Wikipedia entry on Obama being edited with bias [Archive]

seraosha

03-09-2009, 01:14 PM

Jobu

03-09-2009, 01:23 PM

As far as I'm concerned the birth certificate stuff is nonsense and should be deleted. Obama's ties to Ayers and Wright were a legitimate issue during the election though and I can't see why that information should be deleted.

My guess is that we have a few die hard Obama cultists performing the wiki reviews for his page and deleting anything that might make him look bad.

The moral of the story is, don't use Wikipedia as a source. But you should have known that already.

Sufficient

03-09-2009, 01:30 PM

President Obama's lack of credentials in regards to his eligibility to be POTUS

Get over it already.

LineDoggie

03-09-2009, 01:32 PM

Because the wiki editors are another Remora on the ass of Democracy.

They allowed regular vandalism of the Bush bio. Now I do agree that someone adding he is a Kenyan born citizen or Indonesian is total Bull**** and needs removing. But to remove the references to Bill Ayers and assorted controversies is a bit much. If one looks at bios of ant of the other presidents, there is not too flattering info included.

Invisigoth

03-09-2009, 01:33 PM

President Obama's lack of credentials in regards to his eligibility to be POTUS due to his inability to present his birth cert, etc...

And that's exactly why that article should be locked. :cantbeli:

seraosha

03-09-2009, 02:06 PM

Get over it already.

I'm sure I wont be the last to refer you to Sylvan Learning centers for reading comprehension, but possibly I am close to the first 20 to do so? Thank you so much for your insightful post, and welcome to the boards.

Mastermind

03-09-2009, 02:07 PM

If it is such a "non-issue" and it is really a simple request for our President to present his birth certificate...it is quite simple for everyone else who is legitamately born in the USA...why has Obama and his handlers practically freaked out and gone to such extroaordinary efforts to not show his? All we get are excuses. Why has the Democrat useful idot Goverornor of Hawaii sequestered Obama's records? Why is there no record at all of his mother being admitted to the hospital? Why is there no record of the new baby being admitted? Why does the obviously phoney over reproduced image that is supposed to be his "Actual" birth cirtificate all that is out there? Why does the image offered that is supposed to represent his birth cirtificate list the race of the baby as "African" and all the other birth certificates properly issed at the time list race for blacks as "negro".

The truth is in the pudding. If it is such a non issue...and we should all just "get over it" as if nothing at all is whrong...why can't the jackass Chairman just produce a copky and be done with it? Why? I'll tell you why. Because he is not an American...he was born in Kenya. He was smuggled to hawaii and his mom bought him a birth certificate form, filled it out herself and had it smuggled back into the record files. I have had to come to this conclusion since the Obama's don't seem to have the ability or the mean...with all the power at their disposal... to offer any other credible proof to dispell my belief.

seraosha

03-09-2009, 02:08 PM

And that's exactly why that article should be locked. :cantbeli:

Again, where is the reasoning behind trying to stifle debate? If the topic has been resolved, then where is the resolution? If it doesn't bear repeating, why the edits on the information which by the very action creates the appearance that there is something to hide?

Sure, tinfoil hats ahead, but why locking the article, when there are legitimate questions and impending lawsuits on this very topic?

Macs.

03-09-2009, 02:22 PM

Wikipedia Scrubs Dear Leader's Page Clean of Critical Entries (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/wikipedia-scrubs-dear-leaders-page-of.html)
Published 6 hours ago by Gateway Pundit (noreply@blogger.com) at Gateway Pundit (http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/blog/gateway_pundit/)

Wikipedia scrubs Obama's entry clean of any critical information that may taint your view of Dear Leader. Communist tyrany Joseph Stalin routinely air-brushed his enemies out of photographs.

rofl

Wikipedia is a private company/charity/or whatever it calls itself these days and they alone can do whatever they like on their website. People bitch about editing, but I am sure that after ever day that there are 3000 attempts to change Obamas name to Osama or "COMMUNIST !!!!!11" the Administration grows sick and simply keeps the editing to the minimum and deltes every questionable add.

LineDoggie

03-09-2009, 02:26 PM

Mastermind

03-09-2009, 02:28 PM

rofl

Wikipedia is a private company/charity/or whatever it calls itself these days and they alone can do whatever they like on their website. People bitch about editing, but I am sure that after ever day that there are 3000 attempts to change Obamas name to Osama or "COMMUNIST !!!!!11" the Administration grows sick and simply keeps the editing to the minimum and deltes every questionable add.
Well, that's one pleasant excuse for them...how nice!

Macs.

03-09-2009, 02:29 PM

IIRC, the was a way to out those who edit the pages. Last year? I remember reading about a program some college kid made that tracks not only who made the changes, but what the changes were.

Republicans and Democrats were busy adding BS to pages like little beavers, Corporations & NGO's as well

There are alot of people tracking these things. Corporations, Military, Intelligence Agencies, everyone is editing. German intelligent services reportly spam-edited out information about certain explosives and military aircrafts.

Macs.

03-09-2009, 02:33 PM

Well, that's one pleasant excuse for them...how nice!

...the people who administrate these sites are not making any money, and the whole site lives from donations. So would you waste the most of your people on going through thousand of "Obama is that/Obama is this" edits, or simply lock it ?

Mastermind

03-09-2009, 02:42 PM

Well, I would most certainly do the right thing for the person whose foot prints i worship. It's all about "Change" so why not begin the introducing one sided debate into this free society.

You see, the problem we have here is not that they locked the page. the problem is they cleansed it of any criticism of the Chairman first, made sure all info was glowingly acceptable to His worshipers and THEN locked it. That's what I would do with my few "Volunteers" and "donated resources"...especially if the volunteers and donations are coming from those who love their "Dear Leader".

MaverickCowboy

03-09-2009, 02:47 PM

stop it! or they will pass a law making it a crime to edit.

Mastermind

03-09-2009, 03:01 PM

stop it! or they will pass a law making it a crime to edit.
Urm...a crime to edit that which is benevolent to the Great Leader! A crime to express "lies" that discredit the Great Leader.

Obama knows exactly what he is doing and his worshipers are very glad to do his bidding.

Atlantic Friend

03-09-2009, 03:07 PM

If we were still under a Bush Administration, and Republican Bushbots were editing what doesn't fit with the perfect image of their fearless leaders, a lot of people would be up in arms about that and make Goebbels allusions.

If that's the Obamites doing it, then they and whoever sent them on this sacred mission are fair game as well.

I think the birth cert controversy SHOULD indeed be mentioned, if only to debunk it.

Telmar

03-09-2009, 03:17 PM

If Wikipedia bothers anyone, there is conservapedia that can be consulted.

Many prayers will be answered by reading Obama's profile.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama

Obama refers to America in the third person, as a foreigner would. In his first television interview after becoming president, Obama declared that "all too often the United States starts by dictating." Earlier, when Obama gave his acceptance speech, he said "We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."[10] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama#cite_note-9)

Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter (http://www.conservapedia.com/Teleprompter) and rarely allows tough questions.[49] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama#cite_note-48)[50] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama#cite_note-teleprompter-49) Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.[51] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama#cite_note-50) His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons observed that Obama uses techniques of mind control (http://www.conservapedia.com/Mind_control) in his speeches and campaign symbols. One Obama speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"[ (http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama#cite_note-mind_control-22)

Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a Kenyan (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kenyan) presidential candidate who had a written agreement with Muslim (http://www.conservapedia.com/Muslim) leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.[33] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama#cite_note-32)

MaverickCowboy

03-09-2009, 03:23 PM

Urm...a crime to edit that which is benevolent to the Great Leader! A crime to express "lies" that discredit the Great Leader.

Obama knows exactly what he is doing and his worshipers are very glad to do his bidding.

THOUGHT POLICE.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504524,00.html

Invisigoth

03-09-2009, 04:35 PM

Sad freakshow. Wish you had all been that concerned when your beloved and benevolent dictator GWB took the constitution and used it to wipe his behind.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

matthew.manhorn

03-09-2009, 04:39 PM

If Wikipedia bothers anyone, there is conservapedia that can be consulted.

Many prayers will be answered by reading Obama's profile.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama

There's also a white nationalist wikipedia for Obama

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Obama

Mackie

03-09-2009, 05:05 PM

Now whether or not you think the birth certificate issue is BS or not, it has been a topic covered by national news coverage and is a topic of hot debate.
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/wikipedia_scrubs_obama_eligibility/

If a birth certificate is the US major problem you truly deserved a hard recession.
This kiddy "Obama is socialist-commie-nonAmerican" bashing sucks.
Socialism means much more than tiny puny action we saw in the last weeks.
Uncontrolled capitalism in the finance sector failed again. That's it.
For every economical thread people start 5 unobjective Obama bashing threads.

Mastermind

03-09-2009, 05:21 PM

^^Do you really believe there is a difference between Obama and Bush? Look what Bush did on the immigration bill...connived and worked hand in hand with the Rats. He really was a stupid person. Once Rove left, Bush was exposed for what he was...nothing but same the socialist commie rat that he was before he jumped parties prior to running for Texas Gov.

seraosha

03-09-2009, 05:22 PM

California Joe

03-09-2009, 05:34 PM

I firmly believe that most, if not all, politicians are liars.

As far as Wikipedia goes, any retard with a hardon for a subject can edit in their version of the facts. I imagine the Obama site would have been in a constant state of flux between the worshippers and the folks that want him dead.

For chrissakes, the MPNet site was constantly being edited for a while. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of time on their hands.

LineDoggie

03-09-2009, 05:36 PM

If we were still under a Bush Administration, and Republican Bushbots were editing what doesn't fit with the perfect image of their fearless leaders, a lot of people would be up in arms about that and make Goebbels allusions. Actually, no. I'm not into Embroidery whether Right or Left. Give the Facts, good or bad. When Wiki had a Blurb 2 years ago saying Bush was a Murderer, I reported it and it took weeks to get yanked out. Today, it is for the most part Neutral giving the good and bad.

If that's the Obamites doing it, then they and whoever sent them on this sacred mission are fair game as well.

I think the birth cert controversy SHOULD indeed be mentioned, if only to debunk it. I dont think the Birth conspiracy should be mentioned, It really is a non-starter. I do believe the controversies over Ayers, and Wright, et al. should be fair game.

Happy

03-09-2009, 06:54 PM

if you want to have fun, go here.

http://www.theobamaforum.com/

Bia

03-09-2009, 07:11 PM

Because the wiki editors are another Remora on the ass of Democracy.

FYI.... anyone can edit a Wiki page.

I often edit them where I see errors in films.
Afterall... anyone can make a Wiki page... that is why it is forbidden as a source in college work... totaly unreliable.

LineDoggie

03-09-2009, 07:32 PM

FYI.... anyone can edit a Wiki page.

I often edit them where I see errors in films. Well , aware of it(I may be Old, but hardly a Cro-Magnon). Also well aware that certain pages get locked down whilst other are allowed to be vandalized back and forth. Read the Israel page for some real behind the scenes warfare.....

Afterall... anyone can make a Wiki page... that is why it is forbidden as a source in college work... totaly unreliable. I wont say Totally unreliable, but it better have Impeccable sources listed. Come across one with no sources, no trust, simple as that.

JJC

03-09-2009, 07:42 PM

Wiki is either rich in good information or filled with inaccurate crap. I avoid anything political and controversial because it won't be reliable, but overall it's not a bad tool at all.

V.I.D.

03-09-2009, 07:45 PM

I firmly believe that most, if not all, politicians are liars.

I propose the following hypothesis for this phenomenon: "Every successful politician is a crook or well on his/her way to become one".

Otherwise they've missed their profession.

shhfiles

03-09-2009, 07:51 PM

OMG....Those people voted^^^

commanding

03-09-2009, 08:19 PM

If a birth certificate is the US major problem you truly deserved a hard recession.
This kiddy "Obama is socialist-commie-nonAmerican" bashing sucks.
Socialism means much more than tiny puny action we saw in the last weeks.
Uncontrolled capitalism in the finance sector failed again. That's it.
For every economical thread people start 5 unobjective Obama bashing threads.

You are off my Christmas card list. About the birth certificate, Obama's early years, throught no fault of his own, were very confusing due his mother zipping around the globe, marrying this guy, then that guy, etc. She had a penchant for getting involved with guys from other countries for some reason, and thus Obama's early days are as confused as scrambled eggs. Most presidential candidates reveal everything from health records, military service, birth certificates, legal backgrounds, drug use, womanizing, etc.
It is very similar to hiring someone for an important job. Obviously you do not understand the importance of revealing the above information in a truthful, forthright, transparent manner.
If you think Obama bashing "sucks"......there are few options open to you.

Johnnyringo

03-09-2009, 10:58 PM

commanding

03-09-2009, 11:07 PM

Isn't Wikipedia a compilation of things as they are understood by a general consensus... edited by anyone/everyone, hardly a definitive guide to the world as it is (depending on what your definition of is, is). I guess that's the point of Wikipedia... to gauge what the general public believes and or understands...

good point. Wikipedia, is as much about perception, or public definitions, as it is about anything else. Perception of events, often depend on where you are standing.

budgie

03-09-2009, 11:08 PM

So I've seen it referenced in a couple threads, but no real debate on the Wiki farce deleting all info on President Obama's lack of credentials in regards to his eligibility to be POTUS due to his inability to present his birth cert, etc...

Now whether or not you think the birth certificate issue is BS or not, it has been a topic covered by national news coverage and is a topic of hot debate.

So why do you think some editors of Wiki keep deleting the information from the Obama Wiki entry?

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/wikipedia_scrubs_obama_eligibility/

Separation of fact from opinion. Obama's so-called lack of experience is unquantifiable. There's no job listing in the newspaper for POTUS that says you have to have this, this and that. Therefore his lack of experience is a matter of opinion. Likewise all reasonable authorities have proven the birth certificate genuine - it shouldn't matter to Wiki whether some people choose not to believe it.

Isn't Wikipedia a compilation of things as they are understood by a general consensus... edited by anyone/everyone, hardly a definitive guide to the world as it is (depending on what your definition of is, is). I guess that's the point of Wikipedia... to gauge what the general public believes and or understands...

Correct - they also review claims and counter-claims to avoid slander and libel. Only a handful of frothing-at-the-mouth retards still believe President Obama is ineligible due to citizenship issues and whatnot. They don't publich pure opinion for teh sake of it.

Bulletproof

03-09-2009, 11:12 PM

So if I read correctly, Obama is supposed to prove his citizenship, which he did not. Right?

For wiki, if the demos gave a "big" contribution, what are they expecting from the admins in return hmmm?

budgie

03-09-2009, 11:22 PM

ronnieraygun

03-09-2009, 11:24 PM

You are off my Christmas card list. About the birth certificate, Obama's early years, throught no fault of his own, were very confusing due his mother zipping around the globe, marrying this guy, then that guy, etc. She had a penchant for getting involved with guys from other countries for some reason, and thus Obama's early days are as confused as scrambled eggs. Most presidential candidates reveal everything from health records, military service, birth certificates, legal backgrounds, drug use, womanizing, etc.
It is very similar to hiring someone for an important job. Obviously you do not understand the importance of revealing the above information in a truthful, forthright, transparent manner.
If you think Obama bashing "sucks"......there are few options open to you.

Please keep me on your Christmas card list, because you seem like a hell of a guy. Please keep in mind you're not supposed to talk about a black guy's mother, though - or any mother. Clinton also was outed for his VERY non-WASPish origins and through ambition and luck initially was able to start off well and he got to where he got. I can't get behind the myth of intense scrutiny of presidents because we only end up finding out what the most resourceful, ambitious journalist is able to uncover. Nixon lacked transparency to a point at which they are still making money off that guy even now in films.

LBJ also was not initially headed for the top but he married well and that initial connection helped him.

Clinton supposedly caught a case of drippy **** and that is why people made political hay of his records. I would bet Kennedy had it worse. It does not take much to understand what, if anything, the guy would be hiding, much of which Obama has already admitted to more than likely. He probably did some coke, I'm sure he smoked a fatty, he nailed a few white chicks and lived life as a cosmopolitan man of the world. Lo and behold, he ends up marrying a family connected woman in black Chicago politics - the rest is history.

I could not give a rat's ass about Wiki. It becomes a guerilla snipe fest for the dorkerati with a keyboard about anything controversial. But I'm pretty sure Obama is not necessarily more or less transparent than anyone else. The same criticisms were levelled against Clinton but yet it did not matter in the end (and we still can't get rid of him or the Sec of State p-))

I won't doubt that he's a very proud man - I sure hope he's not becoming the apparatchik he looked like sitting in front of that goofy Pelosi a few weeks ago, but time will tell. I'd just like some of these echo chambers to mellow out about him because if he tanks, we're all going to tank together at this point in time, whether we signed off on it or not.

Mastermind

03-09-2009, 11:33 PM

You don't really want to know what Barak Hussein Obama is thinking...you would run off screaming into the woods. He's got plans and he means to implement them...the Change is coming.

budgie

03-09-2009, 11:34 PM

Oh yeah the United Soviet Islamo-fascist States of Amerika? Heard it all before...[yawn]

therifleman

03-09-2009, 11:37 PM

It's wikipedia for christ sake. Anyone who uses that site to base their opinions on a person is a retard.

Now this is what I call a well edited article:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/President_Barack_Hussein_Obama

Alpheus

03-09-2009, 11:39 PM

Separation of fact from opinion. Obama's so-called lack of experience is unquantifiable. There's no job listing in the newspaper for POTUS that says you have to have this, this and that.

Okay, let's pretend there are no requirements to be President. None. Now tell me, what has Obama done that makes him suitable to be President? His lack of experience is very quantifiable. What major legislation has he written? What committees did he head? What positions of leadership has he held? What executive experience does he have. Can you name any examples of his so-called "post-partisanship"? Let's include what he's done outside of politics. What did he do as a "community organizer"? Specific examples please. What business, civic or military experience does he have?

Being POTUS has one very simple requirement. That you know how the **** you're supposed to do it. Does Obama?

LineDoggie

03-09-2009, 11:46 PM

Okay, let's pretend there are no requirements to be President. None. Now tell me, what has Obama done that makes him suitable to be President? His lack of experience is very quantifiable. What major legislation has he written? What committees did he head? What positions of leadership has he held? What executive experience does he have. Can you name any examples of his so-called "post-partisanship"? Let's include what he's done outside of politics. What did he do as a "community organizer"? Specific examples please. What business, civic or military experience does he have?

Being POTUS has one very simple requirement. That you know how the **** you're supposed to do it. Does Obama?

But, but, but HOPE!, CHANGE! WE CAN! it's almost FDR or Camelot redux..........

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h222/linedoggie/Zerobama.jpg

Mastermind

03-09-2009, 11:46 PM

He has had all the training he needs for what he intends to do. Think about it.

Alpheus

03-09-2009, 11:49 PM

He has had all the training he needs for what he intends to do. Think about it.

He does? Like what? Specifics please.

budgie

03-10-2009, 12:01 AM

Okay, let's pretend there are no requirements to be President. None. Now tell me, what has Obama done that makes him suitable to be President? His lack of experience is very quantifiable. What major legislation has he written? What committees did he head? What positions of leadership has he held? What executive experience does he have. Can you name any examples of his so-called "post-partisanship"? Let's include what he's done outside of politics. What did he do as a "community organizer"? Specific examples please. What business, civic or military experience does he have?

Being POTUS has one very simple requirement. That you know how the **** you're supposed to do it. Does Obama?

You've misread. I'm not debating Obama's qualifications or lack thereof. I'm debating how relevant it is to a Wikipedia entry. You're asking me to defend my position on Obama's eligibility against your position based on our opinions of what makes a qualified candidate. However, our opinions do not concern Wikipedia. Nor do the opinions of the batsh!t crazies who think he's a foreigner. They publish facts, not opinion.

Alpheus

03-10-2009, 12:16 AM

You've misread. I'm not debating Obama's qualifications or lack thereof. I'm debating how relevant it is to a Wikipedia entry. You're asking me to defend my position on Obama's eligibility against your position based on our opinions of what makes a qualified candidate. However, our opinions do not concern Wikipedia. Nor do the opinions of the batsh!t crazies who think he's a foreigner. They publish facts, not opinion.

My question has everything to do with the Wiki editing. It is because of the media (and Wiki) washing over of Obama's past, the majority of people simply don't know anything about Obama. Rezko and Rev. Wright are worth 2 lines each. Bill Ayers isn't even mentioned. This editing debacle is just like the canonization of Obama by the media during the election. The messanger's crafting the message to suit them. An unsavory fact, they bury it.
I agree, those birth certificate truthers are batsh!t crazy, but it is a significant story, and should not be ignored just because it's stupid. Look at the moon landing hoax crap, should we delete those pages just because they are wrong and dumbass morons? The birth certificate nonsense isn't the problem, it's a symptom.

Johnnyringo

03-10-2009, 12:42 AM

I'll go over this again... combining "the media" and "wiki" is like combining the home shopping network and your average voter (they're both equally dumb... but not related)... If you're surprised people don't want to hear any more about Barack Obama's birth certificate, then you're probably the type of fish that swims outside the school and wonders why noone follows you... Quite often the "school" knows the right way to evade danger (watch Discovery... not the creationists museum) but every once in a while a clever krill will find their way out of danger outside the school and avoid the whale that will swallow them all up whole.

If you're so smart, do you really want to alert the whole pack and draw more attention to you?

budgie

03-10-2009, 01:46 AM

My question has everything to do with the Wiki editing. It is because of the media (and Wiki) washing over of Obama's past, the majority of people simply don't know anything about Obama. Rezko and Rev. Wright are worth 2 lines each. Bill Ayers isn't even mentioned. This editing debacle is just like the canonization of Obama by the media during the election. The messanger's crafting the message to suit them. An unsavory fact, they bury it.

These 'stories' are also a matter of opinion. Some like to believe Obama's associations with Rezko and Wright are deep and shady, but there's no evidence their dealings have been shaped by anything other than political expediency and geography.

That these were campaign issues is acknowledged in the links from Obama's page, in the 2008 Primaries and 2008 Campaign sections, to their names. You'll find Ayers mentioned in the link, also from Obama's page, to the Annenberg challenge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#January

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge

These controversies also have their own pages on Wiki;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=obama+controversies

So it's all in there, and in context. Unfortunately just not the context some of you would like to see it in. Too bad, but it's there all the same.

Just because they're not front and center where the right-wing would like to see them doesn't make these issues underreported by wiki. Nor have they been edited out, but simply placed where they belong - on the back burner. After all, the association issues did not effect the outcome of the election.

I get the feeling you guys would like to type in Obama and get a big flashing AYERS!! WRIGHT!!! REZKO!!!! pop up. That's not Wiki's responsibility.

I agree, those birth certificate truthers are batsh!t crazy, but it is a significant story, and should not be ignored just because it's stupid. Look at the moon landing hoax crap, should we delete those pages just because they are wrong and dumbass morons? The birth certificate nonsense isn't the problem, it's a symptom.

Well like the moon landing hoax and "global warming conspiracy" this should mentioned if only to refute it. Each has it's own page.

But look at all the links in the Obama page - it is probably already there somewhere. I found Ayers, Rezko and Wright, but I bet the bloggers quoted in the OP were counting on none of their readers bothering to dig up even that little bit for themselves. Since the citizenship 'question' is, BS it probably deserves it's own 'hoax' page but then someone would have to care enough to start one, wouldn't they?

Oh wait!!! They have!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

Therefore I call BS on the whole thread. It's all in there.

USMCRTop

03-10-2009, 01:47 AM

Obama has proved his citizenship. The State of Hawaii has validated his birth certificate. As I said above the problem is a handful of people - and unfortunately all too many of them lurking on this site of late - that refuse to accept the findings. They can put their hands over their ears and stomp their feet all they like but just because they don't want to hear it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

I mean look at the source' this comes from the link in the op;

"Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now! "

Sign up now? Puhleeeze....

I agree with ya- didn't vote for him but there seem to to be a lot of people on this forum who flat out don't like him, and it seems that they will pick on ANYTHING to voice their displeasure- goes around , comes around, I guess- payback from my liberal friends who HATED Bush. I wish we would get away from this Hate-filled polarizing politics and all work together to solve some of the REAL problems we have in this country