patrick.net

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.

:-D

Those hospital documents are just souvenir items, no legal weight whatever. And oh yeah, there's the $44 million Trump Pavilion at that hospital no issues there!

Hairstyle of a rich nitwit:

More important than digging for forms is applying your own head. What's the motive?

Visualize a first-time pregnant 18-year old from a family of very limited education and means in 1961, who has never been abroad. She could give birth in the US where she lived, with the then best health care fully covered and her parents nearby. Why would she spend time and money to get the passport and needed visas, fly all across the world, at a then enormous cost for her, to give birth all alone in some s***hole hospital in Africa where she has never been to before, with no family or friends around, and no means to pay for the medical care, then spend more time and money to get US passport for the newborn and fly back to the US? All that back in 1961, when international travel was FAR less common, easy, or cheap than now.

Would you? Would anyone you know? Can anyone give any reason why? WHY?

shrekgrinch says

I’m in this because I believe there is something damning on his birth certificate other than where he was born that is being hidden. Like it saying UKNOWN for the father’s name or something

All right, well may be.
Whatever that "other" is, it obviously does not constitutionally disqualify him from the presidency. End of the story.

shrekgrinch says

Because this is a win-win issue for the Republicans and their followers regardless if the birthers are proven correct or not.

No. This paints the opponents of Obama as flat-Earth idiots and petty thugs in the minds of many, while beautifully distracting attention from some very real (rather than hypothetical) flaws of him as a person and of his policies. I'd even venture that perhaps he deliberately resists producing said "long form" or whatever that is just for this effect. :-) That's my conspiracy theory, no worse than others.

I am inspired to start up my "moon is made of green cheese" post...don't miss it you all!

I hope posts like these get buried under hundreds of more interesting ones with the new rating system...

Nomograph says

What if it did say that? How would that be “damning” for Obama?
After all, he’s already a half-breed, right?

If he is not actually a son of Obama Sr., that would be most embarassing of his late mother and his life narrative as in "dreams from my father".
But that's unlikely. There were not many blacks in HI back in 1961 and, with no paternity testing then, why wouldn't she write in Obama Sr. even if ...

Just got back from parts unknown and I gotta tell ya, Thank God(ess) that this thread was resurrected. Things got too real for a moment there.

I think Shrekgrinch and I agree on one thing: Let's encourage the Teabaggers to put some crazy magic long form laws on the books in as many states as possible.

I hope, nay pray, some state attempts to disenfranchise a whole swath of Americans by not letting Obama be on their state ballot. It would be a thunderous PR coup for Obama.

Imagine Shrekgrinch's fantasy come to life: Arizona declares that Obama's birth certificate isn't valid enough to allow the sitting President of the United States to be on the ballot. Obama will never produce his magic long form even though Republicans seem hysterically compelled to see it, measure it, and perhaps even taste it. This would prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Tea Party Republicans are anti-democratic facists that will use a "procedural issue" to subvert the voting process.

At a time when America is in the midst of three wars and Americans are concerned with jobs, Republicans attempt to use a "procedural issue" to win the election despite admissions by birthers like Shrekgrinch that they believe Obama was probably really born in the US anyway.

The idea that this issue is a win win for Republicans is fantastic. I hope more Republican lurkers read this thread and decide to push the issue in their states.

And I didn't even comment on Shrekgrinch's belief that:

OBAMA IS A SECRET MUSLIM!

This stuff writes itself.

Fisk says

There were not many blacks in HI back in 1961 and, with no paternity testing then, why wouldn’t she write in Obama Sr. even if …

I think this whole line of thinking repulsive. It's just a way to insinuate his momma was a HO!

His parents were married Feb 2nd 1961.
Baby born August 4th, 1961 in Hawaii
She filed for divorce in 1964.

Absent information to the contrary, the simplest assumption is he is the child of his legally married parents.

So Trump has released yet another purported "birth certificate". Unfortunately, this is STILL not the long form. WHERE IS THE LONG FORM TRUMP? Notice how this is a "Certificate of Birth Registration"? NOT A LONG FORM!!!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/page?id=13248168

Donald Trump can not prove citizenship according to birther extraordinaire Shrekgrinch's "state citizenship laws".

Another article indicates that what Trump gave after his first mixup, includes 2 forms. One of them is sufficient for a passport at least.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/29/donald-trumps-birth-certificates

However the fact he submitted the souvenir one first, just proves he's a Birther buffoon for convenience of realizing it would buy him some publicity. He didn't even bother to study up on the thing before joining the club and trying to prove his cred.

Vicente says

However the fact he submitted the souvenir one first, just proves he’s a Birther buffoon for convenience of realizing it would buy him some publicity.

Are you accusing Trump of being a media whore? Oh, the whore-er!

Vicente says

Absent information to the contrary, the simplest assumption is he is the child of his legally married parents.
“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

And that's exactly what I suggested.

Vicente says

Another article indicates that what Trump gave after his first mixup, includes 2 forms. One of them is sufficient for a passport at least.

The Birthers have already established that documents sufficient for a passport are not acceptable forms of proof of Presidential eligibility according to the planned "Birther Laws" being advanced in conservative states.

The political gymnastics that will occur by Republicans seeking the candidacy if these laws pass will be so entertaining. The planned laws are so poorly written, no candidate will be eligible for the Presidency in those states.

I do hope Trump runs in 2012 as the spin-off Tea Party candidate. He considered running in 2000 as the Reform Party candidate. But he will need to answer all of the questions surrounding his birth.

I have heard rumors that Trump was actually born in a hospital in Jamaica. His biological father may actually be a Rastafarian and it would explain Trump's ability to weave his neck hair up over his skull using neck-dreads. Clearly he supports marijuana legalization as only someone who is completely high would believe any of the Birther nonsense. And his campain slogan is somewhat cryptic: "Smoke a blunt for Trump!"

Vicente says

Absent information to the contrary, the simplest assumption is he is the child of his legally married parents.

this is why the birthers want to see the long form, it has more information and thus there might be "contrary" information on it

LOL!

During an appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News on Wednesday night, Donald Trump suggested that President Barack Obama's birth certificate could indicate that "he's a Muslim."
......
During an appearance on MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown" on Thursday morning, Trump said, "I am embracing the issue, and I'm proud of the issue. I think somebody has to embrace it."

Donald Trump: Obama Birth Certificate Could Say He's 'Muslim'

What bothers me is not that his birth certificate proves the woman who gave birth to him is not his real mom, but that he isn't the same person we elected- Lee Atwater

unrernelike says

I was hoping a member here on patrick.net would be able to show me where I can watch the movie The Dark Knight Rises On the internet for free. Thanks

That's some mighty fine Trolling there Lou, pretty fine...

It is legally and morally wrong to watch pirated movies online. What is the difference between that and outright theft? As a society we must respect private properties, whether they are tangible or not.

TDKR is worth the price of 10 theater tickets.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Trump is the only guy I have ever seen who has learned to comb over the hair on his back to cover his scalp. This makes him an authority on everything.

I think he combs it all the way up from his asshole. That way his mouth feels like it has some company.