patrick.net

OK, yeah, Ill screw with them a little more.

Here is a line of discussion I have not seen pursued.

Suppose he wasn't born in America. Someone comes up with incontrovertible proof of this (Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort.) So anyway, I was saying that the entire population of the world, including Obama, agrees that he was not born on US soil.

Waddayougonnadoaboutit?

Impeach him? The way they impeached Clinton? ;) Imagine you do impeach him, and manage to get him to leave office; you get Biden for your troubles.

Stop being so short sighted. All of your wordplay cannot give credence to this absurd topic. Bow you friggen head and move on. There are other battles to be fought, birthers lost this one. Of course we all know that none of them have any intent beyond misdirection and provocation.

The foot soldiers who fight for this cause are tools. Tools and slaves.

Actually if it came out that President Obama lied about being a US citizen at birth, that is a prima-facie slam-dunk instant impeachment, and I would fully support it.

That's why I don't dismiss all this crap 100%. The birthers have every right to verify the Certification of Live Birth is not fraudulent.

Troy says

Actually if it came out that President Obama lied about being a US citizen at birth...

...he'd be a fucking child prodigy well beyond any other child, ever. Even my kids (who were the smartest and cutest kids in the entire world, with the possible exception of my future grandchildren) couldn't speak at birth.

frodo says

Someone comes up with incontrovertible proof of this (Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort.)

Stop right there, young man! Just by saying "Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort" you've provided incontrovertible proof that "Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort" exists, thereby completely nullifying your argument about the doubtfulness of the concept.

Meanwhile, Simchaland skirts the issue (sorry, didn't mean to call your manhood into question but "pants" the issue simply doesn't make sense, nor does "tighty-whities...") that I raised: What kind of chocolate?

bob2356 says

simchaland says

I love chocolate.

Good point.

Bob weighs in now - it's a conspiracy!

What I don't understand is, why are the Birthers pussyfooting around with this LAWYER nonsense.

They want the man out of office ASAP, there are long-established and cheap ways to achieve that. Steer an irresistible intern into the office, or have one of his opponents challenge him to a duel, or heck just BLOW HIS BRAINS OUT with a sniper rifle. Some Teabagger at a recent town hall sounded like he was putting out feelers for the right candidate for that job:

http://athenscms.com/blogs/2487/

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

I saw a picture of the Kenyan Interloper drinking water - PROOF POSITIVE that he is a hybridized plant designed to look like a human, developed by extraterrestrials.
This is EXACTLY what happened in an episode of the Dick Van Dyke show in which Rob found out that Laura was an alien!
PROOF at LAST!

Endoftheworldprocreator has a point - Lucy Arnaz was the Vitameatavegamin girl, and the next thing you know Dezi was gone... MTM got her own new show which was much more popular than the Hope Lange/Dick Van Dyke show... and Jerry Van Dyke's mother was a car until he got a coaching job... It all leads to the obvious:

Obama is part of a sitcom - there will be a sequel starring Michelle and her new husband, Bam Margera - it'll be called Bam's house. Crazy goings on will happen, with Michelle holding down the fort while Bam and his crew run amuck in Washington. Sasha & Melia become goth... this, while Barak traces his roots on a teevee show and finds out that he's really Dutch-Irish with a heavy tan.

Excuse me, I've got to take my meds now.

Shrekgrinch has company. One of the 2012 Presidential hopefuls has come out to say he believes Obama was born in Kenya!

Huck-a-bee. Huck-a-bee. Huck-a-bee.

The Republican primary debates are going to be a hoot as these fools stammer around talking about inane differences between birth certificates and magic long forms as the President gives speaches addressing the foreign policy of the nation.

I wonder who's going to look more Presidential? Hmmmm...

Anyone else just skim past all of nosf41's 18th century jibber jabber and legalese posts? He puts a lot of thought and work into the Birther conspiracy and I feel guilty for not educating myself on the minutiae he clearly cares so much about.

Then I remember Abraham Lincoln had no birth certificate, no certificate of live birth, no long form, no short form, no medium form, no proof of natural born citizenship, no proof of citizenship via birth, no citizenship papers, and no record at all of his entry into the world within the borders of the United States.

From the Southern Gentleman's Slavery Gazette in 1862:

Tis a sorrowful Day in the Republic as We, peoples Free and White, Ponder the ineligibility of the President of the United States. Master Lincoln continues to fail to provide the Lengthy scribe Journal proving his Birth in our Fair Republic! I dare Say this Man may Not be a Man atall, But a Clever slave baby Who crept Silently into the Lincoln families Log Cabin Under the cover of A Dark and Clouded Moon!

Poor Troy is the only guy willing to get into the weeds with this stuff.

Ditto, no patience for the long screeds.

Whole swaths of generations of Americans had little proof of their birth or life history, beyond notes scribbled in the blank pages of the Family Bible, and maybe some headstones.

SoCal Renter says

Anyone else just skim past all of nosf41’s 18th century jibber jabber and legalese posts? He puts a lot of thought and work into the Birther conspiracy and I feel guilty for not educating myself on the minutiae he clearly cares so much about.
Then I remember Abraham Lincoln had no birth certificate, no certificate of live birth, no long form, no short form, no medium form, no proof of natural born citizenship, no proof of citizenship via birth, no citizenship papers, and no record at all of his entry into the world within the borders of the United States.
From the Southern Gentleman’s Slavery Gazette in 1862:

Tis a sorrowful Day in the Republic as We, peoples Free and White, Ponder the ineligibility of the President of the United States. Master Lincoln continues to fail to provide the Lengthy scribe Journal proving his Birth in our Fair Republic! I dare Say this Man may Not be a Man atall, But a Clever slave baby Who crept Silently into the Lincoln families Log Cabin Under the cover of A Dark and Clouded Moon!

Poor Troy is the only guy willing to get into the weeds with this stuff.

Don't the personal cards that proclaim Lincoln's mother is no longer with child and therefore ready to resume working as a shopgirl count for something? Have we become so jaded that we don't count the whittling Lincoln's father wrote on the cabin walls as a proclamation of live birth?

Jeesh, youse guys...

elliemae says
Don’t the personal cards that proclaim Lincoln’s mother is no longer with child and therefore ready to resume working as a shopgirl count for something? Have we become so jaded that we don’t count the whittling Lincoln’s father wrote on the cabin walls as a proclamation of live birth?
Jeesh, youse guys…

Forgeries by Lincoln's operatives. Anyone can simply put out a fake newspaper birth announcement or a fake personal card. A southern slave catching expert in 1862 examined the whittlings on the cabin walls and reported that the crude marks were clearly made by a devious slave child.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence that Lincoln was not eligible to be President of the United States. When the rest of the Tea Party finally gets into Congress, they will be able to rectify this situation and show that the South actually won the Civil War because all of Lincoln's decisions were illegal.

SoCal Renter says

There is a tremendous amount of evidence that Lincoln was not eligible to be President of the United States. When the rest of the Tea Party finally gets into Congress, they will be able to rectify this situation and show that the South actually won the Civil War because all of Lincoln’s decisions were illegal.

I would faithfully submit that George Washington wasn't eligible to run as president because he wasn't born in the United States of America! He was born February 22, 1732, yet the USofA became a country in 1776. His entire presidency (which began in 1789) should be stricken from the record, and every piece of legislation including the Bill of Rights (1791) is no longer valid.

...and every presidency until that of Martin Van Buren, who was born in 1782, doesn't count either. Then, we took a step backward with Wm Henry Harrison who was born a full three years before the USA was born. So his presidency doesn't count either.

It's a fucking conspiracy at the highest levels, why can't youse guys see that?

Tenouncetrout says

I find it Ironic, I’ve heard every side to this story 10 ways to Sunday, and have yet to hear the commandeered and Chief, officially say or do anything on the subject. That’s messed up for a guy that is supposed to be a leader, and talked about “bipartisanship’ early on. This isn’t some frivolous document in dispute here, it’s the BC of the President of the United States. By now, there should be an official page at the Whitehouse website specially dedicated to an official birth certificate.

Did George W. Bush have an official White House page specially dedicated to HIS birth certificate? Has ANY president had such a page?

shrekgrinch says

The only thing I have seen is a ’short form’ cert that by Hawaiian state law only means that Hawaii has the real, long form one or an out of state/out of country one filed.

Well, I looked through this whole disaster of a thread, and I do not see anywhere that you have provided any evidence for this statement. What is your proof that the certificate provided is a "short form" and that Hawaiian law says what you claim? Also, what is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?

gameisrigged says

What is your proof that the certificate provided is a “short form” and that Hawaiian law says what you claim? Also, what is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?

The difference is between "Certification of Live Birth" and "Certificate of Live Birth".

The former is the "short form" and is just a print out of data kept in the state's records.

It's also what the Obama campaign publicized back in 2008, and is all that the State of Hawaii is releasing to anyone who requests their birth certificate, since it is sufficient for the purposes of being a "birth certificate".

A "Certificate of Live Birth" is a photocopy of the original birth certificate as originally filed.

That Obama hasn't released that does allow the conspiracy theorists some room to charge fraud or whatever.

Troy says

The difference is between “Certification of Live Birth” and “Certificate of Live Birth”.
The former is the “short form” and is just a print out of data kept in the state’s records.
It’s also what the Obama campaign publicized back in 2008, and is all that the State of Hawaii is releasing to anyone who requests their birth certificate, since it is sufficient for the purposes of being a “birth certificate”.
A “Certificate of Live Birth” is a photocopy of the original birth certificate as originally filed.

You have simply re-stated the assertion. I asked for evidence that it is true, not just for the bald assertion to be repeated. I understand the CLAIM that is being made, but I do not see any reason that I ought to believe said claim.

Merely SAYING a thing does not make it true.

So again, I am asking him:

What is your proof that the certificate provided is a “short form” and that Hawaiian law says what you claim? Also, what is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?

gameisrigged says

You have simply re-stated the assertion. I asked for evidence that it is true, not just for the bald assertion to be repeated...Also, what is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?

Game, you crack me up. What Troy said is as easy to verify as the fact that the legal drinking age in California is 21. And BTW, look again. He did not even assert that it was not valid proof.

gameisrigged says

What is your proof that the certificate provided is a “short form”

Dude, if you look at it:

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

you can see the "birth certificate" Obama released is just a laser print-out ("Certification of Live Birth"), assumedly from the State of Hawaii, since they haven't said otherwise.

What the birthers want to see is what was filled out and filed with the state back in '61.

It turns out the Nordyke twins were born in the same hospital one day away from Obama's birth, and the mother has shown the press what the "long form" "Certificate of Live Birth" looks like:

As for the supposition that the "long form" / "vault copy" / "Certificate of Live Birth" will show something like Obama having been born in Kenya, Canada, or that his original birth father wasn't really Obama Sr. is just a fishing expedition the right wants to go on.

Though if Obama was in fact born overseas there would be an interesting Constitutional issue, since by the law that existed in 1961 Obama's mother had not spent enough time in the US to qualify Obama for US citizenship at birth (no mother under the age of 19 would, and Stanley was still 18 when giving birth to Obama jr).

A later law passed in 1987 retroactively fixed this (much like a later law fixed any issue with McCain not being a US citizen at birth, having been born overseas), but it is an interesting constitutional issue as to whether Congress has the power to pass laws that grant retroactive natural-born citizenship.

That one could easily go either way. I can argue both sides of that question pretty easily.

I'm curious, tho. If the requirements are that the president must have been born in the US, were there provisions for the first few who (by definition) weren't born in the US?

elliemae says

were there provisions for the first few who (by definition) weren’t born in the US?

yes, anyone holding US citizenship at the ratification was also explicitly eligible for POTUS.

MarkInSF says

Game, you crack me up. What Troy said is as easy to verify as the fact that the legal drinking age in California is 21. And BTW, look again. He did not even assert that it was not valid proof.

You crack ME up.

For the third time, What I asked SHREKGRINCH was:

What is your proof that the certificate provided is a “short form” and that Hawaiian law says what you claim? Also, what is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?

Didn't ask Troy; didn't ask you.

MarkInSF says

What Troy said is as easy to verify as the fact that the legal drinking age in California is 21. And BTW, look again. He did not even assert that it was not valid proof.

Perhaps what I asked is easy to verify; perhaps it is not. I read the whole thread, and nobody has proven the answer to my questions.

And YOU look again. My questions were not addressed to Troy, so what Troy did or did not assert is irrelevant, as I was not talking to him.

Troy says

gameisrigged says

What is your proof that the certificate provided is a “short form”

Dude, if you look at it:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
you can see the “birth certificate” Obama released is just a laser print-out (”Certification of Live Birth”), assumedly from the State of Hawaii, since they haven’t said otherwise.
What the birthers want to see is what was filled out and filed with the state back in ‘61.
It turns out the Nordyke twins were born in the same hospital one day away from Obama’s birth, and the mother has shown the press what the “long form” “Certificate of Live Birth” looks like:

As for the supposition that the “long form” / “vault copy” / “Certificate of Live Birth” will show something like Obama having been born in Kenya, Canada, or that his original birth father wasn’t really Obama Sr. is just a fishing expedition the right wants to go on.

Well that's a start. I see there may be two different kinds of forms, but I don't see any evidence that Hawaiian law considers one more valid than the other, or that one is called "short" and the other "long"..... dude.

It's clear the intent of "citizen" is that the person owe primary allegiance to THIS country and be looking out for it's interests. That Tories could not easily just sweep an election and make King George the president, thus turning the fledgeling USA back into a colony. It's a common misconception that everyone in the US was on board with this Revolution thing. I feel satisfied that Obama owes his allegiance to this country and is acting in what he believes will best serve it. Birtherism is just sour grapes from people who spend FAR too much time armchair lawyering in the false belief that if they argue long & loud enough they can convince us the Earth is flat.

gameisrigged says

And YOU look again. My questions were not addressed to Troy, so what Troy did or did not assert is irrelevant, as I was not talking to him.

But...but...but you WERE talking to him. You're throwing your thoughts & ideas out there into the atmosphere and they're landing on this forum. You do understand that you're not having a personal conversation with anyone - right?

If you'd like to have a personal conversation with someone, I would suggest you click on "befriend" and once that person accepts, you'll exchange emails. At that point, you'll be having a personal conversation. But right now, your comments are up for grabs.

FYI.

...or you could call each other, go out for coffee dates, and continue this asinine conversation about Obama's birth certificate. I'm sure that'd be a blast.

Vicente says

Birtherism is just sour grapes from people who spend FAR too much time armchair lawyering in the false belief it matters.

It's also a form of character assassination, a direct attack on his "American" cred.

Huckabee, who has a pretty decent chance of being president in two years, recently baldly asserted that Obama was raised in Kenya (that whole Obama being influenced by third-world "anti-colonial" radicalism).

The problem isn't that the right is utterly detached from reality, the problem is that 30-40% of the electorate are buying into this alternate reality.

I'm actually structuring my life to GTFO of here should Huckabee, Palin, or any other conservative nut happen to take the Presidency, since I think there's a good chance the Dems are going to lose the Senate too.

I tried Chinese for a year, maybe I should study Swedish or Norwegian instead. The Scandinavians are really fluent in English of course but it doesn't hurt to know the language of your host country.

Or maybe mother England might work. Wish Japan had its economic act together, they'd be a no-brainer to return to for me. (Back in 1992 I *thought* I was leaving a failing economy for a stronger one, but I was a wee bit off on that)

gameisrigged says

but I don’t see any evidence that Hawaiian law considers one more valid than the other, or that one is called “short” and the other “long”….. dude.

Just trying to help everyone here, ya know?

"Short" vs "long" forms are not controversial, here is what wikipedia was saying about them on Feb 10, 2007, the day Obama announced his candidacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birth_certificate&oldid=107176929#Types_of_certification

As for Hawaiian law, they only give out the short form now so the short form is good enough for getting a US passport etc.

I think other state's attempts to require a "long form" birth certificate to register for President or VP will fail, but we'll see.

The birthers smell fire here and want to see what Obama's long form says. It could possibly have material facts that Obama has hidden or misrepresented. Paydirt would be him not actually being born in Hawaii at all, or being able to construe what's on the form as indicating that (eg no attending doctor signature).

Hawaii did in fact in the past request those desiring to prove aborigine Hawaiian ancestry to submit their "long form" not "short form" birth certificate. This doesn't make the long form more "valid", but like I said above, the more information the birthers have the more they can construe it into questions about Obama's history.

elliemae says

But…but…but you WERE talking to him. You’re throwing your thoughts & ideas out there into the atmosphere and they’re landing on this forum. You do understand that you’re not having a personal conversation with anyone - right?

Uh, no dear. If I ask SHREKGRINCH the following question:

"What is your evidence that this form is not valid proof of birth?"

That does not mean I am claiming TROY said it isn't valid proof.

You do get that if I say something about a particular person and mention him by name, it doesn't apply to everyone. They're free to answer, but what I say about someone else doesn't transfer to them. God, PLEASE tell me you understand that....

BTW, is there some reason why everyone here feels compelled to defend Shrekgrinch? A few posts back you were mercilessly attacking him.

Do you perhaps just thrive on conflict, no matter which side you have to take to cause it?

Troy says

gameisrigged says

but I don’t see any evidence that Hawaiian law considers one more valid than the other, or that one is called “short” and the other “long”….. dude.

Just trying to help everyone here, ya know?

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't.

gameisrigged says

BTW, is there some reason why everyone here feels compelled to defend Shrekgrinch?

answering questions of fact isn't "defending" someone, it's raising the level of discourse.

You should look into that, chum.

Troy says

gameisrigged says

BTW, is there some reason why everyone here feels compelled to defend Shrekgrinch?

answering questions of fact isn’t “defending” someone, it’s raising the level of discourse.
You should look into that, chum.

Bullshit.

gameisrigged says

Do you perhaps just thrive on conflict, no matter which side you have to take to cause it?

Drilling down into the facts of the matter isn't "conflict", it's conflict resolution, something I enjoy doing.

I've actually learned a lot in the year+ I've been on this site.

You can't learn if you don't address the other side's arguments head-on, and you also can't learn if you knee-jerk defend arguments of people you generally agree with.

I have also learned something. I have learned that I don't need to waste my time having an inane passive-aggressive conversation with Troy.

gameisrigged says

BTW, is there some reason why everyone here feels compelled to defend Shrekgrinch? A few posts back you were mercilessly attacking him.

It does take a special poster to get everyone to defend Shrek.. You appear to be just the right person...

People here assume that when you post a question, you are genuinely looking for the answer. And aren't that concerned about who gives the answer, as long as it's correct. Doesn't that seem logical?

gameisrigged says

You do get that if I say something about a particular person and mention him by name, it doesn’t apply to everyone. They’re free to answer, but what I say about someone else doesn’t transfer to them. God, PLEASE tell me you understand that….

Oh, gamer, I do understand that everyone is free to answer. That's because we're posting to a forum, which is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum). But the fallacy of your post above is that, since this is an open forum, everything that you say can be answered by anyone & everyone.

If you want to have a closed discussion between yourself & shrek, you two should exchange emails, meet for lunch, or get a room. Otherwise, don't be surprised if someone else answers one of your posts.

gameisrigged says

BTW, is there some reason why everyone here feels compelled to defend Shrekgrinch?

Troy says

Answering questions of fact isn’t “defending” someone, it’s raising the level of discourse.

To that statement I might add that answering a post is a method of participating in the discussion.

gameisrigged says

Do you perhaps just thrive on conflict, no matter which side you have to take to cause it?

When one posts to a forum, it's usually to state an opinion. Often the opinion doesn't agree with the previous post - which contributes to the discourse. I'm not taking sides, I'm just here for the beer.

Troy says

Though if Obama was in fact born overseas there would be an interesting Constitutional issue, since by the law that existed in 1961 Obama’s mother had not spent enough time in the US to qualify Obama for US citizenship at birth (no mother under the age of 19 would, and Stanley was still 18 when giving birth to Obama jr).
A later law passed in 1987 retroactively fixed this (much like a later law fixed any issue with McCain not being a US citizen at birth, having been born overseas), but it is an interesting constitutional issue as to whether Congress has the power to pass laws that grant retroactive natural-born citizenship.

You are wrong. It is not interesting at all. It's worse than Clinton trying to define what "is" is. It's a parsing of words to such a degree that sane and reasonable human beings find it excruciatingly tedious and pedantic. It violates the Founders intent and lawyers around and monkeys with established law using suspect logic.

Thankfully, this "issue" rages on! I am starting to believe Birthers are actually Obama agents who've infiltrated the opposition to derail them with a bizarre and dimwitted election strategy.

And to repeat gameisrigged, no one in this discussion has shown any evidence that there is any difference per Hawaiian or Federal law between Certificates of Live Birth, Birth Certifications, Birth Certificates, short forms, magic "long" forms, or Live Birth Certifications.

However, it has been clearly established that Shrekgrinch is a Birther and believes in fantasy nutwing conspiracies.

Now, please explain why Obama has not produced the extra-long form. You know he's got one. :)

SoCal Renter says

It is not interesting at all.

I find the 'debate' about whether Obama was born in Hawaii tiresome, yes.

My above was referring to whether eg. Congress had the power to make McCain a 'natural born citizen' ex-post facto.

I think that is an interesting case to argue, since the argument can go either way depending on how you look at it.

please explain why Obama has not produced the extra-long form.

you are just belittling the birthers' desire to see Obama's long form apparently w/o understanding why they are doing this.

There is no legal difference between short form and long form, but the long form is harder to forge or fraudulently create via database tampering, since it has more information about the birth circumstances and is a copy of the original document filed in 1961. Those trying to dig dirt up on Obama would also like to see the long form in the off-chance that Obama's growing-up story is a lie. Given Obama's mother's rather volatile life while Obama was growing up, this is not inconceivable.

This is dirty politics, but it's also what Republicans do -- win at all costs.

Troy says

SoCal Renter says

It is not interesting at all.

I find the ‘debate’ about whether Obama was born in Hawaii tiresome, yes.
My above was referring to whether eg. Congress had the power to make McCain a ‘natural born citizen’ ex-post facto.
I think that is an interesting case to argue, since the argument can go either way depending on how you look at it.
please explain why Obama has not produced the extra-long form.
you are just belittling the birthers’ desire to see Obama’s long form apparently w/o understanding why they are doing this.
There is no legal difference between short form and long form, but the long form is harder to forge or fraudulently create via database tampering, since it has more information about the birth circumstances and is a copy of the original document filed in 1961. Those trying to dig dirt up on Obama would also like to see the long form in the off-chance that Obama’s growing-up story is a lie. Given Obama’s mother’s rather volatile life while Obama was growing up, this is not inconceivable.
This is dirty politics, but it’s also what Republicans do — win at all costs.

There is no question that Obama's growing up story contains a lot of fiction. His mother never lived with his father - just few weeks after his birth (in August 1961) she moved to Seattle and returned to Honolulu after Obama Sr left to attend Harvard.

In addition Obama attended the third grade in Honolulu (in 1969), not in Indonesia as it was presented to the public.

You assume that the long form birth certificate exists, which is not very likely given the fact that investigation launched by Hawaii Gov. Abercrombie could not find it in the archive - they found something "actually written down" as a proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii.

Abercrombie's goal was to prove birthers wrong - suddenly he stopped talking about the issue. He would not even release the full birth registration index (which does not require Obama's consent). Hawaii DoH can confirm whether Obama's birth was registered on August 8, 1961, registration number 10641, without breaking any laws.

They have refused to make this information public. Abercrombie's behavior is not consistent with his promise when he became a new Hawaii Governor.

nosf41 says

Troy says

SoCal Renter says

It is not interesting at all.

I find the ‘debate’ about whether Obama was born in Hawaii tiresome, yes.
My above was referring to whether eg. Congress had the power to make McCain a ‘natural born citizen’ ex-post facto.
I think that is an interesting case to argue, since the argument can go either way depending on how you look at it.
please explain why Obama has not produced the extra-long form.
you are just belittling the birthers’ desire to see Obama’s long form apparently w/o understanding why they are doing this.
There is no legal difference between short form and long form, but the long form is harder to forge or fraudulently create via database tampering, since it has more information about the birth circumstances and is a copy of the original document filed in 1961. Those trying to dig dirt up on Obama would also like to see the long form in the off-chance that Obama’s growing-up story is a lie. Given Obama’s mother’s rather volatile life while Obama was growing up, this is not inconceivable.
This is dirty politics, but it’s also what Republicans do — win at all costs.

There is no question that Obama’s growing up story contains a lot of fiction. His mother never lived with his father - just few weeks after his birth (in August 1961) she moved to Seattle and returned to Honolulu after Obama Sr left to attend Harvard.
In addition Obama attended the third grade in Honolulu (in 1969), not in Indonesia as it was presented to the public.
You assume that the long form birth certificate exists, which is not very likely given the fact that investigation launched by Hawaii Gov. Abercrombie could not find it in the archive - they found something “actually written down” as a proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
Abercrombie’s goal was to prove birthers wrong - suddenly he stopped talking about the issue. He would not even release the full birth registration index (which does not require Obama’s consent). Hawaii DoH can confirm whether Obama’s birth was registered on August 8, 1961, registration number 10641, without breaking any laws.
They have refused to make this information public. Abercrombie’s behavior is not consistent with his promise when he became a new Hawaii Governor.

Who cares about the fiction or non-fiction of Obama's self explained childhood? Remember, President Lincoln never had a birth certificate. At least Obama has that!

Hawaii DoH confirmed Obama's birth. Period. Abercrombie did exactly what he said he was going to do. It's the Birthers who keep moving the yardstick and demanding magical forms.

I am belittling Birther's call for the magic "long" form. It is silly. You admit that the reason Birther's are calling for the magic "long" form is that it's as a means of continuing dirty politics. Unfortunately for the Republicans, the dirt is getting on them.

It never dies! I may have to donate to Donald Trump's campaign. He will single-handedly ruin the Republican Party!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/23/donald_trump_to_obama_show_the_birth_certificate.html

"Everybody else has to. Excuse me. I really believe there is a birth certificate. Look, she's smiling. Why doesn't he show his birth certificate? I wish he would. I think it's a terrible pale hanging over him," Donald Trump told the ladies of "The View."

The Dumbass Donald should read Patrick.net. He would know that Obama has already shown his birth certificate. I love it! This will define Trump's campaign!

This is too rich!

It appears Donald Trump can't find his official birth certificate!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/donald-trump/what-is-donald-trump-trying-hide-us-563901

It’s inconceivable that, after four years of questioning, the president still hasn’t produced his birth certificate,” Trump told Newsmax. “I’m just asking President Obama to show the public his birth certificate. Why’s he making an issue out of this?" To prove how easy it was for a household employee to find his birth certificate, Trump, 64, crowed, “It took me one hour to get my birth certificate.”

As seen above, he provided the conservative web site with what he purports to be his birth certificate.

Except the document is not an official New York City birth certificate, but rather a document generated by Jamaica Hospital, where Trump’s mother Mary reportedly gave birth in June 1946. Official birth certificates are issued (and maintained) by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Office of Vital Records.