documents were sought after to begin with...

The Left felt that they had the right to know everything about Bush's past, since he was POTUS...

Now, the Right feels the same about Obama's past...

Both have valid points..

If one looks at the questions themselves, rather than who raises them or why, the questions ARE valid.

For example, do you think the question why Obama waited so long and spent so much before releasing today's document is a valid question??

Let me put it another way..

Let's say you and I are over at Panama Hatties having a beer or ten.... I tell you the story of my DirecTV days and how I spent a million and a half dollars to keep a document secret only to have it released and everyone finding out it had absolutely no bearing on anything..

Wouldn't you first question be, "Why the frak did you spend a million and a half to hide something that was utterly inconsequential!!??"

Of course it would be.. And it would be a valid question...

From my previous discussions with NYPoet, we know that Obama will ditch principle to get more money for his family. From that, we can deduce that spending a million to keep the Long Form BC secret is not about principle....

So, this begs the question..

WHY would Obama keep the controversy, the distraction going for this long if this is all there is to it???

If you take the politics out of it, it's a valid question....

Michale.....

A quick notes on your comparison to the Bush National Guard situation.

In one situation, people were acting on seemingly valid evidence and were misled.

In another, people are actively ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Completely different situations. Or am I missing something?
-David

Fair enough.. Since you mentioned you were an expert in Photo Shop, I figured you would have a good knowledge of ILLUSTRATOR...

I would be VERY interested in your assessment of the Nixon point...

I hope you make the effort...

Michale.....

And how much did you decry the Left during the Bush witch hunts???

I am willing to wager, not at all...

I think I'll call bullshit on this one. Got anything to back this up? Keep in mind I come from his district and am quite familiar with his career.

How familiar are you with his CIA career??

Here is a quick comparison. The current CIA chief is Michael Hayden. Prior to being tapped as CIA chief, Hayden was a career military official and ultimately a four star general. He also spent six years as head of the NSA from 1999-2005. That's an individual qualified to be the chief intelligence gatherer. The only intelligence that Panetta knows how to gather is on political opponents.

I'll say it again.. Panetta is a political animal who has his head so far up Obama's ass it's impossible to tell where one stops and the other starts...

Patreus would be a much better choice, but he might do better in the CIA..

I tend to trust soldiers more than I trust political hacks...

Yawn...

I'll ask again.. What's your criteria for discarding evidence??

Do you actually LOOK at the evidence and make a fair assessment??

Or do you immediately discard it if it's against a Democrat??

Just curious...

Michale.....

I haven't opened the pdf in to illustrator yet, and haven't really decided if I will, but I grew up in a graphics house and am extremely familiar with the reproduction technology of this period. Nothing bothers me so far...

The opposition questions everything the other side does? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Panetta's a political hack and I have little use for Political hacks...

I think I'll call bullshit on this one. Got anything to back this up? Keep in mind I come from his district and am quite familiar with his career.

Well, iddn't THIS interesting.. :D

Yawn...

What's your criteria for discarding evidence in this matter??

Michale.....

http://bryankeithnixon.com/?p=103

Oh, the guy is a "Nixon"... THAT explains a lot, eh?? :D

Oh, you just GOT to love Americans, eh?? :D

Michale......

I am just interested in the timing...

Why now??

Sure, it could be considered a distraction.. But it could be considered a distraction since 2008... Why now??

Further, why keep it secret at all?? Why spend so much money to keep something secret that is, apparently, nothing??

You can bet that, if Obama was a Republican, the Left would be asking these same questions..

They ARE rational questions, regardless of who asks them or why...

Michale.....

Fair enough... I should have clarified that when I said "you" I meant the Left..

But I dispute the notion that the millions of Americans who define THEMSELVES as the "Left" do act in nearly the exact same manner.

As is evidenced by the Bush years with special emphasis on the National Guard Documents debacle..

As I mentioned above, this issue with Obama is exactly the same.. The Left refused to accept that the NG docs were, in fact, forgeries.. They came up with all sorts of reasons why those NG docs were the real thing...

The play is the same, only the actors are different...

As to the FOX opinion piece, yes can't wait for ten years of Trump's tax records.

If THAT is what you got from that piece, you completely missed the point...

It's about how complete disclosure is, simply the right thing to do when running for or being President..

I think many on the left suspect that this cry of transparency in personal documents is just another fishing expedition by the right.

So the Left's cry of transparency during the Bush years was equally just a fishing expedition, right??

:D

Now back to reality, what do you think of Leon Panetta replacing Gates?

Not sure.. I think Patreus would be a better choice of SecDef... Panetta's a political hack and I have little use for Political hacks...

Michale....

First off, I've said it before I have no doubt I'll say it again but the millions of Americans who you define as the "left" do not think or act exactly the same. Almost a universal truth that when you try to put words in my mouth, you are wrong. At least you have been so far in the years on this blog...

The '1961' in box 22 also looks strange and photo-shopped...

This is why Obama has not released his papers to this point. Those who care will never be appeased. And many of them have a vested interest in not being appeased. Quick it must be Photoshop! It could not be a standard rubber date stamp common to that period. It must be Photoshop. Hilarious. As a graphic artist and Photoshop expert myself, why do an intentionally crappy job when perfection can be achieved so easily?

As to the FOX opinion piece, yes can't wait for ten years of Trump's tax records. Somehow I don't think that is going to happen. Palin either...

I think many on the left suspect that this cry of transparency in personal documents is just another fishing expedition by the right. They have not forgotten the Clinton years. Your quick reaction to the release of the long form pretty much proves it.

Now back to reality, what do you think of Leon Panetta replacing Gates?

Ya simply HAVE to find that hilarious... :D

Michale....

There ya go, David..

Happy?? :D hehehehehehehehe

Michale.....

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/04/27/obama-releases-birth-certificate-gop-democrats-note-politician-run-truth/

David,

I simply pointed out facts...

I also note upon further inspection that the R in Barack is different than the rest of the name..

And in block 21, the 1 in the year 1961 looks different..

As I said, these are facts.. I make no assumptions based on these facts...

Why isn't anyone demanding that they produce some evidence?

The same reason why no one demanded "proof" of the Left when they fell all over themselves trying to get Bush's school and military records...

Because, as the President Of The United States, the onus of proof is on the President... Read the above link...

That's true whether it's a Democrat or a Republican president...

Unfortunately, those on the Left only want to remember it when it's a Republican who is POTUS.

If conservatives have such good ideas, why do they spend so much time on personal attacks?

For the same reason why Liberals make personal attacks when THEY don't have any good ideas..

It works...

Michale.....

The '1961' in box 22 also looks strange and photo-shopped.

Ahem ... let me repeat:

Any new evidence only feeds the theory - "It must be a forgery.", "The government had one made for him."

Want to place a bet on whether or not the birthers stop or come up with some new theories?

What was the big deal?

The deal to me is that the onus of proof should be on the accusers. The people with the tin hats who have no evidence .

Why isn't anyone demanding that they produce some evidence?

And, why is the media so focused on this silliness?

I will also repeat: If conservatives have such good ideas, why do they spend so much time on personal attacks? (Obama wasn't born in the US, Obama is a Muslim, Obama smokes pot with the Reverend Wright, etc :)

-David

Michale....

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

Well, right off the bat, my untrained eye notes two discrepancies...

The "1" in the serial number is discolored and looks like it was photo-shopped..

The '1961' in box 22 also looks strange and photo-shopped...

I don't know the significance of any of that.. Just noting it...

But all in all, I have to ask...

What was the big deal?? Why all the secrecy??

Michale....

http://getdclu.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/long-form-birth-cert-of-Susan-Nordyke-8-5-61.jpg

Wait a tic...

Drudge is reporting that Obama will show his long form birth certificate...

Looks like something is forcing his hand... :D

Michale.....

What about all those Lefties demanding to see Bush's school records...

And Bush released them....

The Left demanded ALL of Bush's records.. School, military, etc etc...

Bush was hounded about HIS records and he did the responsible thing and released them. Of course, CBS decided to release forgeries, but that's beside the point.. : D

Why should Obama get a free ride?? Why is it OK for Obama to conceal his records, but Bush had to release HIS (Bush's) records??

Why the double-standard??

Michale.....

WOW!! I must have read your mind!! :D I am tele-pathetic!! :D

See my post above...

Let me ask you this. Have you seen any evidence Obama wasn't born in the U.S.? Any that isn't pure speculation?

The simple fact that Obama is fighting disclosure tooth and nail, despite claiming he would be the most transparent president ever, is sufficient evidence to indicate that SOMETHING is amiss...

The American People have a right to know these things about their president.

It's that simple...

Because honestly, that's the case. The conservative strategy is to make this personal - anti-Obama.

And the liberal strategy was to make things Anti-Bush.. The so-called war "protesters" is a perfect example of this...

That's just politics... Blaming the GOP for trying to make things Anti-Obama is like blaming the universe for the sun rising every day..

It is what it is, that's life......

"... be well and Krakto's an asshole!!!"
-Sylvester Stallone, DEMOLITION MAN

:D

I am not talking about politics.

I am talking about Obama doing what's right. I am talking about Obama being the president that he SAID he was going to be...

If there is nothing to hide, then there isn't ANY reason NOT to make full disclosure...

All politics and partisanship aside, THAT is what it all boils down to...

"If there is nothing to hide, then there isn't ANY reason NOT to make full disclosure..."
-Michale, 27 Apr 2011 0730hrs

:D

Michale.....

I mean, there are STILL people out there who think Gore actually won the 2000 presidential election..

So, ya'all are correct. Nothing will satisfy everyone..

But President Obama could marginalize the group nearly to extinction by being the transparent President he claimed he would be...

Don't you wish he would do that so all this nonsense would all but disappear??? Don't you wish Obama would, once and for all, come clean and shut those yahoos up??

Don't you even wonder why he WON'T do this?

All partisanship aside, the logical and rational course of action would be complete disclosure.

Unless, of course, there is something to hide. Then the logical and rational course of action would be to do exactly what Obama is doing. Stonewalling and fighting disclosure tooth and nail.

As with any scandal, it's not the act that usually garners all the attention and usually leads to exposure..

It's the cover-up....

Michale.....

But that's just it, Michale. No amount of evidence will ever put a conspiracy theory to rest. He releases his birth certificate - certified by the State of Hawaii, mind - and people just say its a fake.

They demand his "real" birth certificate.

What makes you think they'd accept that?

Why do you think they'd say anything different about any other type of document or proof?

In fact, what they'd say is something like this: If its not true, why is he fighting it so hard.

That's the beauty of conspiracy theories. No matter how ridiculous.

Any new evidence only feeds the theory - "It must be a forgery.", "The government had one made for him."

The conspiracy theorists would come up with something.

Let me ask you this. Have you seen any evidence Obama wasn't born in the U.S.? Any that isn't pure speculation?

No. Why not? Because they don't have any. Yet this doesn't stop the conspiracy theory.

Obama's doing the right thing. Call nonsense for what it is.

One more thing he might ask:

"Why are conservatives spending so much time worrying about where I was born? If they put as much time into our economy as they do wondering about where I was born, we'd be out of this recession by now."

Because honestly, that's the case. The conservative strategy is to make this personal - anti-Obama.

Not to talk about ideas. Because they are offering the same old: trickle down + deregulation + privatization.

So they need a distraction. Or many distractions.
-David

We're not discussing what's legal.

We're discussing what's transparent..

We're discussing putting your money where your mouth is..

We're discussing what the Left would do if some candidate from the GOP tried this crap..

THAT's what we're discussing.

Or, more accurately, that's what *I'M* discussing and ya'all are avoiding...

Would I? At this late stage, I seriously doubt it...

You and I both know that's not accurate..

Wanna peruse the Lefty Blogger archives during the Bush years and see how nit-picky ya'all were against Bush?? :D

You and I both know that the Left, as a whole would be just as aggressive in the pursuit of this as the Right is right now..

Obama could end it all right now today, just by releasing the requested records..

As he himself said, "The only people who won't disclose the truth are people with something to hide"...

Another one of those phrases that I am sure he wishes he could take back. :D

Regardless, this issue isn't going away. It's growing... The percentage of Americans who want to know the truth is growing..

These are the facts...

Michale.....

Which is legal to prove place of birth in the United States and verified by the state of Hawaii, you forgot that part.

That's because you are a Democrat.. If Obama was a Republican you would be asking the same questions I am...

Would I? At this late stage, I seriously doubt it...

But keep on with the tit for tat politics. Just proves you are no different than either the Republicans or the democrats.

How do you explain the Hawaiian newspaper announcements on the day Obama was born stating his birth? Forgeries? An Obama time machine?

My wife's grandparents put a birth announcement in the Mesa AZ newspaper on the day she was born..

My wife was born in Rota, Spain...

If my wife was president, she could claim that she was born in Mesa, AZ and would have the birth announcement to prove it..

The problem is, it would be a lie...

But seriously. From a political standpoint, I hope Trump and others keep it coming. Its gold.

Exactly.. It's a political issue..

I am more concerned with the facts...

And the facts clearly show that Obama has something to hide...

And I thought the Left hated all the secrecy crap??

Turns out, the Left just hates all the Republican secrecy crap...

Michale.....

He released a birth certificate and you called it a fake. Don't you think if he released anything else, you'd call it a fake too?

He released a computer generated copy of a birth record..

According to one of his books, he has the original birth certificate... Why won't he produce it?

Why won't he produce any school records? Student loan records? College transcripts??

You sensing a pattern?

This is a guy who ran on a platform of transparency..

Yet he refuses to release a LOT of his records...

The question is... Why??

The further question is, would the Left accept such stonewalling from a GOP'er?

The answer is, obviously, no...

"The only people who won't disclose the truth are people with something to hide"

You know who said that??

Barack Obama...

Bashi,

Is it? I think this has long passed the "legitimate" point.

That's because you are a Democrat.. If Obama was a Republican you would be asking the same questions I am...

The difference is, I would be asking these questions, regardless of whether GOP or Dem...

He did. And it was verified by the government of Hawaii as well as challenges tossed out by the Supreme court.

No, he disclosed a birth record.. Not a birth certificate..

The ONLY people who have verified Obama's birth are those who something to gain by the verification they gave.

I won't even bother going into Neil "I was there when Obama was born, I mean in the same state" Abercrombie.. THAT's the kind of "verification" that has been put forth...

Look, I don't really care if Obama was born in Hawaii or BumFuq, Kenya... No judge on the face of the planet is going to nullify Obama's election...

*MY* bitch is two fold..

1. The guy is a hypocrite for claiming to be all about "transparency" yet refusing to release the most basic of records and put this controversy to rest..

and

B. Ya'all would be all over a GOP candidate like stink on rice if they tried to stonewall the American people like Obama is...

That's my beef... Period...

Michale.....