He's not wrong, and frankly, it's no disrespect. One of the great strengths of this country is that no two people march exactly to the same drumbeat, and it is, indeed, those who dance the strangest that get noticed first. Sometimes the strange ones are really just strange. Senator Joe McCarthy strangely saw Communists hiding everywhere, and ran right on over the Constitution in search of them. Other times, it's strange that leads to change. Rosa Parks acted strangely for a black woman in her time - and began a process that changed how blacks would be treated in America.

For every birther or conspiracy theorist in this land, there are dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people who line up to give blood, give money, give time, and in many cases, give their lives - throughout its history. For every criminal we heard about in New Orleans following Katrina, there are dozens or more untold stories of people coming together to help each other. The same is true in the stories emerging this week from the tornado-blasted South.

Are we a perfect nation? By no means; far from it. But there are millions of us in this country who remain committed to keeping it a pretty nice place to be for everyone. Just because we may differ on what that means doesn't diminish that we do have that in common.

What bickering? The Democrats like to make like the Birthers have a lot more influence on the GoP than they really do. It's a rather common political tactic. Define your opponent by the most radical fringe that you can find and hope folks will think it's their mainstream.

Well spoken. As a non American, I see the term 'only in America' being used more and more. This is because as you said, 'those who dance the strangest that get noticed first.'; and in a country with so many inhabitants, there are of course a hell of a lot of people that 'dance strange' that we get to hear about. But that's just numbers. Actually American people as a whole are pretty much the same as us Europeans, some slight cultural differences aside.

The main problem I see, is a tendency to polarization. Both here in Europe as well as in the US. People tend to think they are obliged to describe and express themselves as left or right. And in every discussion, it seems to me like nobody even listens to the arguments of the other.
If I see some reactions/posts in political topics, it seems like the only thing people are thinking of when reading it, is 'How can I come up with some argument against what he said', not even considering the possibility that the person you are arguing with might even have a point. Having a discussion only seems to be about winning or losing. (And yes, I'm sorry to say this completely applies to this forum when it comes to politics)
I guess that's the whole thing I'm trying to say; just consider that 'the other' side may have a point. Maybe they don't, but it sure helps to open up and ponder the possibility that they might. And that they might even have the best intentions, as was Growlers point if I understood him correctly.

/RANT MODE OFF

^ ^ ^

Also well said. The problem is that the only people who will actually follow that advice are the ones already doing so. The rest will nod their heads and then blame the other side for it, as always.

I understand what you're saying Steve, but there's still hope! Or at least, that's what I believe.
I can even summarize my previous post in one word: self-criticism. A lost art. As a matter of fact, here's the only commandment I live by: doubt yourself.

I blame the media

The site is Dutch , but click on de vid on the right.

http://nos.nl/artikel/236972-preside...ald-trump.html

President Obama answers Trump.

awesome:har:

If it bleeds it leads...

It's all about ratings, advertising revenue and selling newspapers. If they could make money telling all the 'untold' stories of countless people volunteering, giving blood and being good citizens they'd be doing it.

:)
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/nat...n_defined.html
:()1:
Stanley Ann Dunham (November 29, 1942 – November 7, 1995)
Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961
:yep:

"might [...] imply"
"has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source"
"might have meant"
"Could"
"might"

All your source confirms is that it's something pretty much undefined, which makes all your claims bollox.

You can't call a birthers claims bollox.
It doesn't matter that his "evidence" either contradicts his claims or refutes them, it is still convincing "evidence".
It is funny that he still is going in circles demolishing his own claims

And what does that second date tell you?

It might help if you go back and read everything I submitted. I stated that I believe that a 'natural born citizen' is that which is born of 2 citizen parents, as per the opinion of congressman Bingham, and most likely the founders of the constitution (that most likely was referred to while drafting the constitution of the U.S.) The latest submission was to illustrate why it's believed to be important, as british common law (which also was referred to during the draft of the constitution) says that citizenship is traditionally transferred from the father (along with the name), but in the U.S. it was believed paramount that the elected leader be free of any foreign influence that may come from birthright citizenship to another country (NOT including the pre-constitution 'grandfathered' citizenship). As Obama has a Kenyan father (british citizenship) and a citizen mother I do NOT believe he fulfills the intent of the founding fathers idea of 'natural born' citizenship. This also the heart of the lawsuit filed for a supreme court decision. I have concluded during the conversation with another poster (many posts prior) in this thread that indeed, the term 'natural born' is ambiguous and needs to be defined at the highest judiciary level.

I am NOT convinced Obama has NO OTHER allegiances than to the U.S as he has a foreign parent, he's spent millions of his own money to keep his birth records (and school records) sealed, he attended a muslim school in Indonesia (open to Indonesian ONLY citizens), and IIRC a trip to Pakistan (or Afghanistan) when he was 19 when travel wasn't allowed for U.S. citizens (which could indicate a forged passport, or passport showing citizenship other than American).

For the record- I never had any doubt he was not born in Hawaii.

That Mom was 3 months shy of her 19th birthday.

I have and it is contradictory.

Common birther conspiracies...... Complete nonsense which has long been trashed. for example a trip to pakistan. it wasn't a ban on US citizens or any such thing at all, it was just the introduction of 30 day tourist visas unless they applied for an extension from the Pakistani govt:88)

And what has that to do with the price of cheese?
Oh I get it you are still going on about something that is irrelevant and that you know is irrelevant and understand was always irrelevant because of the date which is all you needed to look at and the only maths you had to figure.

You can see a pattern here on your "beliefs". You work on conditions that don't exist, definitions that are fluid guesswork which morph each time you want to try and apply them, events that never happened and myths that were long since shown to be false.

Is that a double or triple negative?

Agreed, but still adds to the 'mystery' of our :D leader
correct- absolutely irrelevant, but as a couple posters kept throwing it up as a legit example of why he is unquestionably a citizen 'because this document grants citizenship to single citizen parent giving birth abroad', I thought I counter with 'even if that rubbish applies to a child born domestically mom STILL wouldn't pass citizenship to her child'.
Utterly pointless example with an equally pointless reply.
double (intentional)
:salute: