Speaking about the "birther" issue. Lets say that Obama was not born in a hospital or had proper documentation irregardless of whether he was born in the US or not. It would be more convenient for his parents to have a paper showing his birth in the U.S especially since they were going to spend a few years over seas. Just this it was convenient at that time nothing more than that. The question becomes why cannot an independent, non-political, investigator look at the documentation? Somthing smells there i it may not be proof of forien berth but it may be something.
An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson
End of discussion.
Of course, we all know exactly what would happen if some "independent, non-political investigator" looked into it. He/she would conclude that the documents were legal and proper, or that there isn't enough information to add anything to the debate. If the former happened, the investigator's independence would immediately be questioned, or the evidence he examined would simply be called fake too. If the second happened, the loons would crow that this was proof of something.
These guys will believe absolutely anything, not matter how absurd, as long as it keeps their preposterous ideas alive. It's what nutbag conspiracy theorists do.
Last edited by misterman; 04-07-10 at 08:09 AM.
As for alterations, the alteration was done to the scan not the document itself. That document is a short form printout which is the format most states have switched to. Try getting your birth certificate now and youll get something similar.
By the way Im still waiting for you to file that legal challenge in court you claimed you were going to.