Birth Certificate Issue (Split from the Bin Laden Photo thread)

[openeyes]

[Mod: This thread is split from Bin Laden photos will NOT be released... ]

Will this become a repeat of the birth certificate issue (of course we have it, but why would we show you, just have faith)?

[beast]

Originally Posted by openeyes

Will this become a repeat of the birth certificate issue (of course we have it, but why would we show you, just have faith)?

He did release his birth certificate. How are people still seriously discussing this?

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by beast

He did release his birth certificate. How are people still seriously discussing this?

If you knew a single thing about graphic design or bothered to question if the released certificate was a phony you'd know why people are seriously still discussing this.

[beast]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

If you knew a single thing about graphic design or bothered to question if the released certificate was a phony you'd know why people are seriously still discussing this.

I did not question whether its phony, and I do know a good bit about graphic design.

Though, to be fair, I think the birth certificate issue is a big ol' distraction, and I wouldn't care if our president had been born in Kenya.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by beast

I did not question whether its phony, and I do know a good bit about graphic design.

Though, to be fair, I think the birth certificate issue is a big ol' distraction, and I wouldn't care if our president had been born in Kenya.

Then you need to review the US constitution. It explicitly tells us that a president of the United States must be born in the United States. It's a big deal if he gained the Presidency in violation of the constitution. You may be asking yourself "why is that so important?" The current administration doesn't care about what the constitution says for the most part. If you disregard one part of the constitution you are not respecting it as the core legal document of the US and the basic fabric holding it together as the "land of the free and home of the brave". The US is falling apart. It's not a distraction, it's part of the 'big picture'. A very important part. It's about respect in regards to what our country was founded upon.

[beast]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Then you need to review the US constitution. It explicitly tells us that a president of the United States must be born in the United States. It's a big deal if he gained the Presidency in violation of the constitution. You may be asking yourself "why is that so important?" The current administration doesn't care about what the constitution says for the most part. If you disregard one part of the constitution you are not respecting it as the core legal document of the US and the basic fabric holding it together as the "land of the free and home of the brave". The US is falling apart. It's not a distraction, it's part of the 'big picture'. A very important part. It's about respect in regards to what our country was founded upon.

I know what the US constitution says, actually! Personally, it's not an issue that I care about. How many previous presidents have you seen birth certificates for, out of curiosity?

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by beast

I know what the US constitution says, actually! Personally, it's not an issue that I care about. How many previous presidents have you seen birth certificates for, out of curiosity?

Ten. You can find them all linked to here,

What about Clinton's birth certificate? Bush's? Ford's? Kennedy's? – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

[beast]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Ten. You can find them all linked to here,

What about Clinton's birth certificate? Bush's? Ford's? Kennedy's? – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

I don't think you read this article, which doesn't shock me.

If you insist on talking about the BS birth certificate issue, though, maybe a mod can split these threads.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by beast

I think the birth certificate issue is a big ol' distraction, and I wouldn't care if our president had been born in Kenya.

Same here actually. My point was that this appears to be a new distraction.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by beast

I don't think you read this article, which doesn't shock me.

If you insist on talking about the BS birth certificate issue, though, maybe a mod can split these threads.

No I didn't read them, you caught me making a mistake! You must be so proud.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by openeyes

While I personally don't need a photo to move on with my life, given that there was even video of Saddam being hung it's surprising there wouldn't be a photo released of the most recent body, particularly given how big a deal was made of him being killed.

That wasn't released by the US Government, but by the Iraq Government. I don't think the US Government was even present there.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

That wasn't released by the US Government, but by the Iraq Government. I don't think the US Government was even present there.

If I remember correctly the US govt did release numerous photos of Saddam in captivity, but I guess since that's a different scenario since they put him to trial and everything we can't really be equating the two as if they're supposed to follow sequentially.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

That wasn't released by the US Government, but by the Iraq Government. I don't think the US Government was even present there.

I can imagine that being the case.

I edited my comment after I noticed the threads had been split. I hadn't meant to get things off topic, it simply seemed like this was a repeat of information not being released that other people felt they had a right to know, whether they did or not.

[Alstar]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Then you need to review the US constitution. It explicitly tells us that a president of the United States must be born in the United States. It's a big deal if he gained the Presidency in violation of the constitution. You may be asking yourself "why is that so important?" The current administration doesn't care about what the constitution says for the most part. If you disregard one part of the constitution you are not respecting it as the core legal document of the US and the basic fabric holding it together as the "land of the free and home of the brave". The US is falling apart. It's not a distraction, it's part of the 'big picture'. A very important part. It's about respect in regards to what our country was founded upon.

The U.S constitution has, since it's inception, never been adhered to. This myth of "protecting/upholding the constitution" is naive and comical. The clinginess which people show about this document is a bit worrying as well; it flies in the face of progress (something this forum should value highly) to remain content with one set of rules and never want to change them.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Alstar

The U.S constitution has, since it's inception, never been adhered to. This myth of "protecting/upholding the constitution" is naive and comical. The clinginess which people show about this document is a bit worrying as well; it flies in the face of progress (something this forum should value highly) to remain content with one set of rules and never want to change them.

You have no respect for the letter of the law if that is your view. The constitution can be amended if need be, it has been amended in the past. This is not 'clinginess', it is a respect for the document that defines US law. It is a cornerstone of US law and should be treated as such.

Progress for the sake of progress is foolish. To say that we shouldn't remain content with one set of rules that just because they've been that way for a long time is foolish. Amendments can be made to the document itself, but to ignore it altogether is to ignore the letter of the law. Which you may be totally fine with doing, but I want my government to be held accountable to a defined set of rules, otherwise they will have too much power. I am not a fan of big government because power over a country consolidated into the hands of a few almost inevitably is used for corrupt motives.

[beast]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

No I didn't read them, you caught me making a mistake! You must be so proud.

Not a mistake, a lie. And I'm not proud.

[beast]

For those bringing up our response to Hussein's death, I just want to say that I, for one, do not believe that the Bush administration is exactly the same as the Obama administration. I think our current administration thankfully learned a bit from that disaster.

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

You have no respect for the letter of the law if that is your view. The constitution can be amended if need be, it has been amended in the past. This is not 'clinginess', it is a respect for the document that defines US law. It is a cornerstone of US law and should be treated as such.

You know, it all matters how you define what a constitution should be about. You seem to attach a lot of importance to the procedural elements of it, elements that for me, personally, mean nothing. For me a constitution should guarantee rights, show how the State can function and eventually indicate a certain hierarchy between norms. The issue that you raise has nothing to do with the elements I mentioned and therefore should not even belong to the constitutional law realm.

Also, constitutions are documents that should encompass, not exclude. You are proposing just the contrary. If the nation wants a president that does not fulfill the existing criteria, the constitution should give preference to the will of the nation, not limit it.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by beast

Not a mistake, a lie. And I'm not proud.

I never did say I read the article. I just counted the names of the Presidents listed and quickly assumed their birth certificates were linked to, then told you what I thought was the number of President's certificates linked to in the article. So yeah, a mistake. I get ahead of myself when I'm feeling impassioned by something and I tend to do things like get facts confused, throw down links and facts which I haven't taken the time to read because I just assume they have what I needed to show in them... I'm usually way more clearheaded and calm about things so I apologize for any offense I've been causing you. I'm just very upset by all of this and feel strongly that something is definitely wrong with this whole situation.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

You know, it all matters how you define what a constitution should be about. You seem to attach a lot of importance to the procedural elements of it, elements that for me, personally, mean nothing. For me a constitution should guarantee rights, show how the State can function and eventually indicate a certain hierarchy between norms. The issue that you raise has nothing to do with the elements I mentioned and therefore should not even belong to the constitutional law realm.

Also, constitutions are documents that should encompass, not exclude. You are proposing just the contrary. If the nation wants a president that does not fulfill the existing criteria, the constitution should give preference to the will of the nation, not limit it.

Alstar was referring to the adherence to the constitution determining the due process of law, which is important because if the procedural elements, as you call them, are not obeyed then this gives people the legal loopholes to do what they please to a greater extent. I know you're probably a good person with a relatively pure heart, AlmostGoddess, but people who are basically evil and manipulative will use any poorly defined or poorly understood areas of law to their advantage. Those procedural elements, such as making amendments to the constitution if you want to do something which would violate it are there to keep people from twisting the law to their own favor, or disregarding it altogether.

The constitution explicitly excludes a person becoming president if their country of birth was not the United States. If you or anyone else has a problem with that then they should change it by due process of law for the reasons I explained in the first paragraph. Personally I don't agree with that restriction, but the letter of the law must be obeyed to hold people who abuse the law accountable for their abuses and to keep the balance of power in check.

[beast]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

I never did say I read the article. I just counted the names of the Presidents listed and quickly assumed their birth certificates were linked to, then told you what I thought was the number of President's certificates linked to in the article. So yeah, a mistake. .

No - stop rewriting history. I asked: "How many previous presidents have you seen birth certificates for, out of curiosity?" You replied: "Ten."

[curiouslyrandom]

My take on the whole birther issue, and why I feel the certificate MAY have been amended: it's got nothin' to do with Kenya, and everything to do with his mother's age.

Not that I actually believe it WAS amended, just thinking back to my own stupid tryst with my kids' father, who was foreign, and my age at the time. I was 17 and could have had him arrested for statutory rape. Maybe I ought to have, but then I wouldn't have my kids.

Obama's certificate says his mother was 18 when he was born. I suppose it would be easy enough to find out if she was or was not, but the idea that it might have been changed to protect HER crossed my mind over breakfast this morning. That's all.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by beast

No - stop rewriting history. I asked: "How many previous presidents have you seen birth certificates for, out of curiosity?" You replied: "Ten."

Well, I've learned something today. I suck at lying.

[Le Roi]

Originally Posted by curiouslyrandom

I suppose it would be easy enough to find out if she was or was not, but the idea that it might have been changed to protect HER crossed my mind over breakfast this morning. That's all.

Considering she's being dead for a long time, why would it need to be changed to protect her?

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

If you knew a single thing about graphic design or bothered to question if the released certificate was a phony you'd know why people are seriously still discussing this.

What the bleep are you talking about? Obviously that lion cub being held up by the strange looking monkey is Obama... Obviously, you don't know anything about photoshop....

KaleidoskopicVision: What exactly are your intentions in speaking to us on this forum? Do you want to speak at people or speak with people? By speak with people, I mean do you want people to actually hear you and respond to you? Do you want to hear us and respond to us? Beast isn't the only person who interprets your words as condenscending and arrogant. I thought I'd throw this out here because you don't appear to be aware of how we are interpreting your words. To be brutually honest, I don't bother reading half the stuff you say any more and I have a sneaking suspicion that other people do not as well. Is this what you want?

[Andrew Brunelle]

It's very possible that his birth certificate is fake. But I don't know for sure. The question I have is why he is the only president I can recall that we fervently wanted to see his birth certificate. I mean, sure, his father was from Kenya and was a Muslim, but has Obama done anything fervently Kenyan or Muslim in his time as president?

Not only that, some people actually thought that his birth certificate was going to say he was a Muslim, as if babies come out of the womb with a religion already decided. Well, I guess he had 9 months to decide, so might as well develop a belief system, right?

I really don't care if he was born here, but I do know that he spent a significant amount of his childhood all the way into adulthood here, so my question is: Who cares if he was born in another country and moved here at 2 or 3 years old? Does that make him a terrorist or evil? No, it just makes him an American who happened to be born somewhere else, although I'm almost 100% sure he was born here.

His mother is an American citizen, so it stands to reason he was born here. And by "here," I mean an island that is closer to Japan than it is to America, but is a state nonetheless.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

It's very possible that his birth certificate is fake.

Well, it's 'possible', rather than 'very possible'. By which I mean that practically, it is conceivable that the birth certificate is faked.

But of course, if Obama was in fact born somewhere else - Kenya, Mongolia, London, perhaps, the actual birth certificate is really the easy bit to fake, and therefore the least valuable as evidence. More to the point, how would his mother have given birth in an another country, lived there for anywhere from a few days to a few years and then emigrated to the States with her foreign son without leaving any evidence whatsoever - whether written, photographic or in the memory of people in the area - of those actions?

He certainly would have had to do a massive amount of groundwork to cover his tracks, well before he started his campaign for presidency, and all on the possibility that one day he might be able to get himself elected president.

[Cado]

What I don't understand is why the people who believe this are still discussing it. If the system is so broken that someone born outside the country is capable of taking the highest office in the land then our democracy is a sham and the only recourse is revolution. The fact that nothing has come of this birther nonsense only proves to me that they don't have a case.

And if they do? We have far bigger issues to contend with. Yes, it's an affront to the constitution but I honestly don't give a damn. I'd rather focus on doing something about the needless wars, the national debt, and the reaming of the middle class. Obama clearly isn't going to destroy us so if he's pulled one over on us I say let him get away with it and let's get back to hounding the bankers for what they did to the economy.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

If the system is so broken that someone born outside the country is capable of taking the highest office

I would be fine with the birth requirement being removed, it's just low on my priority list. I'd even be okay with someone that isn't a US citizen and has never even set foot on US territory being elected if people choose to vote for them.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by openeyes

I would be fine with the birth requirement being removed, it's just low on my priority list. I'd even be okay with someone that isn't a US citizen and has never even set foot on US territory being elected if people choose to vote for them.

So would I. I say the system would be irreparably broken in this case because the law currently forbids it. Whether or not it makes sense, if it's simply ignored then the ones in power are using it as leverage over us while staying unrestrained and that is not a good mix.