Hawaii Senator Wonders what Obama's Concealing

outdoor338 wrote: that is the lie you libs have bought into, seems funny that a lot of americans don't trust obama to tell the truth, rockdoc has some good questions, why keep hiding records..the libs produce data as do those who question obama's BC. One side says your evidence is incorrect while the other says theirs is fact...show all the records..if he had, this would be a mute point. What is he hiding???

What lie would that be? You have yet to name it. The data has been produced, but it appears you don't want to look at it, since it would force you to change your viewpoint.

Kate, data has been produced by both sides about obama's BC, hasn't it? One side says they have the facts while the other side says they have it..both sides have discredited each others documentation...people are believing both sides..I wonder what the % of those who question obama being born in this country..

outdoor338 wrote: Kate, data has been produced by both sides about obama's BC, hasn't it? One side says they have the facts while the other side says they have it..both sides have discredited each others documentation...people are believing both sides..I wonder what the % of those who question obama being born in this country..

Are you reading the same thread I am reading? This one? Because it's pretty much all one sided. Every time the birthers (for lack of a better word) present their "data," it is almost immediately refuted with facts and links. Then there's silence for a while until someone (usually you) claims again that there's loads of evidence to support the birthers claims, which then starts another round of "Here's the birth certificate" and "Nuh uh" and then "Uh huh." And so forth and so on.

From where I sit, there's tons of evidence that Obama is natural born. Every piece of evidence has been substantiated by government or independent sources. The same cannot be said of the birthers evidence. Usually, it's along the lines of
"His grandma saw him birthed in Kenya" which gets shot down, or "The long form certificate is the only legitimate document" which gets shot down and so forth again and again.

Tell you what, Outdoorr338, if you have evidence that proves he is not natural born, here is your chance to post it. Right here, out in the open. Post your reasons for believing that he's not a citizen, back it up with verifiable proof and then let's make up our minds together. What do you say?

This was done once before in The Ring:

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" www.285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=...2&hilit=natural+born " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=29&t=5872&hilit=natural+born<!-- l -->

After 8 pages, they STILL didn't have anything other than the (disproven) birther talking-points from the right-wing blogosphere...

Good luck...

As I said previously, this is a matter of trust, not the BC per se or some other document. I could give a rats behind what he took in college, or what his grades were or what his birth certificate says and that "it" has been revealed. Many of you cling to this argument that it has or hasn't. None of it changes the opinion of people who are not believers. What IS paramount is the issue of trust. Obama and his political advisors certainly are aware of trust issues among others. When convenient (all presidents) step up to clarify or try to change America's consciousness. Obviously, potentially contentious or demeaning personal issues represent a greater liability than does gaining all of American's trust. You can argue for or against the need for our President to have widespread trust. It is a fundamental relationship issue and when issues exist, then it is up to the one who is experiencing the problem to clarify it. As an a-political individual, the whole need to hide behind a presidential cloak of concealment smacks of deceit. As I wondered before, why is it so difficult to open up personal childhood to young adult records if there is nothing to be fearful about? Few of us go through our growing up period without some embarrassing moments or incidences that we prefer left undiscovered. Those of us old enough to vote realize the folly of pretending we were perfect then, much less today and therefore more than willing to laugh at some rough moments. Must our President try to appear perfect or secluded as opposed to being human?

And on the matters that bear on evidence. Proof through facts is what science uses to establish viable working hypotheses. I may require less proof to accept a particular working hypotheses than the scientist next to me. The same holds true for all you folks out there debating the BC issue. What one of you considers viable evidence is rejected by another. It is their right to have those perspectives regardless of how frustrating it may be that the opposing party is too dense to accept your "obvious" facts and your conclusions. Again, more transparency by our president could provide more facts and therefore strengthen one or another opinion (hypothesis). Clearly, the currently presented facts are questionable and your belief in one side or another is akin to belief in God. No matter how much evidence is presented it is your faith only that brings you to the conclusion God exists. Unfortunately, faith is very much questioned when it comes to Mr. Obama.

Clearly, you've already formed the opinion that you don't "trust him", no matter how many facts are presented. So, presenting more facts will not change your opinion. As I said, that's YOUR problem. The facts are the facts, and presenting them again, no matter how much 3rd-party/independent verification says they are true, is not going to change it.

I hope you find a way to get over your problem... But it IS your problem...

I didn't trust Bush either...And I've seen enough proof that shows that the cockamamie stories about the WMD's were lies, that I can't think of anything you could show me that would change my mind either... That's my problem... Bush lied--people died.

You do realize no matter what the President produced the birthers would say it's a fake (as they have with everything else he's produced). He has produced the documents necessary by the United States to prove his birth here, to obtain a passport and to run for office. So what's the point in catering to the whims of some fringe group in tin foil hats? There is no requirement that he produce any more than what he has already produced.

If birthers truly believe he wasn't born here and his family was somehow magically all-knowing that he would one day run for president and put things into motion back then that would allow him to run decades later then birthers must also believe that ANYONE IN THE WORLD could do the same thing -- manage to fool many levels of state and federal government in order to run for the highest office in the land. It would be the greatest subterfuge in the entire history of the United States. This is akin to trying prove we really landed on the moon to skeptics who believe we didn't (and there are thousands of them out there, so saying there are thousands who don't believe Obama is a U.S. citizen really means nothing. I put them in with the moon-landing hoax nutcases.)

Barack Obama is the president of the United States. More likely than not, barring some unseen event, he will be reelected -- and I base that on the history of incumbent presidents running for reelection and the fact that no strong opponent is on the horizon to run against him. And THAT'S why this has come up again. Crazy people grasping as straws. He's got more important things to do than cater to some nutjobs from either side.

If Charlton Heston came down from Mt. Sinai with the original engraved on a stone-tablet and handed it to them, some moron from NewsMax or FauxNews would be claiming that the stone actually came from an ISLAMIC-TERRORIST stone-quarry, and was paid for by Kenyans.... And Orly Taitz would be demanding to see Heston's birth-certificate...

LadyJazzer wrote: Clearly, you've already formed the opinion that you don't "trust him", no matter how many facts are presented. So, presenting more facts will not change your opinion. As I said, that's YOUR problem. The facts are the facts, and presenting them again, no matter how much 3rd-party/independent verification says they are true, is not going to change it.

I hope you find a way to get over your problem... But it IS your problem...

I didn't trust Bush either...And I've seen enough proof that shows that the cockamamie stories about the WMD's were lies, that I can't think of anything you could show me that would change my mind either... That's my problem... Bush lied--people died.

I take it this is directed to me? What do you know about how my mind works? Nice assumptions. This is not my problem, because I could give a hoot. You have missed my point aimed at generality and the BIG picture entirely. This wasn't about me wanting proof, it was about those who are on here demanding proof. I merely pointed out how proof is take by various people.

And no, I didn't trust Bush either and felt embarrassed by the actions he took and how he presented the US to the rest of the world. I lived in Saudi then and had to answer to foreigners. We are in agreement on the WMD and lie issue. Then again, I've yet to see a president who did not lie to the American people at one point or another, so I have low expectations when it comes to politicians in general.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Clearly, the currently presented facts are questionable and your belief in one side or another is akin to belief in God. No matter how much evidence is presented it is your faith only that brings you to the conclusion God exists. Unfortunately, faith is very much questioned when it comes to Mr. Obama.

You said what you said, and yes, I responded to what you said...