| Obama releases long form Birth Cert.; alrighty then. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 27 2011, 08:08 AM (6,880 Views) | |
| Baldo | Apr 27 2011, 10:10 AM Post #16 |
|
No I disagree. Why did he not release this two years ago when he was running for president? I have my birth certificate, I have my mother's birth certificate. It takes 30 minutes to obtain it in California. All this smoke and mirrors saying we can't produce the real certificate was crap. we knew people easily obtain their actual birth certificate in Hawaii. He did. I accept this document as real. I have said forever he had the power to get it over two years ago. The question is why did he wait and let this fester for so long? For me the real situation is what he is doing as President. Edited by Baldo, Apr 27 2011, 10:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 27 2011, 10:16 AM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
Let me see. do you think if I was POTUS I could have a bogus birth certificate made in two and half years. My original birth certificate has a foot print on it, did they stop doing that? |
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Apr 27 2011, 10:48 AM Post #18 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
What would be the reason for waiting so long to release this perfectly ordinary birth certificate? What would be the reason for bothering to get that first COLB copy, that was released long ago, if this was available for release? If I am overly suspicious, I come by it honestly, despite my "stupidity" on the issue. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 27 2011, 10:57 AM Post #19 |
|
The document and necessary data is there now. The question was why it had not been produced or if it existed. I see the Smokin' Gun already has questions about it, BUT ...it is real and accurate until somebody proves otherwise. |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Apr 27 2011, 11:07 AM Post #20 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://twitpic.com/4q47pm/full Photocopy of book page, apparently. If this was right there in that book the whole time, what was the big deal? I'm guessing that the security paper did not exist in 1961, although it might have. I'm madder than ever now because they held onto this for so long... Edited by LTC8K6, Apr 27 2011, 11:11 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Apr 27 2011, 11:38 AM Post #21 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
Right why didn't he. He wasted money on lawyers. He wasted judges time. |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | Apr 27 2011, 11:43 AM Post #22 |
|
If Race of Father is African, why isn't Race of Mother American? |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Apr 27 2011, 11:49 AM Post #23 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Heck, I wasn't aware that the "birther" issue was discussed much here. Certainly we have covered it, but we have not been paying that much attention to it. It's not a hot topic here. |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | Apr 27 2011, 12:02 PM Post #24 |
|
Finally, Obama's Columbia Transcript: http://transterrestrial.com/images/ObamaTranscript.jpg You need to scan way down to see it. |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Apr 27 2011, 12:06 PM Post #25 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
It wasn't that hot of a issue here. Most of the time I just ignored it like other threads I don't care about. |
![]() |
|
| agatha | Apr 27 2011, 12:07 PM Post #26 |
|
Proves my point on another thread. I am smart enough to know what I do not know. I am smart enough not to take the word of others regardless of whether or not I agree. I am also smart enough to know any of my opinions could change based on new information. If authentic, it should prove where obama was born. Does it change my opinion of him? Well no...my opinion is not based on his place of birth or his race. Does it make him a natural born citizen as required for POTUS? My understanding (and I am no legal scholar; hell I don't even qualify as a legal dummy) is no. I have read the legal arguments for both sides and admittedly am lost on the legalese, so I fall back on what I learned in American History before the founding of this nation became a footnote. I expect to know as much about the President of the United States as any employer knows about us. Education. Grades. References. Arrests? Other quaifications/disqualifications? Past experience? From my vantage point, Obama has gone out of his way to hide these things from the electorate, not the actions of someone who promised transparency. If that makes me a tinfoiled conspiratory nut, so be it. Edited by agatha, Apr 27 2011, 12:37 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Apr 27 2011, 12:09 PM Post #27 |
|
Bush's National Guard Pay Records Are Released By ELISABETH BUMILLER; David A. Barstow contributed reporting for this article The White House released 18 months of President Bush's National Guard payroll records on Tuesday showing what administration officials asserted was proof that Mr. Bush had fully completed his service in the Guard during the Vietnam War. But the records, which the White House obtained from blurry 30-year-old microfiche files, show only the specific days in 1972 and 1973, 82 in all, that Mr. Bush was paid for his service. Although Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said the documents ''clearly show that the president fulfilled his duties,'' he would not say, under repeated questioning at a contentious White House briefing, that the records definitively proved that Mr. Bush reported for duty on those dates. ''These documents show the days on which he was paid,'' Mr. McClellan said. ''That's what they show.'' The president, he said, ''does recall showing up and performing his duties.'' Mr. McClellan could not say why some of Mr. Bush's commanding officers did not recall his turning up on the dates he was paid, but he suggested they might have forgotten. ''We're talking about 30 years ago,'' Mr. McClellan said. Ads by Google The White House released the records under intense election-year pressure from the Democrats, who have accused a president who sent men and women into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan of shirking his own military duty during the Vietnam War. Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has called Mr. Bush ''AWOL'' from the National Guard. John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who is leading in the Democratic primaries, has repeatedly called on the president to answer questions about his record. The White House has appeared to be caught off balance by the aggressiveness of the Democrats, who have put Mr. Bush in the rare defensive position of having to respond. Tim Russert of NBC kept the issue alive when he asked Mr. Bush in an interview on ''Meet the Press'' on Sunday if he would release all his military records. Mr. Bush, who was honorably discharged, replied almost offhandedly that he would. ''Yeah, if we still have them,'' Mr. Bush said. Then the president added: ''And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it.'' |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Apr 27 2011, 12:19 PM Post #28 |
|
Charles Krauthammer Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A19 First comes the crime: Dan Rather's late hit on President Bush's Air National Guard service, featuring what were almost immediately revealed to be forged documents. Then comes the coverup: 12 days of CBS stonewalling, with Dan Rather using his evening news platform to (a) call his critics "partisan political operatives," (b) claim falsely that the documents were authenticated by experts, and (c) claim that he had "solid sources," which turned out to be a rabid anti-Bush partisan with a history of, shall we say, prolific storytelling. Now comes the twist: The independent investigation -- clueless, uncomprehending and in its own innocent way disgraceful -- pretends that this fiasco was in no way politically motivated. The investigation does note that the show's producer called Joe Lockhart of the Kerry campaign to alert him to the story and to urge him to contact the purveyor of the incriminating documents. It concludes that this constitutes an "appearance of political bias." What would producer Mary Mapes have had to do to go beyond appearance? Show up at the Kerry headquarters? CBS had been pursuing the story for five years. Five years! The Manhattan Project took three. Five years for a minor episode in a 30-year-old byway in the life of the president? This story had been vetted not only in two Texas gubernatorial races but twice more by the national media, once in 2000 and then yet again earlier in 2004 when Michael Moore's "deserter" charge and Terry McAuliffe's "AWOL" charge touched off a media frenzy that culminated in a Newsweek cover. To what, then, does the report attribute Mapes's great-white-whale obsession with the story? Her Texas roots. I kid you not. She comes from Texas and likes Texas stories. You believe that and you will believe that a 1972 typewriter can tuck the letter "i" right up against the umbrella of the letter "f" (as can Microsoft Word). Did Mapes and Rather devote a fraction of the resources they gave this story to a real scandal, such as the oil-for-food scandal at the United Nations, or contrary partisan political charges, such as those brought by the Swift boat vets against John Kerry? On the United Nations, no interest. On Kerry, what CBS did do was ad hominem investigative stories on the Swift boat veterans themselves, rather than an examination of the charges. Do you perceive a direction to these inclinations? Now comes the National Guard story, the most blindingly partisan bungle in recent journalistic history, and the august investigative panel, CBS News and most of the mainstream media do not have a clue. The bungle is attributed to haste and sloppiness. Haste, yes. To get the story out in time to damage, perhaps fatally, the president's chances of reelection. This is not an isolated case. In fact the case is a perfect illustration of an utterly commonplace phenomenon: the mainstream media's obliviousness to its own liberal bias. I do not attribute this to bad faith. I attribute it to (as Marx would say) false consciousness -- contracted by living in the liberal media cocoons of New York, Washington and Los Angeles, in which any other worldview is simply and truly inconceivable. This myopia was most perfectly captured by Pauline Kael's famous remark after Nixon's 1972 landslide: "I don't know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." Multiple polls of the media elite have confirmed Kael's inadvertent sociological insight. One particularly impartial poll, taken by the Freedom Forum in 1996, found that of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 89 percent supported Bill Clinton in the previous election, vs. 7 percent for George H.W. Bush. The rest of America went 43 percent to 37 percent. Some argue that personal allegiance does not matter because it is possible to be partisan at home and yet consciously bias-free at work. Possible, yes. Actual? The Project for Excellence in Journalism did a careful study of mainstream media stories in September and October. The numbers are stunning. To take one example, Oct. 1-14, 2004: Percent of stories about Bush that are negative -- 59 percent. Percent of stories about Kerry that are negative -- 25 percent. Stories favorable to Bush? 14 percent. Favorable to Kerry? 34 percent. That is not a difference. That is a chasm. And you do not have to be a weatherman to ascertain wind direction. When, in February 2003, Gallup asked Americans their perception of media bias, 45 percent said the media were too liberal, 15 percent said they were too conservative. That's 3 to 1. Bias spectacularly, if redundantly, confirmed by Rathergate. All that is missing is a signed confession. |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | Apr 27 2011, 12:57 PM Post #29 |
|
How about the F in Basic Job Creating? |
![]() |
|
| Duke parent 2004 | Apr 27 2011, 01:05 PM Post #30 |
|
Please tell me, dear Jupiter, that no one here is taking that Columbia transcript seriously. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







2:00 PM Jul 11