This is a follow-up by the graphics guy who started this debate.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
To: freespirited
2 posted on
06/23/2008 3:49:00 PM PDT by
Perdogg
To: freespirited
...it’s still a non issue...
3 posted on
06/23/2008 3:49:49 PM PDT by
devane617
(we are so screwed)
To: freespirited
The birth certificate thing does not concern me.
The only reason they made the rule that only native born Americans could become president was to keep members of the British Royal family from trying to run.
The fact that he is a Marxist is what concerns me.
4 posted on
06/23/2008 3:49:53 PM PDT by
Bobalu
(What do I know, I'm a Typical White Guy)
To: freespirited
NOW IS THE TIME TO PUT THIS OUT ON DAILY KOS. MAKE THEM FORCE OBAMA’S HAND. IF NOTHING ELSE, INTIMIDATE THEM ABOUT THEIR CANDIDATE’S HONESTY.
To: freespirited
This whole thing is very interested. One thing I didn't see remarked upon is that the border in the dKos version is somewhat transparent; that is you can see the green/white pattern on the ‘paper’ faintly through the ‘border’. On the real one, the border is opaque, you cannot make out any details of the paper showing through.
Curiouser and curiouser...
6 posted on
06/23/2008 3:53:02 PM PDT by
BreitbartSentMe
(Ex-Dem since 2001 *Folding@Home for the Gipper - Join the FReeper Folders*)
To: freespirited
The only “answer” I have for the differences is that there are 30 years between the two documents. It would be extremely helpful to find another birth document from the 1960’s. There are many things about BO that are a cause for concern.
7 posted on
06/23/2008 3:53:48 PM PDT by
Bubbette
To: freespirited
Another “Buckhead” wannabe. Guys you need to give up this stupidity and focus on Obama the defeatist and Obama the socialist. Stupidity like this generates sympathy to Obama. Do you really believe that Obama is not a natural born US citizen? Are you that stupid people. The man has been running for elections for 14 years including a Senate race and the most competitive democrat primary race in decades and against the Clintons, if there is anything to this stupidity that you people are publishing and questioning Obama US citizenship then the Clintons and many people before them would have used it against Obama.
9 posted on
06/23/2008 3:55:55 PM PDT by
jveritas
(God Bless President Bush and our brave troops)
To: freespirited
All good points.
However, we already know now, that Obama is an illegitimate child, because his father was married back in Africa. Thus the marriage to Miss Dunham was not valid.
10 posted on
06/23/2008 3:56:04 PM PDT by
ikka
To: freespirited
Democrats-see no evil, hear no evil. Let's face it, if Osama is Teflon proof against a racist jackleg like Racist Wright, nobody will care much about the fact that he's not a true citizen of this country. The loony left is only interested in putting a communist in power and achieving Stalinist rule.
12 posted on
06/23/2008 3:59:16 PM PDT by
NoobRep
To: freespirited
My guess would be that Hawaii law doesn’t specify either the background appearance or the type style for use in a “Certificate of Live Birth”, but rather only the substantive information to be stated on the face of the certificate. Different printers and different purchase lots of the form would be expected.
To: freespirited
You can't tell whether a hard copy is genuine by examining a jpg. If you want to know if the BC is genuine you have to examine the hard copy itself.
14 posted on
06/23/2008 4:02:24 PM PDT by
Cheburashka
(Democratic Underground: Ever wonder where all those who took the brown acid at Woodstock wound up?)
To: freespirited
The use of fake documents by the Obama campaign should send up all kinds of red flags. He wouldn't have this out there if the alternative were harmless.
I think people are very wrong to see this as a non-issue.
15 posted on
06/23/2008 4:03:27 PM PDT by
ClearCase_guy
(Et si omnes ego non)
To: freespirited
Sorry, but even Miss Decosta’s certificate is NOT ORIGINAL. It is not 1930s vintage. No way. There was no “arial” font back in those days, certainly no “laser”, as referenced lower-left margin. The term “laser” did not even exist back then.
Too bad. I do believe Baraq’s certificate to be a forgery. It needs, however, to be proven some other way.
19 posted on
06/23/2008 4:07:53 PM PDT by
Migraine
(Diversity is great (until it happens to YOU)...)
To: freespirited
So, what is the dispute that is being resolved here? That Obama was not a Live Birth?
22 posted on
06/23/2008 4:13:30 PM PDT by
varon
(Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
To: freespirited
This seems like a reach to me, the Clintons would have smoked this out if it were true.
24 posted on
06/23/2008 4:14:57 PM PDT by
wastedpotential
(McCain says I am an agent of intolerance, he's right - I can't tolerate liberal Republicans!)
To: freespirited
25 posted on
06/23/2008 4:15:50 PM PDT by
Kirkwood
(Ask me again tomorrow.)
To: freespirited
1930?
Hawaii wasn’t even a state in 1930.
It was in 1961.
I’m sure everything “official” changed after that
To: freespirited
I haven’t followed this as closely as many- but with all the talk about the comparisons between the two types of paper I’m wondering if the background might be similar-but different from 1930 to 1961?
Obviously it’s not the SAME- but perhaps the state changed the background over the years?
27 posted on
06/23/2008 4:18:33 PM PDT by
SE Mom
(Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
To: freespirited
I’ve gotta forward this on to some non-freepers. Thank you.
28 posted on
06/23/2008 4:19:12 PM PDT by
lilylangtree
(Veni, Vidi, Vici)
To: freespirited
I worry about the 31 year difference between these two documents. I didn’t see that addressed nor acknowledged.
34 posted on
06/23/2008 4:29:53 PM PDT by
ReleaseTheHounds
("The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson