Southern Poverty Law Center wants Lou Dobbs off of the air

[ACE_187]

Because he "refuses to stop peddling extremist propaganda in the guise of journalism".

They are so full of shit. Obama isn't really the president. He's a halfbreed nigger born in Kenya and we all know it's the truth. Lou Dobbs is the only good guy left in the media really.

I dont know if this is on their site or not, but it's in the newsletter they send me.













Dear Friend,

Tell your friends
Send a message to CNN




A lot has happened since I contacted you last week about Lou Dobbs and his latest racist conspiracy-mongering.

As you recall, we asked you to join our call to CNN to take Dobbs off the air because he refuses to stop peddling extremist propaganda in the guise of journalism.

We've had an overwhelming response, and many other organizations are also now demanding that CNN and Dobbs stop mainstreaming hate and extremism. Dobbs has dug in his heels, saying he will continue to raise questions about whether President Obama was really born in the U.S. and therefore eligible to be president. He's even suggested that Obama is an undocumented immigrant.

As I told you, this wild conspiracy theory has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked by virtually every reputable news organization — even Dobbs' own CNN. Yet Dobbs persists in perpetuating the lie, just as he has for years spread xenophobic falsehoods that demonize Latinos.

This week, I appeared on the "O'Reilly Factor," and Bill O'Reilly told me that we shouldn't take Dobbs seriously, that it's all just about ratings.

But Dobbs is playing a dangerous game. By promoting paranoid conspiracy theories that originate in extremist circles, he's fanning the flames of racism among a segment of society that can't accept a black man in the White House. And we've already seen a wave of violence committed by racial extremists since Obama was elected.

Let me be clear: This issue has nothing to do with Dobbs' First Amendment rights. We're not calling for the government to silence Dobbs. We're simply calling for CNN to exercise responsible editorial judgment.

O'Reilly told me that CNN won't care what the public thinks about Dobbs' irresponsible reporting. I disagree. I think, together, we can make a difference. I want to thank all of you who have joined this call and all who support SPLC's work.

Please help us again by joining our call to take Dobbs off the air — and forward this email to your friends and family members so that we can make our voices ring even louder in CNN's executive offices.

[ArmsMerchant]

Thank you for bringing Dobbs to my attention.

I never heard of him before, but he sounds like a dangerous nutjob who should be stifled.

[Struwwelpeter]

LOL @ charges of racism. What will those kikes at SPLC think of next? Oh, wait.

[Nightshade]

How is it a charge of racism when Lou Doobs, and the other "birthers" are asking questions about where Obama was born? The Southern Poverty Law Center needs to get their head of their ass.

After all the same questions were asked of McCain, even congressional hearings were held on his issue of his birth because they weren't sure he was qualified because of his birth at a military base in Panama. McCain immediately produced his full birth certificate which satisfied the issue of his birth qualifications for president of the United States. What did we get from Obama when he was asked the same thing, foul cries of racism and a certificate of live birth, which does not even qualify as a birth certificate.

What does Obama have to hide? Why is it so hard for him to produce a copy of the original birth certificate to immediately settle the matter?

Too many questions. Not to mention the foul cries of racism from The Southern Poverty Law Center is dishonest and disgusting on their part.

[Cult Leader]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Thank you for bringing Dobbs to my attention.

I never heard of him before, but he sounds like a dangerous nutjob who should be stifled.

Yeah Dobbs is practically a modern day Hitler...

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

What did we get from Obama when he was asked the same thing, foul cries of racism and a certificate of live birth, which does not even qualify as a birth certificate.

Wrong. We got much more than just the certificate of live birth - which by itself is already enough in the State of Hawaii. What we got was:

1. Short-form birth certificate.

2. Numerous statements from Hawaii State officials attesting to the fact that he was born in the United States, is a citizen, and that they have the original birth certificate sealed in their records.

3. Announcements in at least two Hawaiian newspapers announcing Obama's birth the year he was born.

[Cult Leader]

Both the people crying "racism!" and those making a big deal of the whereabouts of Obama's birth irritate me.

[Vargus]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

What did we get from Obama when he was asked the same thing, foul cries of racism and a certificate of live birth, which does not even qualify as a birth certificate.

What does Obama have to hide? Why is it so hard for him to produce a copy of the original birth certificate to immediately settle the matter?

jesuschisto...

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Rust

1. Short-form birth certificate.

Which is reconganized as a legal docuement in Hawaii. There is no dispute there. However it is not a birth certificate in the fact that in order to create a short-form birth certificate you still need the orginial long form birth certificate. So I am right.

Also, the common name for a short-form birth certificate is known as a Certificate of Live Birth.

Originally Posted by Rust

2. Numerous statements from Hawaii State officials attesting to the fact that he was born in the United States, is a citizen, and that they have the original birth certificate sealed in their records.

So how come the state officals did not provide an certified vault copy of the birth certificate or provide a certified document of the short form? Government officals can say whatever they want but if they don't provide any evidence then it's just words.

But regardless what the government says, and they say a lot of things. I think the link here at FactCheck.org pretty much settles the dispute.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Originally Posted by Rust

3. Announcements in at least two Hawaiian newspapers announcing Obama's birth the year he was born.

Birth announcements in newspapers do not rise to the standard of legal evidence. A birth certificate does.

[Cult Leader]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Which is reconganized as a legal docuement in Hawaii. There is no dispute there. However it is not a birth certificate in the fact that in order to create a short-form birth certificate you still need the orginial long form birth certificate. So I am right.

Also, the common name for a short-form birth certificate is known as a Certificate of Live Birth.



So how come the state officals did not provide an certified vault copy of the birth certificate or provide a certified document of the short form? Government officals can say whatever they want but if they don't provide any evidence then it's just words.

But regardless what the government says, and they say a lot of things. I think the link here at FactCheck.org pretty much settles the dispute.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html



Birth announcements in newspapers do not rise to the standard of legal evidence. A birth certificate does.

So you honestly don't believe he was born in Hawaii? I don't see why this matters, even in the unlikely chance he was born off U.S soil, what does this actually change?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Which is reconganized as a legal docuement in Hawaii. There is no dispute there. However it is not a birth certificate in the fact that in order to create a short-form birth certificate you still need the orginial long form birth certificate. So I am right.

Also, the common name for a short-form birth certificate is known as a Certificate of Live Birth.

Who denied that you need a original birth certificate to create a short form one? If that's your point, it's a silly one that nobody denies. The important point is that a short-form birth certificate is what is commonly used in Hawaii. He has provided that and thus he has successfully proven he was born in the state of Hawaii.

You still want the long birth certificate? Who gives a shit. You don't decide his citizenship, Hawaii does.

So how come the state officals did not provide an certified vault copy of the birth certificate or provide a certified document of the short form? Government officals can say whatever they want but if they don't provide any evidence then it's just words.

Because long form birth certificates have lots of personal information that isn't really prudent to be exposing to the world just because some conspiracy theorists don't understand the facts? Because they have already proved to themselves - the only people that can judge the legitimacy of his citizenship (barring a trial at least) - that he is a citizen? Because it wouldn't probably appease the conspiracy theorists anyway, just as the mountains of evidence proving the man landed on the moon or that 9/11 was a terrorist act, still hasn't appeased the conspiracy theorists?

But regardless what the government says, and they say a lot of things. I think the link here at FactCheck.org pretty much settles the dispute.
[url]http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html[/url

Great! FactCheck.org sides with me. I'm glad we both agree I was entirely correct.

Birth announcements in newspapers do not rise to the standard of legal evidence. A birth certificate does.

Actually, they would be admitted as evidence (coupled with the statements of officials and the short form birth certificate), in a legal trial. But at no point did I ever claim that the announcements by themselves proved anything, just that Obama has given us more than just a certificate of live birth.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Cult Leader

So you honestly don't believe he was born in Hawaii? I don't see why this matters, even in the unlikely chance he was born off U.S soil, what does this actually change?

I believe he was born in Hawaii. But for me that isn't the issue. The issue for me is why Obama back then fought the release of his birth certificate while the same question was raised on McCain he was more cooperative. This especially coming from one his candidate platforms of transparency.

It matters in that the founding fathers believed that the presidency is such an important office that it should be held by only natural born citizens, otherwise they wouldn't of put that requirement. But don't ask me why they reasoned something like that should be an important requirement. Maybe they believed that only a person born and raised in this country will only have true understanding of what the presidency is. Maybe they believed that the leader of this country should be born in this country. Maybe the citizens would reorganize and connect with their president more if he was born in America. Who knows. *shurgs*

[HAS]

How did those losers at the SPLC come up with their name anyway? Even the name sounds ridiculously gay.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Rust

Who denied that you need a original birth certificate to create a short form one? If that's your point, it's a silly one that nobody denies. The important point is that a short-form birth certificate is what is commonly used in Hawaii. He has provided that and thus he has successfully proven he was born in the state of Hawaii.

Well apparently the birthers the short form isn't good enough for them, and since we both agree that a short form is just as good legally the birthers are beating a dead horse. I never denied the fact that a short form is just as good as a long form. My point was is that a short form birth certificate can not be recognized as a birth certificate in of itself because it is created from the long form vault birth certificate. However the short form is considered a legal document in that it says a long form birth certificate exists. It's really more about schematics more than anything, but it is important distinction to make considering a certificate of live birth cannot exist without information of the long form birth certificate.

Originally Posted by Rust

You still want the long birth certificate? Who gives a shit. You don't decide his citizenship, Hawaii does.

Now who said I decided his citizenship? Oh and nowhere did I say I want the long birth certificate. All I said is a long form birth certificate is the legal document of a person's birth, where the short form is the legal document recognized by the states that says a long form birth certificate exists.

Do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth, or swing the argument into something that isn't to prove your point. Which by the way the point you're making is something that we both agree on.

Originally Posted by Rust

Great! FactCheck.org sides with me. I'm glad we both agree I was entirely correct.

I'm glad too because heaven forbid if you were proved wrong the earth would stop rotating and implode on itself.

Seriously dude you need to get over yourself.

Besides you can't claim you're entirely correct when everyone agrees with you. That's like all the runners agreeing you won the race when the race was never ran. It's pointless and stupid.

Originally Posted by Rust

Actually, they would be admitted as evidence (coupled with the statements of officials and the short form birth certificate), in a legal trial. But at no point did I ever claim that the announcements by themselves proved anything, just that Obama has given us more than just a certificate of live birth.

But in of itself a birth announcement in a newspaper would never stand, rather it needs supporting evidence to make the claim. A long or short form birth certificate is legal evidence that can stand on its own.

Obama can give all the proof and evidence he wants until he's blue in the face. Only a valid certificate of live birth or a vault long-form birth certificate matters.

[Angry Blue Bird of Death]

Show us your birth certificate. The mans not a naturalized US Citizen!

[Nightshade]

What I don't get is why the southern poverty law center wants to take Dobbs off the air for his opinions that he shares on his show. His show is opinion and commentary, not reporting the news or journalism for that matter.

I thought the people on the left were all about tolerance and understanding.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Well apparently the birthers the short form isn't good enough for them, and since we both agree that a short form is just as good legally the birthers are beating a dead horse. I never denied the fact that a short form is just as good as a long form. My point was is that a short form birth certificate can not be recognized as a birth certificate in of itself because it is created from the long form vault birth certificate. However the short form is considered a legal document in that it says a long form birth certificate exists. It's really more about schematics more than anything, but it is important distinction to make considering a certificate of live birth cannot exist without information of the long form birth certificate.

No, le'ts deal with what you actually said:

1."Obama only provided a certificate of live birth". That is false. We have more than that as I already showed, and as the factcheck.org link shows.

2. "A certificate of live birth doesn't count as a birth certificate". That is false. A certificate of live birth is a short form birth certificate (hence why I deliberately switched terminology so you would notice that it is a birth certificate) and more importantly it counts as a perfectly good birth certificate in the state of Hawaii.

Now who said I decided his citizenship? Oh and nowhere did I say I want the long birth certificate. All I said is a long form birth certificate is the legal document of a person's birth, where the short form is the legal document recognized by the states that says a long form birth certificate exists.

Do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth, or swing the argument into something that isn't to prove your point. Which by the way the point you're making is something that we both agree on.

Did I say yoiu said you decided citizenship? No, I did not. Follow your own damn advice and stop accusing me of putting words in my mouth. The reason why I mention that fact - the fact that you don't decide citizenship - is to further point out the triviality of you requesting the long form birth certificate. Your request doesn't matter.

I'm glad too because heaven forbid if you were proved wrong the earth would stop rotating and implode on itself.

Seriously dude you need to get over yourself.

Besides you can't claim you're entirely correct when everyone agrees with you. That's like all the runners agreeing you won the race when the race was never ran. It's pointless and stupid.

That's was a facetious way of saying you were wrong, which you were. You posted a source that essentially disagrees with you and you either don't notice it or don't say it!

But in of itself a birth announcement in a newspaper would never stand, rather it needs supporting evidence to make the claim. A long or short form birth certificate is legal evidence that can stand on its own.

Obama can give all the proof and evidence he wants until he's blue in the face. Only a valid certificate of live birth or a vault long-form birth certificate matters.

That is probably not true either, it would be admitted as evidence it just wouldn't be the most compelling evidence in and of itself. But that's not important because I never said that "by itself a birth announcement in a newspaper would stand". I said it was more evidence on top of the short form birth certificate, which goes to show we do have more than just a certificate of live birth.

And no, the State of Hawaii decides that matters, and it has decided that the short form is enough. Again, you don't decide citizenship. The state of Hawaii does so your requests and insistence on the matter is irrelevant.

[Angry Blue Bird of Death]

Dobbs said that he thinks Obama is an American citizen but that he said that he wonders why he doesn't just release his birth certificate to get this over with.

[ArmsMerchant]

^My guess would be that Obama is too busy trying to clean up the mess made by eight years of Republican misrule, incompetance, and assorted war crimes to want to spend time pandering to paranoid nutjobs.

[water bottle]

Lou Dobbs is the biggest fucking joke in the industry. He's the perfect stereotype for the whole egomaniac nutjob pundit thing... I don't even have words for him. It's as though he was pulled from a dystopian movie, in which he of course plays the voice of the single media brand. He just represents the absolute worst side of journalism. Right up there with Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck, IMO.

The worst thing is that he probably doesn't believe half of what he says. He's creating an image; selling a product.

[Struwwelpeter]

[water bottle]

Originally Posted by ilovesawedoffpump

This week, I appeared on the "O'Reilly Factor," and Bill O'Reilly told me that we shouldn't take Dobbs seriously, that it's all just about ratings.

Bingo.

[T.K. Baha]

That nigger is not even a citizen? Wow.

[Angry Blue Bird of Death]

Originally Posted by static

Lou Dobbs is the biggest fucking joke in the industry. He's the perfect stereotype for the whole egomaniac nutjob pundit thing... I don't even have words for him. It's as though he was pulled from a dystopian movie, in which he of course plays the voice of the single media brand. He just represents the absolute worst side of journalism. Right up there with Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck, IMO.

The worst thing is that he probably doesn't believe half of what he says. He's creating an image; selling a product.

Lou Dobbs is my favorite media personality.

[Jeff Gatherer]

Lou Dobbs is a pundit on a major US media corporation, of course he's an ill-informed moron, its part of his job description

[Nightshade]

I have no idea why we're debating on this so after this I am moving on because it's now pointless and trivial to debate on things that we are in agreement with. Thanks for the excerise though, It was fun.

Originally Posted by Rust

No, le'ts deal with what you actually said:

1."Obama only provided a certificate of live birth". That is false. We have more than that as I already showed, and as the factcheck.org link shows.

Actually what I said was true. I'll begin with the newspaper birth announcement.

The factcheck.org link says that the birth announcement was discovered by a researcher (who wasn't named) and the announcement was posed by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger. No where does it say that anyone from the Obama candidacy, nor Obama himself provided or released the newspaper birth announcement.

Now to government officials, all the government officials did was provide a copy of Obama's short-form birth certificate to Obama and FactCheck.org reviewed the document. None of these government officials were a part of or connected to the Obama candidacy or Obama himself.

So yeah the only thing Obama provided was the short-form birth certificate. All the other evidence and statements were provided from other sources not affiliated, or not coming from the Obama candidacy.

Originally Posted by Rust

2. "A certificate of live birth doesn't count as a birth certificate". That is false. A certificate of live birth is a short form birth certificate (hence why I deliberately switched terminology so you would notice that it is a birth certificate) and more importantly it counts as a perfectly good birth certificate in the state of Hawaii.

Switching the terminology doesn't make it any different. It is what it is. A short form certificate cannot count as a legal birth certificate because it cannot exist without a long-form birth certificate, another legal document. You essentially cannot have more than one official document that says the same thing legally because then it creates a issue of what document is legitimate. It has to be one or the other. For example, I cannot have two US passports, but I can have two passports from two different countries. This is why states say that when it comes to short-form birth certificates, it is a legal document that certifies that a long-form birth certificate, another legal document, exists. They have to do it this way to avoid the issue of having two legal documents saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by Rust

Did I say yoiu said you decided citizenship? No, I did not. Follow your own damn advice and stop accusing me of putting words in my mouth. The reason why I mention that fact - the fact that you don't decide citizenship - is to further point out the triviality of you requesting the long form birth certificate. Your request doesn't matter.

Because you asked the question, regardless of the triviality, and I responded to it. What did you expect me to do? Not respond to the question. Sorry but I was taught that was rude. Besides I did respond to the question by saying the following, and I quote, "Oh and nowhere did I say I want the long birth certificate." Nowhere did I ever state that you said I decided citizenship. Therefore, there is no accusation of putting words in your mouth because I never did.

I can only say that by you making the statement, "You don't decide his citizenship, Hawaii does." I can make the logical conclusion that you think that by me asking as to why Obama won't have his long-form certificate released for review I somehow can make the decision of Obama's citizenship. But I didn't go there for the following reasons.

1. Since we both agreed that the short-form certificate is a legal form based on the FactCheck.org link, it is a moot point.

2. I am not qualified to make such a decision because I am not a lawyer. I have a layman's understanding of the law and the constitution but that hardly qualifies me as an expert.

Originally Posted by Rust

That's was a facetious way of saying you were wrong, which you were. You posted a source that essentially disagrees with you and you either don't notice it or don't say it!

Uh Where's the disagreement when in fact I agreed with you when I first responded when you said the following:

Originally Posted by Rust

1. Short-form birth certificate.

And here was my response:

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Which is recognized as a legal document in Hawaii. There is no dispute there. However it is not a birth certificate in the fact that in order to create a short-form birth certificate you still need the original long form birth certificate. So I am right.

So again I ask where am I wrong and where is the disagreement? Also, the link does not disagree with me when I stated my agreement in the post and then supply the link as a way of providing evidence of my agreement in said post.

Originally Posted by Rust

That is probably not true either, it would be admitted as evidence it just wouldn't be the most compelling evidence in and of itself. But that's not important because I never said that "by itself a birth announcement in a newspaper would stand". I said it was more evidence on top of the short form birth certificate, which goes to show we do have more than just a certificate of live birth.

True, but it's irrelevant because the constitution does not recognize birth announcements, or what government officials say, as the presidential requirements to prove that a person is a natural-born citizen because the states has no legal recognition of these. Since the Congress leaves the issue of documenting births up to the states, only a legal birth certificate is recognized as fulfilling the requirements of being a natural born citizen under the 10th amendment.

Originally Posted by Rust

And no, the State of Hawaii decides that matters, and it has decided that the short form is enough. Again, you don't decide citizenship. The state of Hawaii does so your requests and insistence on the matter is irrelevant.

And again I will state it was never my intention to decide citizenship, since I already decided, and stated, that he fulfills the requirements of the presidency. But I do have the right to question. And what I have been asking all along is why Obama won't have his long form birth certificate reviewed? What does he have to hide? Also there is another reason as to why I am asking that Obama get and release his long form birth certificate. The reason is that the state's short form birth certificates can and do differ from state to state when it comes to information being provided. Essentially there is no standard. The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics creates standard forms that are recommended for use as long form birth certificates. Though the states are allowed to create their own forms. I think it would be in Obama's best interest to provide a copy of his long form birth certificate. After all the liberals had the same questions of McCain, why can't we ask the same questions of Obama and hold him to the same standard that the Congress held McCain to? Or is Obama special for some reason.

Also as a Citizen of the United States, I have the right to know if the President of the United States qualifies constitutionally to run and hold the office. After all he is the leader, and the representative, of all the people in the United States and I do vote for presidential candidates via the electoral college.

[water bottle]

I'd like to see Canada join the US just to piss off conservitards. Try electing a Republican president / congress / senate with a notoriously liberal country the size of California (population wise) sitting on top of you !

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Now to government officials, all the government officials did was provide a copy of Obama's short-form birth certificate to Obama and FactCheck.org reviewed the document.

False. The Officials also confirmed that they've seen Obama's original full birth certificate and that he is a citizen of Hawaii. So they did more; you are wrong yet again.

So yeah the only thing Obama provided was the short-form birth certificate. All the other evidence and statements were provided from other sources not affiliated, or not coming from the Obama candidacy.

If you cling to the fact that you had specified "form Obama" then maybe, though that's pretty telling of the overall vacuity of your position. Fact is, we have much more than just a certificate of live birth, and whether it came from Obama himself or other people, is a trivial secondary point.

Switching the terminology doesn't make it any different. It is what it is. A short form certificate cannot count as a legal birth certificate because it cannot exist without a long-form birth certificate, another legal document.

False. It counts as a birth certificate in Hawaii. You can get multiple government documents that require you to prove birth with that short form in Hawaii; a passport for example. It is precisely because the short form is derived from the long form that having a legitimate short form already indicates the existence of the long form!

So again I ask where am I wrong and where is the disagreement? Also, the link does not disagree with me when I stated my agreement in the post and then supply the link as a way of providing evidence of my agreement in said post.

No, this is what you initially said:

"certificate of live birth, which does not even qualify as a birth certificate."

That is the disagreement. The certificate of live birth is a birth certificate! The only thing is is that it's a small birth certificate (aka "short form birth certificate") as opposed to the big birth certificate (aka "long form birth certificate"). To use a analogy, it's like saying "small car" and "big car". They are both still cars.

The certificate of live birth is a birth certificate (hence why your own FactChec.org link calls it a birth certificate throughout the article and explains that it contains all the information required to prove birth/citizenship). You were wrong. I wasn't. That's the disagreement.

True, but it's irrelevant because the constitution does not recognize birth announcements, or what government officials say, as the presidential requirements to prove that a person is a natural-born citizen because the states has no legal recognition of these. Since the Congress leaves the issue of documenting births up to the states, only a legal birth certificate is recognized as fulfilling the requirements of being a natural born citizen under the 10th amendment.

Uh, no, not irrelevant. You don't get to change the point of discussion when you're proven wrong. You said: "Birth announcements in newspapers do not rise to the standard of legal evidence". That is false. They do since they would be admissible in court. Moreover, since the issue of Obama's citizenship would be left up to Hawaii, that would mean that Hawaii's supreme court would determine citizenship if a legal dispute would ever arise and these birth announcements would almost certainly be added to all the evidence available that points to Obama's citizenship.

And again I will state it was never my intention to decide citizenship, since I already decided, and stated, that he fulfills the requirements of the presidency. But I do have the right to question. And what I have been asking all along is why Obama won't have his long form birth certificate reviewed?
...
Also as a Citizen of the United States, I have the right to know if the President of the United States qualifies constitutionally to run and hold the office. After all he is the leader, and the representative, of all the people in the United States and I do vote for presidential candidates via the electoral college.

1. After McCain provided adequate proof of his birth, the questions about his citizenship went away and the requests for proof went away (at least by pretty much everyone save a few lone conspiracy nutjobs). That's not the case here since you and other idiots like you keep requesting unnecessary evidence while trying to feign like you do really believe he's a U.S. Citizen.

2. McCain provided the evidence he thought was necessary to prove his citizenship. As far as I know nobody forced him to provide the long form birth certificate, so saying Obama must also just because McCain did so is absurd. Not to mention that McCain had good reason to provide the long form: the question of his citizenship hinged in large part of what specific hospital in Panama he was born in because certain parts of Panama were US soil and others were not. If he was born in hospital X he would be a citizen, but if he was born in hospitals Y, Z... he would not be a citizen. A long form birth certificate would have that information. The question of Obama's citizenship didn't hinge on what specific hospital he was born in, but simply in what country. A short form birth certificate is enough to prove that.

3. You have every right to request a long form birth certificate, sure - I never denied that - but I in turn have every right to point out how your opinion on the matter of his citizenship is completely and utterly unimportant and thus how nobody has to fulfill your request, or take your questions seriously.

[Yggdrasil]

The whole thing about Obama not being a citizen is a crock, but what exactly did Dobbs say to ire the SPLC? AFAIC, Dobbs is little more than hot air that vents nightly between 7 and 8pm over illegal immigration.

[Angry Blue Bird of Death]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

The whole thing about Obama not being a citizen is a crock, but what exactly did Dobbs say to ire the SPLC? AFAIC, Dobbs is little more than hot air that vents nightly between 7 and 8pm over illegal immigration.

What's wrong with questioning the citizenship of the most important person in American politics?

I bet you've never listened to Lou Dobbs but since you want to have an opinion you'll pretend that you have.

[Yggdrasil]

Originally Posted by Angry Blue Bird of Death

What's wrong with questioning the citizenship of the most important person in American politics?

I bet you've never listened to Lou Dobbs but since you want to have an opinion you'll pretend that you have.

I watch his programme from time to time; I enjoy it. To be fair, the man can be commended for being more or less unbiased in that he doesn't show blind support for one side or another. I like him, he takes positions that don't heap on one side or another, like mine. He's pro-choice, anti-gun control, not a pro-Zionist media-zombie, and he's open to gay civil rights. I agree with him a lot on many of his positions, though I'm icky in regards to his views on illegal immigration.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Jim "fuck latinos" Carrey

Those Kenyans have amazing sense of entrepreneurship... they apparently sold their birth certificate template to the Australians!




http://washingtonindependent.com/536...th-certificate


Oh wait no, you're just fucking retarded

[supperrfreek]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

I watch his programme from time to time; I enjoy it. To be fair, the man can be commended for being more or less unbiased in that he doesn't show blind support for one side or another. I like him, he takes positions that don't heap on one side or another, like mine. He's pro-choice, anti-gun control, not a pro-Zionist media-zombie, and he's open to gay civil rights. I agree with him a lot on many of his positions, though I'm icky in regards to his views on illegal immigration.

I guess you can't always get what you want. His book War on the Middle Class, was pretty good. I don't think he's all that extreme though.