Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
1. It seems to me, offhand, that you could blow the whistle anonymously, telling someone (newspaper perhaps) about it and make a stink. And maybe I'm slow but if it's so easily trackable then why are we having this conversation?
2. Point 2 was originally about how many people we are talking about convincing, i.e. Obama's incentive for dragging this topic up again. And the answer is basically nobody outside the South, and few people outside the Republican Party. (Please recall the difference between "17% of independents doubt or aren't sure" and "All 17% will notice this and be convinced".) And a lot of the people still actively questioning this are irrational diehards. (Remember they were shouting to the heavens the birth certificate Obama DID produce was forged? Some of them probably still do.)
3. It's still a risk they would have been taking that it would be followed up by someone somewhere. At some point in his entire lifetime. And again, it makes no sense to me that they would court ADDITIONAL risk by lying about the hospital. |
1. Because nobody has said... anything about it? It'd be easy to track who leaked out personal information about someone.
2. Here your just overstating the matter. It isn't "basically nobody" and your bringing up a FEW indidual people shouting it was forged, when it was a small amount. When most of which who wanted the full birth certificate. Your basically strawman argueing this entire point.
3. Followed up on by... who? And why? It wasn't even followed up on when he was a Senator. Unless his parents new in advance he was going to be President. (something VERY unlikely in the 1960's.) I don't see how or why anybody would think this would come up.
Nor do I see how anyone would thing the better alternative was either to risk his deportation for not being a citizen or having to not live in this country possible for the rest of their lives. As for the hosptial, who knows where, when or why that came into play... can't really tell because the records aren't released.
Which in of itself is odd, since don't Presidential candidates traditionally release their full medical records?
Heck a reporter or author could of just assumed the hospital basde on location.
|
1. Would it really? Anyway, I asked that question because I did not understand what you evidently meant to say in the previous post.
2. I don't mean basically nobody is still unconvinced (remember, outside the South), I mean that if 90% are convinced now, and 10% are either skeptical or not sure, then I think it's probably a negligible amount that would become convinced if the info you want to be released is released.
And I still think that among the people ACTIVELY pursuing this issue, a lot of them are precisely those people who convinced themselves the short certificate was forged -- and there were more than a "few individuals". I don't think it's a strawman attack job to say that the ones most likely to dedicate themselves to keeping a zombie issue like this going and going for years are the ones who are convinced their doubts are actually true (instead of just being unconvinced) and these people were most likely to eagerly swallow the forgery story.
3. And the hospital thing is IMO a KEY point of failure to your hypothesis. There is no reason I can see for someone who faked a home birth to Hawaii and the USA to turn around and tell a different, conflicting lie to the public. It's insane. If you have no decent explanation then it really weakens your position. As for the "lazy reporter" hypothesis, A. that's really, really, really reaching; and B. the Obama campaign would have absolutely no reason not to correct (or "correct") that.
And DO they usually release their entire medical history? I think the burden is on you for this one. On a side note, I would have thought that if they did Cheney's disgustingly weak heart might have been mentioned in 2000 ... but for all I know it was and I missed it.
|
1. Yeah, I mean very few people are allowed access to birth certificates after they are put on file. I mean, the Identity theft concerns are THROUGH THE ROOF.
2. No, it's a strawman issue to say nobody will switch. Nor do I seem to understand why it matters most skeptics are from the south.
3. I don't think it's a weak reason. it's happened plenty of times before. Of course there is also just the reason of them not expecting anyone to check, afterall home birth is a stragne thing for most people and the fact that it would have to be corrected would make it a big issue, when it's likely to be a none issue otherwise, and there were reporters who've been hired (the people meant to check this stuff) who have lied about college degrees. Which is infinitly more easy.
Heck, who knows if he'd even know. Can you name the hosptial you were born in... do you even know if you were born in a hospital for sure. There are plenty of different reasons, just no way to know if any of them are actually related to anything.
|
2. Why? I thought it was reasonable to think that once you've convinced 90% of people on something, getting that last 10% to change their minds is extremely hard, so not many would be convinced by the hospital records. That's why I mentioned in the South vs. out of the South and Republican vs. non-Republican, because it actually matters for the point I was making. I don't know how many people in the South would be convinced.
3. Reporters have just completely made up a college that people supposedly got a degree from? As opposed to just making up that they have a degree? Anyway I'd hope they'd be a bit more thoroughgoing in a massive article about the president's early life like the one I spotted from the Washington Post.
4. As for him even knowing, no I can't name it offhand but yes I have the records in my house, and yes I'm sure it was in a hospital.
|
2. Why exactly do you think the south wouldn't be convinced? Nor do I get why it matters the south is the part of the country who believes it. It feels like your hinting at a "the south is racist" point here, though I could be wrong. Either way oddly from what i've seen in sociological and psychological studies is the most racist areas in the US tends to be in the North East. Largely because racism is mostly centered around big cities now a days. You've got the white people in one area, hispanics in another, blacks in another, close to each other but hardly any interaction and some areas are just worse then others... it's no good. Better integration of cities is needed, but it's not like you can order people where to buy their houses.
Hate crime statistics also back this up as well, but i'm largely not sure what goes into labeling something a hate crime or not.
I don't see why the south would be any different.
I disagree it's reasonable to give up trying to prove something when it will take all of 5 minutes to make one phone call. Afterall that would be by far the biggest proof he could ever of given. It should of been the first thing he did heck could of been the first AND last.
3. Reporters have made up a college degrees that they've had... then only been found out after they were caught plagerizing something or some big other scandal... and they're working for people who DO investigate stuff.... but yeah, people often do make mistakes like wrong colleges or degrees or all kinds of mistakes, ESPIECALLY on large articles covering a long period of time because your deadline is going to be the same as it would be on a small article.
4. Would you have known if it didn't say the hosptial on the forms? Birth never seemed like a big topic to me. Heck I was told about my birth only because I was born premature... even then I didn't know the hospital I was born at, just the hospital I was taken to. Didn't know until I looked on the birth certificate, wouldn't of probably known, but just assumed based on the fact that most people are born in hospitals. Most reporters would likely just guess based on location since you'd likely be born in that particular hospital.
My guess is, in the 1950's honolulu probably only had a few hospitals anyway.
