Go Obama!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Normally I'd be skeptical of a poll commissioned by Daily Kos, but Research 2000, the firm which did the polling, is well-regarded by reliable poll analysts like FiveThirtyEight.

Note the regional differences here. From a telephone poll of 2400 adults nationwide last week:


Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?

All Yes 77% No 11% Not Sure 12%

Democrats(31%) Yes 93% No 4% Not Sure 3%
Republicans(22%) Yes 42% No 28% Not Sure 30%
Independents(25%) Yes 83% No 8% Not Sure 9%
Other/Refused Affiliation(5%) Yes 80% No 9% Not Sure 11%
Nonvoters(17%) Yes 84% No 7% Not Sure 9%

White(71%) Yes 71% No 14% Not Sure 15%
Black(14%) Yes 97% No 1% Not Sure 2%
Latino(12%) Yes 87% No 6% Not Sure 7%
Other/Refused(3%) Yes 88% No 6% Not Sure 6%

Northeast(21%) Yes 93% No 4% Not Sure 3%
South(30%) Yes 47% No 23% Not Sure 30%
Midwest(27%) Yes 90% No 6% Not Sure 4%
West(22%) Yes 87% No 7% Not Sure 6%
 
Republicans(22%) Yes 42% No 28% Not Sure 30%

:doh::doh::doh:

how about now? If this is not real than he is an illegal alien and should be deported. Obama is really part of such a huge cover up of his own life after he has been vetted beyond belief. You would think part of the vetting process would include the fact that he was in America illegally :|

barack-obama-birth-certificate_43705180.jpg
 
I have no idea where Obama was borne, but in terms of his value system, Obama is much more American than the despicable, leeching oligarchs known as the Bush family.
 
What the hell is wrong with people? Is it too much TV?
I doubt it, look at the regional breakdown.
Northeast Yes 93% No 4% Not Sure 3%
South Yes 47% No 23% Not Sure 30%
Midwest Yes 90% No 6% Not Sure 4%
West Yes 87% No 7% Not Sure 6%
The South has a disproportional number of people who are simultaneously white, poorly educated, racist, and conservative; I think that's probably what it comes down to. You wouldn't see those kinds of regional discrepancies if it were only one of those factors in isolation (or TV) driving it.
 
My question was more a statement of incredulity rather than an actual question. I tend to blame everything I don't like on people watching too much TV.

But I'm quick to blame the South for things I don't like as well.
 
I doubt it, look at the regional breakdown.

The South has a disproportional number of people who are simultaneously white, poorly educated, racist, and conservative; I think that's probably what it comes down to. You wouldn't see those kinds of regional discrepancies if it were only one of those factors in isolation (or TV) driving it.

Is this another example of profiling?
 
I am not a 'birther'.

I voted for Obama, I don't care where he was born.

But that Birth Certificate provided is not from 1961.

The State of Hawaii birth certificates from the 1960's used a typewriter. The Green one that is shown on the websites is a computer-generated birth certificate, which did not exist in 1961.

There should be something that looks more like this:

hawaii-birth-certificate-1963.jpg
 
Democrats(31%) Yes 93% No 4% Not Sure 3%

How come people like Chris Matthews aren't out there complaining about the 7% of Democrats? Don't they make the rest of the Democrats look bad?

Oh yeah, it's only those damn hateful racist Republicans.
 
How come people like Chris Matthews aren't out there complaining about the 7% of Democrats? Don't they make the rest of the Democrats look bad?

Oh yeah, it's only those damn hateful racist Republicans.

7% or 58%

:hmm:

There are whackjobs in every group. For this example, in one they're an overwhelming minority. In the other...
 
I think most Republicans doubt it out of spite. Same as Dems claiming they believe Bush stole two elections. Just a normal reaction.
 
I am not a 'birther'.

I voted for Obama, I don't care where he was born.

But that Birth Certificate provided is not from 1961.

The State of Hawaii birth certificates from the 1960's used a typewriter. The Green one that is shown on the websites is a computer-generated birth certificate, which did not exist in 1961.
[/IMG]

Maybe he's like me and my little sister, between the two of us we've lost our birth certificates probably half a dozen times and have to go downtown to buy new, sealed ones.
 
Maybe he's like me and my little sister, between the two of us we've lost our birth certificates probably half a dozen times and have to go downtown to buy new, sealed ones.




Go back to Holland or where ever the heck you and you sis were really born. :yell:
 
Every hospital keeps a certificate of live birth in its archives.

There are speculative reasons why Obama won't release it.:

1-It doesn't exist-he was born outside of the USA.

If it really does exists, he doesn't want to release it because he received foreign aid in college claiming he wasn't a USA citizen. In other words, he lied.

This are a few reasons, I really don't know care to bother with my time obsessing over something that is out of my control.

I do think with the beer summit fall out and other policy blunders Senator O is on his way to becoming a one-termer.

His poll numbers are slipping early:

Rasmussen Reports�: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
 
Every hospital keeps a certificate of live birth in its archives.

There are speculative reasons why Obama won't release it.:

1-It doesn't exist-he was born outside of the USA.

If it really does exists, he doesn't want to release it because he received foreign aid in college claiming he wasn't a USA citizen. In other words, he lied.

Your tin foil is a little loose.
 
Every hospital keeps a certificate of live birth in its archives.

There are speculative reasons why Obama won't release it.:

1-It doesn't exist-he was born outside of the USA.

If it really does exists, he doesn't want to release it because he received foreign aid in college claiming he wasn't a USA citizen. In other words, he lied.

This are a few reasons, I really don't know care to bother with my time obsessing over something that is out of my control.

I do think with the beer summit fall out and other policy blunders Senator O is on his way to becoming a one-termer.

His poll numbers are slipping early:

Rasmussen Reports�: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

I really dont think Obama is the "lying" type. He has very good values I think. He is probably the most ethical president we have had in a while. and if you want to talk about lying... well I can point you to George W.

There are multiple pictures of his birth certificate, and there is no doubt in any logical persons mind that he is a citizen. and to answer some of those other questions you asked:

YouTube - On Hardball, Liddy claims Obama is an "illegal alien" born in Kenya
 
Is this another example of profiling?
Can't tell if you're being serious or not?

No, profiling would be if you encountered a white guy with a Southern accent and snorted, "Bet he's one of those birther morons." That Southern whites overall are more likely to have no high school (or college) degree, to vote Republican (particularly in national-level elections), and to hold 'traditional' views on race issues like interracial marriage, are all empirically verifiable.
 
Your tin foil is a little loose.

For the record, I really don't subscribe to this issue/theory anymore, I considered it for a short time.
I put what I had read out there for discussion purposes.

The latest one is they're supposedly attempting to forge an original "live birth certificate" and it will magically surface and put the matter to rest.

I also think that we went to the moon, despite what a few recently have said, so no need to slur me there-should you feel the urge.
;)

I do think however, that JFK story has holes in it.

<>
 
Obama%20Joker%20Poster%20Popping%20Up%20In%20Los%20Angeles.jpg


ABC News

Obama Joker Poster Causes Stir on Web
Guerilla Art in Los Angeles Overpass Brands President Obama as Socialist
By DEAN PRAETORIUS

Aug. 3, 2009 —

President Obama is a lunatic. Or at least that's how one Los Angeles guerrilla street artist feels.

An unknown artist posted several posters in Los Angeles "mashing up" an image of Obama and Heath Ledger's Joker character from "The Dark Knight."

The Obama-Joker poster, with the word "socialism" in bold, dark letters printed under the image of his face, has caused a stir on the Web and was linked prominently on the Drudge Report.

The original Obama image used for the poster appeared on the cover of the Oct. 23, 2006, edition of Time magazine. The poster bears the dateline and address to Time's Web site above the image.

The editorialized image seems to have first made news this weekend when political pundit Tammy Bruce posted a photo on her Web site of the poster -- hanging next to a Los Angeles highway exit ramp -- taken by anonymous photographer identified as "Chris."

Bruce reported that the poster was also spotted in Hollywood.

The poster stands in stark contrast to past remakings of Obama images by artists, such as Shepard Fairey, which tended to be more fawning and respectful.

Obama Joker Poster Contrasts Fairey HOPE

Fairey, the street artist who created the ubiquitous "HOPE" poster for Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, depicting a thoughtful, distinguished-looking Obama shaded in red, white and blue, has been embroiled in a lawsuit with the Associated Press.

The AP accuses Fairey of copyright infringment for using an image that the artist acknowledges is based on a photograph taken in April 2006 by an Associated Press photographer.
 
Fighting for Francis
Faith, reason, and the NIH nominee.

By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK

Published Jul 30, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Aug 17, 2009

I do not believe that the Christian faith of Dr. Francis Collins, recently nominated to run the National Institutes of Health, disqualifies him from that job. The only questions that need be asked of Collins are these: Is he a good enough scientist? And will he be a passionate and relentless advocate for science and scientific research?

President Obama announced the nomination on July 8, but the objections from the scientific community have coalesced slowly. The flash point is religion. Collins is a "born again" geneticist with a stellar résumé who has recently made his name by offering himself up as living proof that a rational person can also believe in God. His 2006 book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, made him a celebrity in "faith versus reason" circles, and in the wake of its success, he has traveled the country dueling with atheists, explaining how, as he puts it in that book, "there is no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us." In opinion pieces, scientists Sam Harris and Steven Pinker express strong reservations about the ascension of Collins to this office. Pinker fretted about the symbolism of allowing such a vocal believer to represent U.S. science; in The New York Times, Harris worried that a man who believes that human morality is God-given might be disinclined to pursue neuroscientific research into the nature of the human mind.

In America, religion is not a litmus test. Few would argue that, on the merits, Collins does not deserve this promotion. In 1989 Collins discovered the gene for cystic fibrosis, and in 1993 he became the director of the NIH center that would eventually sequence the entire human genome. Indeed, the critique most often leveled at Collins by the scientific community—apart from his public religiosity—is that he is too much of a geneticist and biased in favor of Big Science. On a blog, anthropologist Kenneth M. Weiss complained recently that as Human Genome Project director, Collins "directly or indirectly intimidated other NIH agencies to get into the genome game … That did, and still does, co-opt funds that could be used for other things instead." The concern of some scientists, in other words, has nothing to do with religion. It's that his view of legitimate science doesn't extend to them.

What distinguishes Collins from other scientists, then, is not that he believes—about half of American scientists believe in God or something like God—but that he does it so publicly. He has made his belief part of his shtik. I was at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2007 when Collins, as a guest of President George W. Bush, whipped out his acoustic guitar and, before thousands, sang a little hymn—an event that promised to devolve into a sideshow (in a blog at the time I compared him to "a wacky -nursery-school teacher"), but that Collins pulled off, somehow, through massive personal charisma. My own misgivings relate not to his religiosity but to my suspicion of people who wear religion too outwardly, especially when that posture would seem to serve their own professional ends. Collins was an established scientist but hardly a household name before he "came out" so prominently as a Christian believer, and it's certainly no accident that Team Obama chose him (and not, say, an atheist) to lead the way through forthcoming battles over stem cells and cloning. NIH director is a scientific appointment, to be sure, but it's also a political one, and Collins's evangelicalism works to (his and) Obama's advantage. What better way to disarm the opposition than to install a member of that opposition as the general of your army?

Both Pinker and Harris say a religious world view is fundamentally incompatible with a rational one, but there is no evidence that Collins has ever shied from the pursuit of scientific truth. It is not his religion, then, but his political ambition that prevents him from being crystal clear on one of the most volatile issues facing the NIH: embryonic-stem-cell research. A publicist says his views are in line with Obama's, but in Bush-era interviews he chose his words carefully and in his book he frames his support rhetorically. Embryonic-stem-cell research, in which human embryos are destroyed to make stem cells for experimentation, is a complex moral issue, he says—as it is. And then he offers what would seem to be his solution. Agree never to create human embryos expressly for medical research. Use only embryos—unwanted and "destined for destruction"—left over from fertility treatments. "Would that be moral violation?" he asks. Dr. Harold Varmus, a former NIH director who helped in the selection process, says Collins's guarded responses reflect no ambivalence. "He definitely supports it. I've worked with him closely, and I've never seen any evidence that he's opposed to it. Zero. None." Let's hope Obama's shrewd scientist is prepared for the religious war ahead.
 
I don't get what's bad about it. We've seen plenty worse depictions of Bush the past 8 years, so I don't want to hear anyone say making fun of someone this way crosses a line...

It's probably racist, though, in some way. :cute:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom