By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Is "teabonics" fake?

Final-Fan on 15 September 2010
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. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 15 September 2010
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.



Final-Fan on 15 September 2010
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". 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 16 September 2010
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.



Final-Fan on 16 September 2010
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
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 likely.  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. 

2.  Well -- whatever the case may be about people's "Republicanness" -- the fact remains that, IIRC, according to that poll, 90% of people in regions other than the South (over all parties:  Democrats, Republicans, and independents) already believe this, while a total of 10% are unsure or disbelieve.  At that point, as I said, I believe it's extremely hard to get those last people to change their minds. 

As you said, it's not quite that extreme with independents over all regions (including the south).  And as I said -- which you somehow interpreted as the opposite -- the number over all parties in the south is much lower, so there's no telling how many people in that region may be convinced; I suppose it would depend on what made their rate of belief differ so much, although IMO it strains belief that some sort of bias wouldn't be involved. 

3.  I don't know what I said that suggested to you that I thought they WOULD have access to birth certificates.  I think you misread something. 

And this phone call is getting shorter and shorter. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 16 September 2010
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
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 likely.  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. 

2.  Well -- whatever the case may be about people's "Republicanness" -- the fact remains that, IIRC, according to that poll, 90% of people in regions other than the South (over all parties:  Democrats, Republicans, and independents) already believe this, while a total of 10% are unsure or disbelieve.  At that point, as I said, I believe it's extremely hard to get those last people to change their minds. 

As you said, it's not quite that extreme with independents over all regions (including the south).  And as I said -- which you somehow interpreted as the opposite -- the number over all parties in the south is much lower, so there's no telling how many people in that region may be convinced; I suppose it would depend on what made their rate of belief differ so much, although IMO it strains belief that some sort of bias wouldn't be involved. 

3.  I don't know what I said that suggested to you that I thought they WOULD have access to birth certificates.  I think you misread something. 

And this phone call is getting shorter and shorter. 

2. I still don't see your point here then.  The number of overall parties is lower in the south... i still don't see the point.   You can claim biases everywhere however.  Heck, maybe more southerns care because the south cares far more about immigration issues then the rest of the country since they deal with it the most.

" 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), "

And it keeps getting shorter because it really is a very short phonecall.  Heck you don't even need a phonecall.  You could take 30 seconds after a reporter asks you about it and say "Heck, I give you permission to aks the hospital personal yourself!  Bam, it's on tape.  Done. 

Besides, it doesn't change the fact that what I said in fact is possible and he's avoided such an easy manuever to debunk said things.  That makes it really silly to say you are 100% sure that he is a natrualized citizen.

If anything, more people should say "not sure."  Really nobody should be in the "100% sure" or "100% sure he isn't" categories.  Well unless you just don't care, didn't pay attention or didn't read much about it. 



Final-Fan on 16 September 2010
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
2.  Well -- whatever the case may be about people's "Republicanness" -- the fact remains that, IIRC, according to that poll, 90% of people in regions other than the South (over all parties:  Democrats, Republicans, and independents) already believe this, while a total of 10% are unsure or disbelieve.  At that point, as I said, I believe it's extremely hard to get those last people to change their minds. 

As you said, it's not quite that extreme with independents over all regions (including the south).  And as I said -- which you somehow interpreted as the opposite -- the number over all parties in the south is much lower, so there's no telling how many people in that region may be convinced; I suppose it would depend on what made their rate of belief differ so much, although IMO it strains belief that some sort of bias wouldn't be involved. 

3.  I don't know what I said that suggested to you that I thought they WOULD have access to birth certificates.  I think you misread something. 

And this phone call is getting shorter and shorter. 

2. I still don't see your point here then.  The number of overall parties is lower in the south... i still don't see the point.   You can claim biases everywhere however.  Heck, maybe more southerns care because the south cares far more about immigration issues then the rest of the country since they deal with it the most.

" 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), "

And it keeps getting shorter because it really is a very short phonecall.  Heck you don't even need a phonecall.  You could take 30 seconds after a reporter asks you about it and say "Heck, I give you permission to aks the hospital personal yourself!  Bam, it's on tape.  Done. 

Besides, it doesn't change the fact that what I said in fact is possible and he's avoided such an easy manuever to debunk said things.  That makes it really silly to say you are 100% sure that he is a natrualized citizen.

If anything, more people should say "not sure."  Really nobody should be in the "100% sure" or "100% sure he isn't" categories.  Well unless you just don't care, didn't pay attention or didn't read much about it. 

I've explained the point I was trying to make at least 3 or 4 times now and frankly it seems futile for me to repeat myself again.  I don't see how I was in any way unclear when I said
"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." or
"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." or
"the fact remains that, IIRC, according to that poll, 90% of people in regions other than the South (over all parties:  Democrats, Republicans, and independents) already believe this, while a total of 10% are unsure or disbelieve.  At that point, as I said, I believe it's extremely hard to get those last people to change their minds."

I mean, you took a comment I made that I thought was an ASIDE and just OBSESSED over "Republicanness" even though it was just one possible influence out of three or four that were, again, merely part of a side comment:  "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."  [edit:  and I would like to note that my third possibility sounds related to the one you yourself suggested.]

I mean, I've almost forgotten the reason I'm even SAYING this point, just because I've had to spend so much time telling you and having you not get it or think I'm saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying. 

Unless [edit:  you choose to give a reply that] is just incredibly captivating and compels a response, I'm done with this part of the discussion.  

A.  You could say people shouldn't be 100% sure of most things; I don't think that's particularly more true of this than anything else.  I'm pretty sure the Swift Boat thing was a knowingly (from the principals) false smear job on Kerry -- not 100% but I'd bet significant money on it.  I'd bet HUUUUGE money Obama was born in Hawaii.  

B.  The South gets more immigration issues?  Bullshit -- or at least I categorize Arizona, New Mexico, and California as West instead of South.  Maybe that's not how the Daily Kos rolls...?



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 16 September 2010
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
2.  Well -- whatever the case may be about people's "Republicanness" -- the fact remains that, IIRC, according to that poll, 90% of people in regions other than the South (over all parties:  Democrats, Republicans, and independents) already believe this, while a total of 10% are unsure or disbelieve.  At that point, as I said, I believe it's extremely hard to get those last people to change their minds. 

As you said, it's not quite that extreme with independents over all regions (including the south).  And as I said -- which you somehow interpreted as the opposite -- the number over all parties in the south is much lower, so there's no telling how many people in that region may be convinced; I suppose it would depend on what made their rate of belief differ so much, although IMO it strains belief that some sort of bias wouldn't be involved. 

3.  I don't know what I said that suggested to you that I thought they WOULD have access to birth certificates.  I think you misread something. 

And this phone call is getting shorter and shorter. 

2. I still don't see your point here then.  The number of overall parties is lower in the south... i still don't see the point.   You can claim biases everywhere however.  Heck, maybe more southerns care because the south cares far more about immigration issues then the rest of the country since they deal with it the most.

" 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), "

And it keeps getting shorter because it really is a very short phonecall.  Heck you don't even need a phonecall.  You could take 30 seconds after a reporter asks you about it and say "Heck, I give you permission to aks the hospital personal yourself!  Bam, it's on tape.  Done. 

Besides, it doesn't change the fact that what I said in fact is possible and he's avoided such an easy manuever to debunk said things.  That makes it really silly to say you are 100% sure that he is a natrualized citizen.

If anything, more people should say "not sure."  Really nobody should be in the "100% sure" or "100% sure he isn't" categories.  Well unless you just don't care, didn't pay attention or didn't read much about it. 

I've explained the point I was trying to make at least 3 or 4 times now and frankly it seems futile for me to repeat myself again.  I don't see how I was in any way unclear when I said
"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." or
"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." or
"the fact remains that, IIRC, according to that poll, 90% of people in regions other than the South (over all parties:  Democrats, Republicans, and independents) already believe this, while a total of 10% are unsure or disbelieve.  At that point, as I said, I believe it's extremely hard to get those last people to change their minds."

I mean, you took a comment I made that I thought was an ASIDE and just OBSESSED over "Republicanness" even though it was just one possible influence out of three or four that were, again, merely part of a side comment:  "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."  [edit:  and I would like to note that my third possibility sounds related to the one you yourself suggested.]

I mean, I've almost forgotten the reason I'm even SAYING this point, just because I've had to spend so much time telling you and having you not get it or think I'm saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying. 

Unless [edit:  you choose to give a reply that] is just incredibly captivating and compels a response, I'm done with this part of the discussion.  

A.  You could say people shouldn't be 100% sure of most things; I don't think that's particularly more true of this than anything else.  I'm pretty sure the Swift Boat thing was a knowingly (from the principals) false smear job on Kerry -- not 100% but I'd bet significant money on it.  I'd bet HUUUUGE money Obama was born in Hawaii.  

B.  The South gets more immigration issues?  Bullshit -- or at least I categorize Arizona, New Mexico, and California as West instead of South.  Maybe that's not how the Daily Kos rolls...?


2.  Ah.  Well, I just disagree.  Not really much more to say.  If you can provide additional proof and it will take little to no effort.  It is on you to do so... because it would take little to no effort.  Otherwise, you've just not done your work.

Example, someone brings in a 1925 signed babe ruth card.  They show the signature, tell the story how they got it.  9 out of 10 people believe it's the real deal. 

One guy says "I think that card's from 1926.... let me look at the back and see the year."

"No."

The no here is completely unreasonable if you ask me.

A. I do think so... keep in mind this whole thing started because Obama's Kenyan aunt stated she was there when he was born... and then only later recanted.  (Possibly after being told what a silly law the US has when it comes to electing presidents?)  It's not like the swiftboats where the original source was some anti-kerry groups.  This whole thing started due to a family relative saying she was there then changing her story. (Because she wasn't in the US at that time.)

B.  Arizona and New Mexco I'd think would be counted as south.  Maybe not, can't really say.  I'd of liked to of seen a state by state breakdown myself.   Knowing Daily Kos they might of just pulled NY as the West, Illnois as North, California as west and... well there would be no easy slamdunk in the south.  Daily Kos... I only really used because it's higher then you'd expect based on their general bias and placements in poll tracking.

As for California... they don't "care" about immigartion issues really... they go out of there way to be helpeful towards immigrats both illegal and legal.



Final-Fan on 16 September 2010
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I've explained the point I was trying to make at least 3 or 4 times now and frankly it seems futile for me to repeat myself again.  I don't see how I was in any way unclear when I said
"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." or
"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." or
"the fact remains that, IIRC, according to that poll, 90% of people in regions other than the South (over all parties:  Democrats, Republicans, and independents) already believe this, while a total of 10% are unsure or disbelieve.  At that point, as I said, I believe it's extremely hard to get those last people to change their minds."

I mean, you took a comment I made that I thought was an ASIDE and just OBSESSED over "Republicanness" even though it was just one possible influence out of three or four that were, again, merely part of a side comment:  "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."  [edit:  and I would like to note that my third possibility sounds related to the one you yourself suggested.]

I mean, I've almost forgotten the reason I'm even SAYING this point, just because I've had to spend so much time telling you and having you not get it or think I'm saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying. 

Unless [edit:  you choose to give a reply that] is just incredibly captivating and compels a response, I'm done with this part of the discussion.  

A.  You could say people shouldn't be 100% sure of most things; I don't think that's particularly more true of this than anything else.  I'm pretty sure the Swift Boat thing was a knowingly (from the principals) false smear job on Kerry -- not 100% but I'd bet significant money on it.  I'd bet HUUUUGE money Obama was born in Hawaii.  

B.  The South gets more immigration issues?  Bullshit -- or at least I categorize Arizona, New Mexico, and California as West instead of South.  Maybe that's not how the Daily Kos rolls...?

2.  Ah.  Well, I just disagree.  Not really much more to say.  If you can provide additional proof and it will take little to no effort.  It is on you to do so... because it would take little to no effort.  Otherwise, you've just not done your work.

Example, someone brings in a 1925 signed babe ruth card.  They show the signature, tell the story how they got it.  9 out of 10 people believe it's the real deal. 

One guy says "I think that card's from 1926.... let me look at the back and see the year."

"No."

The no here is completely unreasonable if you ask me.

A. I do think so... keep in mind this whole thing started because Obama's Kenyan aunt stated she was there when he was born... and then only later recanted.  (Possibly after being told what a silly law the US has when it comes to electing presidents?)  It's not like the swiftboats where the original source was some anti-kerry groups.  This whole thing started due to a family relative saying she was there then changing her story. (Because she wasn't in the US at that time.)

B.  Arizona and New Mexco I'd think would be counted as south.  Maybe not, can't really say.  I'd of liked to of seen a state by state breakdown myself.   Knowing Daily Kos they might of just pulled NY as the West, Illnois as North, California as west and... well there would be no easy slamdunk in the south.  Daily Kos... I only really used because it's higher then you'd expect based on their general bias and placements in poll tracking.

As for California... they don't "care" about immigartion issues really... they go out of there way to be helpeful towards immigrats both illegal and legal.

[edit: ...
A.  evidence plz.  I spent a few minutes on Google and only found some nutjob making that claim about the grandmother in the same breath as he called the birth certificate  (yes yes short form) a forgery: 
"But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release.
"This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States."
"He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961."

If this tape exists, you should be able to show it to me no problem right?  And convince so many people?  The burden is obviously on you
[... end edit]

B.  I'm curious now ... is this just your gut feeling on where you think they ought to go, or is it based on something you can point to?  I've never considered them South -- Southwest, sure, but never South.  Wikipedia has a list of ways people (mainly the US gov't) divides up the country; most of them have NM in West-like region(s) and NONE of them have Arizona in a South-like region.  The regional divisions I would have expected Daily Kos to use are the Census Bureau ones, since there are 4 main regions in that one, and Kos has 4 in its breakdown.  Which has NM in the West. 

And surely you meant to suggest New York as NE and Illinois as MW?  The way you said it, Kos polled 2 types of West (NY and CA lol), polled a "North" region they didn't report, and completely made up their Northeast and Midwest numbers.  

Personally I've thought of the South as more or less the old Confederacy, which is less extensive than the South region in the Census bureau.  (Kentucky, W. Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware being the additions.) 

Regarding California, that may be their attitude about immigration issues, but they still have them. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 17 September 2010
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I've explained the point I was trying to make at least 3 or 4 times now and frankly it seems futile for me to repeat myself again.  I don't see how I was in any way unclear when I said
"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." or
"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." or
"the fact remains that, IIRC, according to that poll, 90% of people in regions other than the South (over all parties:  Democrats, Republicans, and independents) already believe this, while a total of 10% are unsure or disbelieve.  At that point, as I said, I believe it's extremely hard to get those last people to change their minds."

I mean, you took a comment I made that I thought was an ASIDE and just OBSESSED over "Republicanness" even though it was just one possible influence out of three or four that were, again, merely part of a side comment:  "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."  [edit:  and I would like to note that my third possibility sounds related to the one you yourself suggested.]

I mean, I've almost forgotten the reason I'm even SAYING this point, just because I've had to spend so much time telling you and having you not get it or think I'm saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying. 

Unless [edit:  you choose to give a reply that] is just incredibly captivating and compels a response, I'm done with this part of the discussion.  

A.  You could say people shouldn't be 100% sure of most things; I don't think that's particularly more true of this than anything else.  I'm pretty sure the Swift Boat thing was a knowingly (from the principals) false smear job on Kerry -- not 100% but I'd bet significant money on it.  I'd bet HUUUUGE money Obama was born in Hawaii.  

B.  The South gets more immigration issues?  Bullshit -- or at least I categorize Arizona, New Mexico, and California as West instead of South.  Maybe that's not how the Daily Kos rolls...?

2.  Ah.  Well, I just disagree.  Not really much more to say.  If you can provide additional proof and it will take little to no effort.  It is on you to do so... because it would take little to no effort.  Otherwise, you've just not done your work.

Example, someone brings in a 1925 signed babe ruth card.  They show the signature, tell the story how they got it.  9 out of 10 people believe it's the real deal. 

One guy says "I think that card's from 1926.... let me look at the back and see the year."

"No."

The no here is completely unreasonable if you ask me.

A. I do think so... keep in mind this whole thing started because Obama's Kenyan aunt stated she was there when he was born... and then only later recanted.  (Possibly after being told what a silly law the US has when it comes to electing presidents?)  It's not like the swiftboats where the original source was some anti-kerry groups.  This whole thing started due to a family relative saying she was there then changing her story. (Because she wasn't in the US at that time.)

B.  Arizona and New Mexco I'd think would be counted as south.  Maybe not, can't really say.  I'd of liked to of seen a state by state breakdown myself.   Knowing Daily Kos they might of just pulled NY as the West, Illnois as North, California as west and... well there would be no easy slamdunk in the south.  Daily Kos... I only really used because it's higher then you'd expect based on their general bias and placements in poll tracking.

As for California... they don't "care" about immigartion issues really... they go out of there way to be helpeful towards immigrats both illegal and legal.

[edit: ...
A.  evidence plz.  I spent a few minutes on Google and only found some nutjob making that claim about the grandmother in the same breath as he called the birth certificate  (yes yes short form) a forgery: 
"But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release.
"This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States."
"He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961."

If this tape exists, you should be able to show it to me no problem right?  And convince so many people?  The burden is obviously on you
[... end edit]

B.  I'm curious now ... is this just your gut feeling on where you think they ought to go, or is it based on something you can point to?  I've never considered them South -- Southwest, sure, but never South.  Wikipedia has a list of ways people (mainly the US gov't) divides up the country; most of them have NM in West-like region(s) and NONE of them have Arizona in a South-like region.  The regional divisions I would have expected Daily Kos to use are the Census Bureau ones, since there are 4 main regions in that one, and Kos has 4 in its breakdown.  Which has NM in the West. 

And surely you meant to suggest New York as NE and Illinois as MW?  The way you said it, Kos polled 2 types of West (NY and CA lol), polled a "North" region they didn't report, and completely made up their Northeast and Midwest numbers.  

Personally I've thought of the South as more or less the old Confederacy, which is less extensive than the South region in the Census bureau.  (Kentucky, W. Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware being the additions.) 

Regarding California, that may be their attitude about immigration issues, but they still have them. 

A)  http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/12/05/birth_certificate

Though they do explain it away trying to say it's a mistranslation... saying yes to "I was present where he was born" certaintly doesn't sound  like anything you could mistranslate.  She might of been confused.  Afterall she'd have to be pretty old... however either being confused or accidently letting the truth come out and having to be corrected are both way more likely.

Guess it was after this whole thing started though.  Anyone who believed it before then... i'm sketchy on.  Still.  Proof is important.

B) Oh they still have issues, it's one of the reasons they do so poorly economically, but when you have a negative attitude towards it, it's pretty hard to say you'd be effected by it since they don't see it as an issue to them.

It's just a guess to me though.  I'd think you'd want to call the confederacy the "South east".

Though yeah, what I mean is... i'd be surprised if Daily Kos didn't go out of their way to try and make the numbers lower.