Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

False FlagFollow

#52 Mar 07 2017 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You know what you failed to do? Link the legal failures of the lawsuits to "The Left" since you seem intent on blaming their failings on anyone but the Birther movement.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Mar 07 2017 at 10:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,357 posts
gbaji wrote:
going so far as to create an offensive label


"Honey, we've got to go to the furniture store, the dog just Gbaji'd all over the sofa, and I don't think it is gonna ever get clean!"
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#55 Mar 08 2017 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
The military discharged him
Source.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 Mar 08 2017 at 10:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Cook's orders were revoked because it was his right as a volunteer reservist to ask for his orders to be revoked (up until the date of deployment) and Cook obviously felt that he shouldn't be going to Afghanistan. So the military made the call to honor his request not to go and didn't send him. Given that Cook only joined so he could he could sue (he contacted Taitz about her lawsuit in Feb 2009, joined the reserves in May 2009 and then filed suit in July 2009) there was no reason to even fuck with his nonsense. Show him the door as the rules allow. The Army doesn't really need people who join only so they can sue the government.

If someone wants to read that as a Big Government Conspiracy, that says more about their own state of mind than it does anything else.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 10:08am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Mar 08 2017 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Cook's orders were revoked because it was his right as a reservist to ask for his orders to be revoked (up until the date of deployment) and Cook obviously felt that he shouldn't be going to Afghanistan.
That's not a discharge, though. It's a revocation. That kind of thing takes time, considering position you volunteered for now needs to be filled with a replacement before you can get out of the deployment and a complete dick move, but that's standard. His obituary says he was a LTC, so he was promoted at least once more after this.
Jophiel wrote:
he contacted Taitz about her lawsuit in Feb 2009, joined the reserves in May 2009 and then filed suit in July 2009
That doesn't sound right either. He was a Major at the time, so he couldn't have possibly just joined. Especially the reserves.

I mean, I don't doubt the possibility that Cook volunteered to deploy just to use it as a platform to make noise about the birth certificate. Just that a lot of words are being misused here and it's throwing me off.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Mar 08 2017 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Looks as though I phrased poorly -- he volunteered for Afghanistan in May 2009. Per Wiki:
Quote:
On February 1, 2009, Stefan F. Cook, a Major in the United States Army Reserve, contacted Taitz via e-mail, asking to be part of her lawsuit. On May 8, he volunteered to serve for one year in Afghanistan beginning on July 15, 2009. The Army accepted his offer and ordered him to report on that date. On July 8, however, he filed suit, with Taitz as his lawyer, seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector, arguing that his deployment orders were invalid because Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen, and therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. His orders were thereupon revoked; an Army spokesperson stated, "A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty." Accordingly, Cook's case was dismissed as moot on July 16.

So I'll leave it to you to clarify the language -- it sounds then as though he was in the military, volunteered as a reservist to go to Afghanistan (after previously coordinating with Taitz), then raised a fuss about having to go under the Fake Commander-in-Chief, to which the army said "You don't actually have to go, stay home" but didn't actually kick him out of the military. In any event, the fact that the military said "If your purpose in volunteering is to bitch and sue about deploying, we don't need you going" hardly seems like a liberal coup or conspiracy.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 11:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Mar 08 2017 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
If there is a conspiracy anywhere, and ignoring the part where he contacted Orly (the Owl just doesn't really sound verifiable enough for my tastes), it is pretty suspicious to volunteer to deploy five months after the inauguration of the guy you claim is also the reason you shouldn't have to deploy for in the first place.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Mar 08 2017 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
From my reading, Taitz claimed that Cook signed a consent letter in February 2009 allowing her to represent him. Obviously I don't have a copy in my pocket but I'd assume that would be part of the court record if she was acting as his attorney.

Edit: Taitz helpfully posted an image of a similar consent agreement from Childers, also from February 2009.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 2:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Mar 08 2017 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Just curious, gbaji...do you have you long form birth certificate?


Funny story about that. I got into a discussion at work with a couple co-workers about this very issue (Obama's long form birth certificate). One of them made some kind of claim that it was such a burden and whatnot to obtain one, or have one available (it's not btw). I argued that it wasn't, and frankly everyone should have this important document available, just in case. He did the same kind of thing, asking if I had one (presumably assuming I didn't). Unknown to him, just a couple years earlier, I'd gone through the passport process for business travel, which required me to get my long form certificate, and while I was at the town records hall, I spent the extra $10 to get a second copy for myself. Since I'd been doing this in conjunction with the work travel, I'd tossed that second copy in my desk drawer at work.

So yeah. He got a pretty red face, when I just turned, opened the drawer, and after about 5 seconds of rummaging through papers there, pulled out my full long form birth certificate, complete with official seal.

Quote:
I lost my original years and years ago yet strangely, the one I can go get at the county courthouse seems to be acceptable for all federal purposes.


EDIT: Missed part of what you are saying. The one you get at the county courthouse *is* the long form birth certificate. That's the exact document that was being requested. That's all he had to provide. You can google for images of the form Obama eventually released. Pay particular attention to the difference between the "certificate of live birth" and the "certification of live birth". The latter was the form originally released. Which provides some, but not all of the information. It's basically a short form that sufficient for many purposes, but not for full identification. The long form is the form you get when you go to the court house. That's really all that was being asked, and as soon as he finally provided it, the issue went away. Well, aside from a very very small number of nutters, but they're less numerous than people who think the moon landing was faked, so I think we can safely ignore them. We certainly should not paint their position as being in any way typical of most conservatives, or even "many" conservatives.

Seriously. It's not that difficult. You go to the court house or hall of records in the city you were born. You provide your name, date of birth, and mothers maiden name (and a small fee), and they print you out an official sealed certificate in like 5 minutes. The idea that this would be at all burdensome to provide, or that it's some kind of bizarre legal request (judges order vital records for examination all the time), is just plain absurd. I still to this day can't understand why the first judge in the first case didn't just make a bit of history and put his name in the book as the judge who set precedent as to how one can legally pass the "natural born citizen" requirement in the constitution.

Instead, every single one of them chose to dismiss on standing, not merit. Which is basically not saying "we don't think there's any evidence that he's not a natural born citizen", nor even "we think the evidence you're asking for isn't relevant to determining if he's a natural born citizen". Dismissing on standing is telling the plaintiff "You have no right or reason to know whether this person is a natural born citizen, or meets that requirement". In other words, it does not matter how much or how little evidence or question there is about someone's natural born citizenship status. None of us have a right to challenge the issue. Period. Not when the person is running. Not during a transition. And not even after inauguration.

The person could clearly be a foreign national, with no citizenship at all, and every judge just told us that as long as the people vote for him and elect him, you have no standing to complain. That's a *huge* problem IMO. It basically says that the natural born citizen requirement in the constitution is completely unenforceable. Which is a problem.

Quote:
So...without the original "long" form...I can't be President?


You can't get a passport. In most states, you can't get your first drivers license or state ID card (once you have one, and are in the system, it's no longer required). Not sure if it's required at some point in the process of obtaining a Social Security number, but it might (I think it used to at least, because I remember my mom having to obtain them to get us kids SSNs. Today, I think they just like hand them out at birth or something). Point is that at some point in your life, you probably had to have obtained this, and used it.

It's just not that difficult to get it. So why balk for like 2.5 years on this? Obama did it because it was politically valuable to do so. As soon as it ceased to be so, he just handed it over, right? Could have saved a lot of time and trouble.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Mar 08 2017 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Varies state to state. Hawaii is more onerous than most, Illinois (for example) doesn't even have such a thing as a long form birth certificate. This is literally the birth certificate that got me my passport (the flip side has my parents' names, birth dates and place of residence as well as my height/weight and footprints).

Doesn't matter anyway; Obama wasn't under any onus to present it and people like Gbaji are just salty about it even today. Any sane person would have let it go eight or nine years ago.


Edited, Mar 8th 2017 5:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Mar 08 2017 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Cook's orders were revoked because it was his right as a volunteer reservist to ask for his orders to be revoked (up until the date of deployment) and Cook obviously felt that he shouldn't be going to Afghanistan. So the military made the call to honor his request not to go and didn't send him. Given that Cook only joined so he could he could sue (he contacted Taitz about her lawsuit in Feb 2009, joined the reserves in May 2009 and then filed suit in July 2009) there was no reason to even fuck with his nonsense. Show him the door as the rules allow. The Army doesn't really need people who join only so they can sue the government.


If the standard is that people's cases should be thrown out because they contrived the conditions in which their case rests, we'd have to toss out a good portion of civil rights cases, including some pretty major landmark cases.

Requiring that people accept a presidents natural born citizenship as a condition to volunteer for the military and/or be deployed while in the military is pretty circular, right? By that argument, no one should complain if blacks are prohibited questioning something like segregation as a condition of serving in Congress, since... well... they didn't have to go through the trouble of running for office, right? Want to work at my company? You must be ok with our unfair hiring practices, since you didn't have to come work for us, right?

That's an... unworkable standard Joph. And you know it.

EDIT: Oh. And you're also failing to consider the fact that some people actually do want to serve their country in the military, and do actually want to be deployed to help out. Those people, presumably, have a right to make sure that the orders they're following are legitimate legal orders.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Mar 08 2017 at 6:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, the standard is that the case should be thrown out because the military had previously revoked his orders so he was no longer going to Afghanistan. You're conflating the military's decision and the court's decision.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 6:04pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Mar 08 2017 at 6:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
No, the standard is that the case should be thrown out because the military revoked his orders. You're conflating the military's decision and the court's decision.


Uh huh. So he wanted to be deployed, but was refused the right to serve his country in this way because he had the temerity to ask for clear proof that the commander in chief, who's orders he would be following while in a combat zone, was qualified to hold the office and thus qualified to give those orders. Got it!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Mar 08 2017 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, he explicitly didn't want to be deployed since he was suing on the grounds that he should receive a conscientious objector exemption.

You... have no idea what the lawsuit was about, do you? It wasn't actually "We're suing to see Obama's birth certificate!" but rather "We're suing to get out of being deployed using the birth certificate as an excuse, thinking that we'll be able to force the government to produce it!".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Mar 08 2017 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Varies state to state. Hawaii is more onerous than most, Illinois (for example) doesn't even have such a thing as a long form birth certificate. This is literally the birth certificate that got me my passport (the flip side has my parents' names, birth dates and place of residence as well as my height/weight and footprints).


And that form has the name of the hospital and is signed by the doctor and witness. That's what was missing from the original electronically provided "certification" that Obama provided, and was precisely why it was not considered sufficient.

At the risk of rehashing an old argument, the reason this was at all relevant was because during the period of time that Obama was born in Hawaii, the state (having only been a state for just over a decade) has in place a method to apply for vital records "after the fact". So basically, anyone who was already a citizen of the state could sign that someone else was born in the state, and they would create vital records for that person that just filled in the data that was provided. This form would be different in the vital records than a long form certificate, would not have signatures from doctors from the hospital the person was born in (would not include any hospital information at all), but when transferred into the "certification" would contain the exact same data as one generated via a normal long form (so no way to tell which type of vital records were used to generate the certification).

The document provided originally could not be said to be conclusive proof that Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Only the full long form could do that, since it would contain unquestionable data provided, not by a third party after the fact, but filled out by licensed physicians at the time and place of birth.

That's why this actually mattered. Now, does that mean that most of us thought he wasn't born in the US? No. But it did mean that most of us did think that the best possible documentation should be used, not the weakest. And frankly that by using the weaker form of documentation, it was innately raising the question itself (why not start with the full form from day one and prevent even a question?). Obama literally created the issue (at least among most people) by choosing to put the electronic certification out there instead of a full form.

If someone provided a paper learners permit they obtained 20 years ago as proof that they are licensed to drive, it would be reasonable to demand that they provide an actual current license, complete with photo instead. Doing so in no way says that I don't believe that the person is actually licensed to drive, but rather than I don't believe the documentation provided is sufficient proof of that fact. It's not all or nothing here. Some of us (many of us, in fact) do believe that the correct documentation should be used, and were curious at what appeared to be a deliberate effort to use something less than complete.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Mar 08 2017 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
One of them made some kind of claim that it was such a burden and whatnot to obtain one, or have one available (it's not btw).
Huh. OK. My original had a lot more information (delivery doctor, for example) than the one I can get now. I'd say it's nigh on impossible to get the original now.



Y'know...the long form.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#69 Mar 08 2017 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Varies state to state. Hawaii is more onerous than most, Illinois (for example) doesn't even have such a thing as a long form birth certificate. This is literally the birth certificate that got me my passport (the flip side has my parents' names, birth dates and place of residence as well as my height/weight and footprints).
And that form has the name of the hospital and is signed by the doctor and witness. That's what was missing from the original electronically provided "certification" that Obama provided, and was precisely why it was not considered sufficient.

You think that's what makes it a long form?

Huh.

Edit: In fact, I don't even care what you think. You lost. Sorry, you "Just asked questions" and lost. Go cry now that the mean liberals destroyed justice forever.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 6:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Mar 08 2017 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Varies state to state. Hawaii is more onerous than most, Illinois (for example) doesn't even have such a thing as a long form birth certificate. This is literally the birth certificate that got me my passport (the flip side has my parents' names, birth dates and place of residence as well as my height/weight and footprints).
And that form has the name of the hospital and is signed by the doctor and witness. That's what was missing from the original electronically provided "certification" that Obama provided, and was precisely why it was not considered sufficient.

You think that's what makes it a long form?


it's what makes it different than the document that Obama originally provided.

What's the difference between this document

And this one

Note, that the second one even says it's only sufficient to prove "fact of birth", not "proof of where you were born" or "how you were born", or "how we came to determine you existed in the first place". It's basically just saying "this is an actual live person, and the records of this fact exist in the state of Hawaii".


Quote:
Huh.


Yeah. Huh.

Edited, Mar 8th 2017 4:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Mar 08 2017 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
One of them made some kind of claim that it was such a burden and whatnot to obtain one, or have one available (it's not btw).
Huh. OK. My original had a lot more information (delivery doctor, for example) than the one I can get now. I'd say it's nigh on impossible to get the original now.


You may be thinking of something sent home with your parents or something. That's not what we're talking about though.

Quote:
Y'know...the long form.


No. the "long form birth certificate" is the full long form that's on file with your state. Period. That other additional documentation may have been provided to your parents, but not to the state is irrelevant. The full form the hospital fills out and puts into the states vital records is what we're talking about here.

It existed the whole time. Obama chose not to provide it the whole time. That's the entirety of the issue. Once he did, the issue went away. For most of us, it was not about what we personally believed about where Obama was born, but that we felt he had not provided sufficient information to verify that information. That's it. Really. It's no different than the guy carding you at the liquor store not accepting an expired license. He may totally personally believe that you're old enough, but you failed to provide the document that he's required to obtain to make the sale.

The difference here is that there are no hard rules for what is "required" to prove natural born citizenship. And the unfortunate upshot is that we now have multiple court rulings that essentially say "if the candidate and his party says they meet the conditions, then they do, and anyone who might question that just has to accept it". Which kinda seems problematic to me. Our courts had an opportunity to clarify and set good precedent on this area of law, and failed miserably. Now, we're basically back to "we have no rules, just whatever the loudest voices insist should happen". Which is never a good way to do things, regardless of which "side" you are on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Mar 08 2017 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
No. the "long form birth certificate" is the full long form that's on file with your state. Period.
Given that I was born on a military base, that may not be the case.



Now I'm curious. I will requisition the "long form" from the afformentioned base and see what I can get.


Will post with results.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#73 Mar 08 2017 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
ALSO:

The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!


The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!


The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!


The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!


The "alt-right" aka the gabji fan club wrote:
OMG! WE NEED THE LONG FORM!!!



citizen wrote:
Can we see Trump's tax info?



The "alt-right" aka the gbaji fan club wrote:
OMG!! Like, soooo not relevant to anything!!! Fur shuuuuur!!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#74 Mar 08 2017 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
That's great and all, but one of those is relevant to determining a constitutional requirement to hold the office of president. The other is... Not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#75 Mar 08 2017 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. the "long form birth certificate" is the full long form that's on file with your state. Period.
Given that I was born on a military base, that may not be the case.



Now I'm curious. I will requisition the "long form" from the afformentioned base and see what I can get.


Will post with results.


You're kinda missing the forest for the trees. Does the document you get from the county courthouse or hall of records contain the hospital you were born in and the signatures of the doctor and some other witness to that birth? If so, that's what was missing from the original document Obama released, which was present on the one he finally released after being asked for 2 and a half years.

You're getting caught up on labels and ignoring the content of the documents themselves. I thought I explained quite fully why one was sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii and was thus a natural born citizen, while the other did not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Mar 08 2017 at 9:03 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Once he did, the issue went away.

Arguable. The number of Republicans who believed he was probably born in the U.S. increased 14 percentage points after the release, but was still less than half. If you google "Obama birth certificate" then you find several articles in the past few months questioning it.

The issue has yet to disappear, and it probably won't disappear until Obama fades from memory as a bogeyman.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 82 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (82)