Obama releases the long form

[Rick]

OK, in my opinion, Obama is far more articulate than Bush was,

I see you ducked my rebuttal to that before. Once again - where's the proof that obozo is more articulate? There isn't any, and you don't have any.

 

[Dr.Who]

The govement in Hawii had already verified the damn document, it was not legal to release...and we had plenty of proof before...and now the idiot birthers are already starting the claim of ...well this was a fake...

Yes they did verify the document (the long form). But you will not find a quote from any of them saying that it said he was born in an Hawaiian hospital. For all we knew it only said what the short form said, or it proved that he was born at home. In fact, we have newsreports saying that the long form said what the short form said - which would have been insufficient.

Here is her statement:

"“I . . . have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

As you can see the statement does not verify that Obama was born in the hospital, nor does it deny that he was born at home delivered either by his mother or a midwife or a doctor doing housecalls. And if he had been born at home she could have easily gone to the hospital and registered his birth, lying about the place of birth, and the files would indicate that he was born in Hawaii. But those files would be just as wrong as they are so often when women fro Mexico lie about where they have given birth so they too can have babies with citizenship.

We now know that he was born in the hospital and therefore in hawaii, but no one said he was born in the hospital a couple of years ago.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Yeah, and how about Mr. "high verbal IQ's" reference to "corpsemen" - do you know ANYONE who would have made such a gaffe?

Re Bay of Pigs - it was ordered by Einsenhower, not Nixon, and the event hadn't happened when JFK took office - HE was in charge, and HE could have called it off. It was HIS responsibility to evaluate the plans, and he FAILED. And how do you call it "wrongheaded"? It failed because of poor planning, miscommunication, security lapses, etc etc - but how is it "wrongheaded" to depose a horrible dictatorship - one which spread soviet aggression by proxy all over the world??

Ike may have been President, but Nixon was the "point man" and the planner of the Bay Of Pigs "invasion". But Nixon lost to Kennedy in the 1960 election, which wasn't supposed to happen.

Kennedy refused to allow the U.S. bombing strikes to move forward, per the original plan, so the rest of the plan fell apart, and Kennedy pissed off a lot of CIA and military people, not to mention the many mercenaries who were involved, and were killed or captured by the Castro Cubans.

The Bay Of Pigs invasion was wrongheaded because of the intensity of the Cold War during that time. It spawned the Cuban Missile Crisis. That alone should explain why it was a bad idea.

 

[Rick]

Ike may have been President, but Nixon was the "point man" and the planner of the Bay Of Pigs "invasion". But Nixon lost to Kennedy in the 1960 election, which wasn't supposed to happen.

Kennedy refused to allow the U.S. bombing strikes to move forward, per the original plan, so the rest of the plan fell apart, and Kennedy pissed off a lot of CIA and military people, not to mention the many mercenaries who were involved, and were killed or captured by the Castro Cubans.

The Bay Of Pigs invasion was wrongheaded because of the intensity of the Cold War during that time. It spawned the Cuban Missile Crisis. That alone should explain why it was a bad idea.

I don't think you're reading carefully. Bay of Pigs only spawned the missile crisis because it FAILED, because it was poorly planned. You made it sound like it was a bad idea, well planned or not, failed or not. Whoever is president at a given point in time is RESPONSIBLE for the executive branch actions, minus only short-term acts by rogue elements.

And unless it was fully appreciated that castro was in some matters insane, it couldn't have been predicted that it would cause the cuban missile crisis, whereby castro was willing to have cuba vaporized by US nukes as long as that also meant the nuclear destruction of the US.

 

[BigRob]

The documentaries would answer your question. However, he was assured that the Cuban rebels could and would prevail at the Bay of Pigs. The U.S. was not about to help them via U.S. forces (although the rebels were told they would have U.S. air support by the CIA). However, in the missile crisis, the options pushed on JFK by the CIA, Pentagon, and other military advisers were: Preemptive nuclear strikes on the intermediate missile locations (the Russian tactical nuclear missiles were operational, but were unknown to the USA Intel. at this time.). And/or a full-scale invasion using all the available U.S. military forces. It had little in common or to do with the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Clearly the Bay of Pigs of and the CMC are different scenarios...my point was simply that Kennedy seemingly (even though a smart guy) made bad choices leading up the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

I think he clearly learned from it, but it was still a bad call at the time.

 

[BigRob]

As for Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis, I though JFK did a great job in handling that situation. He may have been a philanderer and he may have endangered national security by compromising his personal life with a slew of "girlfriends", but I believe that he was a pretty damn good President. The whole Bay Of Pigs thing was inherited by Kennedy (via Richard Nixon), and the "invasion" of Cuba was a wrongheaded idea to begin with, especially because of the strong possibility of nuclear war with the USSR.

Bay of Pigs was not an operation that had already commenced when Kennedy took office...he gave the final orders for it to proceed. The outcome is on him.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Bay of Pigs was not an operation that had already commenced when Kennedy took office...he gave the final orders for it to proceed. The outcome is on him.

Did I say that Bay of Pigs was "already commenced when kennedy took office"? No, I did not. Re-read what I wrote.

In addition, Rick must have some sort of insider information as to what would have happened if the Bay Of Pigs had not failed. Or maybe he is just psychic?

Apparently Rick must believe that the USSR would have just ignored the overthrow of one of their communist satellite countries, and done nothing to respond to "U.S. aggression" in Cuba.

OK. I guess I must have missed that history class.

 

[PLC1]

Did I say that Bay of Pigs was "already commenced when kennedy took office"? No, I did not. Re-read what I wrote.

In addition, Rick must have some sort of insider information as to what would have happened if the Bay Of Pigs had not failed. Or maybe he is just psychic?

Apparently Rick must believe that the USSR would have just ignored the overthrow of one of their communist satellite countries, and done nothing to respond to "U.S. aggression" in Cuba.

OK. I guess I must have missed that history class.

Yes, me too.

And for me, it was news, not history.

You're right: Attacking Cuba would have been one thing, attacking the Soviet Union, of which Cuba was a part at the time, quite another.

Now, fast forward fifty years: Why is it that we still don't have diplomatic relations with Cuba two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yes, me too.

And for me, it was news, not history.

You're right: Attacking Cuba would have been one thing, attacking the Soviet Union, of which Cuba was a part at the time, quite another.

Now, fast forward fifty years: Why is it that we still don't have diplomatic relations with Cuba two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union?

Electoral politics of Florida...if it was a solid Red or Blue state the embargo would be over already.

 

[Hobo1]

Here is her statement:

"“I . . . have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

As you can see the statement does not verify that Obama was born in the hospital, nor does it deny that he was born at home delivered either by his mother or a midwife or a doctor doing housecalls. And if he had been born at home she could have easily gone to the hospital and registered his birth, lying about the place of birth, and the files would indicate that he was born in Hawaii. But those files would be just as wrong as they are so often when women fro Mexico lie about where they have given birth so they too can have babies with citizenship.

We now know that he was born in the hospital and therefore in hawaii, but no one said he was born in the hospital a couple of years ago.

We are overlooking the fact here that Donald Trump is a master marketer - he is genius at playing the game.

If Trump would have talked about the debt crisis he would 1) gone unnoticed and 2) asked to present his plan. The same concept applies to any of our foreign wars, or Israel, etc. These issues do not attract the press and the attention. People are saturated with these important but thoroughly discussed, and boring issues.

Knowing this, Trump comes out with a vengeance on the "birther" issue (is that a real word?). It is a win-win situation for him. He grabs the attention of something that lingers in the back of people's mind; plus, he doesn't need to come up with a solution to the problem.

It got almost as much press as the royal wedding , and pushed him to the top of some polls. I will bet in the near term he will keep with that strategy. All the politicos will call him silly or racist - a claim that doesn't stick because issues like these do linger in the back of many people's minds. Plus, it is fresh and new. Next Obama's grades and China (the country we all love to hate).

He is using masterful marketing techniques to stay in the news. "I don't care what you call me, just make sure you put it on the front page of the news." Could be a winning strategy.

 

[Dr.Who]

We are overlooking the fact here that Donald Trump is a master marketer - he is genius at playing the game.

If Trump would have talked about the debt crisis he would 1) gone unnoticed and 2) asked to present his plan. The same concept applies to any of our foreign wars, or Israel, etc. These issues do not attract the press and the attention. People are saturated with these important but thoroughly discussed, and boring issues.

Knowing this, Trump comes out with a vengeance on the "birther" issue (is that a real word?). It is a win-win situation for him. He grabs the attention of something that lingers in the back of people's mind; plus, he doesn't need to come up with a solution to the problem.

It got almost as much press as the royal wedding , and pushed him to the top of some polls. I will bet in the near term he will keep with that strategy. All the politicos will call him silly or racist - a claim that doesn't stick because issues like these do linger in the back of many people's minds. Plus, it is fresh and new. Next Obama's grades and China (the country we all love to hate).

He is using masterful marketing techniques to stay in the news. "I don't care what you call me, just make sure you put it on the front page of the news." Could be a winning strategy.

I agree that Trump did it for publicity. And that it accomplished that goal very well.

I do not think it made him more presidential. If I remember correctly he didn't just make an issue out of it he said some kooky stuff. If I wanted a president who said kooky stuff I could advocate that someone put Biden in office.

 

[Dude111]

Here is Obamas REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

http://api.ning.com/files/aKzb6Zpdr...9X61f/ObameBirthCert.jpg?width=715&height=600

This one is MORE BELIEVABLE then the other one meant to fool the puppets..

 

[BigRob]

Did I say that Bay of Pigs was "already commenced when kennedy took office"? No, I did not. Re-read what I wrote.

You seemed to be giving Kennedy a pass on it simply because it was already planned etc when he came into office. My point is simply that planned or not, the ultimate decision to move ahead with it was his, and I think it was the wrong one.

In addition, Rick must have some sort of insider information as to what would have happened if the Bay Of Pigs had not failed. Or maybe he is just psychic?

Apparently Rick must believe that the USSR would have just ignored the overthrow of one of their communist satellite countries, and done nothing to respond to "U.S. aggression" in Cuba.

OK. I guess I must have missed that history class.

I agree, I think it is absurd to think the USSR would have "done nothing", especially if the roles were reversed, we would have certainly done something in response. I'm not sure it would have meant nuclear war, but it would have created some problems.

 

[BigRob]

We are overlooking the fact here that Donald Trump is a master marketer - he is genius at playing the game.

If Trump would have talked about the debt crisis he would 1) gone unnoticed and 2) asked to present his plan. The same concept applies to any of our foreign wars, or Israel, etc. These issues do not attract the press and the attention. People are saturated with these important but thoroughly discussed, and boring issues.

Knowing this, Trump comes out with a vengeance on the "birther" issue (is that a real word?). It is a win-win situation for him. He grabs the attention of something that lingers in the back of people's mind; plus, he doesn't need to come up with a solution to the problem.

But it is not a win-win for him. He hurts the party as the whole, and alienates the voters that Republicans are going to need to actually win in 2012.

At best he fired up a base that was already fired up, but in the process he has made himself look ridiculous (and by extension allow all Republicans to be painted that way) to independents...all while firing up Democrats.

It got almost as much press as the royal wedding , and pushed him to the top of some polls. I will bet in the near term he will keep with that strategy. All the politicos will call him silly or racist - a claim that doesn't stick because issues like these do linger in the back of many people's minds. Plus, it is fresh and new. Next Obama's grades and China (the country we all love to hate).

No one except die hard Republicans cares about Obama's grades. People care about the economy. As long as Trump (ie Republicans) continue to waste time talking about Obama's birth certificate and college grades, it is more time that the Democrats get to take control of the issues that will actually matter in the upcoming election.

He is using masterful marketing techniques to stay in the news. "I don't care what you call me, just make sure you put it on the front page of the news." Could be a winning strategy.

How did that work out for the McCain/Palin ticket?

 

[Hobo1]

I agree that Trump did it for publicity. And that it accomplished that goal very well.

I do not think it made him more presidential. If I remember correctly he didn't just make an issue out of it he said some kooky stuff. If I wanted a president who said kooky stuff I could advocate that someone put Biden in office.

I guess that speaks to the pitiful state of affairs with our politicians these days. The Republican's must have 10 viable candidates for President and not one of them has caught fire- nor are they likely to catch fire.

You would think Romney would be the ideal candidate. Successful in business, intellectual, and should have some appeal to the moderates with his Public Medical Care program in Massachusetts. But he is boring and fails to excite. I won't go through them all, but none of the candidates excite a broad spectrum of voters.

I agree, Trump doesn't look or sound presidential to my eyes either. But, he does talk tough and knows how to use the enormous power that the US possesses as a country to influence how other countries treat us in the world. That doesn't mean sending Navy ships to Libya for humanitarian reasons - we make enemies when we kill anyone, for any reason.

It means talking to China, and Wall Street bankers with their derivatives, and other destabilizing investment mechanisms, and saying, "I've got a few cards up my sleeve and you'd better clean up your act, or I will not be afraid to come down hard. I think this same kind of leadership will force Congress to make better decisions as well.

Anyway, like him or not, he certainly knows how to throw his hat into the ring with a big bang!