[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This would have NEVER, NEVER happened to a white president named Mike Smith, even if he was from Hawaii.
This just proves that the inherent racism of the far right is still nothing but bullshit.[/quote]
You do realize that it also happened to John McCain right?
The difference was McCain responded by releasing all the records and put the issue to rest.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This would have NEVER, NEVER happened to a white president named Mike Smith, even if he was from Hawaii.
This just proves that the inherent racism of the far right is still nothing but bullshit.[/quote]
When I went to apply for a new passport, I was required to bring a copy of one of my birth certificates, which says “US Citizen Born Abroad.”
Was the Department of State racist against my white Italian ass for this? And just think, all I wanted was a new passport, I was not even running for something so trivial…like POTUS.
Asking for documentation is not racist, when I use Visa, are they racist that I prove who I say I am?
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This would have NEVER, NEVER happened to a white president named Mike Smith, even if he was from Hawaii.
This just proves that the inherent racism of the far right is still nothing but bullshit.[/quote]
Mike Smith - who knows, if his dad was from England might’ve been an issue.
Ivan Petrov or Mikka Turminen - different story.
But yeah, the race card just had to be played eh? [/quote]
Sure does. Mostly because of all our presidents in the last 230 years, this was the first time it came up - even though one could argue that before, at the earliest, the 1900s, the records kept of ANYTHING in this country were pitiful.
But what a coincidence- first black president, Muslim sounding name, clearly he can’t be American, even though we’re in the information of much more easily tracked records, Open Public Records Acts, and the internet.
Just a coincidence I guess.[/quote]
Actually, this was raised about several previous presidents or candidates.
Hillary and the NY Times raised it about McCain because McCain was born on the Panama Canal Zone (a military base and a US Territory), for example. This did not gain traction once it was revealed Obama was the candidate and had a similar issue (Hawaii being a territory at the time).
Here:
Eisenhauer, and a couple other had the issue raised because they had no birth certificates, and had to gather up witnesses to their birth.
[/quote]
But they were white so it’s OK.
It’s not racist to question their citizenship.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[A CEOs background check is not shared with the entire company.[/quote]
Assuming a public company, a thorough biography is on the SEC disclosures, which anybody can get, and which is checked for accuracy by the auditors, the Board, and outside counsel.[/quote]
Misleading to say the least. I am an auditor and I have a few SEC clients. The background includes where they went to school, their work experience and things of that nature. It does not include grades, papers written, medical records, etc.[/quote]
I’ve been on the BOARD of several public companies, as well as general counsel. We see transcripts, applications to schools, medical records (sometimes, depends on key man insurance), credit reports ----- the works. If he or she has a PhD (or anywhere where there isa graduating thesis, we certainly get it and read it).
I’d be happy with Obama’s transcripts, so we can stop all this “he’s so smart” pablum.
He’s a C+ student, just like Bush, Kerry, Gore (who flunked out of divinity school) and the rest of the turds.[/quote]
And like I said, the board seeing this information is different than sharing it with the entire world. Utah Lama is arguing for complete transparency of the POTUS’s whole life including what time of day he normally takes a shit. That is excessive.
Sidenote: I also find it hard to believe you actually viewed an employee’s medical records. If you’re getting key man insurance the insurance company would need to see those records and let you know what the premium would be. The board doesn’t even enter the equation. That being said, you say you did, I don’t believe you, no point in arguing about it, I guess.
[/quote]
The board elects the officers, the people elect the President. Ergo, broader disclosure.
We have to affirm, under oath, the accuracy of the biography. I sure as heck look at the source materials.[/quote]
Medical records are not included in any biography I’ve seen and are not required.
I’ve sat in on quite a few board meetings and viewed minutes from hundreds of them and not once have I seen a board refer to the officers medical records. Boards do not usually consist of doctors or anyone with enough specialized knowledge to interpret medical records, it wouldn’t even make sense for them to view that information.
That being said, I don’t audit any companies quite as large as Apple, just a few $5-8 billion companies.
Also, a board viewing medical records is not the crux of my argument (although a welcome side discussion). I’m saying the whole world doesn’t need to know if Obama has ED.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
McCain I knew about [/quote]
Then apologize for throwing the race card.
[quote]
but as far as Eisenhower (why’d you spell it that way?) [/quote]
Phoenetic English, I suppose. My native languages are Hebrew/Yiddish.
[quote]
the issue did not plague him throughout his presidency, and it didn’t with anyone else. [/quote]
Well, because they put the issue to rest. There is another guy (Spirow Agnew?) where it became a big issue.
And, unlike the guys who put it to bed, Obama let it fester, for whatever reason.
I suspect (and this is just a pure wild ass guess based on human nature and also being a Harvard Law grad from another country), Obama took advantage of Harvard’s policy of grants to certain non-nationals (not available to Israelis, alas, as we are not “disadvantaged”), for reduced tuition.
He’s guarding those transcripts because it will show he committed a stupid, petty, fraud in his early 20s.
Should be irrelevant, but would bite him in the ass, big time.
And, you’re not right about that. There is VERY, VERY little evidence that there even was a controversy anout Eisenhower, and what questions they had were solved quickly and simply.
http://turningthescale.net/?p=372
Obama is the first that this has been any sort of issue with.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[A CEOs background check is not shared with the entire company.[/quote]
Assuming a public company, a thorough biography is on the SEC disclosures, which anybody can get, and which is checked for accuracy by the auditors, the Board, and outside counsel.[/quote]
Misleading to say the least. I am an auditor and I have a few SEC clients. The background includes where they went to school, their work experience and things of that nature. It does not include grades, papers written, medical records, etc.[/quote]
I’ve been on the BOARD of several public companies, as well as general counsel. We see transcripts, applications to schools, medical records (sometimes, depends on key man insurance), credit reports ----- the works. If he or she has a PhD (or anywhere where there isa graduating thesis, we certainly get it and read it).
I’d be happy with Obama’s transcripts, so we can stop all this “he’s so smart” pablum.
He’s a C+ student, just like Bush, Kerry, Gore (who flunked out of divinity school) and the rest of the turds.[/quote]
And like I said, the board seeing this information is different than sharing it with the entire world. Utah Lama is arguing for complete transparency of the POTUS’s whole life including what time of day he normally takes a shit. That is excessive.
Sidenote: I also find it hard to believe you actually viewed an employee’s medical records. If you’re getting key man insurance the insurance company would need to see those records and let you know what the premium would be. The board doesn’t even enter the equation. That being said, you say you did, I don’t believe you, no point in arguing about it, I guess.
[/quote]
The board elects the officers, the people elect the President. Ergo, broader disclosure.
We have to affirm, under oath, the accuracy of the biography. I sure as heck look at the source materials.[/quote]
Medical records are not included in any biography I’ve seen and are not required.
I’ve sat in on quite a few board meetings and viewed minutes from hundreds of them and not once have I seen a board refer to the officers medical records. Boards do not usually consist of doctors or anyone with enough specialized knowledge to interpret medical records, it wouldn’t even make sense for them to view that information.
That being said, I don’t audit any companies quite as large as Apple, just a few $5-8 billion companies.
Also, a board viewing medical records is not the crux of my argument (although a welcome side discussion). I’m saying the whole world doesn’t need to know if Obama has ED.
[/quote]
Content of dookie is key however.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This would have NEVER, NEVER happened to a white president named Mike Smith, even if he was from Hawaii.
This just proves that the inherent racism of the far right is still nothing but bullshit.[/quote]
You do realize that it also happened to John McCain right?
The difference was McCain responded by releasing all the records and put the issue to rest.
Edit: I wonder if you even realize, that the accusation you made actually makes you racist.[/quote]
No, the Senate approved a resolution that allowed him to run. Read the Times article that the other dude linked to.
McCain actually has more of a problem than Obama ever did in relation to running for president (although it shouldn’t be a problem especially in McCain’s case- but the law’s the law).
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This would have NEVER, NEVER happened to a white president named Mike Smith, even if he was from Hawaii.
This just proves that the inherent racism of the far right is still nothing but bullshit.[/quote]
Mike Smith - who knows, if his dad was from England might’ve been an issue.
Ivan Petrov or Mikka Turminen - different story.
But yeah, the race card just had to be played eh? [/quote]
Sure does. Mostly because of all our presidents in the last 230 years, this was the first time it came up - even though one could argue that before, at the earliest, the 1900s, the records kept of ANYTHING in this country were pitiful.
But what a coincidence- first black president, Muslim sounding name, clearly he can’t be American, even though we’re in the information of much more easily tracked records, Open Public Records Acts, and the internet.
Just a coincidence I guess.[/quote]
Actually, this was raised about several previous presidents or candidates.
Hillary and the NY Times raised it about McCain because McCain was born on the Panama Canal Zone (a military base and a US Territory), for example. This did not gain traction once it was revealed Obama was the candidate and had a similar issue (Hawaii being a territory at the time).
Here:
Eisenhauer, and a couple other had the issue raised because they had no birth certificates, and had to gather up witnesses to their birth.
[/quote]
McCain I knew about, but as far as Eisenhower (why’d you spell it that way?), the issue did not plague him throughout his presidency, and it didn’t with anyone else.
Can you imagine if all you had was witnesses for Obama’s birth but no certificate? They’d be destroying the witnesses’ lives as well and claiming that they were undercover Black Muslim Nationalists paid by Obama to say they say him being born.
[/quote]
Ironically, There are witnesses to the birth that claim it was in Kenya.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And, you’re not right about that. There is VERY, VERY little evidence that there even was a controversy anout Eisenhower, and what questions they had were solved quickly and simply.
http://turningthescale.net/?p=372
Obama is the first that this has been any sort of issue with.[/quote]
That’s because Eisenhower manned up and produced evidence. Obama failed to do so.
I am not a birther, I don’t need medical records of the potential POTUS.
I do need proof of citizenship, criminal background check, credit check and school transcripts.
Just like any other job.
And Lanky, the President works for the PEOPLE I think we are entitled to that basic information.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This would have NEVER, NEVER happened to a white president named Mike Smith, even if he was from Hawaii.
This just proves that the inherent racism of the far right is still nothing but bullshit.[/quote]
You do realize that it also happened to John McCain right?
The difference was McCain responded by releasing all the records and put the issue to rest.
Edit: I wonder if you even realize, that the accusation you made actually makes you racist.[/quote]
No, the Senate approved a resolution that allowed him to run. Read the Times article that the other dude linked to.
McCain actually has more of a problem than Obama ever did in relation to running for president (although it shouldn’t be a problem especially in McCain’s case- but the law’s the law).[/quote]
Um, obama was also allowed to run. I don’t see the issue there.
I thought we were discussing public perception and how it plagues obama. It has plagued him because he has sealed all his records where guys like McCain released everything. That is the difference. That is why the issue with obama has lingered. It has nothing to do with race.
Are we now changing the discussion to the legality issue?
I’m amazed that it took them that long to ‘produce’ the document.
Hint, hint: Carbon date the paper that the certificate was printed on. Of course, they may actually have found some 50 year old paper and 50 year old ink, though the ink is unlikely.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I am not a birther, I don’t need medical records of the potential POTUS.
I do need proof of citizenship, criminal background check, credit check and school transcripts.
Just like any other job.
And Lanky, the President works for the PEOPLE I think we are entitled to that basic information.[/quote]
No dump sign in sheets?!?! 
None of that sounds unreasonable, I’d even add birth certificate to prove age (over 35) and that they were born in this country.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And, you’re not right about that. There is VERY, VERY little evidence that there even was a controversy anout Eisenhower, and what questions they had were solved quickly and simply.
http://turningthescale.net/?p=372
Obama is the first that this has been any sort of issue with.[/quote]
That’s because Eisenhower manned up and produced evidence. Obama failed to do so.[/quote]
HAHA. “Manned up?” Simple world you live in.
Your reading comprehension sucks I guess, so here, I’ll take this excerpt out from the link you couldn’t read.
You are correct that Dwight D. Eisenhower did not have an official birth certificate until Oct. 1, 1952. When Eisenhower supporters in Texas learned he didnâ??t have a birth certificate on file in Texas, they decided to obtain a delayed birth certificate for him. Mr. Lonnie F. Roberts of Denison, Texas obtained birth information from Mamie Eisenhower and got Ikeâ??s older brother, Arthur, a banker in Kansas City, to sign the necessary documents. We have a copy of this certificate in our files.
[b]
The real push to get this certificate made and approved appears to come from Mr. Roberts. Eisenhowerâ??s campaign headquarters cooperated with him but they didnâ??t originate or push the effort. Mr. Robertsâ?? letters give the impression he thought Eisenhower needed a birth certificate to prove he was really an American-born citizen. He may also have wanted to make sure people knew that Eisenhower was born in Denison, Texas.
[/b]
Obama’s certificate of live birth has been out there forever, and there has been NO evidence contrary to it other than the musings of a lunatics. It just so happens that your loons took over your once noble party- although, the smarter Republicans stayed away from this issue because they knew it was stupid to contend.
That certificate of live birth is worth FAR more than anything Eisenhower produced at anytime.
The fact that you guys are finally proven wrong on this ridiculousness is just another victory, and it makes the lower end of the party (you guys) look like bigger idiots.
Fine with me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That is why the issue with obama has lingered. It has nothing to do with race.
[/quote]
Liberals have very little to throw, except the race card. They can’t defend the economy, jobs, social issues, on the merits.
My other times waster is a Porsche-racing forum (yeah, I race Porsches, which has been disclosed on many a biography because it is a "high risk behavior) – on the “general” forum I pointed out some of the false statements made by some liberal who was knee-jerk supporting arab terrorists.
I was accused of being a koran-buruning fundamentalist Christian racist – despite my screen name “Jewbacca” and my place of residence being “Israel.”
It was actually rather amusing to see how entrenched liberal memes are.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The fact that you guys are finally proven wrong on this ridiculousness is just another victory, and it makes the lower end of the party (you guys) look like bigger idiots.
[/quote]
Actually, I’ve never been a birther. As noted in my very first post on this thead, I consider Trump a self-promoting fool.
I guess your reading comprehension sucks.
I think this hurts Obama…
He showed he was willing to cave, under the right circumstances, which was a USA Today poll released yesterday, showing a significant number of people still doubt his being born in the US.
I also think this helps Trump, although I doubt he will actually run. But what Obama showed today, was his willingness to jump when provoked.
Something I really like about Trump, he speaks off the cuff, he lacks the political correctness but does so eloquently. What he is showing is true balls.
You people that are somehow trying to make this reflect badly on Obama are genuine cretins.
The president released his short form certificate of live birth… Then a bunch of extremely stupid people who aren’t smart enough to debate policy issues kept whining about his long-form birth certificate. Obama tried not to concede to these fucking clowns–why would he? He is the President of the United States and he proved he was born in Hawaii.
Do you understand that? HE FUCKING PROVED IT. If Romney or McCain or any white person had been president and they had shown their short form, that would’ve been enough for the rabid mouthbreathers. But when the black guy proves he is American, it must be some sort of forgery.
So, Obama was trying to rise above it. Then you gullible clowns, at the behest of one of the least respectable public figures in modern America, pushed this non-issue to the point that it became a national distraction.
Then, you were fucking wrong. As expected. And somehow in this clusterfuck of bigotry, demagoguery, and idiocy, the guy who was right all along is the bad guy?
Give it a fucking rest. Disagree with his politics…that’s fine. But know this: these ridiculous ordeals that you keep engineering are going to do nothing but hurt you. Posterity will rightly paint them as circus acts, and you people are the painted ringleaders.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The fact that you guys are finally proven wrong on this ridiculousness is just another victory, and it makes the lower end of the party (you guys) look like bigger idiots.
[/quote]
Actually, I’ve never been a birther. As noted in my very first post on this thead, I consider Trump a self-promoting fool.
I guess your reading comprehension sucks.[/quote]
The “you guys” was meant more for the rest of the Blowjob Barn, not for you particularly. I don’t know your affiliation.