[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

As for the racist thing, I'm surprised that you didn't use the opportunity to shape the strategic parly line and combine in Spencers fashion to use the words racist, birthers, republican, and tea baggers all in one sentence

HUH?

Part of the problem is the very wide brush being painted. Some people feel (myself included) that a Presidential Candidate needs to validate beyond a shadow of a doubt their eligibility to be President and on the key requirements is Natural Citizen. You can be a naturalized citizen and run for Congress, you cannot be a naturalized citizen and become Vice President or President. That is still the law. Back in the campaign days when people were harping on Obama, many on the left were bugging on McCain because he was born in Panama even though the children of Americans serving overseas (or Government officials) are considered born-here.

A lot of the kids I went to High School with were military brats born in Germany, Japan, and other corners of the world and most were all qualified to be president. The exceptions were those that were born when one of the parents was dual-citizenshiped in the host country that child was born in. A few of my friends had Amercian fathers, German mothers, and were born in Germany when they toured there before. Those kids were considered dual citizenship as well and had to choose their citizenship on reaching the age of 18 and IIRC they were not eligble to run for President.

Now Obama was born in Hawaii, it was a state, his mother is American, that discussion SHOULD be over.

But when anyone wants a high standard to be held for meeting the born citizen requirements they are now painted as birthers.

I think it's reasonable to expect that US Presidential candidates are actually Constitutionally eligible to take office.

But has anyone ever produced a shred of real evidence that casts doubt on Obama's credentials?

Seriously, does an obviously fake Kenyan birth certificate, and a number of made up conspiracy theories require this kind of response? Has anyone else EVER had this kind of scrutiny? Or more to the point has it ever been used to discredit their entire existence?????

I wish I had saved the link, yesterday on CNN (I think) I ran across an article where they were stating that 1 in 3 Democrats thought that Bush was either behind 9/11 or was aware of the plans to do it and did not prevent it. There's your foil hat. A few people here have made comments that indicate protecting their scalps from sunburn with shiny metallic headgear.

Hmmm, I assume you're referencing the 2006 Ohio University/Scrips poll of about 1000 people that answered:

Question:
There are also accusations being made following the 9/11 terrorist attack. One of these is: People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East.

Answers: ( respondents)
Very likely 16%
Somewhat likely 20%
Not likely 59%
Don't know 5%

Source: New XHTML 1.0 Transitional Compliant Page

Given the wording of the question I'm actually surprised the 20% somewhat likely isn't a lot higher...

Seriously, I've looked at many right wing sites that have made this accusation and using their own links the data referenced doesn't seem to make their own point...

What gives???

-spence