Sorry for posting this here, but if you would...

[AEmer]

@ Jonas

Oh yes. I'm not proof positive, but the founding fathers of the US were not all born within the colony of the US - and nearly all of them were likely eligible for UK citizenship under the correct circumstances by virtue of being born in a UK colony.

@ Neveos

He absolutely is american. I'm not sure anybody is disputing that, at least not in general terms.
The question is, as you put it, whether he is a natural-born american, and questioning if he's american is just a shorthand. His birth certificate has been certified as genuine by the state of Hawaii. So there's no real question there.

Also, there's significant precedent for allowing americans to be president even though they may have allegiance to another state. You would not, for example, prevent a Catholic from becomming president, even though that persons allegiance is technically to the vatican. And you would not prevent a Jewish person from becomming president, I don't think, even though by virtue of his religion he would be qualified for a citizenship in Isreal.

Anyway, ultimately, it is the responsibility of congress to figure out if the president elect is eligible to be president before they swear him in. Obama's fathers foreigner status was known to them, so by swearing him in, they have already tacitly agreed that this fact would not make him ineligible.

Congress is of course not bound by precedent, so they could redecide, but the courts _are_ bound by precedent set by congress, and if they decided to impeach him, the prior decision of congress would be incredibly hard to argue with...
And if he is reelected, I'm not even sure he needs to be sworn in again? So on the parentage issue, I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed.

[Neveos]

ugh, stop writing so much, ppl. Occams razor doesn't apply. Like I said, it isn't about him being a non-american, or a muslim, or a gay, or a cocaine user, or a black person, or even a non-natural born citizen!!!

IT'S ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WOULD INDICATE COVER UP AND CORRUPTION AND WOULD TIE INTO ALL THE OTHER CONSPIRACIES CONTAINED IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD.

Thus, the judge ruling something completely unfounded is to be expected in the event that Obama IS NOT ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE. Why? Because he's the fucking standing president!!!!

Thus, the sole person who viewed the original copy claiming it is completely legit is to be expected. Why? Because the person's birth certificate is that of the person who controls the entire executive branch of the most powerful military, intelligence agency, and police force of the entire world!!!!

It's like saying, "I know I didn't fart, so you must have farted." And then the other person saying, "Occam's razor. I'm the only one that can validate that, and I say I didn't fart, therefor I never farted."

This is the very office which is assigned the task of dealing with corruption. Thus you cannot validly expect to appeal to that authority to draw the proper conclusions. You actually have to do that yourself. It's not rocket science.

[DaveW]

IT'S ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WOULD INDICATE COVER UP AND CORRUPTION AND WOULD TIE INTO ALL THE OTHER CONSPIRACIES CONTAINED IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD.

All the conspiracies you have absolutely no evidence for. You can't use unfounded conspiracy theories as evidence for another theory. Especially not one so far removed.

Example: I think George Bush is an alien from outer space. My evidence? I think that 9/11 was carried out by the Jews.

Two stupid theories do not make one sound theory.

Thus, the judge ruling something completely unfounded is to be expected in the event that Obama IS NOT ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE. Why? Because he's the fucking standing president!!!!

Why is it completely unfounded? It's in line with precedent. Everyone seems to agree (except people who dislike Obama for other reasons)

You may disagree with the legal definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't change the legal definition.

Example: X is illegal. I think X should be legal. A judge throws me in prison for doing X, based on the legal precedent that X is illegal. The judge's ruling is not unfounded because I think X should be legal.

Thus, the sole person who viewed the original copy claiming it is completely legit is to be expected. Why? Because the person's birth certificate is that of the person who controls the entire executive branch of the most powerful military, intelligence agency, and police force of the entire world!!!!

You realise that even if he did have that kind of influence that it doesn't actually prove anything, right?

Interestingly, if you admit/think that Obama has this much control (over the executive branch, military, intelligence agency etc.) why do you think he was incapable of finding someone to do a 'decent' forgery that you couldn't 'pick apart' in Photoshop? I don't think the intelligence agency would be very good at their jobs if someone random idiot on YouTube can pick apart their work.


Look, the basic take-home-point is this: absence of evidence is not evidence. You cannot conclude that Obama must be foreign because there's lots of evidence to support the fact he's American - it just doesn't work that way.

[Neveos]

omg im talking to gold fish...

[Neveos]

you are also making a ton of invalid arguments. the fact that it ties into the other conspiracies is incidental and i did not tell you it was reliant upon them. I'm telling you that it implies corruption, and therefor you cannot rely on established or institutional analysis as a premise. So everything else in this thread is what you must combat in order to prove that corruption is completely impossible (i.e. you basically can't because the mafia is a primary example of how corruption is possible.)

But if you can somehow prove that people don't lie, or that people can't be black mailed, or that people can't be bribed, then by all means, have at it. Then you can fully rely on institutional analysis all you like in this argument.

[DaveW]

you are also making a ton of invalid arguments. the fact that it ties into the other conspiracies is incidental and i did not tell you it was reliant upon them. I'm telling you that it implies corruption, and therefor you cannot rely on established or institutional analysis as a premise. So everything else in this thread is what you must combat in order to prove that corruption is completely impossible (i.e. you basically can't because the mafia is a primary example of how corruption is possible.)

But if you can somehow prove that people don't lie, or that people can't be black mailed, or that people can't be bribed, then by all means, have at it. Then you can fully rely on institutional analysis all you like in this argument.

A) If your other theories were true, then yes it would imply institutional corruption. But it wouldn't be evidence that Obama is foreign, because:

B) I'm not saying corruption is impossible, I'm saying that just because it's possible that does not mean it has happened and it certainly isn't evidence that it has. Especially since:

C) None of your conspiracy theories are true.

So, saying Obama's birth certificate is fake because there is the possibility of institutional corruption (based on unsubstantiated theories) is ridiculous. You're having to make an incredible number of assumptions in order to get to that, at which point Occam's razor becomes relevant.

Yes, there is the possibility Obama's birth certificate is a fake. There is also the possibility since, you know, Area 51 is housing aliens from the Roswell crash that Obama invented a time-machine to go back to 1961 place his birth announcement in the newspaper. That does not mean that these things are true.

Basically.

[AEmer]

Neveos:

Are you telling me that Obama's federal government somehow controls a state magistrate in hawaii? One who is as impartial as any federal employee could ever be?

Where's your evidence?

Is it simply "herp derp the federal government has much power derp, therefore they could do that, and because they could, they did" ?

[Jonas]

omg im talking to gold fish...

Careful now...

[Neveos]

I'm sorry guys; I can't keep repeating myself. This is simply the kind of behavioral output you would expect in the event of high level global corruption (the pulling of records, the funding to do so, and the refusal to release information to the public). So, I mean, if you want to come up with your own conspiracy theories for how to explain that behavior in a way that it is somehow not important despite his BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, then by all means do so.

[bobby 55]

But the pulling of records, the funding to do so, the refusal to release information, and not answering a direct question happens at all levels of government. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a bunch of incompetent, self serving tossers behaving as usual.

The only conspiracy I see there is by a few who don't want the current President. Conspiracy theorist: "It's not me who's crazy or uninformed, it's the the other 5 billion people on the planet".

[Neveos]

But the pulling of records, the funding to do so, the refusal to release information, and not answering a direct question happens at all levels of government. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a bunch of incompetent, self serving tossers behaving as usual.

The only conspiracy I see there is by a few who don't want the current President. Conspiracy theorist: "It's not me who's crazy or uninformed, it's the the other 5 billion people on the planet".

yeah, so atheism is crazy too right?

[DaveW]

I'm sorry guys; I can't keep repeating myself. This is simply the kind of behavioral output you would expect in the event of high level global corruption (the pulling of records, the funding to do so, and the refusal to release information to the public). So, I mean, if you want to come up with your own conspiracy theories for how to explain that behavior in a way that it is somehow not important despite his BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, then by all means do so.

I don't think anyone was asking you to repeat yourself - I know for my part, at least, I was asking you for some evidence to back up your claims which you so far haven't provided. More conspiracy theories are not proof (that's circular reasoning) and the absence of evidence is not proof (that's just silly).

Ultimately, you're entitled to your opinion whether it's based on evidence or not. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning for believing conspiracy theories - so far all I can ascertain is that you believe in conspiracy theories because you believe in conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure what the YouTube video is meant to show apart from Donald Trump making a complete ass of himself?

[Jonas]

Conspiracy theorist: "It's not me who's crazy or uninformed, it's the the other 5 billion people on the planet".

yeah, so atheism is crazy too right?

Notice how atheism goes hand in hand with not being a conspiracy theorist though. Both are based around empirical, scientific evidence and an acceptance that there is no divine higher power nor a global shadowy cabal secretly keeping the place nice and tidy for us. The world is chaotic, the world is scary, the world is essentially shit, but we have the capacity to deal with that in a mature and sensible way without making up nonsense to make ourselves feel better.

(Sorry Gelo. I still respect you though, didn't mean to make you collateral damage.)

[bobby 55]

yeah, so atheism is crazy too right?

Well I'm crazy and an atheist. That doesn't mean atheism is crazy. What atheism has to do with the belief, or non belief of conspiracy theories is beyond me.

[Neveos]

lol, your responses are indicative of what mental capacity and training you lack for being able to understand and draw proper inferences and conclusions.

15 or so percent of the world (probably less) would claim no religious affiliation. Meaning some small percentage of that are skeptical of what the vast majority of the world would say they believe.

I'm really not going to continue holding your hand and elaborating my thoughts. I mean, how do you not understand what point I'm making? I mean, does anyone want to take a shot at that?

Also, Jonas:

Notice how atheism goes hand in hand with not being a conspiracy theorist though. Both are based around empirical, scientific evidence and an acceptance that there is no divine higher power nor a global shadowy cabal secretly keeping the place nice and tidy for us.

That's laughable. First you need to understand what a straw man is. For instance:

a global shadowy cabal secretly keeping the place nice and tidy for us.

Conspiracy theorists certainly don't believe this in general, and quite incredibly (absolutely magnificently) this is exactly what you believe in your officiated understanding.

All it takes to be a conspiracy theorist is agnosticism and skepticism. You don't even have to have an alternative theory. You simply have to take a position of doubting the soundness or validity of the official one to be a conspiracy theorist.

I mean, you realize you are trusting what other people are telling you to believe in a religion, right?