Yes, people who want Obama to be open and provide documents are fools.  LOL.

It's really funny to see the left go on defensive now.  This is nothing compared to the nonsense they accused Bush of.

The document supplied by Obama is all that any court in the land requires to prove place of birth and it is all that is required for any candidate to produce period. It's you that are asking for more than the law requires because you think there's a massive conspiracy. Why should he comply with the demands of conspiracy theorist? Not just any conspiracy this one involves the Republicans and the Democrats. Don't you think that both McCain and Hilary would have rather that Obama had just went away? Yet I don't recall either one asking that Obama produce any more proof of his Presidential eligibility.

It must have been a jedi mind trick; Obama waves hand, "you don't need to see any more proof of my eligibility". Even if your right and by some supernatural feat of influence he managed to convince among many others Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka to produce a forgery he would most certainly have to produce another one if compelled just to cover for the first forgery. Geese with this much unnatural influence maybe we should strip him down for a thorough body search to look for the "mark of the beast".

Why don't you do a search for other proponents of this conspiracy theory. Seeing the kind of company you keep might offer some perspective.

wow anyone takes a COPY for proof? SOB where have i been living...

Can't commit on where you've been living but yes a certified copy is all that is needed.

Mr. Onaka has confirmed this stamped signature.

and the difference between what you were provided and what's depicted in stubbyfinger's reply #65 (immediately preceding this one) would be???  

yours polishes up good, appeals to passing beat cops, endears ya to schoolmarms, keeps doctors away when consumed daily, can be pressed for cider as well as baked in pies and is the chosen symbol of both steve jobs' corporation and the beatles' record label..despite sharing all those properties, you're claiming his is really a citrus fruit named for it's color?  

and I'M the one who's fulla crop? 

as in the very first copy made (that being the single possible logical conclusion since no subsequent copy can be accurately deemed an original)?

either way, a copy can never be an original no matter how desperately you equivocate.

in fact, you didn't produce your original bc and, short of some extraordinary event**, you won't at anytime in future.

**for instance, you visit the hall or records or state archive or wherever they keep em and the entire staff on duty that day is frightened so badly by your aluminum foil & mylar headwear they flee en masse, providing you unmonitored access to your file. 

You do understand this all started because a faked copy was released to the DailyKooks I believe.  Therefore, to settle any disputes, the original should be made public.  If there is nothing wrong, then what's the problem?

Claimed to be fake but they were wrong, just a bad photocopy of a legitimate bc.

Merry Christmas moonbats.

Please learn to read, kb.  I explicitly said my question & comment were of a 'general information' nature.

Merry Christmas, one & all.

it's on my to-do list and has been for a while.  it's just so important to me that i build on a strong foundation...i simply refuse to settle for anything less than an original edition of those "dick n' jane" primers.

'Preciate your honesty, kb.

I don't believe it was a 'faked' copy, but a 'scanned' copy.  When you scan something in order to distribute it in electronic form, a program opens it for saving, printing or editing, in this case Photoshop since someone found PS 'tags' in the image file.

Here's stubby's link again -  FactCheck

Ipso ergo, there are no disputes to settle.

latin eh?  hey moe!  get ICE out there right away.  (maybe we'll get his car as a reward for bein good citizens)

Nah, you wouldn't want it - not green enough.

Can anyone say sore losers?