Why must he be an american anyway? Most countries don't have that requirement. You have probably missed out on a lot of good leaders because, despite serving in your government for a long time, if they weren't born in america then they must be out to destroy your county.

Even if they find proof that he wasn't born in the US, then what. Does not being born in america really matter that much? You have a two tier system here. Those who obtain citizenship aren't really Americans, they're just being allowed to live there? Only 'true' Americans have the right to participate in your government?

Seriously, you guys wonder why the world looks down on you. This whole birth certificate thing is messed up.

Why must he be an american anyway? Most countries don't have that requirement. You have probably missed out on a lot of good leaders because, despite serving in your government for a long time, if they weren't born in america then they must be out to destroy your county.

I think it was just the founding father's paranoia against the old government. I think they should change it. I wonder how many people would disagree to allowing anyone with citizenship to run for president. Seems like a sane system.

Recall that many Americans are apathetic to politics and don't even vote in local elections for the government that influences them most.

Haha, Amazingly, This post actually reminds me of a quote by Bill Vaughan that was mentioned in Call of Duty (forgive me if the quote isnt verbatim to the original)

[font="georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif"]"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election."[/font]

I just find it strange though that they'll rather get killed by some foreign zealot/bandit/freedom-fighter/rebel than simply vote. I mean, who would want to get killed in the first place?

I voted for him (this was before I really started to study history and politics) your dumb for saying its cuz hes black.

2.) I posted why people are claiming it. I don't know the facts, but it definitely is suspicious. I never saw that youtube video I heard it from a radio interview with webster tarpley. But furthermore ANY american would show they are American. Yes Bush sealed records of stuff as well. But a simple birth certificate, I would have green lighted that the minute it showed up.

Obama did green light giving out his birth certificate. He released the certificate immediately. But the irrational fringe of birthers demanded that he release a different certificate. And, as I mentioned above, it is irrelevant where he was born (with regard to his American-ness) because his mother was a US citizen. No one doubts this or that his mother is, in fact, his mother. So he's a US citizen, natural born, right from the start, and always has been.

The bottom line of this whole debacle is, as posted above, that there is a segment of the population for which no evidence will ever be enough. Had he released the long-form birth certificate right away instead of the short form (and the long form is no longer valid in Hawaii, by the way, they don't give them out any more-- they only do the short form for new births), birthers would have clamored for the short-form. Or started at "it's a forgery!" and gone from there. And that was pretty apparent from the first birther claim; I wouldn't have indulged in that BS either. The president has more important stuff to deal with.

The situation is not suspicious. It can only be cast as suspicious if you already presume that there's some conspiracy or cover up already, where any imperfection of any kind is evidence of a slip-up by the conspirators, and a lack of imperfections is evidence of really competent conspirators. It's tautological.

Why must he be an american anyway? Most countries don't have that requirement. You have probably missed out on a lot of good leaders because, despite serving in your government for a long time, if they weren't born in america then they must be out to destroy your county.

Even if they find proof that he wasn't born in the US, then what. Does not being born in america really matter that much? You have a two tier system here. Those who obtain citizenship aren't really Americans, they're just being allowed to live there? Only 'true' Americans have the right to participate in your government?

Seriously, you guys wonder why the world looks down on you. This whole birth certificate thing is messed up.

You must not have looked too closely at this thread (or the issue on the whole). There are relatively few people who buy into this garbage, and the majority of Americans agree that the perpetuation of this stupidity is "messed up". Where he was born is, in this case, irrelevant, although there are people of both US political parties who try to push an extremely narrow reading of the requirements to be president when (and only when) it suits them. US society is layered in many ways, but if you think that there are two tiers based on "could be president" and "could not be president", you're a fool. Virtually no American gets to be president, ever, regardless of other factors. And anyone can participate in government here, just not necessarily that one job.

US citizens in general do not wonder why some have negative opinions of our country, and there is not a shortage of reasons for it. If you want to try to justify those opinions because a fringe group is exploiting a nonsense issue to drum up support, an issue which will be completely toxic in the actual campaign (and therefore won't show up), then I suppose that that's your business. But I absolutely guarantee that whatever country you're from has nutcases too, some of whom are probably quite loud.

[quote name='frob' timestamp='1303919750' post='4803580']
Recall that many Americans are apathetic to politics and don't even vote in local elections for the government that influences them most.

I just find it strange though that they'll rather get killed by some foreign zealot/bandit/freedom-fighter/rebel than simply vote. I mean, who would want to get killed in the first place?
[/quote]
To be fair local government doesn't effect people as much as you think. I can't think of a single time where the change local law directly affected me. This goes for the federal government also. The things that affect people are basic things like tax laws. A change of power in the federal government happens every 4 years and rarely if ever makes a monumental change to the status quo.

Now if larger issues were put up for vote like public healthcare I'd probably start voting.

[quote name='Bladelock' timestamp='1304140691' post='4804654']
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1303919750' post='4803580']
Recall that many Americans are apathetic to politics and don't even vote in local elections for the government that influences them most.

I just find it strange though that they'll rather get killed by some foreign zealot/bandit/freedom-fighter/rebel than simply vote. I mean, who would want to get killed in the first place?
[/quote]
To be fair local government doesn't effect people as much as you think. I can't think of a single time where the change local law directly affected me. This goes for the federal government also. The things that affect people are basic things like tax laws. A change of power in the federal government happens every 4 years and rarely if ever makes a monumental change to the status quo.

Now if larger issues were put up for vote like public healthcare I'd probably start voting.
[/quote]

I think this is a problem in general in countries that effectivly have a two party system, both parties tend to drift towards the middle to compete for centrist voters which greatly reduces the difference between the parties, increases the difference between the parties policies and the voters opinions and thus it also reduces the incentive to vote for either of them.

Now if larger issues were put up for vote like public healthcare I'd probably start voting.

Out of curiosity, would you vote for or against?

[quote name='Sirisian' timestamp='1304144712' post='4804674']
Now if larger issues were put up for vote like public healthcare I'd probably start voting.

Out of curiosity, would you vote for or against?
[/quote]
For? I'm pretty socialist and believe that something as important as the health of a country's citizens shouldn't be left in the hands of a for profit insurance company. Then again I hold that view about most things.

The lack of interesting voting options wasn't the reason I didn't vote in the last presidential election. I just don't follow politics and didn't want to be another uninformed voter throwing away my vote. I wonder how many people choose not to vote rather than just being lazy. (I'm just too lazy or apathetic).

country's citizens shouldn't be left in the hands of a for profit insurance company.[/quote]

The problem is the govt is for profit as well.

money went off shore when our stocks went down? The for profit insurance companies are working with the government anyway. Why would you trust the government anymore. They are destroying social security and medicare already.

country's citizens shouldn't be left in the hands of a for profit insurance company.

The problem is the govt is for profit as well. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ money went off shore when our stocks went down? The for profit insurance companies are working with the government anyway. Why would you trust the government anymore. They are destroying social security and medicare already.
[/quote]
I don't get what that video is supposed to show. The US gives credit to other countries all the time to boost their economies. I guess I'd need to research it more. Was it the amount that seems staggering? It is distributed over a lot of countries it sounds like. I guess that kind of investment might seem odd. It sounds like the guy interrogating him didn't realize that Americans are using credit all the time (just not directly from the government).

Regarding insurance from an economical perspective, the more people pooling money the cheaper the system is (ideally). Also without the cost paid toward advertising it can be cheaper. There's no proof really that the government couldn't manage a pool of money that large for insurance purposes. Also it's not just health insurance. It's everything about insurance, banks, and thousands of institutions that I have a problem with.

[size="1"]Don't get me started about private property. Most of my thinking is probably extreme especially regarding topics like public transportation and the lack of investment in PRT systems.

Basically what I'm saying is no party really holds my viewpoints. I'm sure others would drink my Kool-Aid.