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.