NYT Article: Are Tea Party members conspiracy theorists, or patriots?

[often mrunderstood]

Well first Obama cannot produce an original because that falls outside his authority.

This is the first I have heard that he does not have the authority. I am not heavily invested in this, and have not followed the dedicated threads. I just have some personal knowledge of why people have duplicate BCs. Can you point me to something relatively official that says nobody has the authority to produce the original? Or the law that says doing so would be illegal?

Did he lose his original? Or maybe his Mom/relatives did? My Mom lost one of my sister's for a couple years.

Believe it or not, I am even cool with the Hospital losing records after so long. Just honestly curious about why showing the actual document is such a big deal.

So is your opinion that the Obama family lost their orignal, or they have it and don't need to legally provide it?

I am looking at this as if I had my original and my place of birth was in doubt. I presented it to get my driver's license before I lost it. Seems like a common document for official use. Why not show it, if you have one?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

This is the first I have heard that he does not have the authority. I am not heavily invested in this, and have not followed the dedicated threads. I just have some personal knowledge of why people have duplicate BCs. Can you point me to something relatively official that says nobody has the authority to produce the original? Or the law that says doing so would be illegal?

The original is the property of the state. Lets get that one out of the way now. You didn't have an original, you didn't lose an original. You had, have and can only ever have a copy. No one, can authorize the release of the original. Everything is a copy, and all a person can do is request the copy (in this case a COLB) that the state releases.

Did he lose his original copy? Or maybe his Mom/relatives did? My Mom lost one of my sister's for a couple years.

Again, no originals are in play here. Obama produced a legal birth document, plain and simple.

Believe it or not, I am even cool with the Hospital losing records after so long. Just honestly curious about why showing the actual document is such a big deal.

The document has been released, and shown. It is prima facie evidence, and so anything else is just J.A.Q.ing around.

So is your opinion that the Obama family lost their orignal copy, or they have it and don't need to legally provide it?

Doesn't matter. He has produced a legally recognized birth document. Maybe he lost his original copy, maybe he has it. Either way his birth document as been produced in the form of a legally recognized birth document (in this case a COLB).

I am looking at this as if I had my original copy and my place of birth was in doubt. I presented it to get my driver's license before I lost it. Seems like a common document for official use. Why not show it, if you have one?

J.A.Q.? Well he produced a COLB which is prima facie evidence, and so it is now a non-issue. I presented a COLB like Obama's to get my license, passport and for all other official uses, and my COLB is a common document; I have shown it in the past, and funny thing President Obama has shown his.

Why not show it, if you have one?

The existence of a state issued COLB proves the existence of the other.

 

[ktesibios]

Took all the time with the fancy bolding to spell my user name wrong. Clever.

The rest is just you wrongly predicting how I would react if an original were produced. Nice evidence.

Umm... there's something of a tradition here of bolding a fellow member's name. As for the spelling, my left hand isn't quite what it used to be; sometimes I catch and edit all the typos, sometimes I don't.

Also, I was not making a prediction about you I was making a prediction about how a particular subset of the set "conspiracy theorists" would behave, a prediction based on years of observing the behavior of that set. Unless you self-identify as a birther or CTer in general I see no reason for you to assume what you have assumed.

Unless, of course, your actual purpose is to troll.

 

[often mrunderstood]

The original is the property of the state. Lets get that one out of the way now. You didn't have an original, you didn't lose an original. You had, have and can only ever have a copy. No one, can authorize the release of the original. Everything is a copy, and all a person can do is request the copy (in this case a COLB) that the state releases.

I thought I was getting a link to something for a moment. If you say it is an unreleasable property of the state (under no circumstances), I will believe you becuase I have nothing to prove otherwise. It is still not the same as a mainstream news article or something that outlines the actual law and limitations encountered when one tries to observe the original record. The only people who can view the original doucment are those who are authorized to make legal copies? Nobody is else is allowed to to see it? Ever? Wow. A clerk at the hospital, but not the Presidential candidate to whom it belongs (ETA er, sorry. to whom it refers)?

My personal "original" BC was created when hospitals hand typed 2 documents, I'm old. One for the record and one for the Mother. It was very different from the replacement copy I have now. This one specifically states that it is a copy. The other did not say it is a copy. There is a difference. What Obama presented is NOT what the hospital gave his Mother.

A legal copy does not prove that the original still exists, it only proves that a fully legal copy exists.

It seems like more trouble to explain why it can never happen, than to actually just produce it.

 

[often mrunderstood]

Umm... there's something of a tradition here of bolding a fellow member's name. As for the spelling, my left hand isn't quite what it used to be; sometimes I catch and edit all the typos, sometimes I don't.

....

Unless, of course, your actual purpose is to troll.

I didn't mean it as an insult. I am not familiar with that tradition. I rarely post, but enjoy reading the dialogue here. My apologies for coming across that way.

Between your first and last sentences, I was under the impression you question my true position, and that my name might be a play on that fact. It predates "birthers" by many years.

The irony of my name is that you are demonstrating the reasoning behind it. I am a birther to you, and therefore too crazy to bother with a rational exchange. This, despite my attempts to clearly state my position. I have no problem with Obama being President.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

It seems like more trouble to explain why it can never happen, than to actually just produce it.

Good job at ignoring everything that has been written to simply beat a dead debunked horse.

 

[often mrunderstood]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/16803478d6ddc8d0b4.jpg[/qimg]

Good job at ignoring everything that has been written to simply beat a dead debunked horse.

The claim that Obama is not our legal President has been MORE than debunked. It is an undeniable fact that he is President. Will I get a more rational response if I throw in random Bush insults?

Good job at ignoring what I posted. The questions I have asked, have not been answered to my satisfaction:
1. Where is the BC that was given to Obama's Mother? Current answer: don't know, doesn't matter. Either he has his original or not. If he does, why release a copy when the original is in question. If he personally doesn't have it. Just say so. "I obtained a fully legal copy because I am unable to locate my originally issued document". Deal with the crazy CTer's based on the truth (I know they would freak out if he claimed he lost it, but it would do zero for the validity of their argument). They are freaking out anyway.
2. Why can't the oringinal from the hospital be presented? Current answer: no legal authority to do so exists per "go find out yourself"..... We agree there is zero legal difference between the 2 documents. Well, except for the fact that it is apparently illegal to show anyone the original.

I believe everything is legal and I suspect no conspiracy or covers ups. As someone who would not hesitate to produce whatever record of birth I own, I honestly don't see the harm in proving so many doubters wrong.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

It doesn't matter, why bring it up. Maybe he has it, but decided to use one issued recently. So the answer you are avoiding here is that your question doesn't matter; he has released a birth certificate. So it is settled.

 

[often mrunderstood]

It doesn't matter, why bring it up. Maybe he has it, but decided to use one issued recently. So the answer you are avoiding here is that your question doesn't matter; he has released a birth certificate. So it is settled.

Way to ignore what I posted. I have been very specific why I brought it up. Because I don't have my original BC, and I find it unusual that it would be impossible to produce under any circumstances. That the only person authorized to see my original BC is the clerk who produces the copies. I would have no personal objection to using either document. If there seemed a logical explanation for not using it (I lost it), it would not need to be a secret.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Way to ignore what I posted. I have been very specific why I brought it up. Because I don't have my original copy BC, and I find it unusual that it would be impossible to produce under any circumstances.

Well call up your states Vital Records Office and demand the release of your original birth certificate and report back to us.

That the only person authorized to see my original copy BC is the clerk who produces the copies. I would have no personal objection to using either document. If there seemed a logical explanation for not using it (I lost it), it would not need to be a secret.

The logical explanation for using a current COLB is that it is a legal document, and anything else it a sign of someone who is begging the question.

 

[rwguinn]

Way to ignore what I posted. I have been very specific why I brought it up. Because I don't have my original BC, and I find it unusual that it would be impossible to produce under any circumstances. That the only person authorized to see my original BC is the clerk who produces the copies. I would have no personal objection to using either document. If there seemed a logical explanation for not using it (I lost it), it would not need to be a secret.

Suggest you read the MA.
Birther **** is thataway--->, OK?

 

[often mrunderstood]

Suggest you read the MA.
Birther **** is thataway--->, OK?

NP. Like I said, I am not that invested. Thought I could get some easy answers(or even thoughtful opinions) without reading the other thread with 20 pages of "birther" jokes.

"Because he doesn't have to" answers everything a skeptic or lawyer ever wants to know.

MA read, you win.

 

[Nosi]

Nothing that the birthers or even the mainstream Teabaggers are hearing on a daily basis encourages critical thinking and careful examination of the facts at hand. They're fed out-of-context appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies hand over fist. This ninety-five percent white group is tying this belief inexorably together with their faith as well. Pat Robertson's been remarkably quiet of late. I would have figured he would have jumped at the chance to insert himself into this situation and create a second Moral Majority.

Pat Robertson is still suffering Haiti toe jam special. That's why you haven't heard much outa him.

 

[Nosi]

If you were to present birthers with Obama's original birth certificate, what would most likely happen is that they would cobble up some excuse to reject it - something like "it can't be from Hawaii- it wasn't signed in pineapple juice!" and all you would get is another round of "if you can't conclusively disprove any claim I pull out of my lower GI tract I must be right".

Pineapples don't come from Hawaii. That fruit is from to southern Brazil and Paraguay. Of course, if your talking naturalized fruits, pineapple juice will work fine. Or just fling a pineapple at the situation.

 

[Corsair 115]

There should be rallies across this land burning this bundle of lies.

This from the fellow who (a) denies the Holocaust took place, and (b) claims Nazi Germany developed an atomic bomb first.

As Bart Simpson once observed, the ironing is delicious.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I don't think the teabagger crowd are patriots because patriots by definition love their country. Part of loving it is being willing to sacrifice for it. Paying taxes is part of that. So is government service. I don't see these people giving ANYTHING to their country. They're tax protestors and chickenhawks. They're concerned only about what they can keep in their pocketbook, and making sure nothing changes so they can stay in their comfortable roles. Thery're scared to the point of soiling themselves because for the first time the guy in the white house isn't the same color and demographic as themselves, and they don't know if he's going to help or hurt them in their drive to stay on top of the heap. Selfishness isn't patriotic and it isn't attractive.


A

 

[JoeyDonuts]

That was one hell of a 666th post.

Bloody well done.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

That was one hell of a 666th post.

Bloody well done.

Thanks. It was actually an accident, but I suppose it was appropriate in some way to descend into hell to post #666, even if unintentionally.

A

 

[GreNME]

First let me say this, I accept Obama as the President. When the state of Hawaii says he was born there and provides him with a Certificate of Birth, I believe them. Obama is the legal POTUS. Full disclosure - I did not vote for him.

However, an original Birth Certificate has not been shown. In fact, I know this because I do not have an orignal Birth Certificate. I lost it in a storage unit break-in in the early 90's. Certifcates of Birth are easy to get. Send a copy of an official State ID with your request to the hospital you were born. Done. So you could probably change your identity this way, but it would not create a record of birth where one did not already exist. Therefore, I conclude Obama has a legal "copy" of his birth record. This is adequate to meet the requirement for President.

So I have to wonder, why not show the orignal and give the birthers the finger? Why not admit you lost the orignal and have been provided a 100% legal copy? Why not authorize the hospital or state of Hawaii to show the orignal? The only person giving the birthers traction is Obama himself. I wonder why? Not to the point of not believing him. Not to the point of thinking a CT is invovled. Just curious. On purpose? He doesn't give a d? He wants to have a group of loons/racists/whatever to laugh at? Or is it just because he doesn't have to?

I think you are under a mis-apprehension as to what the "original" birth certificate is. You most definitely did not have your original, you had one of the first (or maybe the first of your) certificate(s) of birth issued to your family. You aren't allowed access to your original, just as I'm not, and just as Obama isn't. So, your question of "why not show the original" doesn't make much sense-- the AG of Hawaii already vouched for its existence, having personally checked it themselves. The certificate Obama produced is no different in quality and validity than what any birther or any other political opponent on this issue could produce themselves-- at all. Because of this, I'm at a loss to consider why you feel that the suggestion you're making in any way makes any kind of rational sense.

Obama showed his birth certificate. Call it a COLB if you want, but it's literally no different than my own birth certificate from Maryland, or my brother's birth certificate from New Jersey, or the birth certificates of several posters here who have verified that theirs, too, have the words "certificate of live birth" on their official birth certificate. Play with the words if you like, but a birth certificate by any other name is still a birth certificate, not only legally but also in content and validity.

So, again, Barack Obama showed his birth certificate in the summer of 2008. All other excuses as to why this didn't settle the dispute are simply backpedaling based on cognitive dissonance. There's nothing partisan or emotional about my accusation, either-- the displayed existence of a birth certificate and the arguments that he has not are mutually exclusive statements, and we have the factual evidence of his birth certificate being displayed in the summer of 2008.