Colo. candidate slams 'birthers' on tape

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
I think your assertions are way off base, Fern, wrt nobody checking the eligibility of a potus candidate long before the election. There may be no formal requirements beyond what you offered, but I rather suspect that the FBI, CIA, NSA and any other security agency with an acronym checks out the candidates rather thoroughly...

The NSA is responsible for cryptography and signals intelligence. Why in the world would be they running background checks on presidential candidates?
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Ugh, what a partisan troll you are! Do you think Obama didn't want the votes of dependent leeches who had zero initiative and just wanted the gov't to give them free things? Every politician wants votes, even from the less-educated parts of the electorate (the majority, really) and will say all sorts of things to get them. This is true for both parties.

Didn't you get the memo? According to Craig those sorts of people can be criticized, their behavior is the result of the eeeeeevil white man's racism. They're not responsible for their own laziness/irresponsibility/criminality.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
...

There are some he did fall short on after the election - just as, for example, Jimmy Carter reversed his position on marijuana legalization - but they were relatively few.

:D

That was because we marched on the WH, camped out in Lafayette Park, and banged the drum for weeks while chanting, "Jimmy, take a toke! ... Jimmy, take a toke!"




--
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
As Moonbeam might say, one can only see what one wants to see.

Sometimes, not other times. I'd say you are the one seeing what you want to see and not the truth here. You offer zero to actually prove your attack, predictably.

My comment happens to not have the flaw you suggest, but is a fair comment, objective, and your comment in contrast is a lie that flows from your own bias.

Given that neither of us is going to spend thousands of man hours to collect the data to 'prove' our opinion is right and you would not listen if I did, we'll agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Didn't you get the memo? According to Craig those sorts of people can be criticized, their behavior is the result of the eeeeeevil white man's racism. They're not responsible for their own laziness/irresponsibility/criminality.

You know you're doing ok when your opponents can say nothing but lies about your position as their argument. Takes scum to argue that way.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
The NSA is responsible for cryptography and signals intelligence. Why in the world would be they running background checks on presidential candidates?

They could search their archives for any related information.

For example, not the NSA, but JFK got an FBI file as an ensign for an affair with a Nazi spy.

This history was well known by J. Edgar Hoover throughout JFK's political career, among other incidents.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
If we could just get a lot more GOP saying it, maybe we can get them to go away.
-snip-

Most of the GOP already denounces the Birthers.

Doesn't matter, when your average (non-political) person is at the grocery store checkout counter this is what they see:

http://www.globemagazine.com/story/529

This week's issue of Globe with a front page saying Obama's was born in Kenya and that they have copies of his original Kenyan BC.

Of course, this is probably one of those mags that also has stories about people having alien babies, but my point is that this not going away no matter what the GOP does.

Fern
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,326
10,230
136
And how did the whole question of Obama's birthplace arise?

Yes, by the very scrutiny you mention. However, they don't carry the force of law and so can't actually resolve anything. The MSM, political parties, other candidates etc cannot request and obtain that type of information (in this case a copy of the actual birth certificate). Therefore, they do not rise to level the OP claims.

Fern

Wow, lost all respect. I acutually pay attention to your posts. The only other thing you could say that would make it worse is if you recommended someone to watch Glen Beck.
 

Athena

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,484
0
0
The MSM, political parties, other candidates etc cannot request and obtain that type of information (in this case a copy of the actual birth certificate). Therefore, they do not rise to level the OP claims.
The "actual" birth certificate? Most people who insist on an "actual" birth certificate are unaware that what that means is defined by the state. Like marriage, the actual requirements are defined by the state. There is no requirement anywhere that any sort of paper be issued; what is usually required is that births be registered with the state. Copies of that registration may or may not be available to the public.

In the case of Obama, the hard copy registrations were destroyed when the records were automated and the state of Hawaii has provided evidence that satisfies its[/] legal requirements. No one else has any standing to dispute it.

BTW, the "actual" birth certificate that most birthers seem to be looking for is a hospital document (the decorative pages with footprints) that has ZERO legal value. It is neither universal or required for anything. I was born in a hospital and my birth was registered with the state. My parents never received anything from either the hospital or the state. My brother was born at a different hospital in the same state and he got one of those fancy footprint certificates. When we applied for passports, The Passport Agency required certificates with a state seal so we requested and received computer generated documents similar to Hawaii's.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
The "actual" birth certificate? Most people who insist on an "actual" birth certificate are unaware that what that means is defined by the state.

Uh, no. I know what it means having seen them before. Both mine and my kid's.


Like marriage, the actual requirements are defined by the state.

Now you're on to something.

HI had, and still has some very unusual BC's. While some Birthers will probably never be satisfied given reports of an Obama Kenyan BC, others want to know which of the many types of BC's Obama was issued. The computer print-out made available does not disclose that bit of data.

In the case of Obama, the hard copy registrations were destroyed when the records were automated and the state of Hawaii has provided evidence that satisfies its legal requirements.

I don't think so. IIRC a HI official claims to have seen it and the accompanying documents and says they are in order.

Edit: You've raised a good point. HI may be satisfied regarding their legal requirement's, but that's technically irrelevent. The qualifications for national office are defined in the Constitution, it is the Constitutional test which must be satisfied, not HI

No one else has any standing to dispute it.

I understand that's the way the SCOTUS has ruled so far. And personally I disagree with it. If US citizens don't have the 'standing' to make a US office holder prove their (minimal) qualifications as set out in the Constitution, who the h3ll does?

BTW, the "actual" birth certificate that most birthers seem to be looking for is a hospital document (the decorative pages with footprints) that has ZERO legal value.

Baloney, of course it has legal value. It's what I've always used to get drivers' licenses and my passport.

It is neither universal or required for anything. I was born in a hospital and my birth was registered with the state. My parents never received anything from either the hospital or the state. My brother was born at a different hospital in the same state and he got one of those fancy footprint certificates. When we applied for passports, The Passport Agency required certificates with a state seal so we requested and received computer generated documents similar to Hawaii's.

Why do you keep referring to an original as a "fancy footprint certificate"? Is it to demean it?

The original has an awful lot of data on it. Information that can be on the computer generated type if you request it (In HI's case they include on the computer generated type only what that person requests, in Obama's case he chose a minimal amount)

Fern
 
Last edited:

Athena

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,484
0
0
Why do you keep referring to an original as a "fancy footprint certificate"? Is it to demean it?
Because, contrary to your apparent belief, the commemorative document issued by some hospitals is not the definitive birth record. Every genuine hospital certificate is backed up with an official record filed with the state -- that usually looks much different. It's much easier to forge a hospital certificate than the state record. People do use the hospital document for all sorts of legal transactions but if there is a discrepancy between the fancy footprint certificate and the state registration, its the latter that wins. The state seal is what makes it legal (just ask people who have found that their names are not the same in both places).

Moreover, not everyone has a birth certificate ...of any sort. The absence of a birth certificate doesn't "prove" anything. The passport office has a whole list of documents are used to verify citizenship.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
I dont like Obama for a number of reasons but if people can only focus on his birth certificate then they are clearly not seeing all the other horrible shit going on.

Seriously people, he's been in office for a year and a half, of a four year term. Hypothetically, even if he weren't legally born here do you honestly think congress or the supreme court is going to remove him now?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Because, contrary to your apparent belief, the commemorative document issued by some hospitals is not the definitive birth record. Every genuine hospital certificate is backed up with an official record filed with the state -- that usually looks much different. It's much easier to forge a hospital certificate than the state record. People do use the hospital document for all sorts of legal transactions but if there is a discrepancy between the fancy footprint certificate and the state registration, its the latter that wins. The state seal is what makes it legal (just ask people who have found that their names are not the same in both places).

Moreover, not everyone has a birth certificate ...of any sort. The absence of a birth certificate doesn't "prove" anything. The passport office has a whole list of documents are used to verify citizenship.

I must assume that you are young.

BC's back then were different from today. There were no PC's etc.

The one done at the hospital back then was the BC and not a "commerative document".

This reminds of those who claimed the original had his SS# etc and therefor couldn't be released. It's only relatively recently that SS# are issued at birth, back then you later, seperately, applied for a SS# when you needed it for a job etc.

Fern
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
I once had a copy of my hospital birth certificate (so-called long-form) which was misplaced decades ago. I applied to the State of North Carolina for a certified duplicate copy. What I received is a document remarkably similar to what the State of Hawai'i provided Mr. Obama because North Carolina, like Hawai'i, considers that the current official documentation of my birth in that state.

"Birthers" are asking the President to provide a document he does not have and cannot get from the State of Hawai'i without an extraordinary exception to the State Department of Health's normal procedures. Both the Hawai'ian Governor and the Director of the State Department of Health have publicly stated that they have seen the hospital (long-form) birth certificate and that they are both satisfied that it proves that Barack Hussein Obama is a native-born citizen of the United States.

Horse dead. Further flogging unproductive.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
I dont like Obama for a number of reasons but if people can only focus on his birth certificate then they are clearly not seeing all the other horrible shit going on.

Seriously people, he's been in office for a year and a half, of a four year term. Hypothetically, even if he weren't legally born here do you honestly think congress or the supreme court is going to remove him now?

I have no problem with people screaming bloody murder if they think that our President is unconstitutionally in office. They should do so.

My problem with them is their utter idiocy in how they determine their opinion on whether he is a natural-born American.
 

Athena

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,484
0
0
I must assume that you are young.

BC's back then were different from today. There were no PC's etc.

The one done at the hospital back then was the BC and not a "commerative document".
Um...I must assume that you are considerably younger than I since you are talking about "back then" and in the same sentence implying that hospital births were the norm.

You are mistaken in thinking that certificates issued by hospitals preceded state documentation. The truth is exactly the opposite. State registration of births began when the vast majority of births occurred at home and decades before hospital started issuing commemorative certificates. State birth records are available from most states starting between 1900-1920. Hospitals are required to report births including specific pieces of information to the state department of vital statistics -- which they do on a form that has no resemblance whatsoever to those commemorative certificates. Outside of major cities, those hospital documents didn't become common until the 50s... and they are still not universal. The footprints are embellishment for the parents and the commemorative document has nothing to do with the law.

And FWIW, I have dealt with hundreds of birth documents over the years and I have never once seen a state certified birth registration from any era with those cutesy footprints.
 
Last edited: