A year out, oh please, fucking spare me..

[Long Run]

Trump I really can't figure out. I was sure he wasn't really going to run, that he was only going through this for the publicity and ego gratification, but I do have to say he seems to be taking it further than he has on previous occasions....

What I don't get is why he decided to jump on the birther bandwagon. It makes him look like one of those rich crackpots who end up leaving their entire fortune to their cat.

If he runs, it will be a hair raising experience.

[rubato]

Trump is spending almost no money to get a huge amount of publicity for Trump Inc.

He has no interest in being in government at all.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

It was long rumored, and probably is the case, that President Clinton never exposed his medical records because they would have shown him being treated for drug-related problems or STD's. (Not that I would think any less of him).

In like manner, I cannot help suspecting that Barry will not expose his birth certificate because there is probably some mention of the word, "Muslim" (more likely "Moslem"), as being his religion. At the time of his birth, it was not at all unusual for public records to include such information.

This is not the "smoking gun" that the so-called birthers are praying for, but...

Of course, a newborn infant no more espouses any religion than he would speak Arabic coming out of the womb. I take him at his word that he is a race-baiting socialist "Christian," but such a Muslim "revelation" would be embarrassing in the extreme if it were to come out.

Or ROTFLMAFAO humorous, depending on one's perspective.

[rubato]

Only Catholics (among Christians) are stupid enough to think that the religion on one's birth certificate reflects at all on the individual.

Amazingly stupid.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

What, exactly, is "amazingly stupid"?

The speculation that Barry is refusing to release his actual birth certificate because it describes him as "Moslem"? (Do you have another plausible explanation?)

That people would think less of him for having that on his Birth Certificate?

That you would take a childish, gratuitous slap at adherents of the most popular religion in the U.S., based on a comment that has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholicism or Catholics?

Please explain.

[Scooter]

What is this

if not a copy of a birth certificate?

Would you feel better if you saw the original? Then here it is


Happy now? It's only been floating around the internet for three years.

Clinton's medical records only became an issue because Bob Dole released more of his own medical information than any previous presidential candidate, which was his strategy for dealing with the concerns being expressed about his advanced age. So what did he disclose? The results of his two most recent physical examinations, which, despite his rhetoric at the time, came nowhere close to full disclosure of his medical history. He challenged Clinton to release his own records, because either way he could turn it into an advantage: if Clinton released his records, Dole already knew some things that were in them (because they were public knowledge), like being overweight and getting regular treadmill tests, which Dole could jump on to claim that Clinton was at risk for heart problems and so just as likely to die in the White House as Dole. If Clinton didn't release the records, Dole could (and did) accuse him of having something to hide. And of course, right on cue, the right wing blogosphere decided that he must have had either an STD or a cocaine addiction.*

Of course, like the claims about the birth certificate, this particular jump to conclusions simply doesn't stand up to common sense, for two reasons. One, that if there was something in his chart that he wanted to keep secret, he could have held it back. Just remove the lab report where he (allegedly) tested positive for an STD, omit the notes his doctor made when they discussed his (alleged) drug problem, show the reporters everything else, and no one would ever know the difference.

And two, if indeed it were true that Clinton got an STD, or if indeed he had had a problem with cocaine, I can't imagine anyone seriously suggesting that he was still using cocaine while in the White House (because, let's be real, someone would have talked LONG ago), or that Miss Lewinsky gave him a dose of the clap as a memento of their relationship (perhaps by way of reciprocating for the semen he deposited on her dress). He was being asked to release the complete reports of his last two physical exams (the same as Dole). Neither of those exams would have revealed any evidence of drug use or an STD.







*Later amended to include accusations that both Bill and Hillary were cocaine dealers who were using the office of the President to launder drug money. Oh yeah, and the Iran-Contra thing, where planes would fly down to Nicaragua with weapons and come back carrying cocaine, that was all the Clintons' doing.

[dgs49]

Yes,that printout has been shown for a couple of years. It is a computer-generated printout of information that was originally shown on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE that was issued when Barry was born. It is not the original birth certificate, and really has nothing to do with my point. I have a similar printout at home, which I obtained from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when I first applied for a passport. Because my original Birth Certificate had been misplaced.

It is analogous to information that I might get if I were to ask the Army for a "copy" of my basic military record (Form 20). They would send me a printout of the information, and it probably would not include the indication of my religion, if that information is not current kept.

Again, my point is not that Barry was not born in Hawaii, or that he ever has been a Muslim. I don't believe either to be the case. My point is that the original birth certificate might show his religion-of-record, which he would now find embarrassing or politically harmful.

With WJC as well, there would be nothing in his medical records that would disqualify him from being president, it would simply be politically harmful to disclose that he had been treated for some malady relating to drug abuse, STD's, alcoholism, obesity, heart disease, or whatever.

In their estimable wisdom, the electorate voted him President on two occasions, despite general knowledge that he was a womanizer and an unscrupulous draft dodger. No one who voted FOR him in either case would give a rat's ass if he had also had a dose of the clap. That much should be obvious to all.

[Scooter]

Yes,that printout has been shown for a couple of years. It is a computer-generated printout of information that was originally shown on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE that was issued when Barry was born. It is not the original birth certificate, and really has nothing to do with my point. I have a similar printout at home, which I obtained from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when I first applied for a passport. Because my original Birth Certificate had been misplaced.

By the definition that you are using, the first birth certificate you (and everyone else) received was also a copy, because the "original" is the one that stays with the registrar of the state, and the ones they issue to people have the information from that original copied by some means onto the version we all get.

BTW, I found a photocopy of one of these so-called "original" birth certificate (i.e. the long form). Here it is:

Note that it is, like every birth certificate issued, a certified COPY of the birth record kept by the state (see - it even says so ).

Funny, I don't see any religion listed anywhere....

My point is that the original birth certificate might show his religion-of-record, which he would now find embarrassing or politically harmful.

And since the "original" birth certificate issued in Hawaii does not mention religion...

With WJC as well, there would be nothing in his medical records that would disqualify him from being president, it would simply be politically harmful to disclose that he had been treated for some malady relating to drug abuse, STD's, alcoholism, obesity, heart disease, or whatever.

And since none of that would have shown up in the reports of his two most recent physicals...

And Bill and Hillary really did arrange the importation of all that Contra cocaine, courtesy of the U.S. military.

[rubato]

Among Christians only Catholics are primitive enough to practice infant baptism and hence to believe that a neonate can even -have- a religion. Whether that religion is creditable or not is immaterial as all religion is merely superstition.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Thanks for that, rube. You asshole.

Not correct, and totally predictable.

[Big RR]

Rubato--I don't have the source, but I read a while back that over 75% of christian denominations practice infant baptism, not just the catholics.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Among Christians only Catholics are primitive enough to practice infant baptism and hence to believe that a neonate can even -have- a religion. Whether that religion is creditable or not is immaterial as all religion is merely superstition.

yrs,
rubato

You really should shove this
under "Religion and Philosophy"

Pesky facts again - RCs are far from the only ones that practise infant baptism

Even RCs do not believe that a neonate can "have" a religion; it is a means of grace cancelling original sin (but not sin committed as the child ages). Since they believe an unbaptised infant is not "saved" it's into the pool with everyone

The statement "all religion is merely superstition" is a false claim to exhaustive knowledge of (a) all religions and (b) of all times/places/events in the universe (or universes)

Meade

[rubato]

If neonates cannot "have" religions then claiming Obamas birth certificate said he "was" a Muslim would be meaningless. Yet superstitious religious bigotss still make the accusation anyway.

Their accusation contradicts you.

The notion that many christian cults practice infant baptism just spreads the idiocy around further.

All religion is superstition by the nature of it. Just as I can know that all frogs are amphibians without having seen all frogs. Any religion from which all superstition was removed would become philosophy or metaphysical speculation.

yrs,
rubato

[quaddriver]

Even RCs do not believe that a neonate can "have" a religion; it is a means of grace cancelling original sin (but not sin committed as the child ages). Since they believe an unbaptised infant is not "saved" it's into the pool with everyone

The statement "all religion is merely superstition" is a false claim to exhaustive knowledge of (a) all religions and (b) of all times/places/events in the universe (or universes)

Meade

In other words, its more goofy stuff humans do.

The more these nutcases are given voice by modern technology, the more I am convinced AndrewD is right.

just sayin

[MajGenl.Meade]

If neonates cannot "have" religions then claiming Obamas birth certificate said he "was" a Muslim would be meaningless. Yet superstitious religious bigotss still make the accusation anyway. Their accusation contradicts you.

Oh I don't mind being contradicted by idiots. Rather meaningless actually. I agree.

The notion that many christian cults practice infant baptism just spreads the idiocy around further

I disagree with infant baptism. I agree with believer baptism. I disagree with the word "cults" but never mind.

All religion is superstition by the nature of it. Just as I can know that all frogs are amphibians without having seen all frogs. Any religion from which all superstition was removed would become philosophy or metaphysical speculation.

Superstition means some belief that is not based on reason or knowledge. So you state "all religion is not based on reason or knowledge" and thereby claim to have exhaustive knowledge of all religions in all parts of the universe, which besides being wrong (Christianity is based on reason and knowledge), is also ....er.....
wrong

Cheers
Meade

[loCAtek]

Among Christians only Catholics are primitive enough to practice infant baptism and hence to believe that a neonate can even -have- a religion. Whether that religion is creditable or not is immaterial as all religion is merely superstition.

yrs,
rubato

Not a religion a soul.

Unfortunately, throughout mankind's history, it was very common for an infant to die before reaching their first year. Therefore, as a precaution Christians baptized the infant in order to save their soul. Other societies had different traditions, some of them far colder. Many Asian cultures, don't even name the baby untill it survived a full year, based on that premise.

[loCAtek]

FWIW I took out my Certified Copy of Birth Record for the State of California, last issued in 1980. No where is listed a religion for either of my parents or myself.


This is standard for the United States;

National Vital Statistics System



Birth Data

In the United States, State laws require birth certificates to be completed for all births, and Federal law mandates national collection and publication of births and other vital statistics data. The National Vital Statistics System, the Federal compilation of this data, is the result of the cooperation between the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and the States to provide access to statistical information from birth certificates.

Standard forms for the collection of the data and model procedures for the uniform registration of the events are developed and recommended for State use through cooperative activities of the States and NCHS. Material is available to assist persons in completing the death certificate. NCHS shares the costs incurred by the States in providing vital statistics data for national use.

[Big RR]

Among Christians only Catholics are primitive enough to practice infant baptism and hence to believe that a neonate can even -have- a religion. Whether that religion is creditable or not is immaterial as all religion is merely superstition.

yrs,
rubato

Not a religion a soul.

Unfortunately, throughout mankind's history, it was very common to for an infant to die before reaching their first year. Therefore, as a precaution Christians baptized the infant in order to save their soul. Other societies had different traditions, some of them far colder. Many Asian cultures, don't even name the baby untill it survived a full year, based on that premise.

Of course that begs the question as to why an infant which died would have had to have been born to parents who baptized it to save its soul/avoid damnation. A ritual sprinkling of water really makes a difference? that seems pretty damn cold to me; indeed, even the Roman Catholics have backed off that and the "limbo" position, now saying that they do not know what happens to the souls of unbaptized infants, leaving their fate to the grace of a loving god.

And my birth certificate from NYC, and a good deal older than yours, didn't list a religion either.

[dales]

Getting back to the OP:

Yes, we have another year to listen to the polical gasbags of every stripe.

[Gob]

Thanks dales!