Spamfriedrice,

I would be very proud of your 6-year old nephew; being able to name 50 states and their capitals at that age is pretty impressive.  However, I guess that doesn't say much for our president who thought that we had 60 states in total on the campaign trail (see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws).  You would think that the so called 'Smartest US President' ever elected might know how many states we would have, especially since he is from the last state admitted to the union.

And just for your information, the "birther's" theory has nothing to do with whether or not Hawaii is a state.  The theory was that he wasn't born in HI and BECASUE of that he wouldn't be a 'natural born citizen' (as required by our Constitution).  Also, you might be interested to know that the first lawsuit brought up on this movement was introduced, not by a conservative, but by Philip J. Berg (a Democrat in August of 2008).  See Legal Complaint: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2066207/posts

I would also caution you on painting with a broad brush on 'Conservatives Nationally' on the ignorance claim and supporting Hawaiian sovereignty; it was a Republican (Dwight Eisenhower) that admitted Hawaii as a state, and it was Progressive Democrat (FDR) that put 1,200 to 1,800 American citizens (of Japanese decent) into Internment camps. 

Besides, a sample set taken for a poll in one state should in no way indicate that as a prevailing idea throughout the country.  In that logic, you would be able to assume that since Hawaii is a very liberal state and their public schools rank 44th in Elementary Schools and 47th in Middle Schools (see rankings: http://www.psk12.com/rating/USindexphp/STATE_US.html), then liberals would logically be less inteligent overall nationwide.  I would never subscribe to that logic, and you shouldn't either.  So please rethink assigning arbitrary polls to the rest of the country next time you have that urge.

When you point at your 'fellow citizens' and call them ignorant, maybe you should point in the mirror as well.  Thank you for your misinformed rant, you are really helping your cause.

So his birth certificate, a birth announcement in the newspaper and several declarations by elected officials from both parties aren't enough evidence for you?

Let me start my reply off by saying that I am not part of the "birther" movement.  That is not to say that I have been convinced one way or the other; i would say that there is indeed something strange about somebody spending a million dollars fighting off lawsuits so that you would not have to supply a birth certificate (yes, I would disagree with your premise that a valid birth certificate has been provided, as would numerous forensic scientists).  I do believe that the concern within the movement is legitimate, however I also believe that if it came out that the claims were true, there would be a constitutional crisis and riots in the street (which would be significantly worse for this nation than the claim itself).

My reply to the original posting (in regards to the birther stuff) was in objection to stated provision of the "birther's" assumptions, not in defense of them.  If you are going to disagree with a notion, you should understand what the notion is and why people have it.

But, to answer your question, "a birth certificate, a birth announcement in the newspaper, and several declarations by elected officials from both parties" would be plenty to convince me, in fact i don't think there are to many people [even "birthers"] who that wouldn't satisfy.  Unfortunately, we don't have all those things and that is why we have so many people involved with this movement.  It would take 5 minutes to produce a birth certificate and trunp all pending lawsuits... and it would have saved a million dollars in legal fees.  What is the big deal with showing it?  Every other US President has.

Millions of dollars in legal fees? I am not aware of the president spending a dime to fight off this lawsuit.  Do you have any evidence to back this up?  Ditto for the forensic scientists that doubt the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.  I am not inclined to believe that putting said document on public display and having an army of experts analyze it would put an end to this lawsuit or its claims.

The non-partisan factcheck.org verfied the authenticty of the document here.  It also shows the birth anouncement from the Honululu Advertiser on the day Obama was born.

I still stand by the fact that most of the birthers claims are grounded in this idea that Obama is somehow "foreign" just like Kerry was somehow "elitest" when Bush and his family were equally (if not more) wealthy. The concerns are purely political.

I don't see any other legitimate concern about Obama's place of birth that can't be quelled with a little research.  The fact is that people WANT to believe he wasn't born in the USA and because of that, nothing will chance their mind.

Lastly, I don't think of states or even regions as "liberal" or "conserative".  I am a "liberal" and I live in "liberal" New York City but im in a family with generally "conservative" values.  I go to school in a "conservative" region of upstate New York at a university that is arguably not as liberal as other academic institutions.  Making claims about education having a direct influence on political affiliation is just plain wrong.  The same goes for calling states "liberal" or "conservative" or making blanket statements to that effect.

I'm going to again start off by saying I am not trying to propagate the "birther's" claims; i am providing information that hopefully will justify the legitimacy of their concerns and provide an understanding to where they may be coming from.  I am not part of this movement; furthermore, I hope that these concerns can be put to bed (sooner rather than later).

Regarding the cost of lawsuits, see [WND: Obama law tab up to $1.4 million].

Regarding the Forensic Experts, see [israelinsider: Document forensics expert...].

I would agree with your statement that putting it on display would probably not end it all together, there are always some people that you can't convince [of anything].  Some people still don't beleive in the Holocaust. However, I think that those hang-over claims would for the most part be ignored by all self respecting news sources and the public.

Regarding factcheck.org, I disagree with your claim (and theirs) that they are non-partisan.  They side with the liberal side 8 to 1 [at least during the 2008 presidential campaign] and they are an affiliate to Chicago Annenberg Challenge (where our president served on a board).

Regarding your reply on my statement about education having a direct influence on political affiliation, you need to re-read my post.  I equated that hypothetical claim with the logic of the original claim that conservatives nationally are ignorant becuse 8% of a sample set of conservatives in NC were seen to be.  I also said in the sentence following that hypotetical statement that "I would never subscribe to that logic".  I agree/realize that is 'just plain wrong' just as the original premise was.

And as for liberal/conservative states, i would undoubtably argue that a state that has more liberals/conservatives that vote for (and elect) like-minded liberal/conservative polititions that in turn vote for liberal/conservative policies in their states and nationally in DC would in fact designate whether that state was liberal/conservative.  This is what gives claim and backup to red and blue state assignments. 

Of course there are going to be people that don't have the same take on policies as other people in their area, that is why we vote.  Going further than that, I would say that some states are more liberal/conservative than others.  Would you not argue that NY or MA is more liberal than OK or TX? 

I would also like to point out that states that lean to one side of the specrum are not forever locked into that side of the spectrum.  There are many "purple" states that may go one way in one election and one way in another.  In the flip-side of the coin, there are some states that never seem to flip. 

We have states exactly for that reason, so that people in each state can live life as they want and be free from the influence of other states.  People move state to state all the time in order to find a state that is run more to their liking (more liberal/conservative).

Thanks for your reply.

Yeah, i was agreeing with you on the education thing

Regardless if factcheck is partisan or not, they do make a compelling case no?

In New York, the state government is deadlocked between conservatives and liberals thanks to the issue of gay marriage.  Now why is a "liberal" state caught in a deadlock?  It becase even though lower New York is super liberal, conservative upstate new york gets equal representation.  This is the case all over the country.  If you look at a map of which districts voted for whom in the 2004 election (or 2008, I haven't looked at it yet) you'll see just as much red in California as blue.  All states can and potentially will flip from side to side, just look at the 1984 election.  Basically the point is, states don't exsist to be political entities, do more liberals live in the city to be around other liberals or do liberal policies appeal to people living in the city?  It's a chicken and egg argument really.

I would say that yes, factcheck definately does a decent job arguing the case (eventhough i believe that they want a certain side to win the argument).

I know what you are saying as far as red/blue districts go.  I grew up in Long Island, and I would notice that NYC definately tended to be more liberal that most of the state (geographically speaking) however by number of voters, they are the definatley the majority of the vote.  The county I grew up in was typically split.

My suspicion is that 'the big city' (whether it be, NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, Seatlle, Boston) is more attractive to the liberal than the conservative (whether it be the people that live there already or the inherant properties that tend to exist there, I don't know).  I think that is the reason why the states with large cities (on the coasts) tend to vote Democrat and the states with smaller spread out towns (in fly over country) tend to vote Republican.

You have a good point about 1984, too bad that doesn't happen more ;) hehe

Thanks for the point.