41% of Republicans still doubt Obama was born in the US

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
30,031
45,261
136
birthers2.jpg
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Actually I would say the President of the United States should have to.


I don't but what I am asking for is reasonable, especially when others have done the same. You are right that conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied but the far majority who have doubts because the information is being withheld will come around.


To me it is only about evidence. I have nothing invested in this and believe the governor vouching for the authenticity of the document is good evidence but at this point not enough to put this to rest. I have nothing personal against the president but I certainly do not support his policies. I believe he won the election but how much organizations like Acorn helped with that victory I cannot say. I do know that the independents who voted for him in 2008 will not be voting for his party this November nor in 2012. I am also well aware that I lost, as I voted for the Libertarian party. My reasons are fairly academic.

Oh my god. You think ACORN helped steal the election for Obama too? Seek professional help. Do you believe the moon landing was faked? In all seriousness there is as much evidence for the moon landing being a hoax as there is for ACORN stealing the election for Obama. You say that your interest is academic, but you just happen to be credulously investigating the lunatic theories of the ultra right.

Releasing people's birth certificates to the general public is not in accordance with Hawaiian law. Obama supplied the same standard that is required for any proof of birth in the United States anywhere, for any reason. He has had the director of health (in a REPUBLICAN Hawaiian administration) personally verify and tell the country that they saw the birth certificate with their own two eyes.

You are being ridiculous. Seriously, think about what you're saying. A either massive conspiracy of people from both parties at a minimum involving every person who has access to Obama's vital records is colluding to have an illegitimate Kenyan installed as president of the United States, or they aren't. (and talk about the news story of the century, if you could show that his certificate wasn't there or whatever, you could sell that story to anyone for millions with a guarantee of anonymity, yet nobody's done it.)
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
The president is the determining authority (in a general sense) for the classification of information. Therefore, by definition the president has the highest possible level of classified information access. He is the guy that decides what is classified, and the means by which people decide if someone is worthy of holding a security clearance. How can you guys not spend 2 seconds on Google and know this?


Wrong. There are many things the president is not informed about and he does not determine what security level something should have. Organizations like the FBI, CIA, military determine security levels. That would be disastrous if it was done the way you describe. The president like every other person with security clearance is informed about what they need to know to do the job. Even the president has to request access to information through the department over that information to determine what information will be sent for the president to review. Security clearances are not blanket access . It is not like the president can walk up to Sandia labs and say "I'm the president , let me see all the documents on work you are doing"


The security system is designed so one person can never access all the information.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
I think that if there was any validity to the truther stuff that the Hilary campaign would have been all over it during the primaries.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Oh my god. You think ACORN helped steal the election for Obama too? Seek professional help. Do you believe the moon landing was faked? In all seriousness there is as much evidence for the moon landing being a hoax as there is for ACORN stealing the election for Obama. You say that your interest is academic, but you just happen to be credulously investigating the lunatic theories of the ultra right.

Releasing people's birth certificates to the general public is not in accordance with Hawaiian law. Obama supplied the same standard that is required for any proof of birth in the United States anywhere, for any reason. He has had the director of health (in a REPUBLICAN Hawaiian administration) personally verify and tell the country that they saw the birth certificate with their own two eyes.

You are being ridiculous. Seriously, think about what you're saying. A either massive conspiracy of people from both parties at a minimum involving every person who has access to Obama's vital records is colluding to have an illegitimate Kenyan installed as president of the United States, or they aren't. (and talk about the news story of the century, if you could show that his certificate wasn't there or whatever, you could sell that story to anyone for millions with a guarantee of anonymity, yet nobody's done it.)

Acorn did in fact hire convicted felons. That is a fact.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,257
9,076
136
You guys have no problem just making stuff up, do you? You all are as bad as the birthers.

There's no requirement that a candidate qualify for a TS clearence to be able to run. But if you find that there is, please link it up.

If not, you are postulating a scenario whereby we could elect a President etc, who afterwards was discovered not to qualify for a TS clearence and therefor couldn't do his job? WTH? That's absurd.

Fern

I was referring more to when he was elected to the senate (depending on what committee assignments he had), he would have been granted one after a background check.

Please continue to flail away though. We all know you're a birther at heart.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Wrong. There are many things the president is not informed about and he does not determine what security level something should have. Organizations like the FBI, CIA, military determine security levels. That would be disastrous if it was done the way you describe. The president like every other person with security clearance is informed about what they need to know to do the job. Even the president has to request access to information through the department over that information to determine what information will be sent for the president to review. Security clearances are not blanket access . It is not like the president can walk up to Sandia labs and say "I'm the president , let me see all the documents on work you are doing"


The security system is designed so one person can never access all the information.

Wrong.

The president by virtue of his office immediately and perpetually has access to all classified information. Period. If he is 'requesting' it, that's an 'order to supply'.

The FBI/CIA/military/whoever have the power to classify information as given to them by the president through executive order. This order can be modified by the president at any time, and the authority for all classifications stems from the president himself. It is not legal for any of those organizations to deny any information to the President for reason that it is classified, ever.

What you're basically doing is the constitutional equivalent of 'could god create a boulder so heavy he couldn't lift it'. In this case it's 'can the president make something so classified that he can't see it himself'. The answer is no. The president could absolutely walk up to the Sandia labs and say 'I want to see everything, right now'.

In practice some organizations withhold information from the president, but that is usually done by lies of omission, it is NEVER done by straight up denial. The president also has to justify his access to certain types of records, but that is due to statutory requirements related to the disclosure of personal information and has nothing whatsoever to do with the national security classification system.
 

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
Simple question. Why doesn't Obama provide a copy of his original birth certificate? Not a certificate of live birth but the actual birth certificate. Its like the cops stopping you and asking for ID. What would the average person do? You'd give it to them! Takes 1 minute then you're free to do what you were doing before.
The problem is that wouldn't dispel all the conspiracy theories. You can never appease them, even when you meet their demands with facts.

Conspiracy theorists claimed he wasn't a citizen.
Obama had the copy of birth certificate the campaign obtained released.
Conspiracy theorists said it was PhotoShop and "proved it" with analysis of text halos, lack of creases, lack of a raised seal, etc. . .
Obama had third parties examine it and more images popped up showing clear text, creases, a raised seal, etc. . .
Conspiracy theorists said it was a forgery and had "proof" from their forensic analysts.
Obama had the staffers in the Hawaii Department of Health verify that the document number was that of a legitimate birth certificate.
Conspiracy theorists said wouldn't believe it unless someone from the state made a public and official statement.
Obama had the Health Department Director and the registrar of vital statistics issue a press release stating they personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

What's next? After releasing the original birth certificate, conspiracy theorists will want affidavits from the doctors and nurses. After releasing LSAT scores, conspiracy theorists will want every paper written while in law school. After releasing college transcripts, conspiracy theorists will want every exam taken in college. After releasing SAT scores, conspiracy theorists will want high school transcripts.

Conspiracy theorists claim cover up by the Governor, ignoring that she's Republican and has been anti-Obama. Conspiracy theorists claim special restrictions by the Hawaii government just for Obama's records, ignoring that the laws preventing the general release of everyone's records have been on the books for decades. Conspiracy theorists claim he wasn't born in Hawaii, ignoring the birth certificate and birth announcement in the paper. Conspiracy theorists claim he has a Kenyan birth certificate, ignoring the fact that they weren't required for foreigners back then, and foreigners had to find the right government office, wade through layers of bureaucracy, and pay a fee to get a Kenyan birth certificate issued.

The tinfoil hat brigade believes in a plot by both Republicans and Democrats, by a state governor and state officials, by the US government and the Kenyan government, by today's media and newspapers back in the 60s, and apparently in a white teenager's ability to mastermind a scheme to lay down a paper trail to make her Kenyan born son appear to be a natural born citizen because in the 1961 she thought her half black kid would someday become president, but also in a teenage mastermind that's somehow stupid enough to jump through hoops to pay for a Kenyan birth certificate before rushing back to the US.

Everyone else believes Obama was born in Hawaii.


Didn't we have this conversation years ago?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
To those who argue Obama shouldn't show his actual BC because conspiracy nuts still won't believe it:

- We have threads like this, "OMG! Look how many people think Obama was born in kenya", that keep demonstrating how wide-spread the doubt is. There are not that many 'conspiracy nuts' in the USA. IMO, the percentage of those who doubt or don't believe etc is too high to be blamed on that. Everyone of you who criticize the doubters, everyone, ignores the issue of HI's odd and unique BC rules. Instead you continue to mention only those who claim forgery etc. Yes, no matter what Obama releases some portion will continue to doubt, but I suspect it will be much much smaller.

- At some point I have to wonder if the political advisors will become concerned. The number of non-believers and/or doubters among the independants alone should be cause for concern. If that non-belief or doubt influences them to not vote for Obama he cannot be relected.

This story will not go away by him just ignoring it. It was on the front page of one of those grocery story check-out rags just a week or so ago. Why then I have no idea (slow gossip week?), but wait till election time rolls around again, they'll be beating the crap out of this story. I don't see how that's good politically.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
lol. you are really convinced about this.

I'm sorry to break it to you but there are extensive files on all high level politicians and it has been that way since at least the commie scare of 50/60/70's . Why is this necessary? Well its very simple, to prevent a silent over throw of the government. How do I mean? Well simply put candidates are rigorously examined for weaknesses that can be exploited by foreign governments or enemies of the state to exert covert control over them. In the case of Obama, the implication of him not being a legitimate president would mean that anyone that was able to obtain verifiable proof(by espionage or otherwise) that he wasn't a U.S. Citizen would be able to exploit the president for their bidding. In conclusion, to believe that obama wasn't born in the U.S. you would have to concede that he is already under the control and exploit of an enemy of the state. This makes for a good movie plot I agree but the establishment would certainly not tolerate that kind of thing.

And you think birthers are conspiracy nuts?

The "establishment"?

But yes, I am pretty much convinced we do not have a system, other than an 'honor system' where candidates sign off on their FEC form 'swearing' they met the requirements. Perhaps my google-foo sucks, if so them someone else should be able to find it. If we have an agency as many claim that handles this responsibility it damn sure won't be a secret.

Fern
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
And you think birthers are conspiracy nuts?

The "establishment"?

But yes, I am pretty much convinced we do not have a system, other than an 'honor system' where candidates sign off on their FEC form 'swearing' they met the requirements. Perhaps my google-foo sucks, if so them someone else should be able to find it. If we have an agency as many claim that handles this responsibility it damn sure won't be a secret.

Fern

yes the establishment.....you've heard of this before yes?

you might be more retarded than the 9/11 guy running around this board talking about tower 6. If there were no background checks for high level government positions the security of the united states would already be irreparably compromised. What don't you get about that? There is no if/and/maybe here...if a candidate can be compromised in the way you claim obama is open to it, its already been exploited. so if you are going to follow that rabbit hole you have to take it all the way down.
 
Last edited:

L00PY

Golden Member
Sep 14, 2001
1,101
0
0
Everyone of you who criticize the doubters, everyone, ignores the issue of HI's odd and unique BC rules.
Hawaii's laws on privacy aren't really all that odd or unique. The concern over identity theft and personal privacy make the laws against the public release of such information a legitimate concern.

Furthermore, restrictions placed upon the release of birth certificates, and in particular long form version of birth certificates is not uncommon at all in some states. Some states have actually had to pass laws recently granting people access their own birth certificates. State rights and privacy issues apply to everyone, whether a presidential candidate, a private citizen, or parents who gave up their child for adoption who thought they'd remain anonymous under state law.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
To those who argue Obama shouldn't show his actual BC because conspiracy nuts still won't believe it:

- We have threads like this, "OMG! Look how many people think Obama was born in kenya", that keep demonstrating how wide-spread the doubt is. There are not that many 'conspiracy nuts' in the USA. IMO, the percentage of those who doubt or don't believe etc is too high to be blamed on that. Everyone of you who criticize the doubters, everyone, ignores the issue of HI's odd and unique BC rules. Instead you continue to mention only those who claim forgery etc. Yes, no matter what Obama releases some portion will continue to doubt, but I suspect it will be much much smaller.

- At some point I have to wonder if the political advisors will become concerned. The number of non-believers and/or doubters among the independants alone should be cause for concern. If that non-belief or doubt influences them to not vote for Obama he cannot be relected.

This story will not go away by him just ignoring it. It was on the front page of one of those grocery story check-out rags just a week or so ago. Why then I have no idea (slow gossip week?), but wait till election time rolls around again, they'll be beating the crap out of this story. I don't see how that's good politically.

Fern

Given the state of the evidence that IS publicly available, only an idiot or an irrationally blind partisan would have ANY doubt about the place of Obama's birth. We may not have 41% "conspiracy nuts" but we do have 41% who hate Obama enough to believe any freaking thing they are told about him, no matter what it is. In fact, half the posters on this very discussion board are literally that partisan. And no, I don't believe any but a trivial number will change their view now or EVER based on anything further that is released to appease these idiots and partisans.

- wolf
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Hawaii's laws on privacy aren't really all that odd or unique. The concern over identity theft and personal privacy make the laws against the public release of such information a legitimate concern.

Furthermore, restrictions placed upon the release of birth certificates, and in particular long form version of birth certificates is not uncommon at all in some states. Some states have actually had to pass laws recently granting people access their own birth certificates. State rights and privacy issues apply to everyone, whether a presidential candidate, a private citizen, or parents who gave up their child for adoption who thought they'd remain anonymous under state law.

That's not what I'm referring to.

HI's types of BC's are what I'm referring to.

They are along these lines (they've changed slightly over the years)

1) One issued by a physician or midwife that attended to the birth.
2) One issued by the state if the child is less than one year old and by word of mouth testimony from an adult.
3) Same as 2 except the child is more than one year old and has an endorsement from the Lieutenant Governor.
4) One issued by the state if the child is born outside of the state or country, but the parents can claim Hawaii as their legal residence for more than one year prior to the child's birth.

That's what drives the birthers IMO.

Fern
 

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,697
161
106
That's not what I'm referring to.

HI's types of BC's are what I'm referring to.

They are along these lines (they've changed slightly over the years)

1) One issued by a physician or midwife that attended to the birth.
2) One issued by the state if the child is less than one year old and by word of mouth testimony from an adult.
3) Same as 2 except the child is more than one year old and has an endorsement from the Lieutenant Governor.
4) One issued by the state if the child is born outside of the state or country, but the parents can claim Hawaii as their legal residence for more than one year prior to the child's birth.

That's what drives the birthers IMO.

Fern

During the election, there was the big "McCain is Panamanian, not American" shit going around. The whole birther thing was kind of a backlash of that. It just snowballed because of seemingly slow release of records.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Hmmm...obviously a lot of those 41% of idiots are posting here on AT, from all the posters that don't believe he was born in the US.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
During the election, there was the big "McCain is Panamanian, not American" shit going around. The whole birther thing was kind of a backlash of that. It just snowballed because of seemingly slow release of records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat wrong Drako, everyone basically knows John McCain was born in Panama but inside a US Naval base while his daddy the Naval admiral was serving this country on active duty. Because John McCain was technically born outside the borders of this country, does that make John McCain ineligible to run for POTUS? Or is that US naval base technically part of US soil? What about US ambassadors who serve abroad, and some of them are young enough to have children while serving abroad. Technically any US embassy anywhere is part of US soil, but if the Ambassador leaves the embassy to have the child at a safer local foreign hospital, that foreign hospital is clearly not part of US soil. Do we deny the ambassador's child American citizenship? IMHO no, all those are clear cases where the child is an American citizen. And more importantly Obama voted to define John McCain was clearly a US citizen.

Or we could take the more murky case of Mitt Romney, who was born abroad while his parents were serving on some Mormon mission. But again, Mitt is an American citizen because his parents are citizens. Or what about Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona, but before Arizona became a State and was a mere US territory?

Or we could ask what was the intent of our founding fathers who wrote that native born requirement in. And IMHO, it was to prevent someone clearly foreign born, from being POTUS. Someone like Arnold Swartzenager, clearly born in Austria to parents who never had any association with the USA. I don't want to pick on just Arnie, we have millions of imported Americans of stellar abilities and Einsein would not have qualified either.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-snip-
Or we could take the more murky case of Mitt Romney, who was born abroad while his parents were serving on some Mormon mission.

WTH?

Where do you get this stuff?

Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, MI

Fern
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
WTH?
Where do you get this stuff?
Mitt Romney was born in Detroit, MI
Fern
I'll believe that when you can provide a certified copy of his hospital birth certificate and a photo of his head cresting with a recognizable Detroit landmark in the background...
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Hawaii's laws on privacy aren't really all that odd or unique. The concern over identity theft and personal privacy make the laws against the public release of such information a legitimate concern.

Furthermore, restrictions placed upon the release of birth certificates, and in particular long form version of birth certificates is not uncommon at all in some states. Some states have actually had to pass laws recently granting people access their own birth certificates. State rights and privacy issues apply to everyone, whether a presidential candidate, a private citizen, or parents who gave up their child for adoption who thought they'd remain anonymous under state law.

If Obama asked Hawaii to release photos of the original birth certificate they would. He's the president.

I thought the reason to not do that was that Obama has everything to gain from birthers acting like idiots, but these numbers indicate otherwise.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If Obama asked Hawaii to release photos of the original birth certificate they would. He's the president.

I thought the reason to not do that was that Obama has everything to gain from birthers acting like idiots, but these numbers indicate otherwise.

Obama would need some compelling reason to attempt to override Hawaii state law, and this isn't it.

These numbers signify nothing other than the desperation and denial of much of the repub base. As of 2008, only 27 percent of registered voters were repubs. If 41 percent of those lend credence to birther whack-a-ma-role, that's only 11 percent of registered voters. That's pretty much the same fraction that believe anything Rush tells 'em... that Ronnie was a saint, that there really were WMD's in Iraq, so forth and so on... they'll vote republican no matter what, because they're *not rational* wrt politics.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
and this just goes to show that the methods of the right work

repeat 9/11 and Iraq enough, and a similar percentage of Rep's still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11

this is another example

the fact that we have a moderator defending these birther morons is sadder still
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
and this just goes to show that the methods of the right work

repeat 9/11 and Iraq enough, and a similar percentage of Rep's still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11

I agree...

this is another example

the fact that we have a moderator defending these birther morons is sadder still

What I don't agree with...

He should feel free to share his opinion without having his moderator status called into it....

/don't cheap shot...
 
Last edited: