Prediction: Obama will not run in Arizona over birth certificate

[bigrebnc1775]

I usually don't link to MM, but Tim Adams is so obscure that there isn't a lot of stuff on him from more established sources.

At any rate, feel free to call out MM for any of the facts they posted.

ok not a problem but if media matters is all you have thats all you have.

I might have been able to find something if I'd been willing to wade through a shit ton of birther sites who claim that Adams is the missing link in their goofy assed theories.

I really am not that patient.

Where is Tim Adams today? He's dropped off the face of the map in regards to the BC issue. That alone basically sums it up.

Someone was in search of fame

 

[gekaap]

You used two or three differant copies. the one that showed the few certificate did not have a fold and did not have a state seal the

You idiot, all those pictures are from the exact same document. The fold (whatever it's good for), the seal, all of it is from one document. You just can't accept any fact that doesn't conform to the conclusion you so desperately crave. By all means, keep it up, birthers will ensure an Obama second term.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You used two or three differant copies. the one that showed the few certificate did not have a fold and did not have a state seal the

You idiot, all those pictures are from the exact same document. The fold (whatever it's good for), the seal, all of it is from one document. You just can't accept any fact that doesn't conform to the conclusion you so desperately crave. By all means, keep it up, birthers will ensure an Obama second term.

Stupid I noted the discrepancies with in your post at each picture.

No he has not shown his long form to anyone.

And what makes you think a long form birth certificate even exists accessibly? Mine doesn't exist period, as far as I know. But I don't need one. My younger brother has his originally issued BC, and even that is a short form. In any event, you're demanding completely irrelevant and unnecessary evidence.

You want to see Obama's birth certificate, I'll show it to you.
NO SEAL

Differant color of paper

Fold in paper not shown in the first picture

Differant color of paper.

Differant color of paper.

 

[WorldWatcher]

obama's mother and fathers marriage has never been in question. Why the change now is there something that might show obama wasn't born in Hawaii?

Well of course Obama Sr. being married wouldn't be an issue in the birther talking points because if he was married at the time that he married Dunham that would make him a bygamist and invalidate the second marriage. The section of the INA of 1952 (Section 301(7)) that man birthers have hung their hat on because of Dunhams age at the time of Obama Jrs birth would evaporate.

I follow along and discuss interesting aspects of the law, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 and won't be voting for him in 2012.

There are times that interesting questions come up concerning the law, then I like to go research them on my own. It's amazing how many times people believe talking points without actually checking what the law says. For example, many birthers claim that Obama Jr. lost his United States citizenship by living in Indonesia or because they claim he was adopted in Indonesia (doesn't matter), that that caused him to be naturalized as an Indonesian citizen resulting in his loss of US Citizenship. That is also incorrect. According the the INA of 1952, a parent cannot take any action (as in naturalizing a child in another country) that would cause a minor child to loose their US citizenship. So no matter what happened in Indonesia, Obama retrained his US Citizenship.

If you are interested I can quote that section of the law also.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

obama's mother and fathers marriage has never been in question. Why the change now is there something that might show obama wasn't born in Hawaii?

Well of course Obama Sr. being married wouldn't be an issue in the birther talking points because if he was married at the time that he married Dunham that would make him a bygamist and invalidate the second marriage. The section of the INA of 1952 (Section 301(7)) that man birthers have hung their hat on because of Dunhams age at the time of Obama Jrs birth would evaporate.

I follow along and discuss interesting aspects of the law, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 and won't be voting for him in 2012.

There are times that interesting questions come up concerning the law, then I like to go research them on my own. It's amazing how many times people believe talking points without actually checking what the law says. For example, many birthers claim that Obama Jr. lost his United States citizenship by living in Indonesia or because they claim he was adopted in Indonesia (doesn't matter), that that caused him to be naturalized as an Indonesian citizen resulting in his loss of US Citizenship. That is also incorrect. According the the INA of 1952, a parent cannot take any action (as in naturalizing a child in another country) that would cause a minor child to loose their US citizenship. So no matter what happened in Indonesia, Obama retrained his US Citizenship.

If you are interested I can quote that section of the law also.



>>>>

I follow along and discuss interesting aspects of the law, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 and won't be voting for him in 2012.

No one asked you and what does it matter yet you had to make it known that you did not vote for obama? I would never had guessed that but now since you went out of your way to make it known you must have in fact voted for him.

It's like the old discussion line about race.
When people start off with My best friend is black thats when I roll my eyes and walk away.

 

[JFK_USA]

Why should someone private birth certificate been available to the public when it hasn't before? I think its a bunch of racist people pissed off that a black man became president.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No one asked you and what does it matter yet you had to make it known that you did not vote for obama? I would never had guessed that but now since you went out of your way to make it known you must have in fact voted for him.

Nope I just like the audience to know that there are non-gullible Republicans out there, not just ones that swallow talking points they are fed.


>>>>

 

[gekaap]

You think you're oh so clever, that OMGITMUSTBEACONSPIRACY!!! Never stopped to consider that what you're seeing are normal differences in apparent color do to lighting. I get it, you're blind. Either that, or your monitor was made in 1986. Either way, the first picture very clearly shows two crease lines, and even a hint of the actual bluish color of the document. The last picture is a cropping and blow up of the first. The signature stamp does not appear on the first because it is on the reverse of the certificate. Tell you what, save the picture to your hard drive, and open it with paint, and view it at full size. The creases are extremely clear. I'll even highlight it for you here.

Shows the creases in the paper. Notice the edge of the paper does not maintain a straight line, and instead exhibits a clear elbow, indicating a crease. Notice that the crease goes outward from the front of the document, indicating that the top 1/3 folds to the back.

Shows crease lines on either side of the state seal. A clear line of discoloration also appears through the seal, indicating a crease. Compare to the close up of the 3-D seal. The location of the crease is perfectly consistent with that seen in the first picture, as well as the direction of the crease, which shows that the picture is being viewed from the back, where the 3 dimensional aspect is most easily seen in photograph because of the ink on the front of the document.

Discoloration in photograph reveals bluish color of document despite poor lighting masking the color otherwise.

 

[Yurt]

Why should someone private birth certificate been available to the public when it hasn't before? I think its a bunch of racist people pissed off that a black man became president.

actually, you're the racist, because you have to use his skin color as somehow making him less than any other president

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one asked you and what does it matter yet you had to make it known that you did not vote for obama? I would never had guessed that but now since you went out of your way to make it known you must have in fact voted for him.

Nope I just like the audience to know that there are non-gullible Republicans out there, not just ones that swallow talking points they are fed.


>>>>

No one asked so there was no need to mention it. gullible would be someone who excepts the first thing they are told

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You think you're oh so clever, that OMGITMUSTBEACONSPIRACY!!! Never stopped to consider that what you're seeing are normal differences in apparent color do to lighting. I get it, you're blind. Either that, or your monitor was made in 1986. Either way, the first picture very clearly shows two crease lines, and even a hint of the actual bluish color of the document. The last picture is a cropping and blow up of the first. The signature stamp does not appear on the first because it is on the reverse of the certificate. Tell you what, save the picture to your hard drive, and open it with paint, and view it at full size. The creases are extremely clear. I'll even highlight it for you here.

Shows the creases in the paper. Notice the edge of the paper does not maintain a straight line, and instead exhibits a clear elbow, indicating a crease. Notice that the crease goes outward from the front of the document, indicating that the top 1/3 folds to the back.

Shows crease lines on either side of the state seal. A clear line of discoloration also appears through the seal, indicating a crease. Compare to the close up of the 3-D seal. The location of the crease is perfectly consistent with that seen in the first picture, as well as the direction of the crease, which shows that the picture is being viewed from the back, where the 3 dimensional aspect is most easily seen in photograph because of the ink on the front of the document.

This one
Discoloration in photograph reveals bluish color of document despite poor lighting masking the color otherwise.

That is not the notory seal of Hawaii. sorry but keep trying, it's not on the piece of paper. The one image you used with the notory seal is not the same document in the full view picture. The fold in the paper I was talking about was the one with the motory seal on it there is no notorey seal on the full version.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No one asked so there was no need to mention it.

I wanted to mention it, so there was a need. You don't get to define what I do or do not post.

Sorry.


(Actually that would have been a "want" not a "need". There is a difference.)

gullible would be someone who excepts the first thing they are told

Which is why I'm not gullible, I don't accept the first thing I'm told. Unlike some others.



>>>>

 

[gekaap]

That is not the notory seal of Hawaii. sorry but keep trying, it's not on the piece of paper. The one image you used with the notory seal is not the same document in the full view picture.

Now you're just becoming pathetic. Yes it is the seal. Yes it is there. And it's right in front of your face. Denying the fact does not do you any good. You're just making a complete ass out of yourself by trying to convince everyone that the sky is hot pink with yellow polka dots.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That is not the notory seal of Hawaii. sorry but keep trying, it's not on the piece of paper. The one image you used with the notory seal is not the same document in the full view picture.

Now you're just becoming pathetic. Yes it is the seal. Yes it is there. And it's right in front of your face. Denying the fact does not do you any good. You're just making a complete ass out of yourself by trying to convince everyone that the sky is hot pink with yellow polka dots.

Pathetic? You showed one image that had a noroty seal AND THE BIGGER IMAGE DID NOT HAVE A NOROTY SEAL AT THE FOLD IN THE PAPER. NOW THATS PATHETIC

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one asked so there was no need to mention it.

I wanted to mention it, so there was a need. You don't get to define what I do or do not post.

Sorry.


(Actually that would have been a "want" not a "need". There is a difference.)

gullible would be someone who excepts the first thing they are told

Which is why I'm not gullible, I don't accept the first thing I'm told. Unlike some others.



>>>>

I wanted to mention it, so there was a need. You don't get to define what I do or do not post.

Sorry.

Nope doesn't work that way those who volunteer information are in fact doing exactly what they say they didn't do. I learned that years ago in BLET. Criminal investigation.

Which is why I'm not gullible, I don't accept the first thing I'm told. Unlike some others.

I fail to understand why he did not show his birth certificate when he was first asked to show it. It took almost a year for him to produce the papers he did produce.

 

[gekaap]

Pathetic? You showed one image that had a noroty seal AND THE BIGGER IMAGE DID NOT HAVE A NOROTY SEAL AT THE FOLD IN THE PAPER. NOW THATS PATHETIC

Wait, wait, wait.....You just said that there was no fold in the paper. Now you say there is. Make up your mind! And do you not see the big seal in the middle of the page? You want to complain because the reverse side is used to show the 3D indentation? You sound even more stupid than Dan Quayle misspelling potato.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pathetic? You showed one image that had a noroty seal AND THE BIGGER IMAGE DID NOT HAVE A NOROTY SEAL AT THE FOLD IN THE PAPER. NOW THATS PATHETIC

Wait, wait, wait.....You just said that there was no fold in the paper. Now you say there is. Make up your mind! And do you not see the big seal in the middle of the page? You want to complain because the reverse side is used to show the 3D indentation? You sound even more stupid than Dan Quayle misspelling potato.

There is no notory seal at the fold on the full version you used. That is what I ment. If there is a notory seal on the full version point to it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope doesn't work that way those who volunteer information are in fact doing exactly what they say they didn't do. I learned that years ago in BLET. Criminal investigation.

This is an internet message board not a Basic Law Enforcement Training class. If you want to psychoanalyze someone, you should find a sexual abuser support group. There might be people there that need you.

I fail to understand why he did not show his birth certificate when he was first asked to show it. It took almost a year for him to produce the papers he did produce.

Probably the same reason McCain wouldn't release his.

The truth is, I don't know either. In a certain way it would have made sense, release it, squash the rumors.

On the other hand I have a sneaking suspicion. Obama's a Chicago politician, which means when you've got some "dirt" on an opponent you use it at the correct time to your maximum advantage while providing maximum embarrassment to your opponent. So early on if he'd released his birth certificate when the bru-ha-ha started - it would have quickly faded to a burp and then it would have been done and over with.

Now I don't have facts to support this, this is just my opinion, but assuming Obama was born in Hawaii - then he has the goods (i.e. a valid birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii showing he was born there). Now if he releases it just as the issue comes up (early in the election cycle) it would have been forgotten by election time. No advantage to Obama, all that would have happened is a few extreamists - who wouldn't have voted for him anyway - would have been made happy. So he doesn't release the paper birth certificate, hopping that the issue will become a huge, HUGE deal? Why, because just prior to the election he knows he can release it - make all the birthers look like idiots and use that to paint his opponent with the same brush. Birthers are now such a fringe group that there is not upside for Obama to release them now, he can just hold his birth certificate in reserve if he needs it.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Prediction

1. Arizona does not have the balls to keep Obama off the ballot

2. Birthers will still whine

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, birthers, listen up.

There will be no state that will bar Obama from running.

End of story.

It's happen before.

Yes, it has. The likeliness of Obama not being on the ballot in all 50 states is as likely as the Mississippi River running backwards in 1811.

Romney will beat him even if he were on the ballot in 57 states.