Why is it the media did not vet him…yet vetted John McCain. McCain was born in the Canal Zone because his father a natural citizen and mother were stationed their in the Navy

57 states

Obama would have to produce verbal gaffes at a very rapid rate if he ever hopes to catch up to the remarkable precedent recently established. I hope you enjoy these hundreds (!) of examples. They are quite humorous.

Hate to burst your bubble, but not only are you lacking as to substantive comment, but you have a ways to go even as to the fine art of InterToobz snark and insult. Unfortunately for you, that’s an art that cannot be taught to everyone. Good luck on the “substantive comment” part though; JBG’s a fine teacher and perhaps the comments will be better off for it.

Cheers,

Lemme hitch up my coveralls and try sayin’ that agin…

Sorry guys, payday tomorrow and I gotta go. You see the damn working class likes getting paid on time. And busted rib or not, I must go. Our young, vibrant, popularly elected President of all 57 states and Germany needs all the help each of us can provide.

Make yourselves useful and ask grandma if she will give you $5 to shovel her walk.

I take it then that if I want to be relevant and cogently present fact and law that I should follow the form in your last post

Citing examples to substantiate the claims you make is actually a good idea. You didn’t know? Then I’m glad you asked, and I’m glad I can help get you pointed in the right direction. If you need help with any other basic concepts of how to have an adult conversation, feel free to ask.

You certainly seem to follow the internet into some corners unknown to me.

I realize a “bumpkin” like you has limited experience dealing with the world of facts and logic, but it’s never to late to learn about things like that. Give it a try.

You certainly seem to follow the internet into some corners unknown to me.

Or something….

Yes, that witch doctor photo is lovely. And I love the commenter who claims that portraying Obama with a bone through his nose is actually an example of paying someone “great compliments.”

Which is helpful to know, because now I understand that Rush was simply being complimentary when he told a black caller to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

Having a black president is getting a bunch of white racists all riled up (example, example, example, example). This is a problem for the GOP, because it’s not eager to alienate these supporters. On the other hand, it can’t embrace them openly. So every now and then it sends them signals, and gets caught doing so (example, example, example).

But of course there’s really no racism in the GOP, and everyone knows that racism has nothing to do with the fact that people who have never challenged a president to prove his citizenship are challenging Obama to prove his citizenship.

jukeboxgrad [to forseti]: And your comment about “red flags” is indeed begging the question. The alleged “red flags” about Obama is that he has allegedly not provided convincing documents (“documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion”).

Not really. The actual “red flag” they see here (and go charging at) is that Obama won. Or he’s a sooper-seekret Commie Marxist carrying a red flag. Or something….

Cheers,

forseti: My answer is that, up until Obama’s red flags started waving in the wind, nobody in either party ever had a good faith basis for believing that any candidate’s eligibility was in issue…

Orly Taitz was fined $20,000 in Rule 11 sanctions for lacking a “good faith basis” in her “birtherism” nonsense.

So sez da judge. I guess that settles it, eh?

Cheers,

cant pound the law, cant pound the facts, gotta pound the table

Indeed. Thanks for that unintentional display of self-awareness. Few here have ever been as scrupulous as you with regard to keeping their comments untainted by any substantive reference to facts or law. If you have actually presented any facts or law in your comments, I hope you’ll tell us where they are hidden.

Then again, you told us yourself that you’re only a “bumpkin” here to provide “words of homespun idiocy.” Which is another way of saying that you aspire only to sound like an idiot pounding the table. Keep up the good work. And can you sustain this high standard you’ve set for yourself? I look forward to finding out. I hope you won’t let us down.

forseti: I’ve heard all of the arguments by the 3 year olds, [...] “if I give you that then you’ll just want more”,…

Typo there. That example would be “arguments presented to the 3 year olds”.

No charge.

Cheers,

forseti:

[zuch]: … to “birther” wingnuts that are not satisfied with the voluminous evidence already in the record,…

What voluminous evidence? His digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of six possible source documents? One lone person who claims to have heard about his birth in 1961? A Hawaiian newspaper notice that was generated from one of the six types of birth registrations procedures in 1961, five of which lacked an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness? It reminds me of the people who say, “Because I say so.”

Well, yes, now that you mention them…. ;-)

This just goes to show that there’s no point in producing any “long form” birth certificate (if such a thing even exists any more). And to be sure, it may not be a terrible thing politically to keep a bunch of wingnuts running around like eedjits demanding this. Far better that being soft and giving in to unreasonable demands:

“You’ll shoot your eye out.”
“Can’t I have one, Why, mommy, Whyyyyyy?”
“Because I say so.”

Cheers,

The red flags that are waving, jbg, are there for a reason. They represent BHO’s diapers.

There were no eligibility red flags with Palin

I see that you like to slide the goal posts around. Earlier you said this:

it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion

You didn’t say “the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion” is important only if there are “eligibility red flags.” But that’s what you seem to be saying now. Why did you change your position?

And your comment about “red flags” is indeed begging the question. The alleged “red flags” about Obama is that he has allegedly not provided convincing documents (“documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion”). But other candidates (like Palin) have also not provided such documents. So why is this called “red flags” for Obama but not called “red flags” for Palin? You said “a presidential candidate has a … burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President.” What has Palin done to meet that “burden of production and persuasion?”

she did not win the election

And what if she runs in 2012? Will you then call on her to resolve her “red flags?” And were you calling on her to resolve her “red flags” when she was indeed a candidate?

My sincerity is not relevant. You just want to redirect attention away from Obama’s eligibility issues.

Your lack of sincerity is both self-evident and relevant. You’re making it clear that you’ve invented “eligibility issues” for Obama that you’re not willing apply to anyone not named Obama.

jukeboxgrad: forseti:“The fact that some candidates skate on this issue” is highly relevant to demonstrating your insincerity.“Some” candidates skate on this issue? Is it really just “some?” It would be hard to find a more disingenuous use of the word “some.” The number of candidates who “skate on this issue” is awfully close to 100%.I just demonstrated the double standard. The double standard is evident in your willingness to let every other candidate “skate on this issue.” Where are your calls to see Palin’s proof of citizenship? According to you, a candidate is supposed to present “documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion.” Where is Palin’s “documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion?” Unfortunately, it’s quite invisible. What’s not invisible is your hypocrisy.

There were no eligibility red flags with Palin, and she did not win the election. The issue is moot. My sincerity is not relevant. You just want to redirect attention away from Obama’s eligibility issues. What’s your next strategy, the race card?

The fact that some candidates skate on this issue is not relevant to Obama’s Article II’s eligibility requirements.

“The fact that some candidates skate on this issue” is highly relevant to demonstrating your insincerity.

“Some” candidates skate on this issue? Is it really just “some?” It would be hard to find a more disingenuous use of the word “some.” The number of candidates who “skate on this issue” is awfully close to 100%.

There’s no begging the question here, nor is there a double standard

I just demonstrated the double standard. The double standard is evident in your willingness to let every other candidate “skate on this issue.” Where are your calls to see Palin’s proof of citizenship? According to you, a candidate is supposed to present “documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion.” Where is Palin’s “documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion?” Unfortunately, it’s quite invisible. What’s not invisible is your hypocrisy.

jukeboxgrad:forseti:

until Obama’s red flags started waving in the wind, nobody in either party ever had a good faith basis for believing that any candidate’s eligibility was in issue forseti:This is called begging the question. Earlier you said this:If “it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion,” then why has no other candidate been called upon to produce “documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion?” Actually, other candidates have been called upon to produce no “documentary evidence” whatsoever (regarding place of birth). Where is Romney’s birth certificate? Where is Palin’s? Where is Dubya’s? Why are all those people assumed to be citizens, simply because they say they are? Why the double standard?

Jukeboxgrad, I stand by what I said. Regarding Obama’s red flags, hey, they are there. I am not going to ignore them. There’s no begging the question here, nor is there a double standard, I just didn’t see any red flags with the other past candidates, and neither did the media or the Left, save for McCain, and any investigation into his citizenhip became moot after the election.

There is nothing wrong with what I said, but you’d like to make it appear to be. Now I said, “It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.” The fact that some candidates skate on this issue is not relevant to Obama’s Article II’s eligibility requirements.

Regarding the “crazies” quote you attributed to me, that was a quote from “Mike” that I cited in my post earlier.”

it brought out the morbid curiosity in me

That’s not all it brought out.

I never made the statement about the “crazies.”

There must be multiple forsetis posting here, because one of them said this:

The people that ask questions are the crazies? What an upside down world!

I think you’re accusing me of misquoting you. Trouble is, I didn’t.

Malcolm X

Earlier you said this:

Have a nice day! (as I back away from the bully on the playground)

I thought that meant you were done embarrassing yourself. Promises, promises.

until Obama’s red flags started waving in the wind, nobody in either party ever had a good faith basis for believing that any candidate’s eligibility was in issue

This is called begging the question. Earlier you said this:

it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion

If “it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion,” then why has no other candidate been called upon to produce “documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion?” Actually, other candidates have been called upon to produce no “documentary evidence” whatsoever (regarding place of birth). Where is Romney’s birth certificate? Where is Palin’s? Where is Dubya’s? Why are all those people assumed to be citizens, simply because they say they are? Why the double standard?

jukeboxgrad: .====================forseti:If you truly have respect for “people that ask questions,” you should explain why you’re persistently ducking the question you were asked here.

You lost me on that one. I have ducked no questions. I just cannot respond to every one in real time. I have other duties in life that keep me busy.

And I never made the statement about the “crazies.”

You also said, “Then why has there been such a noticeable lack of interest in demanding “the aforementioned production of documentary evidence” from any other recent candidate or president?

My answer is that, up until Obama’s red flags started waving in the wind, nobody in either party ever had a good faith basis for believing that any candidate’s eligibility was in issue… unless you want to consider that Congress did hold hearings on McCain’s Panamanian roots.

Bottom line is Obama posted a digital copy of a summary of his vital record from 1961. Now since that summary could have derived from one of several suspect birth registration procedures, I think we all have a right to scrutinize it. One more thing, even if Obama cannot obtain a copy of his original 1961 vital record, there is absolutely nothing stopping him from disclosing which vital record procedure is being summarized by his posted Certification of Live Birth. Was it the one with the doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation, or was it one of the ones that required no such witnesses? Obama knows, but he won’t say. I find his conduct suspect.

Sarah Palin (not in fact a birther)

Really? This is what she said:

Q. Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?
A. I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue

Palin obviously doesn’t trust the radical Marxists at the WSJ, who have said that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” If I claim that something is being done “rightfully,” how is that not a choice to endorse that something? I think I need to get my hands on the special GOP dictionary, where words like ‘rightful’ have magically elastic meanings.

And speaking of lies, she then said this:

at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States

If I claim that the people suggesting he was not born in the United States are doing so “rightfully,” how is that different from suggesting “that he was not born in the United States?”

And of course this was before she happily shared a stage with Farah, who ranted at length about birtherism. Palin said nothing to disassociate herself from him and his birtherism.

This is on par with Coulter sharing a platform with Romney, who had this to say about her (video):

I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!

Romney should not be saying it’s a “good thing” to hear from Coulter unless he thinks her views are welcome in the GOP.

There are kooks in both parties, but the kooks in the GOP are front and center, and gladly embraced by the leadership. And this phenomenon is accelerating.

(And speaking of birth certificates, here’s another lie in that Palin interview: Palin suggesting that she has provided Trig’s birth certificate. She hasn’t.)

No point in arguing further with jbg: he insists that what the WSJ says we have already seen is what Maguire wants to see, and that is a bald-faced lie.

As I said to Maguire, is the problem with your reading comprehension, or with your integrity? Possibly both, I guess. Where did I say “what the WSJ says we have already seen is what Maguire wants to see?” Answer: nowhere. The “bald-faced lie” is claiming that I said something I didn’t say.

This is what Maguire said: “Show Us The Certificate.” And he said that a day after WSJ said this: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”

Yes, everyone knows that what Maguire means by “The Certificate” is something different (technically) than what WSJ is indicating that “Obama has already provided.” Trouble is, it takes a birther to think that this difference means anything. It takes a birther to believe that “The Certificate” demanded by Maguire et al is going to demonstrate anything that is not already demonstrated by what WSJ has described as “a legal birth certificate.”

So I’m definitely not claiming that “what the WSJ says we have already seen is what Maguire wants to see.” I am simply pointing out that it takes a birther to see any material difference between “what the WSJ says we have already seen” and “what Maguire wants to see.”

Are you still trying to claim that Maguire is not a birther? Birthers, virtually by definition, are people who are claiming that Obama has not “already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” Anyone who understands that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii” would not be saying “Show Us The Certificate,” because it’s a meaningless, pointless request. It is only logical to say “Show Us The Certificate” if one believes that Obama has not “already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” And there’s a word for people who believe that Obama has not “already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” This is the word: birther. Maguire obviously does not believe that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.” Here’s what that makes Maguire: a birther.

Have I still not made this simple enough for you to grasp?

He surely knows why the long-form would be more probative, if he’s read Maguire as closely as he pretends

Only someone who believes that Obama has not “already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii” would have any interest in making claims about “why the long-form would [allegedly] be more probative.” It’s always possible to imagine the existence of something “more probative.” Live video of his birth on the steps of the Hawaii State Capitol would be even “more probative” than “the long-form,” right? So why should anyone think “the long-form” is probative enough? “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii,” which means that what he has already provided is probative enough. And there’s a word for people who don’t get this: birther.

zuch: … to “birther” wingnuts that are not satisfied with the voluminous evidence already in the record,

What voluminous evidence? His digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of six possible source documents? One lone person who claims to have heard about his birth in 1961? A Hawaiian newspaper notice that was generated from one of the six types of birth registrations procedures in 1961, five of which lacked an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness? It reminds me of the people who say, “Because I say so.”

You should reread what Mike said – he nailed it hands down.

“What’s really amusing about this thread is the level to which those who believe what they want to believe are willing to close their eyes to facts in front of their face, and the extent to which “federalist lawyers” are clueless.
These lawyers are willing to accept a newspaper ad from 40 odd years ago and a COLB that could be gotten by those born outside the country (on testimony from relatives, midwives etc), and that no one has seen, as proof of ANYTHING. I’m assuming there were some lawyers commenting here. Have you lost all powers of disbelief?
Where is your inquisitiveness, your strident search for the truth? (this goes for reporters too). You mean to tell me that every record about this man has been locked down and the only thing available is his own crafted message, and nobody thinks anything of it? The people that ask questions are the crazies? What an upside down world! You call yourselves lawyers and you accept the word of an anonymous unsworn website of an organization that once employed Obama (Annenberg) as proof of ANYTHING? You call yourselves lawyers and accept the gradually more specific multiple cryptic carefully worded statements statements by the Hi. Director of Health (including her proclaimation that Obama was a “Naturally Born American Citizen”– which again cryptically says that he was vaginally born in Hi.– and what would give her the authority to say Obama is a NBC anyway?). Whose hands are those in the Factcheck COLB photos? did they just write the article, or are they the ones handling the COLB? Are they document experts? What court of law would accept any of this as proof of anything? You all are lawyers and supposedly smart people and don’t ask these questions of a man that wanted the most powerful job in the free world?
I’ve heard all of the arguments by the 3 year olds, “well you didn’t make johnny do it”, “if I give you that then you’ll just want more”, “i know you are but what am i”. All nonsense, his secrecy is what should demand us to ask for more, but you all have suspended all disbelief. I’m beginning to think there is something to this hypnosis stuff.”

If I were in Obama’s position, I wouldn’t release my birth certificate either. It’s like the scene in ‘Blazing Saddles.’

After a hard day of dealing with Ahmadinejad, Boehner and other morons, a summary of the latest birther news and a wee snort kinda rounds out the day, wouldn’t it?

Dr. Weevil: He surely knows why the long-form would be more probative …

… to “birther” wingnuts that are not satisfied with the voluminous evidence already in the record, evidence far above what’s needed to register to vote, that Obama’s what he says he is. But even that claim is suspect, as the “birthers” will then demand the “longer long form, signed in triplicate by the Hawai’i Secretary of State in 1961″….

That being said, Obama needs to provide to no “birther” any such thing. And I support him in his refusal to do so.

You want to force disclosure of that (or his grades or whatever other random document the “birthers’ dream up that they absolutely ‘must have’), file a suit (make sure you pay the fees), and get a judge to agree that you have any such right. Good luck with that … but save a few bucks for the Rule 11 sanctions too…..

Really, Dr. Weevil, I encourage you (and Maguire) and wish you well on your quest. Such efforts just demonstrate how our system of government works.

Cheers,

Of course, it’s quite possible to increase the insanity of the other side: Sarah Palin (not in fact a birther) recently did so by writing a few words on her hand.

When Tom Maguire called himself “an honorary birther”, he was obviously joking.

Given the context (that he wants to see Obama’s birth certificate even though WSJ has pointed out that Obama has already provided his birth certificate), I see no reason to view it as a joke. Anyone to the right of WSJ on this point is fairly described as a birther.

jbg pretends to be unaware that there is a long form and a short form, that only the short form has been released, and that Maguire would like to see the long form.

It takes a birther to believe that there is any material difference. That’s why WSJ said “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”

To quote a quickly-corrected error as evidence that someone is a “disreputable hack” shows that you are yourself a disreputable hack.

If all I had to show was the “quickly-corrected error,” you’d be right. But context matters, and that purported “error” was in the context of a long history of hackery (as demonstrated by the material that you claim is “far too complicated” to address, and as demonstrated by many other examples that I haven’t bothered to cite). Maguire’s history demonstrates that he doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think his “error” was just an “error.” And I think he only admitted the “error” because I nailed him, and he had no choice.

Encouraging insanity in portions of the other party is good for one’s own party but bad for the country

No one outside the GOP, including and especially Obama, is in a position to increase or decrease the level of insanity inside the GOP. It’s simply there. It’s a self-created reality. And what’s healthy for the country is to see it clearly for what it is (recall what Brandeis said about sunlight). And that’s why I’m grateful that Palin is addicted to the spotlight, and that’s why I’m grateful that she and the other birthers are demanding more and more attention.

Dr. Weevil: Encouraging insanity in portions of the other party is good for one’s own party but bad for the country….

First I’ve heard for the proposition that insanity can be “encourag[ed]“. Do you have a cite for this?

Cheers,

Dr. Weevil: Maguire would like to see the long form.

Q.E.D.

Cheers,

Dr. Weevil: When Tom Maguire called himself “an honorary birther”, he was obviously joking.

Perhaps. When he was suggesting that Obama produce the demanded ‘evidence’, he wasn’t. Now it may be that Maguire was simply trying to tell Obama what Maguire thought was the best (not “required” or “mandated” or “necessary”, but “best”) response to the “birthers”. But Obama has plenty of advisors capable of that, and why Obama should turn to Maguire for such advice is beyond me, and doesn’t speak well for Maguire’s thinking processes. I get a chuckle out of Rove and his ilk going on FauxSnooze and giving ‘advice’ to Obama. Whenever they do that, I’ve got a careful eye on their other hand.

Cheers,