1. Either or both are possible.

2. Except you can have your medical records released regardless, it's been stated before.

3. I disagree, when you have a VERY easy mechanism to prove something without a shadow of a doubt, and refuse to take that mechanism, it tells me something.

4.  It's abridged in that it doesn't mention hospitals, which for example in the case of fraud or incompetance could mean the hospital listed is either foreign or listed as "home birth".

Whoever called Obama the snartest man in the world.  People said he was atriculate, the same way they said Reagan was.  In the case of Bush, it was brought on himself.  Bush mangled the the English language and did everything possible to be an embarrassment.  In contrast to Bush, Obama is far less that.  Not mangling the English language the way Bush did, helps people think you aren't dumb.

Again, it is contrast, no matter what you say here.  It is this contrast that inanely awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.

Anyhow, if you want to have this as some sort of argument, and competitive sport, to score points and "win" by making liberalism out to be more evil than conservatism, you can.  I would rather it morph into something constructive, that is of value.  I feel it is better this way.

To get back an earlier point about IQ and liberalism, consider this article in the National Standard on IQ and moral tyranny:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/730avutr.asp

Discussing the nature and relevance of intellect would matter here, and be of greater value than trying to one up examples of that which sucks.  Like, how important is it?  One can argue effectively that that Reagan wasn't as smart as Carter, but governed better, while the opposite of Clinton vs Bush Jr. can also be argued.  And then there is the basis of this thread, is if there is a level of stupidity one can sink to which would make them removed from the arena of political discourse like a sign that tells people to "Get a brain morans!". Also, is it better that individual argue from what what is superior, rather than selectively doing "But so and so".

I am getting really very much interested in trying to avoid politics, and have people tell me stuff.  I find out why you discuss religion and politics.  I think you are a really cool poster, but then this political stuff comes up, and it causes the opinion to possibly be changed. 

Erm... are you seriously saying that you posted some cherry picked pictures of horribly misspelled signs at tea party rallies to start a highfalutin discussion on the moral tyranny of IQ?

I really don't have much interest in hashing out Obama vs. Bush, Bush vs. Clinton, or Carter vs. Zombies. As you'll recall, I made a crack about Obama exploding the very deficit he'd promised to tame, and you brought up Bush (as someone always does). I'm always uncomfortable with feeling like I'm coming off like a Bush supporter, but I do think that only in an overwhelmingly hostile media environment could a guy put together a coalition of 49 countries and still be tagged as an arrogant unilateralist. And, for crying out loud, the guy flew jets. I disagree with him on a lot of shit and feel that he was basically a crummy president, but he can't be that dumb. Obama, on the other hand, has never done anything of substance, unless you count writing a creepy ass book about having a seance with his dead father or coming up with some simple "four legs good, two legs bad" type slogans. But the media was eating out of his hand from day one all the same; I long ago lost count of how many articles I've read talking about just how damned smart the guy is. Even to this day, the idea persists. Every time someone goes to criticize Obama, you'll hear them preface it with, "He's really super smart, but..."

Anyway, like I said before, you can find poorly spelled and/or insane and/or inflammatory signs at almost any rally. The idea that this is exclusively or predominately the domain of the tea party is something of a cliche, although if you take issue with their politics, I'm sure the idea that this is the case is a very comforting and seductive one. After all, if they're really so much dumber than everyone else, you can simply dismiss them out of hand. But as a number of sites out there can attest (zombietime.com, for instance), that's just not the case. It's a function of the fact that no other group of protesters has faced nearly as much scrutiny as they do.

Edit: And please don't stop thinking I'm cool. I'll cry if you do!

What I saw from the Ron Paul campaign is a deep rooted anger at what is going on.  This came up in the tea party and grew to cover other things.  A chuck of it is just knee-jerk reaction though, with later comers who ended up shooting down the Ron Paul campaign now using it for their ends.   I guess Fox News backs them, because they now attack Obama.

All I can say here is that, if I keep reading your political opinions, the end result is that I am not going to think you are cool.  This happens, which is why I look to avoid politics.  The teabonics thing had me me think that no way people are doing that.  So I posted.  But some are and it shakes my head.

Yes, I should look to avoid politics now, unless people want to work together to change things productively, like on an employment group I am looking to be involved with to help with finding work and getting employment on track (in short, who wants to work to fix the problems of society without government?).  In my case, the avoid politics comes from someone else I also know who blames the Democrats for him not getting his unemployment extention and calls them "Dumbocrats".  I have been hurting since 2004, so no way do I need to be hearing this, when historically the GOP doesn't want unemployment benefits.

Anyhow, as you can see by the selective editing of the above message of yours, I am trying to avoid the political bent here, and get my mind off it.  My mind seeks to avoid in general, which makes it appear I am not critical of Obama and a strong supporter (as opposed to the last admin).  In my case, it is more of me not wanting to think on thing, and hope they get better, and tired of the critical state I was at and the Ron Paul campaign walking away with hundreds of dollars and it all being for naught.  I think the political system is now a parasite used to suck money off people, and dangle a delusional carrot of power.   Oh, I can vent heavily. And I will likely not vote this fall.  Politicians haven't earned my vote.  I think the best thing to do is to have record low turnouts, and force the political state to listen.  Saying you MUST vote, and then voting for the least nausiatingly evil is not my idea of having things change for the better.  And this Blue vs Red divide is garbage.  Having the system base itself on hating the other side more, is a way for neither side to really stand for anything, and have people keep the status-quo as elite and powerful folk rig the system to get rich and screw anyone (not being able to have tea party and progressives dialog about financial reform to reach common ground just nails it for me as how useless going political is). 

Oh one last thing, the national standard article just came up as something to post of value, amd get the conversation constructive, rather than play who is dumber than who.  I use the article with full knowledge the magazine is a mouthpeace for neoconservatism, which nearly singlehandedly ruined America's standing in the world, on a patch to bankruptcy, and put the military in harm's way and overextended it.

I could accept the idea of incompetence insofar as to get the date of birth wrong.  I REJECT the idea that someone could ACCIDENTALLY turn the place of birth into "Honolulu, Oahu" from "Kenya" or "Indonesia" or whatever the fuck the conspiracy theory is. 

So in reality you are left with only one hypothesis:  that there was a CONSPIRACY to defraud the United States government into thinking that he was a natural born citizen instead of him becoming a citizen normally, which really has very little purpose OTHER than if they anticipated that he would want to become POTUS or maybe serve in Congress.  Given the extremely limited usefulness of such fraud I find this possibility extremely remote. 

And no, if it was such a fraud then surely they would not be so RETARDED as to list a Kenyan hospital.  So really your quest for the "real" birth certificate is quite meaningless. 

It makes me sad that you are seriously taking this position. 

Actually, I'm pretty sure if he wouldn't of been a citizen if born elsewhere.  His mom wasn't here long enough for citizenship to attach.

The point of the "Fraud" is there would be no hospital listed, because it'd be listed as a home birth vs being born in a hospital.

You wouldn't even need a long birth certificate for that.

All he'd have to do is give the hospital the right to release his records.

I mean whatever way he would become a citizen otherwise, he could have done. 

Also, "On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,"."  The fraud continues!  How much money have the Obamas spent on this coverup?!  Is there no honest man left in the Hawaiian Health Dept.? 

And what makes you positive he WASN'T born at home?  And if he was born in a hospital, you can bet that all you people would descend on it and harass the staff for every CONCEIVABLE shred of remotely relevant record, rejecting EVERY positive result until at last you die of old age, still looking for proof.  And you'd also track down and annoy the employees from 1961 the same way. 

Not to mention that this is considered fact by the vast, VAST majority of people, so all it would really do is stir things up again, not settle them like you seem to believe. 

Now your just being ridiculious. 

A)  He saw the original records saying he was born in Hawaii.  Not sure how that'd change anything based on if he was born in a hospital or not.

B)  How do I know he wasn't born at home?  I don't.  I don't know where he was born at all because the info hasn't been released.  That's kinda the point.  Besides, what's wrong with the hospital giving them relevent records.  It's not like he's a manager at Wal-Mart... he's the President.   Quite honestly I don't understand why President's aren't required to relase all documents about themselves anyway.  If there is a job that should require giving up your privacy about your past... it's definitly president.

Also, it's not as vast as you think.

It's 77% which is a decent amount.  But 11% do not and 12% arent' sure.

23% of americans aren't sure he's a natural born citizen.  I wouldn't call 77% a vast VAST majority.   It's only 3/4ths.  I'd save vast vast for like... 90-95%.  To convince more then about a fourth of the nation.  I'd say it was worth doing.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/07/31/fewer_than_half_of_republicans_think_obama_is_a_citizen.html

And this was a Daily Kos poll of all things.  So I don't think they're likely to slant to the side of "think he's not a citizen."

I think a small gesture to help convince like... a fourth of the country wouldn't hurt.

Though then again i'd be surprised if a fourth of the country cared.  Like I said, natural born citizenship is a dumb requirement to run for president.

Goddammit, my post disappeared and I have to try to do it all over again. 

1.  I stand corrected:  the information is already out there.  Wikipedia sez he was born in Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.  Surely you will admit that a conspiracy would at least keep its story straight? 

2.  I've already said previously in this conversation that I thought it was above 90-95%, so I don't know why you were surprised that I continued to believe it later on when I wasn't corrected.  (BTW, it's interesting how the point spread worked out on that survey.  42% of Republicans believe Obama and Hawaii, while everyone else is more like 90%.  47% of Southerners, 90% everywhere else in the country.) 

3.  What makes you think that releasing that info would prove anything?  You're already alleging a conspiracy that was able to alter government records, so the unreleased information could also have been altered -- or are you also alleging that the reason it hasn't been released is that the conspiracy was unable to "get to" those particular records?  Of course, that wouldn't apply to the "long form" birth certificate, as the "short form" certificate is just a truncated version of it. 

4.  I think I said this earlier:  what is the motive you're imagining?  What was the PURPOSE that made all this lawbreaking back in 1961 worthwhile? 

P.S.  A part of me keeps thinking you're about to say "haha, just kidding, I don't really think Obama is an illegal immigrant". 

1.  Yeah, Wikipedia suggests that's the hospital he was born in.  Actually was my point.  Except hospital administration has said they can't confirm or deny he was born there without Obama agreeing to give info.  Why he won't is beyond me.

2.  Really thought you were just using hyperbole.  Also... 20% of independents I wouldn't sneeze at.

3.  I'm not actually suggesting any conspiracy nor have.  Even if he wasn't born here a conspiracy is by far less likely then other things.

4.  If Obama wasn't born in the US, because his mom wasn't a citizen for long enough Obama wouldn't of been a natural born citizen, which would mean his parents would likely have to fill out paperwork and wait for the government wheels to turn.  When it'd be so much easier to simply say he was born here.

Also, I don't think he is an illegal immigrant.  I really just have no clue.  There is plenty of reason to wonder because it'd be simple to clear up if he really wanted to.  Like I said...  I think it's more likely it's an act of politcal gamesmanship.  Either way, without any clarification either is possible.