Birthers need to stop whining and start working

Originally posted by Portugoal
Why tell people to shut up and sit down if you're not tired of it?

I did not tell birthers to shut up. I told them that their "questions" are not getting them anywhere closer to holding Obama accountable for anything. It is not hard to understand.

If you feel it's productive to sound like a broken record day in and day out about Obama not release his long form birthcertificate, by all means. In my view that's not getting you anywhere, and the past 2 years has been evident of that fact.

I make no secret I am on a conspiracy forum.

Originally posted by backinblack
But that fits in with MY question you've dodged twice now..

Didn't the WH agree that no one had actually vetted him properly?

You made a claim with no solid source behind it that the whitehouse stated Obama was not vetted. Aside from the fact you have no solid sources to back up, Obama not being vetted properly does not necessarily mean he is ineligible. A person may not be vetted properly, but that doesn't automatically equate to their inelibility to the presidency.

I'll assume though that your answer is yes, that Obama should be removed because in your view he has not proven sufficiently he is eligible.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Portugoal
Why tell people to shut up and sit down if you're not tired of it?

If you feel it's productive to sound like a broken record day in and day out about Obama not release his long form birthcertificate, by all means.

I rarely get involved in this debate just because of this reason. However, you do on an almost daily basis. You're hypocritical for calling birthers broken records for asking for a birthcertificate, because you always reply with either: "he already showed one," "a longform isn't any different," or "Barry is American." Constantly bringing it up, even on the skeptic side of the birther debate, makes you just as much of a broken record.

How are you being productive by adding to the huge pile of threads already out there?
Short Answer: You're not. Long Answer: It kind of sounds like a broken record after a while.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

You made a claim with no solid source behind it that the whitehouse stated Obama was not vetted. Aside from the fact you have no solid sources to back up, Obama not being vetted properly does not necessarily mean he is ineligible. A person may not be vetted properly, but that doesn't automatically equate to their inelibility to the presidency.

I'll assume though that your answer is yes, that Obama should be removed because in your view he has not proven sufficiently he is eligible.

Well then you assume wrong...
If he was not vetted properly then he should be NOW...

IMO that means showing his long form, not to me but to whatever authority is charged with vetting him..

Not sure if it's correct but I read that was not a Fed issue..
States are responsible for vetting candidates..

Originally posted by Portugoal
I rarely get involved in this debate

You don't have to convince me.

However, you do on an almost daily basis. You're hypocritical for calling birthers broken records

The facts don't change. "Questions" and "demands" are not facts. Now, I see you motive is to attack me personally. That's fine, if that satisfies your concerns about Obama. Again, don't know what that'll achieve you.

Originally posted by backinblack
Well then you assume wrong...
If he was not vetted properly then he should be NOW...

Thankyou. Now that we got that out of the way, what constitutional requirements for vetting Obama are there? Maybe you can clarify this for us here.

IMO that means showing his long form,

No other president that I am aware of has presented their long form birth certificate. I'll refer this right back to my OP, holding Obama to your own personal standards. That will not remove him from office.

States are responsible for vetting candidates..

Congress is left up to confirming and vetting the president, there no mention of a long form birth certificate being required:
www.usconstitution.net...

Now state electors are left with the power of confirming Obama, so to some extent you are correct in the involvement of states over the vetting process, but it's fairly indirect.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Thankyou. Now that we got that out of the way, what constitutional requirements for vetting Obama are there? Maybe you can clarify this for us here.

The constitution states you must be a "natural born citizen"
It's self evident that must be shown through vetting the candidate unless you think they should merely be asked and their word accepted as truth..

No other president that I am aware of has presented their long form birth certificate. I'll refer this right back to my OP, holding Obama to your own personal standards. That will not remove him from office.

How do you know that? Did you personally check past Presidents or know who did and how?
I'm not holding Obama to any standard bar the constitution..

Congress is left up to confirming and vetting the president, there no mention of a long form birth certificate being required:

No but what other documentation do you think adequately proves "natural born" status?

Now state electors are left with the power of confirming Obama, so to some extent you are correct in the involvement of states over the vetting process, but it's fairly indirect.

And yet you and others called out Arizona even before seeing how the bill read..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Thankyou. Now that we got that out of the way, what constitutional requirements for vetting Obama are there? Maybe you can clarify this for us here.

The constitution states you must be a "natural born citizen"
It's self evident that must be shown through vetting the candidate

No president has presented their original long form birth certificate. If it is "self evident" in your view then Obama doesn't have to show it.

How do you know that? Did you personally check past Presidents

I did actually. I found Reagan's supposed birth certificate at the Reagan museum. It's a copy of the supposed certification of live birth from Reagan, created when he was 31 years old. It's unauthenticated. Aside from Reagan have not seen other birth certificate let alone specific long form birth certificates. Obama is the only one, Reagan, to some extent, however his is not authenticated.

No but what other documentation do you think adequately proves "natural born" status?

There is no straightforward vetting process dicated by the constitution. You claimed Obama needed to present his long form birth certificate, there is no requirement for him to do so.

And yet you and others called out Arizona even before seeing how the bill read..

I don't think you understand the process of confirming the president but that's fine, you are from Australia. Electors confirm from the voters of their state who they will support. Electors very rarely go against the wishes of the voters, even though they have that ability to do so. If electors of say Alabama decided to vote against Obama because they felt he was ineligible, whether or not the Alabama voters supported Obama as a majority, it still would not necessirly stop him from being president. Alabama has 5 electoral points, the president requires 270 electoral votes. This is in the manner as stating that voters can decide whether Obama was vetted properly by voting against him or for him.

The Arizona bill gave one state the power to block the election of a presidential candidate with their own requirements, regardless of whether he gained support from most other states, and it also ignored the official documentation of other states, which is against the good faith clause. I know this is hard to get your head around, you just don't understand, this is why you spout the same thing believing this will somehow change anything.

I'll go right back to my OP. You can insist that Obama has not presented what you would consider acceptable evidence, that's not going to change the fact he has under the eyes of the courts and congress and others. The only way you are going to get him removed from office is if you provide solid evidence that he was born off US soil.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

No president has presented their original long form birth certificate. If it is "self evident" in your view then Obama doesn't have to show it.

Nice twisting of what I said..
Please read what I said and answer accordingly...

There is no straightforward vetting process dicated by the constitution. You claimed Obama needed to present his long form birth certificate, there is no requirement for him to do so.

Again the twisting..
I said IMO the long form would be the only way to prove "natural born' status.
I asked you if you knew of other documentation that would do the same.

I'll go right back to my OP. You can insist that Obama has not presented what you would consider acceptable evidence, that's not going to change the fact he has under the eyes of the courts and congress and others.

And yet you don't deny he may not have been properly vetted in the first place..

Please stop twisting my posts to suit your agenda..
It's annoying and time consuming pointing it out..

Originally posted by backinblack
I said IMO the long form would be the only way to prove "natural born' status.
I asked you if you knew of other documentation that would do the same.

So let's clarify your points here.

You claim Obama has not been properly vetted, you referenced the white house, you have no sources to back up this claim.

In your opinion the only way to prove natural born citizenship is through presenting a long form birth certificate, but no president prior to Obama has presented their long form birth certificate.

You are not demanding Obama release his long form birth certificate, but you are of the opinion that it is the only documentation that will reveal and confirm his citizenship. But no other president has released their long form birth certificate, neither is it a requirement under the constitution. So where does that lead your argument on the matter? It leads you no where, really. It's an opinion accompanied by "questions" you have. It doesn't set a case as to whether Obama is guilty of anything, it just creates suspicion.

You don't understand why he doesn't just "release the piece of paper", but it is not a requirement of him to do so. What's the motivation behind insisting the above then? Going back to the point of my OP, it has not and will not remove him from the presidency. What's your motivation?

And yet you don't deny he may not have been properly vetted in the first place

Well how can I know whether he was properly vetted? I'd have to be part of that very process if I knew for sure. Nobody can account for all of the 44 presidents being vetted appropriately because not everybody can account for being present, it's a silly notion to assume otherwise. The constitution does not set a straight forward guideline to vetting a president. What matters to the constitution is the confirmation from Congress and the electors of the president's eligibility and this was done on December 15th for Obama and the previous 44.

You sit here and complain that you "don't know whether Obama was vetted", you yourself cannot seem to provide any specific vetting guidelines that Obama has failed under the constitution.

Please stop twisting my posts

Stop running away from them. Stick with your arguments.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Stop running away from them. Stick with your arguments.

OMG, everything I say is taken down and twisted by YOU and you tell me to stick to my argument?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Stop running away from them. Stick with your arguments.

OMG, everything I say is taken down and twisted

Oh goodness, back to smilies now. If your only motive on here is to spread lies and hope they stick, well that's your business I guess. For the real serious birthers out there, you're not doing their movement a service, especially considering posts like the above.

Obama will still be in office atleast until 2012, possibly after. If he is well and truly guilty of fraud, or of being ineligible, people like you are certainly helping him get away with it with your nonsense.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Oh goodness, back to smilies now. If your only motive on here is to spread lies and hope they stick, well that's your business I guess. For the real serious birthers out there, you're not doing their movement a service, especially considering posts like the above.

What a crock..

List what LIES you say I have spread and lets see how I address them...

KINDERGARTEN @ IT'S BEST. Just saying.

Originally posted by cushycrux
KINDERGARTEN @ IT'S BEST. Just saying.

True but I'm not about to let the OP twist everything I say..
Oh and call me a liar...

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by cushycrux
KINDERGARTEN @ IT'S BEST. Just saying.

True but I'm not about to let the OP twist everything I say..
Oh and call me a liar...

Yea, I know - fight for the LULZ or stop it and leave your meanings.

Peace!

Originally posted by backinblack
List what LIES you say I have spread

Certainly:

You claimed the short form birth certificate cannot be used as evidence of birth in the state of Hawaii, that's a lie.

To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008.

www.politifact.com...

Further clarification over Obama's short form birth certificate:

"They're just words," said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. "That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii."

"There's only one form of birth certificate," she said, and it's been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

"When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site," she said. "That's the birth certificate."

www.politifact.com...

Hawaii

Certified copies of these records may be issued to authorized individuals and used for such diverse purposes as school entry, passports, Social Security participation, driver’s licenses, employment, sports participation, survivor’s benefits, proof of property rights, and other needs.

hawaii.gov...

You want to talk about other states?

Illinois

Birth Certificates must be original or certified by a
Board of Health or Bureau of Vital Statistics within
the U.S.

www.sos.state.il.us...

Nevada

Certified U.S. Issued Birth Certificate or Certified Abstract

www.dmvnv.com...

Idaho

Certified original birth certificate or certified abstract.

itd.idaho.gov...

Georgia

The following items are acceptable but must be Original or a Certified Copy

www.dds.ga.gov...

Florida

Computer Certification is an abstract of the original birth certificate and is accepted as legal proof of birth and citizenship. It measures 8 ½? x 11".

www.flhsmv.gov...

Let's not forget Arizona, they only issue short form birth certificates for Children born after 1997:
www.vitalchek.com...

You claimed foreign born children could easily attain an Hawaiian short form birth certificate merely by parents applying at the hospital, this is a lie

1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:

a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

2. In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii. HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.

hawaii.gov...

Similar laws apply to other states.

3. You claimed Obama was not vetted appropriately and what do you have to show for it? Nothing. No source, no constitutional references. It's another lie.

Like I said, if this is what you feel is productive to finding Obama guilty of anything, you are only doing him a service for the next elections.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
It has been what? 2 years since Obama assumed office,during which we heard endless dribble from birthers. It's been:

Question this,
Speculate that,
Demand that document,
Dismiss this document

Is this suppose to remove Obama from the presidency? After 71 dismissed lawsuits, something like 13 failed birther bills including the most recent one from Arizona that was vetoed by the governor, you'd figure that people would get the message. Without solid evidence, Obama is not going anywhere.

Questions about Obama's best man? How is this suppose to prove his ineligibility to the presidency?

Demanding Obama release his original long form birth certificate? You're asking Obama release more documents because you are unhappy and you believe he is hiding something? this is alittle silly isn't it?

Insisting the short form hawaiian birth certificate is not adequate enough? On what authority on Hawaii law do you have?

You have to prove your case under the constitution and law. I don't know how applying Obama to different standards than other presidents is going to get anybody their way.

Where can birthers start?
1. Go to Mombasa and get confirmation from Kenyan and Mombasa officials on paper and that he was born there. Get the Kenyan health authorities to verbally confirm it.
2. Prove the inadequacy of the Hawaiian short form birth certificate. Prove it is easy to get one claiming you were born there. Birthers can do this by sending in some folks with a secret camera to apply for one.

I believe these two points above are good starters, they should really get the ball rolling. I'm unsure what whining day in and day out about not being listened to will get you evidence.

Evidence will not coming flying onto your lap. Get up!

In the words of Arnie "Stop whining!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

reply to post by Southern Guardian

You claimed the short form birth certificate cannot be used as evidence of birth in the state of Hawaii, that's a lie.

I said IMO it was not adequate proof of "natural born citizen" status..

You claimed foreign born children could easily attain an Hawaiian short form birth certificate merely by parents applying at the hospital, this is a lie

I didn't say apply at the hospital but a BC was not that hard to get..
Someone who said they had a home birth only required the signatures of a doctor,midwife or even relatives to prove birth..
Heck, there's no mention that they even had to show an actual baby !!

3. You claimed Obama was not vetted appropriately and what do you have to show for it? Nothing. No source, no constitutional references. It's another lie.

www.scribd.com...
I'll post more sites if you wish...
Fact is though you've never shown that he WAS vetted..

Now, can you prove anything I said is wrong???

reply to post by jidnum


Don't like the term? Get the hint and move on.

I read that what, 46% of Republicans don't think that Obama was born in the U.S. Are you one of them?