Obama birth certificate finally released

[Breetai]

-Why does the pattern in the background disappear under parts of the signatures (ie. under "Obama" in 18a)?

That isn't me pointing those things out. I'm quoting others from a quick google search about it and these two things stuck out for me.

This part is actually pretty unsurprising for a JPEG compressed image. JPEG compression is really bad at displaying sharp edges, such as text or signatures. As a result, in the regions very close to sharp edges, you just get a lot of ringing and lose any subtle detail like the background pattern. You also see this inside of the "D" in the same signature.

That part still exists in the .pdf file. It is not a jpeg compression issue. However, my question about the pattern in the background has been solved.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... g-form.pdf

[Limewater]

That part still exists in the .pdf file. It is not a jpeg compression issue. However, my question about the pattern in the background has been solved.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... g-form.pdf

Actually, the image in the pdf you link to there has been jpeg compressed.

[deathclaw]

What do you guys think of Ron Paul? In my opinion, he is the only chance for America to make a real change. I was so pissed off when I read about Obama calling that pathetic fiddling with numbers something like "the biggest budget cut in the history". The country's debt is over 14 trillion now and he is crying over a few dozens billion.

[BoringSupreez]

What do you guys think of Ron Paul? In my opinion, he is the only chance for America to make a real change. I was so pissed off when I read about Obama calling that pathetic fiddling with numbers something like "the biggest budget cut in the history". The country's debt is over 14 trillion now and he is crying over a few dozens billion.

Ron Paul would be better than Obama, but he's far from the ideal choice. He wants to go back to an isolationist America, like George Washington advocated. That may have been fine 300 years ago, but it's quite a different situation today. Pulling all forces back to the US would be a stupid move. If we do that, then our enemies will come over here to fight us. It's better to have the war happen in their home country rather than ours. It may sound rather uncaring towards other nations, but the president should America first. And that's not what Ron Paul would do.

[Limewater]

Pulling all forces back to the US would be a stupid move. If we do that, then our enemies will come over here to fight us.

This does not logically follow. If we don't get involved in a civil war in Libya, the Libyans will all gang up and invade the United States?

I am having a hard time seeing this.

It may sound rather uncaring towards other nations, but the president should America first. And that's not what Ron Paul would do.

Show a country you care. Invade it.

[deathclaw]

What do you guys think of Ron Paul? In my opinion, he is the only chance for America to make a real change. I was so pissed off when I read about Obama calling that pathetic fiddling with numbers something like "the biggest budget cut in the history". The country's debt is over 14 trillion now and he is crying over a few dozens billion.

Ron Paul would be better than Obama, but he's far from the ideal choice. He wants to go back to an isolationist America, like George Washington advocated. That may have been fine 300 years ago, but it's quite a different situation today. Pulling all forces back to the US would be a stupid move. If we do that, then our enemies will come over here to fight us. It's better to have the war happen in their home country rather than ours. It may sound rather uncaring towards other nations, but the president should America first. And that's not what Ron Paul would do.

No, this is just a very popular myth, people talking about him being an isolationist. In fact, he is farther from this than any other president has been for a long time.

And in my opinion, it's a stupid move to have troops stretched all over the world while not having enough at home. I think having them at your homeland would be really America first.

First of all, they are not only in the countries of your enemies, they are also all over the Europe, Japan, and so on. Do you think this helps your country to be more secure than to have them at home?

IMO, if Ron Paul become a president and served both terms, the USA could be again the land of free and I would be seriously considering moving there. Nowadays, I would be scared to live there, especially in the big cities like New York, because of the constant terrorist threat due to your meddling in the countries all over the world.

[Jrecee]

IMO, if Ron Paul become a president and served both terms, the USA could be again the land of free and I would be seriously considering moving there. Nowadays, I would be scared to live there, especially in the big cities like New York, because of the constant terrorist threat due to your meddling in the countries all over the world.

Really interesting comment. The last terrorist attack here was almost 10 years ago. It was successful in 1 place. New York. And this is a huge country.

Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack increase 1000 fold by living anywhere in europe.

[deathclaw]

IMO, if Ron Paul become a president and served both terms, the USA could be again the land of free and I would be seriously considering moving there. Nowadays, I would be scared to live there, especially in the big cities like New York, because of the constant terrorist threat due to your meddling in the countries all over the world.

Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack increase 1000 fold by living anywhere in europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_ ... ates#2000s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_ ... ed_attacks

Now I know not all are made by your enemies from abroad but a lot of them are.

Really interesting comment. The last terrorist attack here was almost 10 years ago. It was successful in 1 place. New York. And this is a huge country.

I don't think so, I live in so unimportant of a country that I feel safe here. There has never been a terrorist attack, except against the fascist (during the WWII) and communist government a long time ago.

[Hatta]

I can't believe they were stupid enough to release it as a lossy JPG. Nothing wrong with TIFF.

And, as I said elsewhere Ron Paul will take away abortion rights. He'd also abolish important regulatory agencies like OSHA. I don't know about you, but I rather value my freedom to work in non-hazardous environments.

What libertarians ignore is that economic power will fill the void left by a shrinking government. It's hard enough standing up to major corporations as it is. If we let them off their leash, we won't have a chance. Chomsky has a relevant quote:

Now why against government? Well, government has a defect. It's not that governments don't do bad things, but that's not what they're worried about. They have a defect. The defect of governments is that they are -- they can be influenced by the public. They're potentially democratic, and that's the unacceptable defect of government. So, you have to demonize government and shift power more and more into the hands of private tyrannies, which are totally unaccountable.

What we have today is a government and economy run by corporations. What Paul would give us is a smaller government, run more efficiently (for their own interests) by corporations. What we need is a government and economy run by the people.

Unfortunately, such a thing is impossible in the US. The last time we had a serious socialist run for president he was imprisoned. These days they wouldn't even have to go that far, it would be impossible for any socialist to raise the kinds of funds needed to run for president without corporate support.

[AppleQueso]

I've heard it said that Colin Powell would make an ideal president, but he's too smart to actually run.