(Where is) Here's The Presidential Birth Certificate....

[Vol423]

You could have been born in Cuba or Russia. As long as your parents are citizens of the US, you are a US citizen, regardless of where you were born.

...and how exactly is that the least bit relevant to this conversation?

 

[fl0at]

In a certain type of class or for a certain teacher/professor? Maybe. But, in general? I don't think so.

But, I still don't see how this can be a general problem to make you have bad grades overall. How long does it take before you apply the work ethic to figure out how to take tests, meet with instructors to go over their thought process in the questions, etc?

The certain type of class, professor or teacher... pretty much defines GPA. This is why most professional schools place so much emphasis on standardized exams. The LSAT, the GRE, the MCAT; all measures of the overall and the general.

To put it in the example of Obama, he could have had bad grades, but (and I'm not absolutely certain of this) I think he had a pretty decent LSAT score. Which would be a measure of the overall, as opposed to a GPA, which is a measure of the individual parts.

Though I hear the LSAT is more a measure of general intelligence than factual regurgitation. Which would further provide evidence to the belief that regurgitation (ie: grades in many cases) is not a good measure.

Again, to use standardized exams, there may be no proctor to ask. There may be 100 different people writing questions, and impossible to discuss their bias directly, and if possible, they may be bound by non-disclosure to not discuss.

No amount of work or intelligence can prepare an individual for a bad question. You can only work the questions you have at your disposal, and hope something similar comes up. But that is simply gaming the game, and is not a true measure of the intelligence of the test taker.

 

[Vol423]

Complete BS.

Provided that you are 35 years old or more, then you are correct.

Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child.

Hence, a child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.

 

[IPorange]

Complete BS.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

That's the Constitution, man.

 

[fl0at]

I guess I'm in the TT camp on grades. Across the board, someone with above average intelligence should be able to make good grades if they devote the effort.

That said, I go back and forth on the value of grades and what they really say about a person and what they learned.

Michael Oher, according to The Blind Side (book, not movie), first failed all his exams at Briarcrest. Why? It wasn't because he didn't know the information, and it wasn't because he wasn't intelligent enough to handle the courses, it was because he couldn't read the question.

When given an oral examination, he passed.

Granted, he probably isn't "above average," but what works for average, should also work for above average.

In other words, the question and how it is asked is important.

 

[fl0at]

I'm going to give one last example, and then I need to get out of here and return to my powerless apartment.

If I ask you this question, can you give me an answer without looking it up? If not, look it up. Did you know the answer? Yea, you did. You just didn't know the question.

Question:

What lies on the ocean floor at 41°43′55″N 49°56′45″W?

 

[IPorange]

Provided that you are 35 years old or more, then you are correct.

Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child.

Hence, a child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.

Why was it a big deal to confirm that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, then?

And why did you say otherwise a second ago before editing, and now change your mind?

 

[volinbham]

I'm going to give one last example, and then I need to get out of here and return to my powerless apartment.

If I ask you this question, can you give me an answer without looking it up? If not, look it up. Did you know the answer? Yea, you did. You just didn't know the question.

Question:

What lies on the ocean floor at 41°43′55″N 49°56′45″W?

Titanic? A guess based on what famous things might be on the ocean floor.

I agree that questions matter but as someone who has written tests for over 15 years I can tell you that while I write a stinker now and again, most of them are fine questions. If a prof continually writes bad questions it shows across the student population.

 

[volinbham]

The certain type of class, professor or teacher... pretty much defines GPA. This is why most professional schools place so much emphasis on standardized exams. The LSAT, the GRE, the MCAT; all measures of the overall and the general.

To put it in the example of Obama, he could have had bad grades, but (and I'm not absolutely certain of this) I think he had a pretty decent LSAT score. Which would be a measure of the overall, as opposed to a GPA, which is a measure of the individual parts.

Though I hear the LSAT is more a measure of general intelligence than factual regurgitation. Which would further provide evidence to the belief that regurgitation (ie: grades in many cases) is not a good measure.

Again, to use standardized exams, there may be no proctor to ask. There may be 100 different people writing questions, and impossible to discuss their bias directly, and if possible, they may be bound by non-disclosure to not discuss.

No amount of work or intelligence can prepare an individual for a bad question. You can only work the questions you have at your disposal, and hope something similar comes up. But that is simply gaming the game, and is not a true measure of the intelligence of the test taker.

But bad questions aren't the norm and in my experience they are usually balanced by overly easy questions.

to the larger point, tests aren't always the greatest measures of intelligence or learning/mastery (what they are supposed to measure).

I take some issue with the kudos thrown to standardized tests (LSAT, GRE, MCAT, GMAT, etc.). First, they do not test specific content (e.g. your ballistics test). They assess larger learning skills/knowledge. For example most Business schools require the GMAT for the MBA but in truth the GMAT doesn't ask anything about business and even someone that nails it may not know a single thing about business. I would imagine the LSAT is similar.

Second, the correlation between these test scores and GPA is generally pretty low. Now that could be that the test is great and all the courses/tests suck but my personal experience of teaching shows that some people just don't do well on these broad standardized tests but they can do well in specific courses. Given the specific courses is where they get exposed to the material for which they are earning a degree, I lean towards the GPA as being the better indicator of what they learned. The GMAT is just a qualifier to get in the door.

 

[fl0at]

Second, the correlation between these test scores and GPA is generally pretty low. Now that could be that the test is great and all the courses/tests suck but my personal experience of teaching shows that some people just don't do well on these broad standardized tests but they can do well in specific courses. Given the specific courses is where they get exposed to the material for which they are earning a degree, I lean towards the GPA as being the better indicator of what they learned. The GMAT is just a qualifier to get in the door.

Saying that some people don't do well on broad standardized tests is the same as saying that some people don't do well on specific courses.

To continue on the same node as LSAT et all, take USMLE Step 1. It is one of the biggest selection criteria for Residency matching. Students with C's in all their classes in medical school can smoke out a 99th percentile score and end up over you on the operating table.

Students with A's in all their courses can bomb it and end up as a GP in some podunk town in BFE.

Which student is better qualified for the surgery Residency? The student that smokes the boards but does poor in basic science, or the student that smokes basic science, but bombs the board exam?

The answer: either. The reality: sometimes both, sometimes neither.

Good guess.

 

[volinbham]

Good guess.

First thought was Marianas Trench but the N and W suggested that was wrong. I don't know much about coordinates but figured they start somewhere around England for east/west and the equator for N/S. After that it was Atlantis or the Titanic

 

[tvolsfan]

I'm surprised the White House put this out. I thought they were going to drag it on in an attempt to make Republicans look like lunatics, regardless of whether or not most Republican candidates were actually thinking about this.

 

[TennTradition]

I guess I'm in the TT camp on grades. Across the board, someone with above average intelligence should be able to make good grades if they devote the effort.

That said, I go back and forth on the value of grades and what they really say about a person and what they learned.

They certainly are no strongmetric if what they have learned, and only say something about a person if you have a lot more context (IQ, life situation, etc).
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[TennTradition]

The certain type of class, professor or teacher... pretty much defines GPA. This is why most professional schools place so much emphasis on standardized exams. The LSAT, the GRE, the MCAT; all measures of the overall and the general.

To put it in the example of Obama, he could have had bad grades, but (and I'm not absolutely certain of this) I think he had a pretty decent LSAT score. Which would be a measure of the overall, as opposed to a GPA, which is a measure of the individual parts.

Though I hear the LSAT is more a measure of general intelligence than factual regurgitation. Which would further provide evidence to the belief that regurgitation (ie: grades in many cases) is not a good measure.

Again, to use standardized exams, there may be no proctor to ask. There may be 100 different people writing questions, and impossible to discuss their bias directly, and if possible, they may be bound by non-disclosure to not discuss.

No amount of work or intelligence can prepare an individual for a bad question. You can only work the questions you have at your disposal, and hope something similar comes up. But that is simply gaming the game, and is not a true measure of the intelligence of the test taker.

I completely agree with the last point. And, I have never meant to make a point that success on any exam is a measure, alone, of intelligence. That goes both ways. I have known people I don't consider to be all that intelligent to do very well in school. I have also seen the opposite to be true.

I just feel that there are usually some other contributing factor in almost all cases of a very intelligent person not making goid grades, in general, such as being bored, lazy, disinterested, lacking a certain social intelligence, etc. Like I said, for a specific instructor or a specific type of class/test where you have to reason in an incompatible way, bad grades would be possible without these other contributing factors. But, the chances of facing that for all of ones high school or undergraduate education seems very, very low to me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[TennTradition]

I'm going to give one last example, and then I need to get out of here and return to my powerless apartment.

If I ask you this question, can you give me an answer without looking it up? If not, look it up. Did you know the answer? Yea, you did. You just didn't know the question.

Question:

What lies on the ocean floor at 41°43′55″N 49°56′45″W?

I am going to go with the Titanic wreckage.

0' is the equator, so 41'N would be almost half-way, in angle, between the equator and North Pole. I think the prime meridian, which goes through England, is the 0' longitude mark. So, 50' west of there (but in water) at the given latitude would put us either in the North Atlantic, or possibly a great lake....I'm not sure how far 50' gets you. So, the answer could be something like the Edmund Fitzgerald, but you said "lies on the ocean floor.", which would rule out the great lakes. The only North Atlantic shipwreck I know is the Titanic. I figure it can't be too random or you wouldn't have bothered asking.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[TennTradition]

Ok. I just confirmed that's right via the interwebs. I figured it was early enough that I could delete a wrong answer before anyone saw
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

He misspelled "relevant" as "relavant" multiple times in this thread while having the word "irrelevant" in his avie the whole frickin' time. I misspelled some words like "thyme" as time and "thred" as thread to highlight this point about the guy calling ME an idiot. Pretty simple, as I am a simple, simple man, supposedly.

spelling has nothing to do with intelligence. so far your arguments are a) everyone is a racist and b) they can't spell. why don't you come back when you want to argue like an adult.

 

[droski]

I was born in Germany to American parents. I can lawfully throw my name in the hat tomorrow..

not unless you were born on a military base or an embassy. google it.

 

[MystifyingVol]

I'm not a birther, it's not something that I have pursued as there are other more pressing issues in this country that my energy can be expended on, however, with this recent release, I've been poking around looking at different POVs.

One, there is a long entry in Wikipedia about the "Natural Born Citizen Clause". I think I'm reading it as you have to be born on US soil.

At this point, there are enough inconsistencies in the released BC to make it look fishy.

Just for pure information only, I ran across this on another board, if you manipulate the released image, you can see "ghost writing" come through on the copy.

Here are the step-by-step instructions:

1.) Download and Install Paint.NET: www.paint.net
2.) Download white background BC: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/C...427-obama-birth-cert-full-jm.photoblog900.jpg
3.) Open the BC in Paint.NET
4.) Zoom in 300%, focused on Barry's middle name line
5.) Under the "Adjustments" menu, select "Invert Colors"
6.) Under the "Adjustments" menu, select "Curves" and set the RGB at 35,190
7.) Under the "Adjustments" menu, select "Invert Colors" again
8.) Zoom back out to 100%, you'll see this "ghosting" all over the document, it's something that the scanner must have picked up

 

[droski]

seems to me that obama and co could afford better than some 14 year old kid using photoshop.

 

[WillisWG]

unless you were born on a military base or in an embassy, you can't be President. If you think otherwise... well, you're wrong. You're a citizen for sure, but to be President you must also have been born on US soil.

not sure that's what our FF were thinking.

A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By "residence," in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472--73

 

[therealUT]

Obama released his birth certificate. For whatever reason, he waited until now to do so; however, it is now a moot point. If it is fake, I highly doubt we would ever know, as I presume he would do so in a very careful manner in order to avoid a possible impeachment on the grounds of committing "high crimes and misdemeanors".

It is time to move on.

 

[droski]

not sure that's what our FF were thinking.

A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By "residence," in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472--73

by this theory arnold schwarzenegger is qualified to be president.

 

[WillisWG]

by this theory arnold schwarzenegger is qualified to be president.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,"

Arnold is a naturalized citizen. A naturalized citizen would have been eligible at the time the USC was adopted but not now.

 

[droski]

you do realize the question is whether obama was a "natural born Citizen" right?