Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
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.
|
2. "Why exactly do you think the south wouldn't be convinced? " That's the OPPOSITE of the point I made, should we even be continuing this discussion if you're not going to pay attention to what you're reading?
As for the south being racist, whether it is or isn't isn't all that relevant to the point I made although my opinion is either that or Republican-ness or just being more ... anti things that seem foreign? ... is what's responsible for the vastly different statistics.
3 & 4. The fact remains that these are just completely pulled out of you ass for no better reason than they could possibly have happened, no matter how unlikely. I doubt "most" reporters would bet their professional reputation, and job, on it being the closest hospital to the home he lived at in childhood (as opposed, IIRC, to the one listed in the birth notice in the papers), when that hospital is probably only one of several in the city. I mean I don't even consider that information they absolutely had to have to do those bio pieces, so why make shit up? Making a mistake, or forgetting to double-check a source, is different from just making shit up. The former causes corrections to be issued; the latter causes scandals.
And yes I know & would have known I was born at a hospital independent of the forms.
P.S. I believe you mean "in the 1960s".
|
2. There is a lot of "republicaness" in other areas as well though... so I don't really see your point... and I still think your underestimating the independent numbers. 17% not sure is fairly substantial. The fact that it's mostly democrats shouldn't be a surprise though, as you know... democrats wouldn't want to believe it even if it was true. Why would you?
3&4. Except they aren't THAT unlikely. As for what your "doubting" I'd guess we've read and seen much different things about the media. As far as I'm aware stuff like that is actually very common practice to have mistakes. Sometimes intentional, sometimes infered and sometimes they just thought they heard it but didn't.
Also... I'm guessing you don't recall correctly... because as was mentioned countless times, no reporter is going to have access TO the birth certificate with the hospital on it. So I don't see how a reporter could of gotten that info from anywhere when nobody else has been able to since, including apparently the president. (since he's never produced info saying as such.)
It's all very valid possibilties that could eaisly be explained away with a 1 minute phonecall that isn't made.
If something is possible, and the person CAN prove it's not possible with little to no effort but refuses... then it is IDIOTIC to say with 100% certaintity it didn't happen. This is stuff that has happened before, and totally could have happened. Is it likely? No. Is it unlikely enough that it's out of the realm of possibility? Nope. The truth is, if it was an average everyday person people would be less sure rather then more. Heck you've even backed off the point of "it can't possibly of happened" in your response here... instead switching to "Ok, it's possible but you have no real proof."
The point is I have no real proof it didn't happen either. When such proof is available. I'm not argueing it did happen. I'm argueing it could of happened, and there is an easy way to prove it that isn't being taken.
Additionally, how do you know the conditions of your birth anyway? Curious.
