birther alert! - they got a court date

I am 65 and I cannot remember the term 'African American' being used untill the late '70's. All through the '50's and 'early '60's, the terms "Colored" and 'Negro" seemed to be the most prevailent, followed by "Black' in the late 60's and 70's.

I wonder if someone has gethered up multitudes of Birth Certificates from the early '60's and seen just what they have on them. I would be willing to bet that none have "African American" the way the Presidents so called "birth certificate" does.

I am 65 and I cannot remember the term 'African American' being used untill the late '70's. All through the '50's and 'early '60's, the terms "Colored" and 'Negro" seemed to be the most prevailent, followed by "Black' in the late 60's and 70's.

I wonder if someone has gethered up multitudes of Birth Certificates from the early '60's and seen just what they have on them. I would be willing to bet that none have "African American" the way the Presidents so called "birth certificate" does. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Makes you want to say "hmmmm" doesn't it?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2962878

So does it say "African American" or just "African"? If "African" it's understandable even though it isn't a "race" per sae.

I guess Hillary's people have won a victory. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Her people won because after initially examining the evidence, they knew it was a non-issue and to drop it. Plus they won because the birthers are still running with it. The Donald even screwed the birthers by saying the investigators he sent to Hawaii found no proof Obama was born there. Except Trump didn’t send any investigators or hire any there.

Those birthers believe anything.

http://www.infowars.com/birthers-hai...-depose-obama/

Looks like the birthers finally scored with this judge. From the looks of it, Obama will have to testify in court to disprove the allegations. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

This is simple. Hawaii uses a certain document as proof of birth in their state. They will give it to the court.
Will the court say “no, we want the “X” version”? Hawaii will say “sorry, that’s the document we use”. Like they already have.

You gotta love the folks who don’t believe the Hawaiians themselves. They will submit the same documents they already have shown numerous times. They will swear to it in court they are real. The birthers will then have to prove them wrong. Where will they get evidence the Hawaiians are lying? Why from the Hawaiians, of course.

Obama won’t have to step foot in court.

BO is purposely making this a controversy. He adds fuel to it on purpose.

This way he can keep calling people that disagree with him racists. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

No , we can call you ignorant and if you weren't so ignorant , you'd know the difference


Hey all you birthers, I just got a call from Will Smith of Men in Black fame. He said for me to inform all you ignorant birthers to meet him at area 51 next Friday for a William Shatner meet n greet. Zulu will be there for all you Log Cabin birthers....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xSOuLky3n0

It's ironic to equate the "birthers" with the swift boaters. The so called swift boaters destroyed John Kerry's presidential hopes by telling truth about his bogus war record. To equate the two groups is a badge of honor for the birthers.

You guys on the left don't usually appreciate irony. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I see you were one of the Kool aid sippers.Tom Olliphont(sp) of the Bosotn Globe researched this when he( Kerry) ran for the Senate.at that time there was only one .By the time of the campaign there were a hundred actors hired for the political ad.Was the same as the book Unfit to serv.the author was on PBS and when he was confronted that the book was untrue his reply was "It didn't matter we got it out before the election"

Amazing isn't it? I put ekim on ignore the day he posted that he wasn't right or left, just a middle of the road moderate, roflmao, some road he's in the middle of. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Weak weak typical birther response

I see you were one of the Kool aid sippers.Tom Olliphont(sp) of the Bosotn Globe researched this when he( Kerry) ran for the Senate.at that time there was only one .By the time of the campaign there were a hundred actors hired for the political ad.Was the same as the book Unfit to serv.the author was on PBS and when he was confronted that the book was untrue his reply was "It didn't matter we got it out before the election" Originally Posted by ekim008

\

The authors of "Unfit for Command" are John O'Neil and Jerome Corsi. As far as I know neither one of them has retracted any allegation made in the book.

I think you are a liar.

I am 65 and I cannot remember the term 'African American' being used untill the late '70's. All through the '50's and 'early '60's, the terms "Colored" and 'Negro" seemed to be the most prevailent, followed by "Black' in the late 60's and 70's.

I wonder if someone has gethered up multitudes of Birth Certificates from the early '60's and seen just what they have on them. I would be willing to bet that none have "African American" the way the Presidents so called "birth certificate" does. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Who cares what they were called............wait for it..............
anywhere besides Hawaii? Just there.
Any place else is just a matter of idle curiosity.

Makes you want to say "hmmmm" doesn't it?
CNN tracked down the guy listed within 1 or 2 places of Obama on the birth announcements in the paper. They followed him as he gathered documents and ulitimately got a copy of his birth certificate. They went to 5 or 6 agencies and at each one they asked if any "investigators" had been by checking on documents for Obama. None had visited the offices. So much for Trumps claims.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2962878

So does it say "African American" or just "African"? If "African" it's understandable even though it isn't a "race" per sae. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Read much guys?
African is used to describe his father's race. On the Certificate it lists Kenya, East Africa under father's place of birth.
There is no indication of race of the child on the certificate or the certification.

It's ironic to equate the "birthers" with the swift boaters. The so called swift boaters destroyed John Kerry's presidential hopes by telling truth about his bogus war record. To equate the two groups is a badge of honor for the birthers.

You guys on the left don't usually appreciate irony. Originally Posted by joe bloe

http://www.factcheck.org/republican-...ar_record.html

equating the two is actually quite similar other than who's writing the checks

I am 65 and I cannot remember the term 'African American' being used untill the late '70's. All through the '50's and 'early '60's, the terms "Colored" and 'Negro" seemed to be the most prevailent, followed by "Black' in the late 60's and 70's.

I wonder if someone has gethered up multitudes of Birth Certificates from the early '60's and seen just what they have on them. I would be willing to bet that none have "African American" the way the Presidents so called "birth certificate" does. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You also have to realize that black =/= African American. Some black folks are strictly African, West Indian, Hispanic [You can be latino and black they aren't mutually exclusive] Black is in reference to a skin tone while african american is an ethnicity.

http://www.factcheck.org/republican-...ar_record.html

equating the two is actually quite similar other than who's writing the checks Originally Posted by budman33

The main difference between the 2 is the birthers refuse to see what is in front of their face. The swift boaters put spin on events from 30+ years before that they never bothered to say shit about before the money showed up.

Boaters? Birthers?
Both start with a B and both have ulterior motives.

This is stupid. Who gives a rat's ass about the birth certificate at this point? If he were to be removed from office based on his birth certificate, he would be a martyr, and people would flock to him. I'd rather have him exposed for the fraud he is, and sent packing in disgrace. People need to rise up and say "Hell No! You won't take our freedom away!" "You will NOT indefinitely detain us without habeas corpus!" "And you will not flaunt the Constitution just because OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS disagree with your programs!"

Forget about the birth certificate, and deal with the issues at hand. This is too important to be led around by these morons and their "birth certificate" pseudo-controversy.

<snip>

Obama won’t have to step foot in court. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

of course, his lawyers will take care of that.

This is stupid. Who gives a rat's ass about the birth certificate at this point? If he were to be removed from office based on his birth certificate, he would be a martyr, and people would flock to him. I'd rather have him exposed for the fraud he is, and sent packing in disgrace. People need to rise up and say "Hell No! You won't take our freedom away!" "You will NOT indefinitely detain us without habeas corpus!" "And you will not flaunt the Constitution just because OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS disagree with your programs!"

Forget about the birth certificate, and deal with the issues at hand. This is too important to be led around by these morons and their "birth certificate" pseudo-controversy. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

TL;DR The President’s opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don’t seem to realize they’ve been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.
He signed it because if he didn’t, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I’ll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President’s wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.
You’ll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn’t coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President’s stated mandate - they are effectively a giant ‘fuck you’ to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President’s support with his own base. Observe:
Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.
Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.
Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)
Here’s where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party’s base and the opposition’s. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to ‘Keep America safe’ and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent’s liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that’s what they care about most. You’ve designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don’t even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.
Pass the ‘parent’ legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military’s operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent’s base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won’t matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.
Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It’s a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.
This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don’t know or don’t care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this ‘corporate shill’, congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don’t seem to see that. You don’t have to like your country’s two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it’s being used like this.
EDIT: thanks to Reddit user Mauve_Cubedweller for this post

of course, his lawyers will take care of that. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Just like mine or yours would.