More from the Birfers

[Pottapaug1938]

There is a CNN video which discusses President Obama's secret Kenyan birth . There is also the following commentary, which I highly recommend:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/ ... index.html

[Doktor Avalanche]

Excellent article. I love how he just comes right out and says the birfers are nuts, mentally ill and buck privates of the tin foil hat brigade.

What these birfers need right now is some therapy, Buzz Aldrin style...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akJmRC2i ... re=related

Proof once again why Buzz is more awesome than you.

[fortinbras]

Jon Stewart did a riff on the birfers last night (Wed., July 22nd) at the beginning of The Daily Show. I expect someone will post it on YouTube within a day or two (or see it on today's early reruns).

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

There are several good videos on YouTube setting the birfers, or as one YouTube poster put it "hoaxtards", in their place.

Here's Dobbs and Hannity perpetuating this nonsense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRnvrBtK ... annel_page

Here's another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIlohGsR ... re=channel Does anybody here live in Campbell's district?

The "birfer" rantings have no basis in reality. Any person with normal intelligence and even a modicum of integrity has see there is no controversy regarding Obama's birth certificate. Calling the birfers nuts is completely appropriate, and probably a little too reserved.

[ASITStands]

There are several good videos on YouTube setting the birfers, or as one YouTube poster put it "hoaxtards", in their place.

Here's Dobbs and Hannity perpetuating this nonsense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRnvrBtK ... annel_page

Here's another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIlohGsR ... re=channel Does anybody here live in Campbell's district?

The "birfer" rantings have no basis in reality. Any person with normal intelligence and even a modicum of integrity has see there is no controversy regarding Obama's birth certificate. Calling the birfers nuts is completely appropriate, and probably a little too reserved.

I would support the idea of each candidate submitting a portfolio of documentation.

It's as simple as "providing evidence sufficient to stand in a court of law proving eligibility for the office the candidate seeks." It would have to be done at the State level.

[Number Six]

Yes, why respond with logic and facts when you can just call your opponents nuts? Ad hominem attacks are what you need. Logic? We don't need no stinkin' logic.

The "birfers" are barking up the wrong tree. They need to change their focus to practical things.

As to psychological theories DSM's and so forth, my question is really the reference point. Aristotle asks the question whether democratic behavior is what a society wants or what the democratic society needs. There are lots of books that present reasonable skeptical debate on psychological judgments. Erich Fromm wrote some interesting books. Thomas Szcaz has a new book out "Anti-Psychiatry--Quackery Squared".

Students who are put on various mind-altering drugs because they are acting rambuctious or a bit out of control, are wronged. Kliebold and Harris were both on mind-altering drugs as well as Andrea Yates when their crimes were committed.

Freud said that the root cause of a lot of neuroses is sexual, unfullfilling sex lives. There is merit in this. Jung had a theory on how "transferance" occurs. People's inner dark side, the "shadow", their cruelty and childish impotence is vented and transfered onto a suitable scapegoat. So people need to be honest on their own self-assessment and inventories, before judging others with DSMs. In the case of the Browns, the Kahres, Hendricksons and other tax criminals, all labels are relevant based on how destructive they have been to reasonable social order.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

There are several good videos on YouTube setting the birfers, or as one YouTube poster put it "hoaxtards", in their place.

Here's Dobbs and Hannity perpetuating this nonsense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRnvrBtK ... annel_page

Here's another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIlohGsR ... re=channel Does anybody here live in Campbell's district?

The "birfer" rantings have no basis in reality. Any person with normal intelligence and even a modicum of integrity has see there is no controversy regarding Obama's birth certificate. Calling the birfers nuts is completely appropriate, and probably a little too reserved.

I would support the idea of each candidate submitting a portfolio of documentation.

It's as simple as "providing evidence sufficient to stand in a court of law proving eligibility for the office the candidate seeks." It would have to be done at the State level.

I agree. It would be part of the "job application" for office X. Had your suggestion been in effect 2 years ago, we wouldn't be having the "birfer" debate here today. Who am I kidding...

[Doktor Avalanche]

Yes, why respond with logic and facts when you can just call your opponents nuts? Ad hominem attacks are what you need. Logic? We don't need no stinkin' logic.

You're one to talk. Now you want to be reasonable?

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Yes, why respond with logic and facts when you can just call your opponents nuts? Ad hominem attacks are what you need. Logic? We don't need no stinkin' logic.

You're one to talk. Now you want to be reasonable?

Dok, I understand you're in the market for a new Irony Meter and a shop vac to suction up the scattered remains of your recently departed unit.

[Pottapaug1938]

I would not be in favor of any requirement that a candidate for public office produce a birth certificate or any other documentation as a condition of running for office. Aside from Constitutional issues, we'd STILL have nutcases claiming that the certificates were forged by the CIA/KGB/Illuminati/Black Knights or whatever. Face it, folks -- these people wouldn't be satisfied, no matter what documents were required and produced!

[Lambkin]

I would eliminate the birth requirement entirely. It is no more useful than saying that only red-haired women can be president.

[fortinbras]

One of the bits of video floating around the internet, and shown on last night's Daily Show, was some Congressman at a town meeting being interrupted by a birfer bleating that Obama's birth document doesn't show the name (much less the signature) of the attending physician nor the name of the hospital. Well, of course the document was churned out last year by the Hawaii Health Dept computer from digitized records, so it wouldn't have the signature of an eyewitness to the birth. If Obama was really a fraud I am sure someone could just put in the name of some MD who died since 1961 and toss in the name of any Honolulu hospital, and go and prove that it didn't happen that way. I myself don't know (or care) about the name of the doctor at my birth (he evidently did a bad job of it) or the hospital, especially since I got my passport already.

But I am reminded that Jimmy Carter was the first Prez to be born in a hospital, and I bet these people couldn't conjure up a birth certificate for Lincoln or most other Presidents.

[fortinbras]

I would eliminate the birth requirement entirely. It is no more useful than saying that only red-haired women can be president.

It's worth keeping in mind that, a mere four years ago, a LOT of these same people were pushing "the Arnold Amendment" to eliminate the natural-born requirement altogether so Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President. Over the last 20 years or so there have been several law review articles to the effect that the natural-born requirement is probably the least sensible provision in the Constitution, at last in the period after the mid-20th century.

If Obama's birth certificate is a fake, and he was really born in a foreign country, then someone did a hell of a job -- having the Health Dept register the birth within two business days (and doing that from a foreign country in 1961), and posting birth notices in two Honolulu newspapers within ten days. And this for a mulatto baby in 1961. You'd think anyone so efficient, influential, and prescient to manage that fraud could just as easily have arranged for Barrack Obama to be born in Hawaii for real.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

I would eliminate the birth requirement entirely. It is no more useful than saying that only red-haired women can be president.

That's a perfect analogy because I'm sure there would be some contingent out there demanding proof that she was indeed a natural born red-head.

(edit:) Their delusions would be just as ludicrous since I'm sure they wouldn't take someone else's word as truth and would demand to see ... oh never mind.

[Chemnor]

McCain's mom was an unmarried woman, by law, as she had no legitimate marriage license in a country that required one to be married where she claimed to be married, Mexico.

McCain was born in the Republic of Panama and not in the Canal zone as there was no hospital in the Canal Zone the year he was born. (Mother's citizenship did not matter the year McCain was born unless she was married to a US citizen.)

So our choice was between a British Subject and a Panamanian for Pres this year.

But I did go to make sure my daughter had the right Birth Certificate when she went to apply for a passport today and the Birth record that Obama showed us would not have passed the test.

How come can't we see the Certified copy?

But what does it matter anyway? The Constitution has not been followed for 100 years. This would just be one more violation of the worthless document that was killed by judicial verbicide long ago.

[Dezcad]

Birth record that Obama showed us would not have passed the test.
How come can't we see the Certified copy?

That is demonstrably wrong as the BC produced by Obama is prima facie evidence.

But what does it matter anyway? The Constitution has not been followed for 100 years. This would just be one more violation of the worthless document that was killed by judicial verbicide long ago.

Since the verbicide does not fit within your "perceived reality", it is worthless, but the Constitution, for me, is not a worthless document.

If, in your opinion, the Constitution is worthless, then what document is worthwhile?

Or are you just another anarchist?

[Lambkin]

But what does it matter anyway?

It does not matter, not for the reason you say but because the candidate with the most popular support won. That's how it works and griping about it is just sour grapes. You have to trust that the voters will do what is best according to their own reasoning, and you happen to be in the minority on this question. That means your candidate (if you have one) couldn't win in 2008.

Someone please explain to me why I should give a crap about the president's birth certificate.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Shhhhhh. The educated people are talking.

Like that ever stopped you.

I just find your calls for temperance, logic and restraint absurd as you, sir, are the biggest offender of personal, ad hominem attacks - all well documented.

[Doktor Avalanche]

But I did go to make sure my daughter had the right Birth Certificate when she went to apply for a passport today and the Birth record that Obama showed us would not have passed the test.

Bullsh*t.

My short-form BC was all I needed to get a passport. Maybe in Sovrun Loony Land is this statement true.

Tell me, Chemnor, does making sh*t up come naturally to you or do you have to work at it?

[fortinbras]

I did work in the Passport Office at Rockefeller Center, NYC, and the Obama document would have been A-OK. It had the state impression seal, it was the officially issued document, it provided a date and a place of birth (the Passport only shows the State, not the city, much less the hospital), and named the parents, and that's all that is needed.