Page 1 of 1

Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:02 am
by Yes, I'm drunk
From today's Telegraph: US election 2012: Barack Obama 'birther' conspiracy theory revived by Republicans

Putting aside partisan and ideological concerns, is there any substance to this?

Why won't Hawaii confirm his birth certificate?

And can Arizona, or more likely, will Arizona, really not put his name on the ballot?

EDIT: From the article:
The latest resurrection of "birtherism" came a week after a short biography published by Mr Obama's book publishers in the 1990s, stating that he was "born in Kenya", emerged on a news website.
The plot thickens..... :-k

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:44 am
by Yes, I'm drunk

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:50 am
by Protobuilder
Yes, I'm drunk wrote:Putting aside partisan and ideological concerns, is there any substance to this?
I think that there are a good number of reasons why he shouldn't be re-elected and likely wouldn't be if the GOP didn't decide to run one of the weakest candidates in recent history against him but have neither read nor heard anything related to the birtherism that makes even a fragment of sense.
Yes, I'm drunk wrote:Why won't Hawaii confirm his birth certificate?
They have released two forms of his birth certificate and every official involved as said things are legit. What do they need to do, pinky swear on the Book of Mormon?
Yes, I'm drunk wrote:And can Arizona, or more likely, will Arizona, really not put his name on the ballot?
Supposedly, Arizona has a new law that requires candidates to prove that they are US citizens. So, how do you do that?

Even if he were born in Kenya, is there a question that his mother was a US citizen? (I think that this is supposed to be shot down by either the fact that she was too young when he was born or by the fact that she was married to a black, which wasn't legal in all states.)

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 12:22 pm
by Pinky
From Breitbart:
It is evidence--not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:16 pm
by WildGorillaMan
If the Birthers ever actually read books they would know that authors don't write the bio of them that appears on the dust jacket of their book, their agent does. And literary agents are pathological liars who will say anything if it means getting their client some buzz.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:27 pm
by nafod
The real moral to this story and the Elizabeth Warren one is that liberals are #$%-ed up and look stupid while constantly Making Shit Up on the whole race/identity politics thing.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:42 pm
by Turdacious
I'm convinced he was not born in the continental US.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 3:27 pm
by DARTH
IF Obama gets re-elected, look for some major money into investigations both private and public on any thing that they can stick to him.

I think there are a good number of skeleton's in the closet.

It's the way he has sealed so many records and shys away from his past more than any evedence from the Birthers and now this.

That as Pink pointed out does prove he has changed hist story to match his audeance.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 3:50 pm
by JimZipCode
Turdacious wrote:I'm convinced he was not born in the continental US.
=D>

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 4:25 pm
by dead man walking
DARTH wrote:IF Obama gets re-elected, look for some major money into investigations both private and public on any thing that they can stick to him.
romney has raised $87 million so far

paul, gingrich, santorum, and perry all raised more than $20 million.

plus the tens of millions the superpacs have raised.

do you think, perhaps, someone has already pursued such investigations?

you probably can work the answer out for yourself.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 4:53 pm
by Pinky
DARTH wrote:IF Obama gets re-elected, look for some major money into investigations both private and public on any thing that they can stick to him.
I think those investigations have been going on for a while. If anything, there's more of an incentive to investigate before he gets reelected.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 5:31 pm
by Andy83
We can argue forever as to where he was born but the only scientific fact is that he was born outa some hippy's asshole someplace.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 5:51 pm
by Turdacious
nafod wrote:The real moral to this story and the Elizabeth Warren one is that liberals are #$%-ed up and look stupid while constantly Making Shit Up on the whole race/identity politics thing.
Heh. I'm getting more and more convinced that Mass. Dems truely want Scott Brown to be their Senator forever.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:44 pm
by Sandman
Let's just say they are right.... No rational human being is a fan of Obama but Biden may be the stupidest man on the planet. Certainly no one wants him at the helm. Let's keep operating under the assumption that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:30 am
by Yes, I'm drunk
He should never have procrastinated in the first place.

Normal people have to produce reams of documents every day for all sorts of mundane reasons. His credentials for being the POTUS should've been no different. He's an arrogant, lying piece of shit.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 1:15 am
by Fat Cat
He's just a bit better than you are and that's bound to be hard for you to accept.. We Hawaiians are familiar with the type of antipathy our excellence provokes in other, less well endowed, continentals but that's our cross to bear, I suppose.

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 1:24 am
by dead man walking
wrong thread

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:11 am
by davidc
Are we sure Romney wasn't born in Mexico? I've never seen his original long form birth certificate. What's he hiding, anyway?

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:57 am
by Yes, I'm drunk
davidc wrote:Are we sure Romney wasn't born in Mexico? I've never seen his original long form birth certificate. What's he hiding, anyway?
New or old Mexico?

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:03 am
by Yes, I'm drunk
Barack Obama accused of risking national security over Osama bin Laden film
President Barack Obama has been accused of risking America's national security for political gain by giving Hollywood filmmakers access to secret material on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -film.html

This would've had any normal work-a-day American hanged for treason. Unless of course he isn't actually an American, which would be a legitimate defence to a charge of said treason.....?

Re: Could the 'birthers' be right?

Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:22 am
by The Ginger Beard Man
Yes, I'm drunk wrote:He should never have procrastinated in the first place.

Normal people have to produce reams of documents every day for all sorts of mundane reasons. His credentials for being the POTUS should've been no different. He's an arrogant, lying piece of shit.
All politicians are arrogant, lying pieces of shit.