http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3Ax8UQ9ac
This is so bizarre, it's worthy of an X-Files episode.
And it would be funnier if sizable throngs of Americans didn't think this way.
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3Ax8UQ9ac
This is so bizarre, it's worthy of an X-Files episode.
And it would be funnier if sizable throngs of Americans didn't think this way.
They weren't sizable enough to prevent Obama from getting elected.
Now if they're throngs of sizable Americans.... That may well be true.
[[Double checking for an "r" in that word.) :D :eek:
Speaking of "Birthers" as "thongs of sizeable Americans":
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...lar%2fsumo.jpg
"infect her with your seed and breed a child"
"we used our evil voodoo magic"
"Bwaa ha ha ha ha Bwaa hahahah"
OMFG!
"Praise Satan." :D
This is seriously not that far off from the insane conspiracy theory ramblings I've read online.
Which is why I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Screw the conspiracy theories and those nuts. I just want to infect someone with my seed and make her breed my child.
Yes, but first you have to find yourself a shaman who will perform evil voodoo. ;)
note for the terminally uninformed: Islam does not endorse voodoo, and it would most likely be seen as a form of apostasy.
It's only apostasy if you are a Muslim to begin with. Otherwise it's idolatry.Quote:
Originally Posted by humanmachinery
For a good laugh, listen to this woman who found 2 seperate [[bogus) birth certificates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiU8vX1nhNk
Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, leaning in close, inferring a shared confidence. Sort of like the conversations had over our backyard fences and kitchen tables. Those places where we are more likely to say what we really mean.
The "courts don't" dialogue has been ratcheted up out of this camp as of late. The "I want my America back" crowd [[enfranchising themselves over other citizens of the USA).
I think it is just an exercise in futility, however, how did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981 when Pakistan was not a country for which US citizens could get a passport/papers at that time? Either he was travelling illegally, or had a passport as a citizen from a country from which papers were able to be obtained. THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBILITY.
It's because in 1981 the Tri-Lateral Socialist Committee decided that Obama would be their Anti-Christ Candidate to usher in the End Days. They therefore called the president of Pakistan and asked that Obama be let in, and since they own Pakistan, the president agreed.
Hey, I know it's a stretch, but it makes as much sense as anything the birthers have come up with.
The look on that cop's face is pricelessQuote:
Originally Posted by vetalalumni
Most cops look like they've eaten a bad batch of prunes most of the time, so that's not surprising.
Actually, American citizens traveled freely to Pakistan in 1981. There was never a ban on travel there, and an article involving a trip to Pakistan was recorded in a 1981 edition of the New York Times. This was a citizen trip done within legal means, and I'll note that reporters have no special rights to access of governments or visitation of foreign nations. They have the same rights as all other citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by elganned
The New York Times piece then prompted a letter in return from the U.S. consul general in Lahore, saying he would "welcome an influx of Americans."
The U.S. State Department even issued an advisory in 1981, saying Americans traveling to Pakistan required a 30-day visa, and how those staying longer must check in with Pakistan’s Foreigner Registration Office.
But I like elganned's response better. It's more entertaining. :D
Birther or not, the visit that Obama admitted to having made to Pakistan in 1981 leaves unanswered questions....can anyone explain it?
I have provided you with documented evidence that Obama's visit to Pakistan was perfectly within legal grounds.
You ignore this evidence, likely because it does not fit your presumed conclusion.
Be wary of belief in the unsubstantiated. It is not motivated by evidence, but rather a need to believe. It bears little difference from the assertions of religious followers who cannot be swayed from orthodoxy, despite the obvious inherent logical contradictions and ethical dilemmas. Such stances reduce all discussions and debates into a binary system of winners and losers, where one side is venerated and the other is disgraced.
This does not become us as thinking people.
"In late March 2008 State Department employees had tampered with the passport files of Barack Obama.
At the time "State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the violations of McCain and Clinton's passport files were not discovered until Friday, after officials were made aware of the unauthorized access of Obama's records and a separate search was conducted".
The incidents raise questions as to whether the information was accessed for political purposes and why two contractors involved in the Obama search were dismissed before investigators had a chance to interview them.
a video here[[ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...ory?id=4492773) of Obama's response to the passport "breach" back on March 21, 2008. Watch it -- I think it's telling that he says, not that he has anything to hide, "not because I have any particular concerns"
Obama confessed to this trip two weeks after his passport was tampered with"
Hmmm???
what the hell are you talking about? that story is about staffers in a REPUBLICAN SecSt office illegally looking into confidential fiilesQuote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
are you so low on material that you have to go from misunderstanding history and current news to misunderstanding [[actually, putting fake meaning into) old news?
Isn't that what the talking heads on FauxNews and AM radio do every day?Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
Missed the part where Obama's passport records were tampered with, and then, 2 weeks later, Obama then confesses to a trip after this opportunity for tampering [[corrupt politicians call it "scrubbing") had occurred.
We missed the part about "tampering" because you made it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
The link you posted said that the State Department, under Bush, went snooping into the candidates' passport files. Those are nowhere near the same thing. Amazing leap you made there.
Why would he "confess" to something that was perfectly legal?Quote:
and then, 2 weeks later, Obama then confesses to a trip
Mmmm... Now you've created yet another wide-ranging international conspiracy in your own little mind. Juicy.Quote:
after this opportunity for tampering [[corrupt politicians call it "scrubbing") had occurred.
Well done, sir.
4th paragraph...reread it.
"State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Rice made it clear to the agency's inspector general that an investigation "is top priority."
Ah, yes. How could we not see that? It IS a wide international conspiracy to cover up an illegal and suspicious trip by Obama some 30 years ago to sell U.S. intelligence to terrorists and bring on the End of Days, or something. My bad.
Dude, WTF are you smoking?
The New World Order set this plan in motion in conjunction with the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Pentavirate because they planned all along to get Barack Obama in the White House as a foreign national so he could take away our weedeaters and set up death panels to hunt Sarah Palin's baby.
Don't you get it??
Honestly, this is at most a minor issue, however, a small item to add to a rapidly growing and apparent pattern of unprecedented corruption in the Obama administration.
Have you found out what your hero, George W. Bush was doing while he was AWOL during his supposed National Guard duty?Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
At the time you didn't blink twice at what was[[now known as) a small item to add to a rapidly growing pattern of unprecedented corruption in the Bush administration, yet now you pretend to make an issue of questioning our president?
Ever wonder why the United States is the only first world nation that still thinks communism is a threat?
I'll chalk it up to the same mindset that denies the realities of evolution and temporal physics, and the recognition of reproductive rights.
Nothing is ever exactly one thing, but fundamentalists and ideologues cannot grasp this. Where I see ambiguity, subtlety, and nuance, they only understand obfuscation and a lack of conviction.
You might as well explain a card trick to a dog.
Ever wonder if CC is working on some book or documentary on "Secrets the Obama Administration Doesn't Want You to Know?" He seems to know so much about him that the rest of us don't. He comes here repeatedly to tantalize us with all these "truths" that only he knows about, without giving away what they are.
We're saying, "Unprecedented corruption? International conspiracies? Long-standing Communist ties? C'mon, give us some details!"
And he's all, "In due time, mere mortals, in due time. In the meantime, read some Michelle Malkin."
Quote: "C'mon, give us some details!""
I agree with that. He does do a lot of accusing without ever dropping any real bombs.
Maybe his bomb bay is empty...
Don't forget Jonah Goldfish and Ayn Rand. I'm surprised he hasn't included Ann Coulter in his Canon of Sacred Works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diehard
Funny you should ask regarding my knowledge and the dissemination of it elsewhere...can you say pseudonym? I'll let you keep guessing.
Translation: I have no proof to offer, just whatever delusions run throughout my head, mixed with the lies I hear on AM radio or Fox News.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Nobody needs to prove primary axioms...logic and self evident observations are sufficient.
Nobody needs to prove the religious doctrine of the Church of Objectivism.
The revelations of the Prophet Rand are self-evidently true.
and with that you have, yet again, proven your lack of understanding of logic. remember, it was [[and is) self-evident that the sun and stars travel around the earth, yet that is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Sigh...define axiom please.
The earths rotation relative to the sun COULD NOT BE DIRECTLY OBSERVED at the time of that claim, therefore it was not axiomatic.
Quote: "the sun and stars travel around the earth,"
We are in the sun's orbit. You probably knew that. :)
You both miss the point, which is that what is axiomatic in one generation may be proven totally erroneous in the next generation. It's how human knowledge advances.
Now go back to sleep. We'll wake you when the revolution starts, I promise.
Explain then how you can directly observe objectivism?Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Main Entry: ax·i·om
Pronunciation: \ˈak-sē-əm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiōma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive — more at agent
Date: 15th century
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
Main Entry: ax·i·om·at·ic
Pronunciation: \ˌak-sē-ə-ˈma-tik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle Greek axiōmatikos, from Greek, honorable, from axiōmat-, axiōma
Date: 1797
1 : taken for granted : self-evident
just FYI, Bats. yet another word you need to actually grasp
Existents exist, A is A...these are the principles of objectivist establishment of axioms [[primary axioms).
Rb...how do you misunderstand the phrase "self evident truth" found in the definition you referred too?
1) a is a letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
2) a is an algebraic variable
A in 1 is NOT A in 2
a is a vowel
a is a word
a is, again, not a.
a is a graphic representation of the letter a
a is the sixth tone in the c-major scale
a is, again, not a.
a is the highest grade one can get in most US schools
a is one of the four ABO blood types
a is, again, not a.
unless you are a simpleton blinded by dogma,
QED
Cc, how did you miss that "self-evident" is only one of the three definitions?Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
The FUXED noise talking points are regurgitated when the string on his hairy bat back is pulled.
Just look at old and infirm Charles Grassley and you'll have a portrait of what the Rethuglican Party is really all about.
So, you get to throw out the meanings you don't like Elganned...convenient, if it weren't so damning of your position.
it's not the phrase, it's what you claim [[falsely) are self evident truths. that is what happens when you condition your mind to see black and white - you get totally flummoxed when something orange pops up, so you try to counter that by shoving it into either the black or the white boxQuote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Nah...orange is orange.
Funny you should think that's an indictment against me when that is exactly what you did--ignore the other two definitions in favor of the one that allegedly supports your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Pot and kettle, Cc. Pot and kettle.
The other 2 say the same thing without the words "self evident", I wasn't ignoring them as they are synonymous.
Hopefully we will begin the see the last of these "birthers" of course I know something else will just take its place.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/us...Mt/wXTVzjXETmw
“It’s an insult to his mother and to his father, and I knew his mother and father; they were my friends, and I have an emotional interest in that,” Governor Abercrombie said in a telephone interview late Thursday. “It’s an emotional insult. It is disrespectful to the president; it is disrespectful to the office.”
Two fact-checking groups, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact, concluded the document was authentic. A reporter for The Honolulu Advertiser also found two separate newspaper announcements of the president’s birth, one in The Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and another in The Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day. Both carried the words “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.”
Still, the questions persisted. The certificate number is blacked out on the Internet copy, and Mr. Obama’s detractors have demanded the release of his original long-form birth certificate, which in Hawaii is not considered a public record. The state was so besieged by inquiries that Mr. Abercrombie’s predecessor, Linda Lingle, a Republican, signed a law allowing officials to ignore the queries as nuisances.
Small world. The Dunhams moved from Washington state to Hawaii in 1960 and Neil Abercrombie moved from NY state at about the same time after graduating with a BA in sociology in 1959. The Chicago Annenburg Challenge of the President's community service days and Factcheck.org both have ties to the Annenburg Foundation. This is not to question whether Mr. Abercrombie wasn't friends with the Dunhams. I am more interested in why, at this point, Mr. Abercrombie chose to jump into the fray. He couldn't have know the Dunhams very long before the Birth. They didn't arrive in Hawaii until 1960 and the President's mother left her presumed husband just three weeks after Barack Junior's birth in August 1961 to move back to Washington.
It's definitely a plus for the circumstantial and semi-documented case to be made that the President was born in Hawaii to have such a prominent person step forward with his emotional memories of his former friends. The Dunhams were responsible people who did raise their grandson after age 10 when his mother more or less dumped him off and long after his own father had abandoned him. It was the Dunhams who oversaw the future President's expensive private school education. Even the address listed in the newspapers a week after the President's birth listed the Obama family as living with the Dunhams, or at least at the same address. The President's mother was lucky to be able to go back and forth between Washington to Hawaii and back to Washington without paying out of state tuition.
I was surprised that Hawaii does not consider long form birth certificates to be public records. How strange. After all, the Certificate of Live Birth that was supposed to be based on information originally found in the original birth certificate which the President refuses, for whatever reason, to release.
Shame, though, on the outgoing Republican Governor for signing a law permitting the State to refuse to answer public inquiries. Imagine if every government agency could institute such law whenever they deemed inquiries or the press to be nuisances.
They were sizeable enough to prevent a complete Republican victory in the last election. During the pre-elections they defeated some sure-bet Republicans to win a seat but the resentment against them cost the Republicans victories. Indeed, she was not a witch but she was a succubus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
oladub
Even if you dismiss fact check. org as having ties with the Annenburg foundation that still doesn't account for politfact also verifying the birth certificate as accurate.
If the previous Republican governor had any idea that Obama's BC was out of line I believe she would have blown the whistle and thus become a rock star within her party.
While we can never know for absolute certaincy about his BC , I think the preponderance of evidence points to the birther movement as being a fraud and distraction to Obama's presidency.
First, I agree that the preponderance of evidence, although a bit soft, suggests that the President was born somewhere in Hawaii. Conversely, there doesn't seem to be any good hard evidence that he was born elsewhere. I don't claim to know anything about the Politifact organization. I would prefer that the FBI or some similar agency, whose opinion, unlike PolitiFact or FactCheck's, would hold up in court, would vet federally elected candidates' qualifications. It would also be reasonable and legal for some states to require federal candidates to require that all such candidates at least provide a certified copy of their original birth certificates for instance. Even my kids had to have that much to attend school. Also, any such future legislation would not interfere with already elected officials so they could finish up their terms without such distractions and accusations. Of course, this President could easily diffuse the ongoing speculation by sending in a check for a certified copy of his original birth certificate.Quote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
A bit soft? only to those who are "a bit soft" in the head. There is no legal difference between a "certificate of live birth" and a "birth certificate" - they are different terms for the same legal document. there were contemporatry birth annoncements in the local papers. that, my friend, is not a "bit soft" any more than any proof you have about where you were born.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Folks this is a game changer. You can ignore my last few posts on the subject
That Borowitz guy is on the case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-b..._b_802149.html
KAILUA, HAWAII [[The Borowitz Report) - Leaders of the so-called Birther movement followed President Obama on his Hawaiian vacation today to demand that Hawaii prove it is actually a U.S. state.
Mr. Obama's claim to American citizenship has rested on his birthplace being Hawaii, but the Birthers argued today that Hawaii's claim to being part of America is far from a foregone conclusion.
Speaking to reporters in Kailua, Birther leader Orly Taitz said that Hawaii cannot be considered part of the United States "unless it can produce an authentic statehood certificate.
The Birthers' contention that Hawaii is not a state promptly drew support from one leading Republican politician, former Governor Sarah Palin.
"To be honest, it's something I've always kind of wondered about," Gov. Palin said. "Hawaii just isn't an American-sounding name, like Alaska."
If there is no legal difference, why do they come in two flavors or is this a talking point from the Daily Kos?Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
If you are correct, then you can show us the name of the hospital and delivery doctor as found on the certification of live birth on the copy the Democratic Party mysteriously turned over to friendlies at the Annenburg FactCheck. If only the individual to whom a birth certificate belongs may request the release of a birth certificate, then why didn't the President request a copy of his original birth certificate instead of a certification of live birth? Did he save a few dollars? in fact, no one has even suggested that the President requested or paid for a Certification of Live Birth which is a requirement. Assuming it isn't forged, do you have any idea how the Democratic Party otherwise obtained it? I mean this thing stinks to high heaven. Even Chris Matthews, who opposes birthers, is now saying that the President should quite playing games and produce a copy of his original birth certificate.
http://www.breitbart.tv/chris-matthe...h-certificate/
Why on earth doesn't the President just pay the $10 or $15 for a copy of his original birth certificate instead of spending a million dollars on lawyers to put a lid on his past? It doesn't look good.
The contemporary birth announcements in local newspapers you mentions are probably legitimate. They showed up 8 and 9 days after His birth. Unfortunately, they had the wrong address for Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama, Senior. The Obama's lived at the Dunham residence according to the papers. Mr. Barack Obama Senior had another address on Ocean Street at the time. Mrs. Obama, Junior's Mother, [[not his other wife in Africa) doesn't seem to have an address anywhere at the time. Maybe she was living with her parents. I'm interested in learning more about the Obama's wedding - where and when. Perhaps you have something on that.
Since Mrs. Obama left Hawaii as a single mother three weeks after having Junior, it is possible the Obamas weren't getting along so it is possible she was staying with her folks when Junior was born. If Barack senior was a bigamist, then it wasn't a legal marriage if there was one and Junior would be a US citizen no matter where he was born. The Certification of Live Birth that showed up at FactCheck does say He was born in Oahu. Recently, the President sent out a letter specifying that He was born in the Kapi'olani Medical Cener for Women and Children. Since the UPI and some of his relatives had said that He was born at the Queen's Hospital, it was getting messy. Everyone needed to be on the same page. We won't even get into what his African relatives claim. To get everyone on the same page, the more official but undocumented story is that he was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Cener for Women and Children in Oahu.
Perhaps some states could pass laws requiring all candidates on respective state ballots produce copies of their original birth certificates. It is within their power to do so and since we have been assured by Hawaiian bureaucrats that such a document exists, there should be no problem.
firstandten-
Another funny one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HWorzf7QAE
Hahahhahaha!!!!
Birthers Challenge Hawaii to Produce Statehood Certificate