First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Two days ago it was claimed yet again that Obama's birth certificate is fake
735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

iriomote wrote:


Dark_Alma wrote:

You don't.

I just file this into the spam cabinet for when I need some laughs from pure unadulterated stupidity!

I honestly don't understand how it matters, or why they'd bother forging his birth certificate in the first place. What, so he'd be eligible to run for president?

Does nobody remember Mitt Romney's dad, George, who ran against Nixon in the Republican primaries of '68? He was born in Mexico (and not on a U.S. embassy, or military base, either), and the general consensus was (and still is) that he was a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president because his parents were citizens.

Even most birthers don't dispute that Obama's mother is, in fact, his mother. Since she's a citizen the entire argument is moot right out of the starting gate.



More recently, there is also Ted Cruz (who lost the Republican nomination to Trump). It's a known fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada, but while a small handful of people contested his eligibility, most agreed that he was a natural born citizen (for the same reason that Mitt Romney's dad was considered a natural born citizen).

35923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

LadyPsychic wrote:

More recently, there is also Ted Cruz (who lost the Republican nomination to Trump). It's a known fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada, but while a small handful of people contested his eligibility, most agreed that he was a natural born citizen (for the same reason that Mitt Romney's dad was considered a natural born citizen).

You're right. For some reason I'd thought he was born at an embassy, but apparently not. Must be senility setting in.
24118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16
Most of the arguments I've seen from a lot of people is that citizen should depend on the status of the mother or father, which to an extent it already does. If you want to debate that issue versus that of so called anchor babies, I think it is a good debate, but what does it matter where he is born matter if his parents are citizens? What do you want to fucking do about that in that case? Are you suggesting neither land nor parent citizenship status should be the case?


Not that the "Official" tag is a complete and utter lie. What is fucking official in that Youtube video?
29778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

Lemontitties wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Which imo is a stupid thing the constitution will need to be rewritten one day and updated as society progresses and if someone is born in Australia then lives in America for 90% of there life they should be allowed to run as president imo.


Yes, coming from the same guy who wants to eliminate working altogether and put everyone on a universal income...heh heh.



I say it's fake because their is no real clear evidence.
Honestly i don't see a problem even if it was fake i think the American constitution has some problems in itself that are slightly outdated.


Yeah, I may have jumped the gun a bit there when I said the evidence was clear, but this definitely is a cause for concern. We've had him for 8 years now, putting up w/ his horrible healthcare program and putting us into even more debt. But you guys will just write that off as George Bush leaving him w/ all the extra baggage




Yes because i am concerned for the future and we will have all jobs automated that's not something we can stop.

would you rather just everyone be jobless and not have any form of universal income?
There is no way to stop it unless we stop machines themselves which would be a mistake for the progression of society itself.
It's simply a matter of what is important jobs and people working or the future.

I would like a world where people work and have jobs also to an extent but the sad truth is in the future this won't be economically or situationally viable and it's up to us now to prepare for the future.

I get your view most people put not working and universal income to socialism etc but it's a legitimate concern not just America but every Nation will need to start thinking about.

His healthcare program would have worked if he had not botched it up and instead went for universal healthcare but he is a cause of concern i agree but you guys are getting him out soon so that's the best outcome is it not?
11786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16
Oh good. A youtube video. Yeah I DEFINITELY belive this shit now. I mean, come on, it's on the internet so it must be true.
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Most of the arguments I've seen from a lot of people is that citizen should depend on the status of the mother or father, which to an extent it already does. If you want to debate that issue versus that of so called anchor babies, I think it is a good debate, but what does it matter where he is born matter if his parents are citizens? What do you want to fucking do about that in that case? Are you suggesting neither land nor parent citizenship status should be the case?


Lala thinks that the new evidence uncovered is pretty strong evidence that should be taken seriously. The fact that there were 9 points of forgery, and a statistically impossible identicality to another birth certificate made 16 days earlier, makes it a strong argument that the birth certificate is fake.

Regardless of the ethics behind presidential eligibility for people born out of the US, if Obama lied about his birth certificate this is a serious problem. After all, he was the one who said this.


Not that the "Official" tag is a complete and utter lie. What is fucking official in that Youtube video?



officially adverb
uk ​ /əˈfɪʃ.əl.i/ us ​ /əˈfɪʃ.əl.i/

formally and in a way agreed to or arranged by people in positions of authority:
The royal engagement was announced officially this morning.

​as stated or accepted by people publicly but not privately or as things really are:
Well, officially I am on holiday this week, but I'm just catching up on some reports I have to finish.

in or relating to a position of responsibility that you hold:
He has not visited the country officially since his election, only in a private capacity.


Lala asks in return, what isn't official about the press conference?


octorockandroll wrote:

Oh good. A youtube video. Yeah I DEFINITELY belive this shit now. I mean, come on, it's on the internet so it must be true.


If you're still stuck at deciding whether this video was forged or not, there's no way Lala can help.
24118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

LalaSatalin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Most of the arguments I've seen from a lot of people is that citizen should depend on the status of the mother or father, which to an extent it already does. If you want to debate that issue versus that of so called anchor babies, I think it is a good debate, but what does it matter where he is born matter if his parents are citizens? What do you want to fucking do about that in that case? Are you suggesting neither land nor parent citizenship status should be the case?


Lala thinks that the new evidence uncovered is pretty strong evidence that should be taken seriously. The fact that there were 9 points of forgery, and a statistically impossible identicality to another birth certificate made 16 days earlier, makes it a strong argument that the birth certificate is fake.

Regardless of the ethics behind presidential eligibility for people born out of the US, if Obama lied about his birth certificate this is a serious problem. After all, he was the one who said this.


Not that the "Official" tag is a complete and utter lie. What is fucking official in that Youtube video?



officially adverb
uk ​ /əˈfɪʃ.əl.i/ us ​ /əˈfɪʃ.əl.i/

formally and in a way agreed to or arranged by people in positions of authority:
The royal engagement was announced officially this morning.

​as stated or accepted by people publicly but not privately or as things really are:
Well, officially I am on holiday this week, but I'm just catching up on some reports I have to finish.

in or relating to a position of responsibility that you hold:
He has not visited the country officially since his election, only in a private capacity.


Lala asks in return, what isn't official about the press conference?


octorockandroll wrote:

Oh good. A youtube video. Yeah I DEFINITELY belive this shit now. I mean, come on, it's on the internet so it must be true.


If you're still stuck at deciding whether this video was forged or not, there's no way Lala can help.


Is this Arpaio again? He's been saying this for years. You do have a point. A lie by an official is still a lie. Which makes Arpaio claims outrageous as he reached his conclusion before the evidence did (Or Did not).
7 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16
Y'all making me create an account just to debunk this...

Look at everything critically, whether it be about the President-Elect or the current President. If you looked at this critically, you would see that this is the result of a five-year investigation ordered by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sound familiar?

Sheriff Joe is an Arizona sheriff who is well-liked among conservatives because he's extremely biased in his handling of crime and immigrants. He's being investigated for willfully ignoring federal orders and human rights by targeting anyone who looks Hispanic. Sheriff Joe has a bone to pick with Obama, he's been into the birther argument for a good while now.

The fact is, Sheriff Joe and his posse member Mike Zullo, who's been in charge of this, are biased. They paid for the companies which reinforced their claims. They're looking for ways to pin anything on Obama, regardless of the fact that every major entity, whether conservative or liberal, has found nothing or proof to the contrary. Do you know how easy it is to find proof?

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/whoswho/mike-zullo/ That's a link saying that Mike Zullo already provided proof along those lines, using different 'facts', so basically he was either lying then or he's lying now. This is on the front page of Google if you search Mike Zullo. I've officially found proof debunking this. Do I trust it? No. I trust that source as much as I trust Sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo. They're all biased, they put forward only the views of other people who agree with them. And if you put an entire world on the internet and have them all looking at the same things, you'll get plenty of people with any sort of view.

Don't spread this information like it's done and sealed. It's biased. Science and facts are based on an overwhelming majority of invested, unbiased people all looking at the same problem and finding the same answer. The answer in this case is that there is no question, whether it's from conservatives, liberals, or the President Elect's own cabinet, of President Obama's legitimacy.
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

tibdimitri wrote:

Y'all making me create an account just to debunk this...

Look at everything critically, whether it be about the President-Elect or the current President. If you looked at this critically, you would see that this is the result of a five-year investigation ordered by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sound familiar?

Sheriff Joe is an Arizona sheriff who is well-liked among conservatives because he's extremely biased in his handling of crime and immigrants. He's being investigated for willfully ignoring federal orders and human rights by targeting anyone who looks Hispanic. Sheriff Joe has a bone to pick with Obama, he's been into the birther argument for a good while now.

The fact is, Sheriff Joe and his posse member Mike Zullo, who's been in charge of this, are biased. They paid for the companies which reinforced their claims. They're looking for ways to pin anything on Obama, regardless of the fact that every major entity, whether conservative or liberal, has found nothing or proof to the contrary. Do you know how easy it is to find proof?

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/whoswho/mike-zullo/ That's a link saying that Mike Zullo already provided proof along those lines, using different 'facts', so basically he was either lying then or he's lying now. This is on the front page of Google if you search Mike Zullo. I've officially found proof debunking this. Do I trust it? No. I trust that source as much as I trust Sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo. They're all biased, they put forward only the views of other people who agree with them. And if you put an entire world on the internet and have them all looking at the same things, you'll get plenty of people with any sort of view.

Don't spread this information like it's done and sealed. It's biased. Science and facts are based on an overwhelming majority of invested, unbiased people all looking at the same problem and finding the same answer. The answer in this case is that there is no question, whether it's from conservatives, liberals, or the President Elect's own cabinet, of President Obama's legitimacy.


Lala appreciates that you took the time to make an account to post on this thread, but your argument amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. Lala learned in high school that an ad hominem fallacy is not a valid argument.

Sure, he may be biased, but the Sheriff presented evidence, had it analyzed by two forensic examiners, and statistically concluded that the birth certificate was forged. Evidence is not swayed by bias, only the interpretation is. If you interpret the evidence differently, that may be a story, but simply attacking the person does not count as an argument.

What you're doing is essentially the equivalent to calling a homicide detective biased, and therefore false, after he arrives to a conclusion about a culprit based on forensic evidence. There is no such thing as a biased person, and some things can only be sniffed out by people who outwardly look for it.
7 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

LalaSatalin wrote:


tibdimitri wrote:

Y'all making me create an account just to debunk this...

Look at everything critically, whether it be about the President-Elect or the current President. If you looked at this critically, you would see that this is the result of a five-year investigation ordered by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sound familiar?

Sheriff Joe is an Arizona sheriff who is well-liked among conservatives because he's extremely biased in his handling of crime and immigrants. He's being investigated for willfully ignoring federal orders and human rights by targeting anyone who looks Hispanic. Sheriff Joe has a bone to pick with Obama, he's been into the birther argument for a good while now.

The fact is, Sheriff Joe and his posse member Mike Zullo, who's been in charge of this, are biased. They paid for the companies which reinforced their claims. They're looking for ways to pin anything on Obama, regardless of the fact that every major entity, whether conservative or liberal, has found nothing or proof to the contrary. Do you know how easy it is to find proof?

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/whoswho/mike-zullo/ That's a link saying that Mike Zullo already provided proof along those lines, using different 'facts', so basically he was either lying then or he's lying now. This is on the front page of Google if you search Mike Zullo. I've officially found proof debunking this. Do I trust it? No. I trust that source as much as I trust Sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo. They're all biased, they put forward only the views of other people who agree with them. And if you put an entire world on the internet and have them all looking at the same things, you'll get plenty of people with any sort of view.

Don't spread this information like it's done and sealed. It's biased. Science and facts are based on an overwhelming majority of invested, unbiased people all looking at the same problem and finding the same answer. The answer in this case is that there is no question, whether it's from conservatives, liberals, or the President Elect's own cabinet, of President Obama's legitimacy.


Lala appreciates that you took the time to make an account to post on this thread, but your argument amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. Lala learned in high school that an ad hominem fallacy is not a valid argument.

Sure, he may be biased, but the Sheriff presented evidence, had it analyzed by two forensic examiners, and statistically concluded that the birth certificate was forged. Evidence is not swayed by bias, only the interpretation is. If you interpret the evidence differently, that may be a story, but simply attacking the person does not count as an argument.

What you're doing is essentially the equivalent to calling a homicide detective biased, and therefore false, after he arrives to a conclusion about a culprit based on forensic evidence. There is no such thing as a biased person, and some things can only be sniffed out by people who outwardly look for it.


Fair enough. The difference is that a homicide detective has a job to solve homicides, Sheriff Joe has a job to uphold the law in Arizona. The fact that he fueled this investigation for personal reasons puts his evidence in question.

Consider this, if I were looking for a killer, and I had their signature to go off of, I could potentially look through every signature available to me until I find a single common character, then reinforce my proof. How? By paying a third party. It wouldn't even be illegitimate, if I searched through every third party to find one who agreed with me on that single character, if none other. Now I have two signatures and a match between them. This is the kind of reaching I would call out, if looking at a conspiracy.

Now consider this, that website I linked above calls out various issues with the conference and Mike Zullo's representation of them. The date, numbers on the document, the signature... Were I to discuss each individual point would be the same as you discussing why the "9 Point" system is valid for each individual point of reference, something that neither of us is qualified for.

Essentially, by calling out this conspiracy yourself, you are putting all of your faith in the results, so the only logical argument that can be made is against the individual making it. How are we to know if the signature was faked or if they're just nitpicking how it was printed? What we can know is that Sheriff Joe has a shoddy record of being investigated and fined for looking for crime where there is none. That part, we can argue about.
36289 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Seireitei, Soul S...
Online
Posted 12/18/16

LalaSatalin
There is no such thing as a biased person.


Have you been living under a rock..? No such thing as a biased person my ass. Everyone's biased about at least one thing. Why do you think we have people who have opposing viewpoints on politics and such? Because they're biased towards one ideal or another. You seem to be living in a fantasy world, little girl. You post threads about right wing conspiracies and politics and then say that no one is biased, yet you obviously are yourself. Don't believe everything you come across on the internet and take off those rose colored glasses you're wearing. Not everyone in the whole world thinks exactly the same as everyone else.
mxdan 
11240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16
Determining bias is very important for effective critical thinking. This shit pisses me off because this fucking thing has no independence of thought. These people would argue to their graves that obama isn't a citizen because they are biased false opinionated people who don't care about overall collective evidence.
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

tibdimitri wrote:

Fair enough. The difference is that a homicide detective has a job to solve homicides, Sheriff Joe has a job to uphold the law in Arizona. The fact that he fueled this investigation for personal reasons puts his evidence in question.

Consider this, if I were looking for a killer, and I had their signature to go off of, I could potentially look through every signature available to me until I find a single common character, then reinforce my proof. How? By paying a third party. It wouldn't even be illegitimate, if I searched through every third party to find one who agreed with me on that single character, if none other. Now I have two signatures and a match between them. This is the kind of reaching I would call out, if looking at a conspiracy.

Now consider this, that website I linked above calls out various issues with the conference and Mike Zullo's representation of them. The date, numbers on the document, the signature... Were I to discuss each individual point would be the same as you discussing why the "9 Point" system is valid for each individual point of reference, something that neither of us is qualified for.

Essentially, by calling out this conspiracy yourself, you are putting all of your faith in the results, so the only logical argument that can be made is against the individual making it. How are we to know if the signature was faked or if they're just nitpicking how it was printed? What we can know is that Sheriff Joe has a shoddy record of being investigated and fined for looking for crime where there is none. That part, we can argue about.


Good points. Lala mentioned in the OP that Lala wanted to hear people's thoughts on this. It's possible that the Sheriff forged the evidence itself, but at the same time there's no evidence to prove that the evidence itself is fake. There are lots of other circumstantial evidences pointing to Obama being born outside of the US, so if this evidence turns out to be legitimate then it's pretty much undeniable. It is important however to note that even if the birth certificate was in fact fake, you'd be giving the same argument either way. He seems pretty serious about this and Lala thinks that he was waiting for the right timing to make this announcement, which is now. The legitimacy of the evidence itself will be determined by Congress. Still, Lala thinks it's important that people are aware of this situation.


BlackRose0607 wrote:

Have you been living under a rock..? No such thing as a biased person my ass. Everyone's biased about at least one thing. Why do you think we have people who have opposing viewpoints on politics and such? Because they're biased towards one ideal or another. You seem to be living in a fantasy world, little girl. You post threads about right wing conspiracies and politics and then say that no one is biased, yet you obviously are yourself. Don't believe everything you come across on the internet and take off those rose colored glasses you're wearing. Not everyone in the whole world thinks exactly the same as everyone else.


Lala has no idea how you couldn't discern through the context of the conversation that it was a typo.
25280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Germany
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

octorockandroll wrote:

Oh good. A youtube video. Yeah I DEFINITELY belive this shit now. I mean, come on, it's on the internet so it must be true.


83778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 12/18/16 , edited 12/18/16

iriomote wrote:

You're right. For some reason I'd thought he was born at an embassy, but apparently not. Must be senility setting in.


The reason it would have mattered (past tense) is that if Obama had not been born in the US, he would not have met the rules for naturalized citizen in place at the time of his birth. If he did not meet those rules, then he would not be a "natural-born citizen" required to become the US president. With Ted Cruz, he was born outside the US, but he and his family moved to the US within 5 years of his birth, which met the rules for a naturalized citizen in place at his birth, so he was a "natural-born citizen". This may have also been the case with Mitt Romney's father. However, this "news" reeks of fake news. Also, even if the certificate were faked, Obama could have still been born in Hawaii. It would probably a crime to forge that document, though.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.