UH-OH !!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by ApacheM:

 “The problem with this 'new' birth certificate is that it's, well....new. It lists his birthday as August 4, 1961, then lists his father's native country as Kenya.

"The problem with that is Kenya didn't exist until 1963; it was British East Africa or East Africa Protectorate until then."

It actually says Kenya, EAST AFRICA on the certificate.

So your first point is wrong.

" It also lists the hospital of his birth as Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, which didn't exist until 1978. "

The name Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital was used by this facility since 1931.  The original hospital was opened in 1890 as Kapi‘olani Maternity Home.  It changed its name to Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children in 1978.  

So your second point is invalid to anyone that can read.

Prior to that time it was Kauaikeolani Children's Hospital. It is also dated April 25, 2011, with Dr. Alvin T. Onaka signing to the stamp of "I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii Department of State Health".

The two hospitals merged in to become the aforementioned Kapi‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

Here is a link for the above info:

https://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx

  

also.........at this time, 1961, they were still recorded as ' negro' not African American...

 

He is not listed as African AMERICAN...he listed as "African" which he was. 

 

*crickets*  Homeschooling SMH

Quote Originally Posted by MeMyselfandEye:



Since we are making broad generalizations here...

My take on the left/right dissent on intellectuals..and clearly the left thinks they are the enlightened one here..
 
 I offer up a four good reasons for dissent:

#1.) The left feign disinterested objectivity

#2) they often seem to hold less brilliant people in contempt or antipathy,

#3) and they pretend to have the interests of “the poor” at heart when they do not.

#4) They claim to speak from a level of higher objectivity, while  talking the same lines.

Post after post here reflects the above.  I don't hate anyone, I disagree with them, I'm sure most of the left here would be a good time for a few beers.

If you reread your post a few times, you might see the irony in generalizations.

But for the record...

1) My post was referring to a select few in this thread, not everyone on the right. With that being said;

2) Those that I view as "on the left" seem to have no problem with debating with fellow lefties over positions. The Democratic party seems to always be in splinters based on this. Perhaps on a national level, that has changed and that is one of the reasons you don't see the national furor over the wars, which I have agreed is hypocrisy. I know during the wars, I had some very heated debates with people on the "so-called" left so I can certainly understand the hypocrisy label but...

3) How many people on this board, from the right, had positive things to say about the death of OBL? How many people from the right have dismissed the ridiculousness of "birthers?" Or referring to the President as Muslim? Or that he has some secret agenda to destroy America?

 5FF had a great thread on the OBL issue. Guess how many righties agreed with his view? Rick doesn't toe a party line, Dr. J doesn't either. Kap doesn't. Rooster doesn't.  Lords and Bake don't when they are around. Outside of that?  As I said earlier in this thread, there are plenty of actual policy issues that are troubling. But when pure hatred dictates how one feels, actual debate becomes impossible. And they people making the statement come across as sheep.

My motto to anyone who is partisan...you don't want to be grouped in like sheep, don't act like one.

I don't disagree in terms of theory but in actual application, my point was those on the right seem to be much more tolerant absent dissent, of extremism. Its sad, really.

Easy to throw stones, criticize & attack (tho most of it's twisted to suit or adhere to their idealogy) when things are totally fked up & alot of folks are angry and/or strugglin big-time. But how arrogant & superficial is it when the 'pubs themselves held the presidency & controlled congress for 6 of the 8yrs before Obama took office & 12 of 14 yrs overall?

Maybe instead of having 1 or more additional valid parties which would probably just muddle things more, we should do away with 'em all together & have 1 American Party. Where we could have folks of all stripes - conservatives, liberals, libertarians & whatever of all degrees under the same unbrella & have term limits, no campaign contributions or tv/radio spots, just public/privately sponsored tv debates (with all the issues covered), separate individual interviews & good 'ol stump speeches on the campaign trail. Then let "we the people" decide who they want to vote for. Would definitely eliminate alot of the bullshit in a number of ways -

fuck the liberals

everything else sounds good

Yeah, keep buyin that 'pubby/conservative bs - most of it's a Rod Serling fantasy these days anyhow & the 'pubs more than played their part in creating the reasons for it 

I guees in part those are the consequences for sayin 1 thing & doin another for too many fkn yrs

At least you know where the libs are comin from for the most part -

who knew barry would be  bush

Some of the better lyrics from Dylan. When I listen to guys like Limbaugh & Hannity, makes me wish I'd written 'em myself 

Good tune, better lyrics & done better by Dylan - "My Back Pages"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS6OhC-4Zyw

Most folks aren't all the way lib or conservative anyway & never have been. Lots of degrees & crossovers, but sadly now we get the lowest common denominator instead of something better -

Hardly, but makes for a nice soundbite & cute thing to say, doesn't it? 

In fact, 1 could make a strong argument that Barry has shown good flexibility in leadership both in foreign affairs & domestically but I suspect it's more for political reasons than anything else.

sure thing cdnumbers

take your partisan blinders off and put that koolaid sippy cup down

On issue after issue, in both foreign and domestic affairs, Presidents Bush and Obama agree far more often than not. When they do disagree, their differences are usually a matter of degree rather than of substance. And much the same could be said of every other President for several generations. With the sole exception of Calvin Coolidge, no American President since the First World War has done anything to challenge the ascendancy of certain special interests over the American body politic. While Presidents often squabble — with Congress, with electoral opponents, with the media — over policy points, none of them challenges any of the core policies near and dear to the elites who get them elected. This is why the “issues that matter” — fidelity to constitutional limits on government power, a wise foreign policy truly consecrated to American interests, and a sound monetary system — are never up for presidential review.