Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

False FlagFollow

#52 Mar 07 2017 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You know what you failed to do? Link the legal failures of the lawsuits to "The Left" since you seem intent on blaming their failings on anyone but the Birther movement.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Mar 07 2017 at 10:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,290 posts
gbaji wrote:
going so far as to create an offensive label


"Honey, we've got to go to the furniture store, the dog just Gbaji'd all over the sofa, and I don't think it is gonna ever get clean!"
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#55 Mar 08 2017 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
gbaji wrote:
The military discharged him
Source.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 Mar 08 2017 at 10:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Cook's orders were revoked because it was his right as a volunteer reservist to ask for his orders to be revoked (up until the date of deployment) and Cook obviously felt that he shouldn't be going to Afghanistan. So the military made the call to honor his request not to go and didn't send him. Given that Cook only joined so he could he could sue (he contacted Taitz about her lawsuit in Feb 2009, joined the reserves in May 2009 and then filed suit in July 2009) there was no reason to even fuck with his nonsense. Show him the door as the rules allow. The Army doesn't really need people who join only so they can sue the government.

If someone wants to read that as a Big Government Conspiracy, that says more about their own state of mind than it does anything else.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 10:08am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Mar 08 2017 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Cook's orders were revoked because it was his right as a reservist to ask for his orders to be revoked (up until the date of deployment) and Cook obviously felt that he shouldn't be going to Afghanistan.
That's not a discharge, though. It's a revocation. That kind of thing takes time, considering position you volunteered for now needs to be filled with a replacement before you can get out of the deployment and a complete dick move, but that's standard. His obituary says he was a LTC, so he was promoted at least once more after this.
Jophiel wrote:
he contacted Taitz about her lawsuit in Feb 2009, joined the reserves in May 2009 and then filed suit in July 2009
That doesn't sound right either. He was a Major at the time, so he couldn't have possibly just joined. Especially the reserves.

I mean, I don't doubt the possibility that Cook volunteered to deploy just to use it as a platform to make noise about the birth certificate. Just that a lot of words are being misused here and it's throwing me off.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Mar 08 2017 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Looks as though I phrased poorly -- he volunteered for Afghanistan in May 2009. Per Wiki:
Quote:
On February 1, 2009, Stefan F. Cook, a Major in the United States Army Reserve, contacted Taitz via e-mail, asking to be part of her lawsuit. On May 8, he volunteered to serve for one year in Afghanistan beginning on July 15, 2009. The Army accepted his offer and ordered him to report on that date. On July 8, however, he filed suit, with Taitz as his lawyer, seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector, arguing that his deployment orders were invalid because Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen, and therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. His orders were thereupon revoked; an Army spokesperson stated, "A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty." Accordingly, Cook's case was dismissed as moot on July 16.

So I'll leave it to you to clarify the language -- it sounds then as though he was in the military, volunteered as a reservist to go to Afghanistan (after previously coordinating with Taitz), then raised a fuss about having to go under the Fake Commander-in-Chief, to which the army said "You don't actually have to go, stay home" but didn't actually kick him out of the military. In any event, the fact that the military said "If your purpose in volunteering is to bitch and sue about deploying, we don't need you going" hardly seems like a liberal coup or conspiracy.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 11:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Mar 08 2017 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
If there is a conspiracy anywhere, and ignoring the part where he contacted Orly (the Owl just doesn't really sound verifiable enough for my tastes), it is pretty suspicious to volunteer to deploy five months after the inauguration of the guy you claim is also the reason you shouldn't have to deploy for in the first place.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Mar 08 2017 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
From my reading, Taitz claimed that Cook signed a consent letter in February 2009 allowing her to represent him. Obviously I don't have a copy in my pocket but I'd assume that would be part of the court record if she was acting as his attorney.

Edit: Taitz helpfully posted an image of a similar consent agreement from Childers, also from February 2009.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 2:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Mar 08 2017 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Just curious, gbaji...do you have you long form birth certificate?


Funny story about that. I got into a discussion at work with a couple co-workers about this very issue (Obama's long form birth certificate). One of them made some kind of claim that it was such a burden and whatnot to obtain one, or have one available (it's not btw). I argued that it wasn't, and frankly everyone should have this important document available, just in case. He did the same kind of thing, asking if I had one (presumably assuming I didn't). Unknown to him, just a couple years earlier, I'd gone through the passport process for business travel, which required me to get my long form certificate, and while I was at the town records hall, I spent the extra $10 to get a second copy for myself. Since I'd been doing this in conjunction with the work travel, I'd tossed that second copy in my desk drawer at work.

So yeah. He got a pretty red face, when I just turned, opened the drawer, and after about 5 seconds of rummaging through papers there, pulled out my full long form birth certificate, complete with official seal.

Quote:
I lost my original years and years ago yet strangely, the one I can go get at the county courthouse seems to be acceptable for all federal purposes.


EDIT: Missed part of what you are saying. The one you get at the county courthouse *is* the long form birth certificate. That's the exact document that was being requested. That's all he had to provide. You can google for images of the form Obama eventually released. Pay particular attention to the difference between the "certificate of live birth" and the "certification of live birth". The latter was the form originally released. Which provides some, but not all of the information. It's basically a short form that sufficient for many purposes, but not for full identification. The long form is the form you get when you go to the court house. That's really all that was being asked, and as soon as he finally provided it, the issue went away. Well, aside from a very very small number of nutters, but they're less numerous than people who think the moon landing was faked, so I think we can safely ignore them. We certainly should not paint their position as being in any way typical of most conservatives, or even "many" conservatives.

Seriously. It's not that difficult. You go to the court house or hall of records in the city you were born. You provide your name, date of birth, and mothers maiden name (and a small fee), and they print you out an official sealed certificate in like 5 minutes. The idea that this would be at all burdensome to provide, or that it's some kind of bizarre legal request (judges order vital records for examination all the time), is just plain absurd. I still to this day can't understand why the first judge in the first case didn't just make a bit of history and put his name in the book as the judge who set precedent as to how one can legally pass the "natural born citizen" requirement in the constitution.

Instead, every single one of them chose to dismiss on standing, not merit. Which is basically not saying "we don't think there's any evidence that he's not a natural born citizen", nor even "we think the evidence you're asking for isn't relevant to determining if he's a natural born citizen". Dismissing on standing is telling the plaintiff "You have no right or reason to know whether this person is a natural born citizen, or meets that requirement". In other words, it does not matter how much or how little evidence or question there is about someone's natural born citizenship status. None of us have a right to challenge the issue. Period. Not when the person is running. Not during a transition. And not even after inauguration.

The person could clearly be a foreign national, with no citizenship at all, and every judge just told us that as long as the people vote for him and elect him, you have no standing to complain. That's a *huge* problem IMO. It basically says that the natural born citizen requirement in the constitution is completely unenforceable. Which is a problem.

Quote:
So...without the original "long" form...I can't be President?


You can't get a passport. In most states, you can't get your first drivers license or state ID card (once you have one, and are in the system, it's no longer required). Not sure if it's required at some point in the process of obtaining a Social Security number, but it might (I think it used to at least, because I remember my mom having to obtain them to get us kids SSNs. Today, I think they just like hand them out at birth or something). Point is that at some point in your life, you probably had to have obtained this, and used it.

It's just not that difficult to get it. So why balk for like 2.5 years on this? Obama did it because it was politically valuable to do so. As soon as it ceased to be so, he just handed it over, right? Could have saved a lot of time and trouble.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Mar 08 2017 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Varies state to state. Hawaii is more onerous than most, Illinois (for example) doesn't even have such a thing as a long form birth certificate. This is literally the birth certificate that got me my passport (the flip side has my parents' names, birth dates and place of residence as well as my height/weight and footprints).

Doesn't matter anyway; Obama wasn't under any onus to present it and people like Gbaji are just salty about it even today. Any sane person would have let it go eight or nine years ago.


Edited, Mar 8th 2017 5:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Mar 08 2017 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Cook's orders were revoked because it was his right as a volunteer reservist to ask for his orders to be revoked (up until the date of deployment) and Cook obviously felt that he shouldn't be going to Afghanistan. So the military made the call to honor his request not to go and didn't send him. Given that Cook only joined so he could he could sue (he contacted Taitz about her lawsuit in Feb 2009, joined the reserves in May 2009 and then filed suit in July 2009) there was no reason to even fuck with his nonsense. Show him the door as the rules allow. The Army doesn't really need people who join only so they can sue the government.


If the standard is that people's cases should be thrown out because they contrived the conditions in which their case rests, we'd have to toss out a good portion of civil rights cases, including some pretty major landmark cases.

Requiring that people accept a presidents natural born citizenship as a condition to volunteer for the military and/or be deployed while in the military is pretty circular, right? By that argument, no one should complain if blacks are prohibited questioning something like segregation as a condition of serving in Congress, since... well... they didn't have to go through the trouble of running for office, right? Want to work at my company? You must be ok with our unfair hiring practices, since you didn't have to come work for us, right?

That's an... unworkable standard Joph. And you know it.

EDIT: Oh. And you're also failing to consider the fact that some people actually do want to serve their country in the military, and do actually want to be deployed to help out. Those people, presumably, have a right to make sure that the orders they're following are legitimate legal orders.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Mar 08 2017 at 6:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, the standard is that the case should be thrown out because the military had previously revoked his orders so he was no longer going to Afghanistan. You're conflating the military's decision and the court's decision.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 6:04pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Mar 08 2017 at 6:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
No, the standard is that the case should be thrown out because the military revoked his orders. You're conflating the military's decision and the court's decision.


Uh huh. So he wanted to be deployed, but was refused the right to serve his country in this way because he had the temerity to ask for clear proof that the commander in chief, who's orders he would be following while in a combat zone, was qualified to hold the office and thus qualified to give those orders. Got it!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Mar 08 2017 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, he explicitly didn't want to be deployed since he was suing on the grounds that he should receive a conscientious objector exemption.

You... have no idea what the lawsuit was about, do you? It wasn't actually "We're suing to see Obama's birth certificate!" but rather "We're suing to get out of being deployed using the birth certificate as an excuse, thinking that we'll be able to force the government to produce it!".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Mar 08 2017 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Varies state to state. Hawaii is more onerous than most, Illinois (for example) doesn't even have such a thing as a long form birth certificate. This is literally the birth certificate that got me my passport (the flip side has my parents' names, birth dates and place of residence as well as my height/weight and footprints).


And that form has the name of the hospital and is signed by the doctor and witness. That's what was missing from the original electronically provided "certification" that Obama provided, and was precisely why it was not considered sufficient.

At the risk of rehashing an old argument, the reason this was at all relevant was because during the period of time that Obama was born in Hawaii, the state (having only been a state for just over a decade) has in place a method to apply for vital records "after the fact". So basically, anyone who was already a citizen of the state could sign that someone else was born in the state, and they would create vital records for that person that just filled in the data that was provided. This form would be different in the vital records than a long form certificate, would not have signatures from doctors from the hospital the person was born in (would not include any hospital information at all), but when transferred into the "certification" would contain the exact same data as one generated via a normal long form (so no way to tell which type of vital records were used to generate the certification).

The document provided originally could not be said to be conclusive proof that Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Only the full long form could do that, since it would contain unquestionable data provided, not by a third party after the fact, but filled out by licensed physicians at the time and place of birth.

That's why this actually mattered. Now, does that mean that most of us thought he wasn't born in the US? No. But it did mean that most of us did think that the best possible documentation should be used, not the weakest. And frankly that by using the weaker form of documentation, it was innately raising the question itself (why not start with the full form from day one and prevent even a question?). Obama literally created the issue (at least among most people) by choosing to put the electronic certification out there instead of a full form.

If someone provided a paper learners permit they obtained 20 years ago as proof that they are licensed to drive, it would be reasonable to demand that they provide an actual current license, complete with photo instead. Doing so in no way says that I don't believe that the person is actually licensed to drive, but rather than I don't believe the documentation provided is sufficient proof of that fact. It's not all or nothing here. Some of us (many of us, in fact) do believe that the correct documentation should be used, and were curious at what appeared to be a deliberate effort to use something less than complete.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Mar 08 2017 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
gbaji wrote:
One of them made some kind of claim that it was such a burden and whatnot to obtain one, or have one available (it's not btw).
Huh. OK. My original had a lot more information (delivery doctor, for example) than the one I can get now. I'd say it's nigh on impossible to get the original now.



Y'know...the long form.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#69 Mar 08 2017 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Varies state to state. Hawaii is more onerous than most, Illinois (for example) doesn't even have such a thing as a long form birth certificate. This is literally the birth certificate that got me my passport (the flip side has my parents' names, birth dates and place of residence as well as my height/weight and footprints).
And that form has the name of the hospital and is signed by the doctor and witness. That's what was missing from the original electronically provided "certification" that Obama provided, and was precisely why it was not considered sufficient.

You think that's what makes it a long form?

Huh.

Edit: In fact, I don't even care what you think. You lost. Sorry, you "Just asked questions" and lost. Go cry now that the mean liberals destroyed justice forever.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 6:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Mar 08 2017 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Varies state to state. Hawaii is more onerous than most, Illinois (for example) doesn't even have such a thing as a long form birth certificate. This is literally the birth certificate that got me my passport (the flip side has my parents' names, birth dates and place of residence as well as my height/weight and footprints).
And that form has the name of the hospital and is signed by the doctor and witness. That's what was missing from the original electronically provided "certification" that Obama provided, and was precisely why it was not considered sufficient.

You think that's what makes it a long form?


it's what makes it different than the document that Obama originally provided.

What's the difference between this document

And this one

Note, that the second one even says it's only sufficient to prove "fact of birth", not "proof of where you were born" or "how you were born", or "how we came to determine you existed in the first place". It's basically just saying "this is an actual live person, and the records of this fact exist in the state of Hawaii".


Quote:
Huh.


Yeah. Huh.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Mar 08 2017 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
One of them made some kind of claim that it was such a burden and whatnot to obtain one, or have one available (it's not btw).
Huh. OK. My original had a lot more information (delivery doctor, for example) than the one I can get now. I'd say it's nigh on impossible to get the original now.


You may be thinking of something sent home with your parents or something. That's not what we're talking about though.

Quote:
Y'know...the long form.


No. the "long form birth certificate" is the full long form that's on file with your state. Period. That other additional documentation may have been provided to your parents, but not to the state is irrelevant. The full form the hospital fills out and puts into the states vital records is what we're talking about here.

It existed the whole time. Obama chose not to provide it the whole time. That's the entirety of the issue. Once he did, the issue went away. For most of us, it was not about what we personally believed about where Obama was born, but that we felt he had not provided sufficient information to verify that information. That's it. Really. It's no different than the guy carding you at the liquor store not accepting an expired license. He may totally personally believe that you're old enough, but you failed to provide the document that he's required to obtain to make the sale.

The difference here is that there are no hard rules for what is "required" to prove natural born citizenship. And the unfortunate upshot is that we now have multiple court rulings that essentially say "if the candidate and his party says they meet the conditions, then they do, and anyone who might question that just has to accept it". Which kinda seems problematic to me. Our courts had an opportunity to clarify and set good precedent on this area of law, and failed miserably. Now, we're basically back to "we have no rules, just whatever the loudest voices insist should happen". Which is never a good way to do things, regardless of which "side" you are on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Mar 08 2017 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
gbaji wrote:
No. the "long form birth certificate" is the full long form that's on file with your state. Period.
Given that I was born on a military base, that may not be the case.



Now I'm curious. I will requisition the "long form" from the afformentioned base and see what I can get.


Will post with results.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#73 Mar 08 2017 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
ALSO:

The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!


The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!


The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!


The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!


The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!



citizen wrote:
Can we see Trump's tax info?



The "alt-right" aka the gbaji fan club wrote:
OMG!! Like, soooo not relevant to anything!!! Fur shuuuuur!!
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#74 Mar 08 2017 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
That's great and all, but one of those is relevant to determining a constitutional requirement to hold the office of president. The other is... Not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Mar 08 2017 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. the "long form birth certificate" is the full long form that's on file with your state. Period.
Given that I was born on a military base, that may not be the case.



Now I'm curious. I will requisition the "long form" from the afformentioned base and see what I can get.


Will post with results.


You're kinda missing the forest for the trees. Does the document you get from the county courthouse or hall of records contain the hospital you were born in and the signatures of the doctor and some other witness to that birth? If so, that's what was missing from the original document Obama released, which was present on the one he finally released after being asked for 2 and a half years.

You're getting caught up on labels and ignoring the content of the documents themselves. I thought I explained quite fully why one was sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii and was thus a natural born citizen, while the other did not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Mar 08 2017 at 9:03 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Once he did, the issue went away.

Arguable. The number of Republicans who believed he was probably born in the U.S. increased 14 percentage points after the release, but was still less than half. If you google "Obama birth certificate" then you find several articles in the past few months questioning it.

The issue has yet to disappear, and it probably won't disappear until Obama fades from memory as a bogeyman.
#77 Mar 08 2017 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Allegory wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Once he did, the issue went away.

Arguable. The number of Republicans who believed he was probably born in the U.S. increased 14 percentage points after the release, but was still less than half.


You know how I feel about opinion polls. When was the last time you saw anything about this on a news channel, panel discussion on a political show, etc? The "issue went away" because once Obama released his full birth certificate, there was nothing left to discuss. More significant to my part of the discussion, there was nothing to legally request or demand (like say a birth document in a courtroom). There's no other documentation one could go to, right? No one's demanding any additional proof, because there kinda can't be any.

Quote:
If you google "Obama birth certificate" then you find several articles in the past few months questioning it.


All on the same site. That's like tuning into the coast to coast radio show and concluding that the issue of the moon landing hasn't yet been resolved, or the questions about bigfoot, roswell greys, crop circles, chem trails, etc, are all big issues we need to address like "right now".

Quote:
The issue has yet to disappear, and it probably won't disappear until Obama fades from memory as a bogeyman.


It'll never disappear, since it exists in memory and as an historical footnote. The question is the degree to which it impacts anyone and the degree to which anyone takes any sort of action in reaction to it. Currently that is pretty much zero.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 Mar 08 2017 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
When was the last time you saw anything about this on a news channel, panel discussion on a political show, etc?

Do you mean the liberally biased media which is intentionally ignoring this issue?
gbaji wrote:
All on the same site.

It's pretty insulting when you lie about something so easily checked.
gbaji wrote:
The question is the degree to which it impacts anyone and the degree to which anyone takes any sort of action in reaction to it. Currently that is pretty much zero

He is not the president anymore. The rumor did what it needed to do, and now that time is over.
#79 Mar 09 2017 at 12:04 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
gbaji wrote:
Does the document you get from the county courthouse or hall of records contain the hospital you were born in and the signatures of the doctor and some other witness to that birth? If so, that's what was missing from the original document Obama released
No.

No, it doesn't.

Which was the point.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#80 Mar 09 2017 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As Gbaji wastes dozens of posts in 2017 arguing about the birth certificate of a guy who was elected in 2008, re-elected in 2012 and left office a couple months ago he would like to remind you all that he's not really a Birther and it hurts his heart when people falsely imply that he is. He's just asking questions. Sort of like those people who continue to just ask questions about the temperature of burning jet fuel and the melting point of steel.

Edited, Mar 9th 2017 7:41am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Mar 09 2017 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As Gbaji wastes dozens of posts in 2017 arguing about the birth certificate of a guy who was elected in 2008
Still better than arguing about the guy who totally wanted to go serve his country but just wasn't allowed to by the big mean liberals that listened to his request to back out of deploying.

Edited, Mar 9th 2017 9:15am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#83 Mar 09 2017 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, that ties into it because the liberal military complex destroyed democracy by sinisterly granting his request instead of letting him sue the government.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Mar 09 2017 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,173 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's great and all, but one of those is relevant to determining a constitutional requirement to hold the office of president. The other is... Not.



Unless, of course, he has hidden business dealings with one or more foreign states that could affect his policy decisions.

It won't happen, but I think going forward candidates should be required to disclose their taxes.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#85 Mar 09 2017 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When was the last time you saw anything about this on a news channel, panel discussion on a political show, etc?

Do you mean the liberally biased media which is intentionally ignoring this issue?


Any media at all. I'm honestly not sure what you mean here.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
All on the same site.

It's pretty insulting when you lie about something so easily checked.


Um... Yesterday, the only recent hits on that google search all went to www.wnd.XXX (and there were just three of them). Today, it looks like there's some new stuff.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The question is the degree to which it impacts anyone and the degree to which anyone takes any sort of action in reaction to it. Currently that is pretty much zero

He is not the president anymore. The rumor did what it needed to do, and now that time is over.


It was pretty much zero for the last 5 or so years, not just since Obama left office. Do you recall anyone making this an issue during the 2012 election? Nope. I'm sure you can dig up the occasional fringe person digging up the old claim (or some people who don't really follow politics not realizing it's been resolved), but that's been about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Mar 09 2017 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As Gbaji wastes dozens of posts in 2017 arguing about the birth certificate of a guy who was elected in 2008, re-elected in 2012 and left office a couple months ago he would like to remind you all that he's not really a Birther and it hurts his heart when people falsely imply that he is. He's just asking questions. Sort of like those people who continue to just ask questions about the temperature of burning jet fuel and the melting point of steel.


Except I didn't raise the issue Joph. Bijou did. I'm more than content to let the entire issue rest on the dust heap of history, but it just seems like others can't let it go.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Mar 09 2017 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Does the document you get from the county courthouse or hall of records contain the hospital you were born in and the signatures of the doctor and some other witness to that birth? If so, that's what was missing from the original document Obama released
No.

No, it doesn't.

Which was the point.


That's a valid point then. I've never seen a birth certificate from a courthouse (with state seal and all) that didn't contain this information. But again, if you were born on a military base, then what they have on file may be more like the certification that Obama provided, and you'd have to go to the military for your full form? Dunno.

Honestly, none of that changes the fact that Obama's birth certificate, which was actually on file and available for him to release the whole time, did in fact contain that information, while the certification he released did not. Obama was not born on a military base. His long form certificate was readily available. He chose to use a different form instead. And when asked to provide the full form, which would remove all doubt as to his birth location, he stamped his feet and refused for 2 and a half years.

For most people, getting that form is super easy. Heck. Getting that form for someone else is easy (just need to know a few bits of information).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Mar 09 2017 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm more than content to let the entire issue rest on the dust heap of history

Obviously Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Mar 09 2017 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm more than content to let the entire issue rest on the dust heap of history

Obviously Smiley: laugh


Did I bring the issue up? Sure seems to me like others place far more weight in the significance of this than I do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 Mar 09 2017 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
Today, it looks like there's some new stuff.

You display a lot of admirable qualities. You shrug off a barrage of insults people I think many times unjustly hurl at you. You take the time to respond in detail. You put yourself in a place that tends to lean against you politically.

I'm fairly naive, and I'm willing to grant you that Google does change and that I can't be absolutely certain what you saw. But if you've knowingly lied to me on this, I want you to know that disappoints me.
#91 Mar 10 2017 at 12:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Did I bring the issue up?

Did you let it pass without typing 5,000 words about it? Smiley: laugh
gbaji wrote:
Do you recall anyone making this an issue during the 2012 election? Nope. I'm sure you can dig up the occasional fringe person digging up the old claim

Fringe people like the current leader of the Republican Party.

Edited, Mar 10th 2017 12:53am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Mar 10 2017 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Allegory wrote:
You take the time to respond in detail.
It's easy to go into detail if you're not particularly concerned with accuracy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#93 Mar 13 2017 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Today, it looks like there's some new stuff.

You display a lot of admirable qualities. You shrug off a barrage of insults people I think many times unjustly hurl at you. You take the time to respond in detail. You put yourself in a place that tends to lean against you politically.

I'm fairly naive, and I'm willing to grant you that Google does change and that I can't be absolutely certain what you saw. But if you've knowingly lied to me on this, I want you to know that disappoints me.


Without having taken a screenshot or something, i can't prove to you what I saw. The "new" stuff (at least last Friday), was all posted within the previous 24 hours (you can see how old a google hit is), and consisted of Obama's brother holding up a copy of a old debunked faked Kenyan birth certificate (debunked as in, shown to be false back in 2009, debunked). That created a half dozen new hits on google, which happened to occur right after I looked.

Yeah. Goodle hit results change every day. Every hour. That's all that happened.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 Mar 13 2017 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Did I bring the issue up?

Did you let it pass without typing 5,000 words about it? Smiley: laugh


To debunk false claims? Yes. Not sure what's wrong about that. If I don't, then the false claims stand as truth. As long as people keep bringing up this old issue, and misrepresenting it, I'm going to respond and correct the record. If you don't want me to spend 5,000 words dispelling the same myth (again!), then stop repeating the myth.

I'd do the exact same thing if someone started posting about how the moon landing was faked. You'll note, that I don't, out of the blue, start posting about how dumb people who think the moon landing was faked are, or broadly painting an entire segment of society as dumb by association. I do find it odd that for some posters, the best way to respond to a subject being discussed *now* is to bring up some old subject that paints the other "side" in a negative light and make fun of them for it. Honestly not sure how that works, but it is a common trend.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you recall anyone making this an issue during the 2012 election? Nope. I'm sure you can dig up the occasional fringe person digging up the old claim

Fringe people like the current leader of the Republican Party.


Well gee. Same thing. People bring up an old topic to Trump, and he responds to it. It's not like he brought the subject up himself, right? Heck. He was practically hounded by media forcing him to make an official on the record statement that Obama was born in the US. Sounds like they were the ones still obsessed with the issue, right?

Edited, Mar 13th 2017 5:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Mar 13 2017 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, Trump was "hounded" into Tweeting Smiley: laugh

Ah, you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#96 Mar 13 2017 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, Trump was "hounded" into Tweeting Smiley: laugh

Ah, you.


He said it at a speech, not in a tweet. And it certainly was the result of hounding by the media. Unless the word "finally" has a different connotation for you. Or did you just sleep during that part of the campaign? I remember it clearly. I think we even had a discussion about it on this forum.

I do find the article's language interesting though:

Quote:
The birtherism controversy exploded the previous night when Trump said in an interview with The Washington Post that he still wasn't prepared to acknowledge Obama's birthplace. Within a few hours, the campaign released a statement -- attributed to his spokesman -- that said Trump now believes Obama was born in the United States.


The actual exchange was the reporter, more or less out of the blue, asking if he believed Obama was born in the US. What Trump actually said was that he would answer that question at a different time, but that he didn't want to discuss it at the time, because it would only be a distraction, and it would be the story rather than his platform position he was running on. Of course, that itself became the story, and created an "explosion" of media coverage. Until Trump, a few days later, just flatly stated in some random event he was doing that Obama was born in the US. Period. One would hope that would end the issue, right?

Again. He didn't bring it up. Because for him, and most people, the issue was decided back when Obama finally revealed his long form birth certificate. It's funny because, as I keep pointing out, the only people who keep raising this topic are liberals. No one else, outside of a small fringe conspiracy set, spend any time on this at all. Except when we're forced to because someone on the Left raises it again. And again. And again. Because for the Left it was never about accurate documentation to prove a required status to hold the office. It was then and still is a means to attempt to paint conservatives in a negative light, just by association to the "birther movement".

You know, like exactly what Bijou was doing when he brought it up. And presumably exactly the reason why the WP reporter brought it up in that Trump interview. And presumably why the media went all gaga when Trump didn't immediately answer (I honestly suspect that was Trump basically trolling them, but that's just me). And yeah, it's the same thing that you do yourself when you randomly out of the blue attempt to dismiss some point I'm making because "you argued for X years that Obama wasn't a US citizen". As if that has anything at all to do with whatever topic is at hand.

Dismiss. Distract. Belittle. Don't you get tired of those tactics? Ever?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Mar 13 2017 at 10:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, you're referring to a completely different event. Try actually reading my link next time instead of knee-jerk insisting people are wrong.

Not getting your news from anywhere, etc.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Mar 14 2017 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
gbaji wrote:
You'll note, that I don't, out of the blue, start posting about how dumb people who think the moon landing was faked are, or broadly painting an entire segment of society as dumb by association.
I'll note that you'll start posting about how the "moon landing is fake," go out of your way to ignore all arguments against your theories, and when the rest of us get bored of it you start going on about how amazing your arguments really are in what has so far always been a futile attempt to drive the discussion back to your prepared talking points.

Edited, Mar 14th 2017 9:15am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#99 Mar 14 2017 at 4:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, you're referring to a completely different event.


I'm referring to the one... wait for it... I was referring to. You know. Cause I'm the one who made the reference.

Quote:
Try actually reading my link next time instead of knee-jerk insisting people are wrong.


A link that was basically a story bringing up the issue again. You know. Just like I've pointed out repeatedly. So you're basically making an issue of the fact that Trump, while not holding any office, liked to pass along rumors and speculation like 99% of everyone else on social media? Wow. You're right. Let's send him right to the Gulag for that one! Cause we've never heard of someone passing along such things because they find them interesting, or amusing, or whatever. May as well just chuck out that whole 1st amendment while we're at it.

Quote:
Not getting your news from anywhere, etc.


I prefer to look at people's actions and how they affect others. You'll have to forgive me if I'm far more concerned with a president cherry picking which laws he'll enforce than I am with a president who once in the past questioned the validity of a document. I'll also point out something I've stated several times in the past on this forum, but apparently it bears repeating. Trump has an "interesting" way of communicating (and not necessarily "good" btw). He tends to make statements, or repeat statements others have made, not out of any personal agreement with that statement, but merely to create a reaction to the statement itself. He did this all through the campaign (both primary and general), where he'd say something just to stir the pot and generate a reaction. He'd say something totally ridiculous about one of his opponents, just because it forced them to address that narrative and blow a media cycle doing so.

I've also pointed out how this is historically a tactic used by the Left rather than the Right, which is perhaps why you aren't so familiar with it. I have, sadly, seen the same tactics used for decades by Liberal politicians, sometimes to great effect. Do we want to go examine how many years after the 2003 state of the union address Democratic politicians and their surrogates were still happily continuing to claim that Bush's statement about Iraq seeking to obtain Uranium was a lie, despite it long hence having been proven to be true (there are *still* people on the Left repeating that false claim btw). They make these false statements because they know that the harm they'll get for making them is tiny in comparison to the value in perpetuating the false belief among others.

So yeah. I see both in the same light, and I'm absolutely not excusing Trump for continuing to pass along such rumors. But here's the difference. When asked directly about it, he made a clear and unambiguous statement affirming Obama's citizenship status. Can we say the same about other false claims made by Liberals over the years? Did anyone in the media hound anyone on the Left and demand that they debunk the false claims about Bush? Nope. Because that would require that the media outlets themselves see value in debunking those, which they don't. They specifically see value in continuing the false beliefs. Again though, this is a tactic that I've seen for a long time being used on the Left and specifically against Conservatives and Republicans, so it's not shocking to me to see it here. For you? Maybe so. But that's because your "side" has not been on the receiving end of this sort of thing before.

As I've said before. Get used to this. I don't like it either, but this is how Trump operates. He will gleefully toss garbage out there in front of the public to distract them and waste media cycles when it's valuable for him to do so. And so far, it looks like the media has taken the bait every single time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Mar 14 2017 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, you're referring to a completely different event.


I'm referring to the one... wait for it... I was referring to. You know. Cause I'm the one who made the reference.

You asked about people bringing it up in 2012 and thereafter. Sorry you need to frantically move the goalposts to avoid admitting you're wrong but them's the breaks:
Despite now pretending that we're talking about a single event in 2016, you actually wrote:
Do you recall anyone making this an issue during the 2012 election? Nope. I'm sure you can dig up the occasional fringe person digging up the old claim

Yes, I found a person. And you can try to dismiss him as a fringe lunatic but he's the so-called fringe lunatic who leads your political party so, uh, have a ball with that argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Mar 14 2017 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, you're referring to a completely different event.


I'm referring to the one... wait for it... I was referring to. You know. Cause I'm the one who made the reference.

You asked about people bringing it up in 2012 and thereafter. Sorry you need to frantically move the goalposts to avoid admitting you're wrong but them's the breaks


I was speaking about people in the media Joph. I even prefaced it with this comment:

gbaji wrote:
When was the last time you saw anything about this on a news channel, panel discussion on a political show, etc?


I was quite clearly speaking about the impact of such statements and the degree to which they were taken seriously.

Quote:
Despite now pretending that we're talking about a single event in 2016, you actually wrote:
Do you recall anyone making this an issue during the 2012 election? Nope. I'm sure you can dig up the occasional fringe person digging up the old claim

Yes, I found a person. And you can try to dismiss him as a fringe lunatic but he's the so-called fringe lunatic who leads your political party so, uh, have a ball with that argument.


Hehe. Um... He didn't write the story Joph. He read it, likely thought it was funny, as as part of his "stir the pot" bit I spoke of earlier, tweeted it. None of this at all tells us what Trump personally believed at any point along this. You do get that it's quite possible to link to an article that you find interesting or amusing, and not yourself believe in whatever said article/blog/whatever is saying (or even particularly care)

What's funny here is that I don't think you and I are as far off as you may think on this. The difference is that you see Trumps tweets and see a moron who believes in crazy conspiracy theories and can thus be dismissed as incompetent or whatever, all the while laughing at his "side". But I see Trump saying or repeating things as a deliberate means to change/shape the topic of discussion, or to build up the perception of something, even if it's unfounded. I don't think he at all believed or even cared about whether Obama was actually born in the US or not. He found value in raising the issue, so he did it. And if tweeting out articles about Obama's biographical data from 2007 and older saying he was born in Kenya, or theories about his birth certificate being a fake gained him something, he did that too.

Which is why I keep saying he's acting a lot like a liberal. Guess what? I also don't think most Democrats really care about racial diversity, or women's issues, or minority causes. They play lip service to these things because there's value to them in doing this. I could assume that all those politicians standing on the steps of congress making a big show of doing "hands up don't shoot" were actually just that stupid and got played by an obvious lie. But I give them credit for being smarter than that and conclude that they found political value in adopting the slogan and repeating it, so they did it. You think that Hollywood celebrity really cares about global warming, or starving kids in Africa, or whatever the cause of the moment is? Nope. It's great PR to make a big show of caring about those things though.

Trump is doing the same freaking thing. I've been trying to explain this to you for like a couple months now, but you're just not getting it. You're so caught up in trying to frame him in the stereotypical "dumb conservative" model that you're totally failing to see what's actually going on. It's dangerous and actually dumb to make the mistake of assuming that when politicians do this it's because they are honest true believers in <whatever> and can be judged based on that. I honestly have no clue what Trump thinks, or what he believes. I do think, however, that he's made a ton of money, built up a lot of success, and landed himself the presidency, all while doing those things that you think make him look stupid. Guess what? I thought the same thing during the primaries. I figured out that I was wrong somewhere along the line because what looks like random insanity somehow managed to obtain for him exactly that which he wants. We can all sit around and pretend that's just dumb luck, but I happen to think that's a bit foolish.


You're also still laboring under the false belief that I'm at all a fan of Trump. I'm just hoping that whatever crazy things he's doing actually result in some conservative positions being adopted along the way. I've already accepted that he's a Liberal in terms of methodology (which I hate frankly). That's already done, and there's nothing you or I can do to change that. What you keep trying to frame as me defending him, is really me disagreeing with your dismissal of him. SNL skits aside, he's not actually dumb. He's just very very good at getting people to misjudge him and then takes advantage of that fact.

So yeah. Don't do that. Just a suggestion.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 80 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (80)