SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - White House releases Long Version of Obama Birth Certificate

Posted: Apr 27 2011 06:54 pm

They weren't all happy about it though. Both Jefferson and Washington are well-documented as being uneasy with the whole slavery thing.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

Now that is news to me.

Posted: Apr 27 2011 07:01 pm

http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/

Quote:

George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.

As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Apr 27 2011 07:23 pm

My understanding of the slavery debate way back when was it was "Slavery is bad" vs "Slavery is bad, but it's kind of a necessary evil"

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Even considering all of the evidence that was presented years ago, I think they timed it right. They waited for the birther movement to get a face (coincidentally, the most punchable face in the world, title-bearer 1993-present), bring the story more into the mainstream, and just rip it apart at its apex. Maybe this will provoke a little self-inspection. Why did we look at a mixed-race man without an Anglo-Saxon name, born in a state where Anglo-Saxons aren't the majority, and assume he wasn't a true American, in fact born in a Kenyan Mosque or something? Could it be that the baby-boomers-and-younger still haven't come to terms with their racial ignorance?

Oh, who am I kidding. Let's all watch The Apprentice.

Posted: Apr 27 2011 07:48 pm

joshwoodzy wrote:

Drew Linky wrote:

most of the founders also owned slaves, so I can't say it's a very good point...

Thanks, 2nd grade history teacher.

LMAO.

Posted: Apr 27 2011 07:53 pm

wow. personally i think this is a non-issue and im surprised it got this far

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

username wrote:

wow. personally i think this is a non-issue and im surprised it got this far

Really just a bunch of Republicans and other opponents getting upset over their loss and are still trying to exact "revenge".

If you're surprised at this, you have no idea the extent of the douche-baginess of politicians.

Posted: Apr 27 2011 11:38 pm

Drew Linky wrote:

username wrote:

wow. personally i think this is a non-issue and im surprised it got this far

Really just a bunch of Republicans and other opponents getting upset over their loss and are still trying to exact "revenge".

If you're surprised at this, you have no idea the extent of the douche-baginess of politicians.

Yeah... I'm gonna stop you right there. The Republicans made huge gains during the 2010 midterm elections and have effectively left Obama powerless. They've forced him to compromise severely on the federal budget, to the point where his leftist base is enraged at him. Obama's biggest problem right now is that he doesn't know how to play hardball. It's great that he's willing to compromise, especially since I don't like his policies, but he's allowed to let the Republicans define compromise "you give us what we want, we give you nothing" and he comes off looking like a massive tool as a result.

The whole birth certificate thing was basically just insult to injury.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

Syd Lexia wrote:

Drew Linky wrote:

username wrote:

wow. personally i think this is a non-issue and im surprised it got this far

Really just a bunch of Republicans and other opponents getting upset over their loss and are still trying to exact "revenge".

If you're surprised at this, you have no idea the extent of the douche-baginess of politicians.

Yeah... I'm gonna stop you right there. The Republicans made huge gains during the 2010 midterm elections and have effectively left Obama powerless. They've forced him to compromise severely on the federal budget, to the point where his leftist base is enraged at him. Obama's biggest problem right now is that he doesn't know how to play hardball. It's great that he's willing to compromise, especially since I don't like his policies, but he's allowed to let the Republicans define compromise "you give us what we want, we give you nothing" and he comes off looking like a massive tool as a result.

The whole birth certificate thing was basically just insult to injury.

Looks like I have a lot more research to do. Last time I get involved with politics unless I know the full story. -sigh-

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

The birth ceritificate thing is no different than Bush's military record. Both sides latching onto something that'll get attention despite having absolutely no validity to what the guy is doing now. It seems like every President we have now has some shadow over them that actually sidetracks what they should be doing; Obama's POB, Bush's military experience, Clinton's affairs, Cleveland's love child...oh wait.

However, I wonder if it would've been better to get this thing out of the way, or to play it up more. On one hand, you can let them play that card as long as they want, only to unleash it when the time comes and guarentee their failure. On the other hand, it'll seem shady you took so long to deliver, so they assume it's not valid.

Either way, I practically guarentee Obama wins in 2012. He'll do what Clinton did and play the moderate vote. There are no real Republicans that I see that can openly challenge his spot, despite his risky proposals.

Posted: Apr 28 2011 02:11 am

i meant, im surprised it got to 2 pages on this forum. i understand politics enough to know that they will use ANY weapon to their advantage. and like syd said, this was just adding salt to the dems wound.

Joined: May 22 2009 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 353

Doddsino wrote:

Either way, I practically guarentee Obama wins in 2012. He'll do what Clinton did and play the moderate vote. There are no real Republicans that I see that can openly challenge his spot, despite his risky proposals.

I think if a Republican with a non-interventionist foreign policy wins the nomination, they would pose a serious threat to Obama, someone like former NM Governor Gary Johnson or Ron Paul who both announced they were running. The unpopularity of the Iraq war and Bush helped Obama get elected, and now 3 years later we are in a 3rd war in the middle east. Hes not going to be able to argue hes "the guy whos going to keep us out of war" this time around.

Posted: Apr 28 2011 02:18 am

eh, im still a Ralph Nader guy. so, i know my vote is going to be wasted on him

Joined: May 22 2009 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 353

username wrote:

eh, im still a Ralph Nader guy. so, i know my vote is going to be wasted on him

I don't think Nader is running, but I did read that he is trying to get some Democrats to challenge Obama in the primaries, which historically spells doom for a incumbent President.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53825.html

Posted: Apr 28 2011 06:59 am

So...Does this mean Obama is now unable to run for re-election? I know we won't just boot him out of office, but do the rules for running for president apply to running for re-election?

I'm not really a politics buff or anything, just curious.

Posted: Apr 28 2011 07:10 am

I've been trying to stay far away from all this crap but I don't think much has changed, in fact proving he has a legit certificate should quiet down some of more skeptical / dissenting types.

Now whether or not you think that it was a normal chain of events or thought it was some sort of devious conspiracy to distract us from something even worse is really up to you to decide personally.

Pac-Man

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Apr 28 2011 07:33 am

Thunderhorse wrote:

So...Does this mean Obama is now unable to run for re-election? I know we won't just boot him out of office, but do the rules for running for president apply to running for re-election?

I'm not really a politics buff or anything, just curious.

Why? This shows he -is- eligible to hold the office.

Interesting enough, even if Obama was proven to be ineligible to hold the office of President, I'm not sure it would have made any difference legally. While the clause is in the Constitution, there is no crime of "being ineligible for the office of President" to impeach him for (though to be honest, not actually being guilty of something hasn't stopped impeachment attempts before), and as far as a civil suit goes, there's no injured party that has grounds to initiate a suit, and there's currently nothing in the law at all forcing him to step down once he's taken office.

My guess is that any President who was determined ineligible to hold office would simply resign of his own accord, because face it, with THAT hanging over his head, he couldn't get shit done anyways.

Posted: Apr 28 2011 11:45 am

Doddsino wrote:

The birth ceritificate thing is no different than Bush's military record. Both sides latching onto something that'll get attention despite having absolutely no validity to what the guy is doing now. It seems like every President we have now has some shadow over them that actually sidetracks what they should be doing; Obama's POB, Bush's military experience, Clinton's affairs, Cleveland's love child...oh wait.

Doddsino wrote:

The birth ceritificate thing is no different than Bush's military record. Both sides latching onto something that'll get attention despite having absolutely no validity to what the guy is doing now. It seems like every President we have now has some shadow over them that actually sidetracks what they should be doing; Obama's POB, Bush's military experience, Clinton's affairs, Cleveland's love child...oh wait.

However, I wonder if it would've been better to get this thing out of the way, or to play it up more. On one hand, you can let them play that card as long as they want, only to unleash it when the time comes and guarentee their failure. On the other hand, it'll seem shady you took so long to deliver, so they assume it's not valid.

Either way, I practically guarentee Obama wins in 2012. He'll do what Clinton did and play the moderate vote. There are no real Republicans that I see that can openly challenge his spot, despite his risky proposals.

Yeah, I see Obama winning in 2012. Not necessarily for the reasons you said though. I think the Republicans have peaked too soon. They have done a great job at stopping Obama from moving forward with things that he wanted to do that a lot of people seem not to like and have threatened to overturn healthcare (which Obama will absolutely fight tooth and nail), but they can't really show any results. "Look at all the stuff that didn't happen!" isn't a viable campaign.

Obama will find a way to shift momentum is his favor. Look at Massachusetts. Our governor, Deval Patrick, is a massive toolbag. A MASSIVE toolbag. In 2008 and 2009, his numbers were crap. There was talk that he was going to take an appointment from President Obama to save him the embarrassment of announcing that he wasn't going to seek reelection. But then, he did seek reelection. And somehow, he won. And then Massachusetts was plunged into four more years of unimaginable despair. But the point is, just because people feel one way about you now doesn't mean they'll feel the same come election time.
However, I wonder if it would've been better to get this thing out of the way, or to play it up more. On one hand, you can let them play that card as long as they want, only to unleash it when the time comes and guarentee their failure. On the other hand, it'll seem shady you took so long to deliver, so they assume it's not valid.

Either way, I practically guarentee Obama wins in 2012. He'll do what Clinton did and play the moderate vote. There are no real Republicans that I see that can openly challenge his spot, despite his risky proposals.

Yeah, I see Obama winning in 2012. Not necessarily for the reasons you said though. I think the Republicans have peaked too soon. They have done a great job at stopping Obama

Posted: Apr 28 2011 01:01 pm

Is this going to be Trumps's entire platform? Because he's STILL blabbing about it. "I'm so awesome because I proved something completely inconsequential, elect me!"

Posted: Apr 28 2011 01:16 pm

Black Zarak wrote:

Is this going to be Trumps's entire platform? Because he's STILL blabbing about it. "I'm so awesome because I proved something completely inconsequential, elect me!"

I really think a blowhard who's made a habit out of serially bankrupting multimillion dollar companies shouldn't be put in charge of anything, even if it's just a figurehead position.

Posted: Apr 28 2011 11:44 pm

Posted: Apr 29 2011 04:41 am

UsaSatsui wrote:

Thunderhorse wrote:

So...Does this mean Obama is now unable to run for re-election? I know we won't just boot him out of office, but do the rules for running for president apply to running for re-election?

I'm not really a politics buff or anything, just curious.

Why? This shows he -is- eligible to hold the office.

Interesting enough, even if Obama was proven to be ineligible to hold the office of President, I'm not sure it would have made any difference legally. While the clause is in the Constitution, there is no crime of "being ineligible for the office of President" to impeach him for (though to be honest, not actually being guilty of something hasn't stopped impeachment attempts before), and as far as a civil suit goes, there's no injured party that has grounds to initiate a suit, and there's currently nothing in the law at all forcing him to step down once he's taken office.

My guess is that any President who was determined ineligible to hold office would simply resign of his own accord, because face it, with THAT hanging over his head, he couldn't get shit done anyways.

Sorry...I can't read. I saw the Kenya for his dad's birthplace and thought it was his.

Posted: Apr 29 2011 05:10 am

username wrote:

I don't get it. Who's that?

Posted: Apr 29 2011 09:19 am

i dont know who it is, but i thought it was funny.

its a comic titled Least I Could Do: http://leasticoulddo.com/

it shows up on this comics app i have on my phone.