Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (497871)	7/23/2009 10:59:15 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576113

Why? The longer it goes, the nuttier your team looks. The birth certificate said right at the bottom that it was a valid legal document that establishes the birth record in every court in the land. What else is a birth certificate supposed to do? I just looked at MY birth certificate, that I used to get my passport. It's pretty much just like Obama's. Accepted anywhere, except I guess in extreme right wingnutworld.

To: i-node who wrote (497871)	7/24/2009 6:11:35 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576113

Just end it. Why? Nothing illustrates the desperate lunacy of the right better than the birther movement. SD

To: i-node who wrote (497871)	7/24/2009 9:10:24 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1576113

" The birth certificate is apparently not evidence of it, from what little I've read, in that they are not the same as a birth certificate issued in say, Texas." Huh? Why not? "Prior to a particular date, they did not have any repository of such data." What are you talking about? Part of the problem here is that some people don't realize that different states have different procedures. And even those procedures can change over time. An important fact here is that in 2001, Hawaii went over to all electronic records. And they destroyed the paper records that existed before. So birth certificates copies acquired after that time don't have things like signatures. Just the basic information required for the document. So the fact that older copies of birth certificates had more information on them is totally irrelevant. "The more compelling evidence, IMO, is the birth announcement which appeared contemporaneously in the newspaper. " Not sure if it is more compelling, but yeah. Although birthers can, no doubt, come up with some convoluted reason why that should be discounted also. "But I don't think it is too much to require that a president of the United States, when there is some doubt as to his qualification, should present an official copy of the birth certificate" Which he did. That image is of an official copy. Like all the ones made since 2001 in Hawaii. "which apparently should be on file with the hospital" Why? How would a home birth be handled? From what I've found out, that wasn't the procedure in Hawaii. It certainly isn't the procedure in Texas. Until recently, those records were held by the county. And to get a copy, you'd have to go there and request it in person. Now it is easier.