Since when have facts ever stopped an idiot?
Do you honestly believe this will silence the Birthers?
Those that are harping on it purely for political gain with the horde of useful idiots (Trump, for example). Sane people being able to wave incontrovertible proof in their stupid faces will render their fantasy pretty much moot for most birthers, though. The'' still believe their hallucination in private but there will be no more ground to be gained by shouting about it in public so many of them will shut up about it.
He was born in Ireland. O'bama. Come on.
Damn... Klirshon beat me to it. Yeah Ronald McDonald Trump is taking toytal credit for it. He says that he accomplished something that no one else was able to do. That guy...
Yep, total credit for proving something everybody already knew. Way to go, Don.
Second, I'm glad he did it cuz now it makes birthers appear even more nutso so some just won't cling to it anymore. It also makes it much less politically viable because you'd look like an idiot to campaign as a birther now. So, good move on Obama's part though it's a move he shouldn't have needed to make.
I'm also curious as to what new stupidity we will have to put up with next.
It was either this or suffer through the entire campaign season with 'he ain't neven bornded here!' crap. Really, there are plenty that won't be satisfied but this release will make them look even more insane. And, as stated before, this shouldn't be a political lightning rod for Trump and any other birther idiot now. I mean, it's out there for everyone to see.
That reminds me. By a recent poll Trump doesn't look too good in the "he was born here" department: [link].
I didn't see it, I jsut saw a photocopy on the internet.
Fair point! I think that in order for anyone to run for president they need to prove they were born here by having their birth witnessed by all potential voters! That would, like, totally solve the problem.
That reminds me. By a recent poll Trump doesn't look too good in the "he was born here" department: [link].
If enough people believe something to be true, does that make it so?
Nobody seems to make a huge fuss about John McCain's issues with citizenship. Probably because he was in the military, but if they were truly fair, they would have to ask for his birth certificate as well.
They did make a fuss about it. But birthers are only newsworthy now because it's directed at Obama.
Also: [Orly Taitz thinks the certificate is fake because it doesn't use "negro"]
and [Trump said that if Obama released his long-form birth certificate that he might release his tax records for the last ten years. So far, no show.]
I wonder how much this could help Trump get a solid base for the primaries. If he will run...
I do not think Obama should have released it. Now he will have to indulge every loon out there because of this precident or every loon out there will invoke this precident.
The Trumpinator is still questioning it. He says that they still need to look at the birth certificate, examine what is on it, and determine if it is real. This isn't going to go away anytime soon. And now that he thinks he is the reason it was released, his head is going to swell to the size of the Chryaler building.
It was either this or suffer through the entire campaign season with 'he ain't neven bornded here!' crap. Really, there are plenty that won't be satisfied but this release will make them look even more insane. And, as stated before, this shouldn't be a political lightning rod for Trump and any other birther idiot now. I mean, it's out there for everyone to see.
That reminds me. By a recent poll Trump doesn't look too good in the "he was born here" department: [link].
I don't believe Trump was born on earth. I'd like to see a birth certificate and a DNA test as proof that he is even human.
Nobody seems to make a huge fuss about John McCain's issues with citizenship. Probably because he was in the military, but if they were truly fair, they would have to ask for his birth certificate as well.
To be fair, McCain was born before there was a written language. It would be unfair to ask for a birth certificate.
IIRC, didn't congress actually rush through a small something-or-other afirming McCain's citizenship when he was running to put the issue to rest?
I think you're right.
Regarding the frenzy about the story now, it is also logical that it would stir up more fuss when the discussion involves a sitting president rather than one that is running for president. But if you do a google search on John McCain's birth, there were many articles out there at the time. And it's really no secret that the Dems were the ones stirring up that topic. Two sides of the same coin.
And justifying one party's actions by saying "Well the other party does it, too!" really isn't a valid argument unless you are a 2nd grader. And even then, it's not valid, just a sign of immaturity.
FYI, politicians will run with anything they can get their hands on. Both sides are equally proficient at mudslinging, dirt digging, and puking on anyone that gets in their way.
I don't have a bias for Republicans. I dislike both parties. Haven't you been paying attention the last couple of months?
And justifying one party's actions by saying "Well the other party does it, too!" really isn't a valid argument unless you are a 2nd grader. And even then, it's not valid, just a sign of immaturity.
FYI, politicians will run with anything they can get their hands on. Both sides are equally proficient at mudslinging, dirt digging, and puking on anyone that gets in their way.
You've said you're a conservative, Reps are conservatives. Add your comments tp the mix and your bias is obvious, like you hair due.
I am not saying one party can do it because the other does, I am saying the Reps are getting off easy because people like you excuse their behavior by saying the other side is doing the same thing even if it is not true.
Actually... the current republican party really isn't conservative. It calls itself conservative, but it is not.
You've said you're a conservative, Reps are conservatives. Add your comments tp the mix and your bias is obvious, like you hair due.
I am not saying one party can do it because the other does, I am saying the Reps are getting off easy because people like you excuse their behavior by saying the other side is doing the same thing even if it is not true.
Considering I don't have a side between Reps and Dems, your argument is null and void. I pointed out that Dems used the same tactics simply to reinforce my point that both sides are equally prone to use childish tactics.
Actually... the current republican party really isn't conservative. It calls itself conservative, but itis not.
HS gets it.
I defend what I believe is right. Like when I said that I felt that Bush did a very good job his first two years, particularly in the face of 9/11. Then it was a downward spiral into abomination.
I also defended one of the Fox News stories because I did not see the propaganda that others claimed was present. This does not mean that I like Fox News. It merely meant I did not see what others saw to the extent that they saw it. I even expressed that I understood how others could see it the way that they did.
Defending something or someone does not necessarily equate to completely siding with that something or someone. It simply means that you understand or that the individual component is something you agree with. For instance, I support gay rights and marriage, a stereotypical Democratic and liberal viewpoint. I believe that what adults do is their own business and the government should not stand in their way as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people. This does not make me a Democrat or a liberal.
I simply think that you are so intent on arguing (with me?) that you see what you want to see. You continuously claimed that I watch Fox News (when I had already explained I didn't), you continuously claimed that I put my faith in the Bible (when I had already explained that I believe there is merely validity to the stories within), and now you claim I am a Republican just because I presented Democrats doing the same thing as Republicans (when I have previosly shared plenty of disdain for both parties). Maybe you simply do not understand the things that I am explaining or the stance I am taking so you try to simplify it so you have a better grasp on things.
Let me summarize so there is less confusion for you.
- I do not watch Fox News. I find them biased. I also find MSNBC and CNN heavily biased, amongst other news sources.
- I am a deist. This means that I believe that God (whomever or whatever that God may be) was present during creation and initiated it. Everything else followed, including evolution.
- I am a conservative. I have very little to no respect for the Republican and Democratic party. I believe that they both behave, as an entity, like immature, spoiled children and have less concern about the American people than they do about lining their pockets and manufacturing power. I believe both to be corrupt.
Like I have said repeatedly, they are two sides of the same coin. Maybe you don't understand the phrase. It means that they have two distinct faces, apparently diametrically opposed, yet it doesn't really matter because they are worth the same amount.
[...] yet it doesn't really matter because they are worth the same amount.
I do believe this is the part some people are having trouble with. The false equivalency, the idea that they're equally bad.
[...] yet it doesn't really matter because they are worth the same amount.
I do believe this is the part some people are having. The false equivalency, the idea that they're equally bad.
I get that EE. I do. But that is their bias speaking, not mine.
[...] yet it doesn't really matter because they are worth the same amount.
I do believe this is the part some people are having. The false equivalency, the idea that they're equally bad.
Meh. Good and bad are both matters of perspective. Rarely is any one side truly good or bad, but rather we get caught up in the dualistic trap of assigning good and bad two those involved in 2-sided conflicts: North v South, God v Devil, Black v White, Red v Blue, etc.
I get that EE. I do. But that is their bias speaking, not mine.
Just to be perfectly clear... are you, in fact, saying both sides are equally bad?
[...] yet it doesn't really matter because they are worth the same amount.
I do believe this is the part some people are having. The false equivalency, the idea that they're equally bad.
Meh. Good and bad are both matters of perspective. Rarely is any one side truly good or bad, but rather we get caught up in the dualistic trap of assigning good and bad two those involved in 2-sided conflicts: North v South, God v Devil, Black v White, Red v Blue, etc.
That's the basic premise, yes. However, in the context of this conversation, it obviously gets a bit deeper (which I am sure you are aware).
At this stage, I view Republicans and Democrats as politicians, too worried about staying in office and defacing their "opponents" at the expense of the American people. To me, the American people and the entire concept of America are the "good guys." Politicians take the people for granted, and when the polls start swaying against whatever party, they go and manufacture more voters as well as attack the opposite side rather than addressing the actual reason for their popularity dropping.
It's appalling behavior, and if you think that any one side is less guilty of it than the other, then you are either selectively blind or are lying to yourself. This government cares less and less about the people each and every day, and most political news stories that are posted here and elsewhere is nothing but proof of that thought. That energy used against each other, and reporting on the government infighting, should be directed at actual issues that are bringing this country to its knees.
I get that EE. I do. But that is their bias speaking, not mine.
Just to be perfectly clear... are you, in fact, saying both sides are equally bad?
I am saying that they are both bad. It doesn't matter to me which is worse than the other. I am not into the "lesser of two evils" game. We need to start seeing some actual good in this country.
I never said I didn't see difference. There you go again trying to put words in my mouth and simplifying things so you can try to understand.
Like I have said repeatedly, they are two sides of the same coin. Maybe you don't understand the phrase. It means that they have two distinct faces, apparently diametrically opposed, yet it doesn't really matter because they are worth the same amount.
Yes, I understood. This is why I think you're an idiot.
Yes, and I think that everyone here understands your uncivil, primitive, backwards thought process on most topics.
I am saying that they are both bad. It doesn't matter to me which is worse than the other. I am not into the "lesser of two evils" game.
It was a "yes or no" question. "Magenta" isn't a terribly useful answer.
Primitive? You mean like your very nuance: "They both bad".
I explained which side I am on, but that concept is probably too complicated for you.
It was a "yes or no" question. "Magenta" isn't a terribly useful answer.
At this point in time, I think the Republicans are behaving worse than the Democrats. In time, I am sure that will be reversed, as has been the pattern.
Well it took a while... Why was it so painful? After all you are unbias...
Oh please. If you're going to judge the parties, you have to judge them as a whole. The Republicans were the party that ended slavery while the democrats sought to preserve it. In the wake of the civil war, southern democrats were responsible for a great deal of Jim Crow. Heck, the Dems even led a filibuster to kill the 1964 civil rights act.
So there's plenty of stuff on both sides for people to call them equal.
My question is, If the document is legitimate, why has it taken so long for it to come out? Why didn't it come out when questions about his birth nationality first came out?
It didn't "come out". Only the person in question can request a long form copy of their birth certificate, and it's a tedious process (from what I've heard) that I wouldn't bother with just to give the middle finger to people who I felt would continue to think it's a fake anyway.
Well it took a while... Why was it so painful? After all you are unbias...
Oh please. If you're going to judge the parties, you have to judge them as a whole. The Republicans were the party that ended slavery while the democrats sought to preserve it. In the wake of the civil war, southern democrats were responsible for a great deal of Jim Crow. Heck, the Dems even led a filibuster to kill the 1964 civil rights act.
So there's plenty of stuff on both sides for people to call them equal.
Which is strange, because today the Republicans are the party that claims to favor states' rights and curtailing the authority of the federal government.
Things change over time. Hell, some people try to say that the (I'm gonna Godwin this one) Nazi party was left wing because they were socialists. The problem with that is that trying to shoe-horn the political, social, and economic outlook of a political party from 1930s-1940s Germany into the modern US right-left paradign just doesn't work. (For that matter, it doesn't even work with past stances of current political parties in the US.)
Well it took a while... Why was it so painful? After all you are unbias...
Oh please. If you're going to judge the parties, you have to judge them as a whole. The Republicans were the party that ended slavery while the democrats sought to preserve it. In the wake of the civil war, southern democrats were responsible for a great deal of Jim Crow. Heck, the Dems even led a filibuster to kill the 1964 civil rights act.
So there's plenty of stuff on both sides for people to call them equal.
Which is strange, because today the Republicans are the party that claims to favor states' rights and curtailing the authority of the federal government.
Things change over time. Hell, some people try to say that the (I'm gonna Godwin this one) Nazi party was left wing because they were socialists. The problem with that is that trying to shoe-horn the political, social, and economic outlook of a political party from 1930s-1940s Germany into the modern US right-left paradign just doesn't work. (For that matter, it doesn't even work with past stances of current political parties in the US.)
Godwin can suck it. His premise id flawed anyway.
As for the rest of what you've said: yes, parties do change. But if you're going to judge them, then you must acknowledge that they have that same capacity to change again and therefore judge them as a whole and not as a snapshot.
Let's be honest, political parties are very long-lived compared to people. A decade or two is really only a snapshot in the life of a party. I wouldn't judge you on moral terms based only on what you've done since lunch. It's not fair to do it to them.
Well it took a while... Why was it so painful? After all you are unbias...
Oh please. If you're going to judge the parties, you have to judge them as a whole. The Republicans were the party that ended slavery while the democrats sought to preserve it. In the wake of the civil war, southern democrats were responsible for a great deal of Jim Crow. Heck, the Dems even led a filibuster to kill the 1964 civil rights act.
So there's plenty of stuff on both sides for people to call them equal.
Give him a break. He can't think of anything prior to his last orgasm and can't think beyond his next. He thinks he achieved some kind of victory. Let him have it.
I mean, as long as your victory is based on being less of a douchebag than your opponent, it's not exactly setting the bar that high to begin with, particularly since you are more than capable of setting that bar to all new lows at any given moment. (read: not you, MP, but you Rep or Dem party).
So as far as me being unbiased, I most certainly try to be as far as the Republicans vs. Democrats go. I am not unbiased when it comes to the United States people vs. the Republicans and Democrats.
Give him a break. He can't think of anything prior to his last orgasm and can't think beyond his next. He thinks he achieved some kind of victory. Let him have it.
I mean, as long as your victory is based on being less of a douchebag than your opponent, it's not exactly setting the bar that high to begin with, particularly since you are more than capable of setting that bar to all new lows at any given moment. (read: not you, MP, but you Rep or Dem party).
So as far as me being unbiased, I most certainly try to be as far as the Republicans vs. Democrats go. I am not unbiased when it comes to the United States people vs. the Republicans and Democrats.
(insert maniacal laughter here)
Well put!
Goldy...OWNED!!
* Most people forget that you have to yell his middle name out. It's a Kenyan tradition.
My question is, If the document is legitimate, why has it taken so long for it to come out? Why didn't it come out when questions about his birth nationality first came out?
You're not serious are you?
You've said you're a conservative, Reps are conservatives. Add your comments tp the mix and your bias is obvious, like you hair due.
Republicans are conservative, but conservatives are not necessarily Republican. They are not freely interchangable.