Another "Birther" lawsuit gets slapped down - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Tim · #16 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

I think it was a very astute move by Obama. He has now got all the crack pots in one place.

Future complains from the same people about anything can be discredited quite easily.

Obama played this perfect. Keep your opponents running around chasing something that there is nothing in while you get some real work done.

*chuckle*

Really? So all of Obama's opponents are running in 'a circle' talking about this one issue, while he gets some 'real work done'?

And this is all part of his master plan?

Now that takes some real imagination.

Swoop187 · #17 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Yeah, real work like making big government entitlements the only option to the people.

Speakeasy · #18 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Hawaiian "birth certificates" at the time of Obama's birth were just handed out upon request with NO PROOF OF BIRTH required.

With that said his "birth certificate" is NOT EVIDENCE of his birth in the US.

LOL, that's not true at all. I'd recommending learning about these things before repeating them and looking silly.

Quote:

Like I said, you and other liberals wouldn't give a shit if he was born in the US or not.

Its typical of the liberal ethics.

Achieve a large socialist nanny state government at any and all costs.

I can see it now: "Swoop, Supreme Commander Of The Birthers".

Swoop187 · #19 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

LOL, that's not true at all. I'd recommending learning about these things before repeating them and looking silly.

I can see it now: "Swoop, Supreme Commander Of The Birthers".

YES IT IS TRUTH!!!

In 1961 ANYONE could have gone to Hawaii and got a birth certificate.

But yeah, that doesn't jive well with the liberals so we should just IMAGINE that's not true.

Liberals MANUFACTURED the idea that Obama is in FACT a United States citizen. THATS NOT TRUTH THOUGH, THATS LIBERALS SPREADING LIES.

daddio · #20 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

I think it was a very astute move by Obama. He has now got all the crack pots in one place.

Future complains from the same people about anything can be discredited quite easily.

Obama played this perfect. Keep your opponents running around chasing something that there is nothing in while you get some real work done.

Perfect ? Maybe except that its costing him a lot of money. God bless him that he has it to spend but its not a very productive use of money.

Speakeasy · #21 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

YES IT IS TRUTH!!!

In 1961 ANYONE could have gone to Hawaii and got a birth certificate.

But yeah, that doesn't jive well with the liberals so we should just IMAGINE that's not true.

Okay, show me where it says anyone could have a Hawaiian birth certificate. I'll try and hold my laughter until your return.

jschmidt · #22 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Grabbing on to this canard is the same thing as surrender. Exactly this kind of "issue" is what's driving people to be embarassed to claim to be republican.

Swoop187 · #23 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Okay, show me where it says anyone could have a Hawaiian birth certificate. I'll try and hold my laughter until your return.

Show me where natives to Hawaii in 1961 were denied birth certificates.

There were little birth records when Hawaii was absorbed into the union, yet all these people needed birth certificates.

Quote:

Hawaiian statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates, that those birth certificates can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital; that “late birth certificates” (i.e. non-contemporaneously, post-facto, in two words “potentially fabricated”) can lawfully, under this statute, be obtained at any time later in life.

Now laugh it up pal.

Tim · #24 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Obama's birthplace must have been confirmed and established for him to run for president. There is nothing strange about that. It is a requirement.

I assume there must have been some sort of special situation in Hawaii at the time.

The whole thing has reached such a point of frenzy that it really would be easier for the White House to simply explain the situation and stop the story.

It is true that the most die-hard fanatics would not be satisfied by anything. But it would likely bring an end to the lawsuits very quickly.

Imperator · #25 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

All of those "facts" were shown to be completely wrong long ago. As I said, you would make an excellent representative of the birther movement.

and where were YOU born mr.???????Yea, I thought so.....

Swoop187 · #26 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Hawaiian statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates, that those birth certificates can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborating evidence from the hospital; that “late birth certificates” (i.e. non-contemporaneously, post-facto, in two words “potentially fabricated”) can lawfully, under this statute, be obtained at any time later in life.

Basically Obamas mother needed to vouch for him in order to get a birth certificate.

"hey trust me"

^^ Thats pretty much the basis of Obama's citizenship.

Of course the left acts like anyone who doesn't JUST TRUST him is crazy.

Speakeasy · #27 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Show me where natives to Hawaii in 1961 were denied birth certificates.

There were little birth records when Hawaii was absorbed into the union, yet all these people needed birth certificates.

Now laugh it up pal.

Quote:

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...-0017_0008.HTM

Okay, Swoop, what date is that bolded at the bottom?

Swoop187 · #28 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur...-0017_0008.HTM

Okay, Swoop, what date is that bolded at the bottom?

That date was an addendum for certificate FEES.

Quote:

by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

Speakeasy · #29 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

That date was an addendum for certificate FEES.

Holy crap, you cannot be serious. That date is for when the entire statute went into effect, it's not specifically for part C. That would make absolutely no sense to date part C, but not part A and B.