So Obama has never released a copy - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 12-05-2008, 02:07 AM

I don't think people are disputing that Hawaii produced that birth certificate in 2007. I think they are saying it is a 'new' certificate, i.e. it has all the data, but is not actually the certificate that was created in 1961. In other words, yes it is a legal document, but isn't the 'original.' That's how I gather the argument is being made.

Cali Coug · 12-05-2008, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

they can't xerox the original? Scan it?

You mean like the one you can find on Obama's website or through a quick Google search?

This is the dumbest "scandal" ever.

MikeWaters · 12-05-2008, 03:22 AM

The document that Obama has produced, you are saying, is a xerox or scanned copy of the document produced in 1961?

I don't think so. At least that is part of the dispute.

Yes, the document that Obama has, with a raised seal and a 2007 stamp is a legal birth certificate, I don't think most people are disputing that. I think what they are saying is that what Obama has is a 2007 printout of a birth certificate.

I may be mistaken and that is not what the "conspirators" are saying, in that case sue me.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Cali Coug · 12-05-2008, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The document that Obama has produced, you are saying, is a xerox or scanned copy of the document produced in 1961?

I don't think so. At least that is part of the dispute.

Yes, the document that Obama has, with a raised seal and a 2007 stamp is a legal birth certificate, I don't think most people are disputing that. I think what they are saying is that what Obama has is a 2007 printout of a birth certificate.

I may be mistaken and that is not what the "conspirators" are saying, in that case sue me.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Hunt it down. The truth is out there. This matter deserves your full attention.

MikeWaters · 12-05-2008, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Hunt it down. The truth is out there. This matter deserves your full attention.

Slew of lawsuits already at work on this. No need for me to lift a finger.

Cali Coug · 12-05-2008, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Slew of lawsuits already at work on this. No need for me to lift a finger.

They were already dismissed for lack of standing (and don't hold your breath on Supreme Court review).

You should get involved. Make it your life focus. Nothing is more important.

MikeWaters · 12-05-2008, 03:44 AM

Tex, he is avoiding my assertion about the 2007 birth certificate.

That's fine, I don't care what Cali thinks, Tex.

Cali Coug · 12-05-2008, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Tex, he is avoiding my assertion about the 2007 birth certificate.

That's fine, I don't care what Cali thinks, Tex.

Not ignoring it at all. I hope you really dig into this. You should fly to Hawaii. Check it out in person. Go to Kenya. Track down the info you need. This is your story. Make it happen. Only you can solve the conspiracy.

Bring your tin foil hat.

ute4ever · 12-05-2008, 04:42 AM

Hey the republicans in the judiciary found a way to give the 2000 presidency to the candidate who received the fewer votes, so why can't they do it again? Of course there are many lawyers grasping at straws on this issue trying to do the same. Every election will be like this from here on out, with the possible exception of Myron Rolle in 2028, who will probably sweep every state except Minnesota.

myboynoah · 12-05-2008, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

they can't xerox the original? Scan it?

And translate it from Swahili as well? These are simple things.

12-05-2008, 02:07 AM	#11
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,367	I don't think people are disputing that Hawaii produced that birth certificate in 2007. I think they are saying it is a 'new' certificate, i.e. it has all the data, but is not actually the certificate that was created in 1961. In other words, yes it is a legal document, but isn't the 'original.' That's how I gather the argument is being made.

12-05-2008, 03:22 AM	#13
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,367	The document that Obama has produced, you are saying, is a xerox or scanned copy of the document produced in 1961? I don't think so. At least that is part of the dispute. Yes, the document that Obama has, with a raised seal and a 2007 stamp is a legal birth certificate, I don't think most people are disputing that. I think what they are saying is that what Obama has is a 2007 printout of a birth certificate. I may be mistaken and that is not what the "conspirators" are saying, in that case sue me. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

12-05-2008, 03:44 AM	#17
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,367	Tex, he is avoiding my assertion about the 2007 birth certificate. That's fine, I don't care what Cali thinks, Tex.

12-05-2008, 04:42 AM	#19
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	Hey the republicans in the judiciary found a way to give the 2000 presidency to the candidate who received the fewer votes, so why can't they do it again? Of course there are many lawyers grasping at straws on this issue trying to do the same. Every election will be like this from here on out, with the possible exception of Myron Rolle in 2028, who will probably sweep every state except Minnesota.