I concur. Trump is just jumping on this bandwagon to get attention. I'm sure his political opinions are as flimsy as his toupee.

Of course you do.

Enthralling.

I don't understand why anyone listens to you on repeat.

Or the beatification of JPII on Sunday?

What????

They making my dawg a Saint???

5...4...3....2....1

Oh for those wondering, I'm counting down till the sockpuppet makes its appearance.

This couldn't be brought up enough. I believe the vitriol and general nastiness that we saw during the GWB's administration just carried over to Obama's. I don't know if it's "payback" from Republicans for the 8 years of crap they had to deal with or maybe our society crossed a line and there's no going back to politely disagreeing on things. One "newer" aspect that upset me were the attacks and ridicule of Sarah Palin's youngest child Trig. Words can't describe how disgusting that was. I don't exactly remember pundits and the media going after Chelsea Clinton or the Bush twins at all, let alone as nasty as that.

I voted against GWB in 2000 and 2008, I didn't care for him AT ALL, but I find myself defending the man more and more as time goes on. There was a lot of stupid and unnecessary things said about the man. Hell, I even saw a fellow student burn an effigy of GWB on campus in '03 or '04*. I see what's happening to Obama, all of the unnecessary bullshit that his detractors are putting him through and there are a lot of similarities. Maybe he should call W and ask for some advice on how to handle it ;)

As for the racism... It's getting old on both sides. I do believe that there are mouth breathers out there who are against Obama solely on the fact that he's black and I feel sorry for them. They need to get over their issues or just go away so the rest of us don't have to deal with them. There are a lot of political reasons not to like Obama, to make race the #1 reason you hate the man is stupid and sad.

People who say "well they don't like Obama's policy/program/whatever because they're RACIST" need to get a life too. To insinuate that all of his policies are perfect for everybody is just ridiculous. The man is not infallible. Just because someone doesn't agree with the President doesn't make them racist. I just find it funny that the people I know who were vocal critics of Bush are so sensitive now when it comes to criticism now that the shoe is on the other foot. Any party affiliated politician on a national level is going to enter Washington with half of the country not liking him. That's just the way it works.

1/2 way to Sainthood. Cannonization = Saint. Beatification = Blessed. (If I remember right. 10 year Catholic High School reunion coming up this year.)

Fantastic.

I bet you have a hard time remembering to breathe.

Which sock puppet corresponds to "I know, bitch"?

Yup. The place where I used to work..... our patron died in the 1800s, was Beatified in 1995 and became a Saint in 2009.

Last night wasn't the time to get things done off GC....
 

At the time I posted anything, I had not been able to read the long form. What has interested me in the whole birther movement all along was that, in years of doing genealogical work, I had never heard of such a hard time in getting a long form - if you ask for the long form. Pennsylvania is one of those states - no long form, not acceptable. And, I have done genealogical work involving Hawaii, as one of my mother's younger cousins was born there.

See above.

What I was saying, from my genealogical experience, was that it doesn't take an act of congress or major league begging to get the long form.

Very intrigued by where you got this information, as I've taken the training for both. Granted, the DAR is usually considered the strictest, but when it comes to generations from oh, 1900 and up, birth certificates must include the information stated on the long form because it's considered readily available. I'm a volunteer genealogist for the DAR, so I realize that, the further back you go, the more that a preponderence of information must do, since records weren't kept well. This is especially clear when needing the 1890 census.

Yes, Family Bibles are considered as proofs - WHEN they are contemporary with the information. You can't go out and buy an old Bible, list your family's information, and expect it to be accepted.

I'm hoping to not answer any further questions, as I have said that I had an issue of genealogical interest, not political. No, I'm not a big fan of the President, but it has nothing to do with his race.

The vitriol goes back at least to the Clintons, and there were signs of it even when Reagan was in the White House.

On this topic, I highly recommend Peggy Noonan's Patriotic Grace: What It Is and Why We Need It Now.

It was definitely there for the Clinton. Hell, it was there for the Kennedys. People like to remember him well because of the assassination, but there were many people who couldn't stand JFK. My father's family (who are incidentally Catholic) still talk about how they didn't like JFK and what a terrible president he was.

Who told you what GOMAB meant???????

Sorry had to bring some levity to the thread.

I don't recall the President stating it required "major league begging", but that a request needed to be made. Long story short, he shouldn't have had to make the request for the long form.

I don't recall what Clinton or Bush produced, but there was definitely not this much of a hubub over their birth certificates, long or short form, certificate of live birth, or anything else.

Yes I know that it has to be contemporary, but still the principle is "It's the Family Bible, not a birth certificate."

Anyway moving on, I'm not questioning your reasoning they are your own. Yet I do question when people use their own criteria for burden of proof as being superior than the laws and statutes of the US Government and the rights of its states. If Hawaii only wanted to release that form as proof and no other state had an issue, but just a bunch of fringe people then it works for me.

You tell me I'm just waiting.

I always confuse Beatification and canonization. It's been a long time since Catholic School and I wasn't born into Catholicism.

Well, it's always been there to a greater or lesser degree. We've gone in waves of greater civility and lesser civility. Greater civility doesn't mean everyone loves the president, but it means disagreement is expressed, publically at least, in a civil and respectful way. And it means there is at least a tacit acknowledgement that just because someone disagrees with "us" doesn't mean they're unpatriotic or evil. Greater civility at least tries to start with the assumption that everyone has the nation's best interests at heart, they just disagree about what the nation's best interests are or how to achieve them.

I don't think there's any question that we've been stuck in the trench of a wave of lesser civility since Clinton at least.

Hmm things that happened during the Clinton years.

Rise in Conservative Radio, the Internet.

I think, and especially watching old documentaries about previous Presidents, it isn't that we are less civil, its the fact that the access is everywhere. Anybody can create a blog and ruin a person's career (Breitbart and the Sherrod incident)

This is the Wild West. Nothing is filtered, and when nothing is filtered you get the bitter with the sweet.

This is all very true, but I still think there is more to it than just this. When you have a member of Congress yell "You lie!" during a State of the Union Address, it's not just the random bitter guy who can start a blog.

Ah, so he got the "Subpar Student Scholarship" to Harvard Law?

And he got Editor of Harvard Law Review the same way!

It's all a conspiracy I tell ya! But I'm no more offended by someone getting a leg up for their race or sex than for who their daddy is...:rolleyes:

Hey, when are you going to address the allegations that you're a perp? Perp.

See, I don't know anyone who says "you don't like the healthcare law because you're racist" as PIKA claims. I'm sure it happened somewhere to someone, but the automatic response to this question by people on sites like freerepublic and Limbaugh's site is: "Affirmative Action." That is racism.

And because mainstream politicians, until lately, have subtly encouraged the birthers by saying things like "Well I believe he was born here, but other people don't and I'm not going to tell them what to think." (Speaker of the House) and in the process, encouraged the racist elements at the same time.

Honestly Trump's craziness has made the Bachmann's of the world back off the birth certificate thing to some extent even prior to this release. I almost wonder if he set this whole thing up to force the GOP to draw a line and say "this crazy, no further."

FWIW, anyone who applies for their birth certificate in many states (including PA) must specifically ask for the full form or for genealogical purposes to get more than that fact that they were born.

Between the he's going to be consulting the Pope on every decision because he's Catholic factor and the Many Sins Of Papa Joe factor (bootlegger, thought Hitler was harmless, cheated on Rose and banged Gloria Swanson, lobotomized his daughter, allegedly bought the election) people freaking HATED JFK and I would say it's very close to what Obama is going through now. It's well documented that while he was alive, only something like 30% of people said they voted for him - after he died, 70% said they did. (Or numbers roughly to that effect) If he hadn't died, it's nowhere near sure he would have gotten a second term or been well thought of in the least.

JFK just didn't have to put up with 500 TV channels and other media outlets.

I wish I was born into my scholarship.

Of course he attended Columbia after attending the ever prestigious Occidental College. What I mentioned above is why people want to know his college transcripts. Given his intelligence level, he was likely accepted due to the same reasons George Bush was accepted...birthright. In George's case, the correct family. In Obama's case, the correct race (or half-race or whatever).

Accusations are going to arise similar to this as long as Affirmative-Action exists. It's one of the many flaws with the theory.

I don't address obsessions. They tend to make people more obsessive.

On a thread related topic, I don't understand the birthers claim. I mean, I get the idea of it, but why not just simply say "he is one of the worst Presidents of the last fifty years" and state the reasoning instead of hiding behind specious claims about birthright.

In what way, oh genius?

No, my problem is that your arguments on race are tired, repetitive, and insane.

Mine might be too.

Hey Maddie and David, get a damn room.

You can chill with your continuous attempts to inform the masses that you do geneological work, we get that. Lets just say that every single state in the union requires you to specifically request the long form and the default is the short form/certificate of live birth, in the end of the day he still shouldn't have had to go to this length to prove where he was born if it is not law and if other Presidents only produced the short form.

Do I know what other Presidents provided? Nope, never looked into it. Do I think everyone handed in the long form, Nope, I don't.

Which is why your "concerns" about his college records will never be addressed.

And you're still a perp.

I'd be surprised if any other presidents ever produced a birth certificate. It only became an issue in this case (well, if you put aside obsessive conspiracy theories) because of the fact that his father wasn't American, his mother had lived overseas before and after his birth, and the fact that some people apparently had trouble remembering exactly when Hawaii became a state.

What's interesting to me is that I remember more "conversation" before the election about whether McCain is a natural-born citizen than whether Obama is.

When I voted, there was a man who probably shouldn't have been allowed to vote (he was rather drunk) who said something to the effect of "I don't know what I bothered cominig here - neither of them are technically American anyhow." His buffoonery amused the rest of us.

MC, was it Jackson who was questioned about his birthplace? One of earlier Presidents was thought to have been born on the ship heading towards America.

Hmmm. I know there's always been a dispute about whether Jackson was born in North or South Carolina. According to The Source (aka the Wiki), Chester Arthur seems to have been the only president about whom a question was ever raised, with some claiming that he was born in Canada.

Believe it or not, I remember this little dilemma from a high school textbook, prior to when Al Gore invented the internet. I googled it, too, so maybe the Atlantic Ocean v. the Carolinas became less of a story.

Speaking of people about whom some have raised questions of natural-born citizenship.

If hope you figure out who it was; I want to know.

Jackson was born in 1767 so it's a non issue. (But yes, he's the one it's rumored about). Even if he were born earlier and on a ship as some claim, he's still eligible.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

Some relevant wiki text:
And an article: WaPo

MysticCat:
The "conversation" or "question" was raised, for a very short period of time. And never answered. In fact, the only way that it could have been was if Sen John McCain was election and sworn in. At that point any party with standing would have filed suit and it would have ended up at the USSC. Note:The GOP never filed a suit after Obama sworn in.
On John McCain: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/may/12/born-usa/
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_can_panamanian-born_mccain_be_elected_president.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/first-impressions/volume/107
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
http://genealogy.about.com/b/2008/08/30/john-mccains-citizenship-status.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/trumps-birther-libel-and-american-history/237217/

This could be the real issue down the road for anyone else running for office who is a military brat. And an issue only the USSC can rule on. And rule on only after the election and swearing in.

It's pretty much as settled as it will be without a court case. Congress stated he was a natural born citizen, he meets the criteria in multiple ways, he could even have had natural born citizenship retroactively granted by the laws granting children in Panema specifically citizenship.

But I don't think it's obvious that anyone born now outside of the borders would be immediate ineligible even with only one American parent under current laws.