PDA

View Full Version : Ugh! Birthers....


Tommycat
01-19-2011, 10:59 AM
Okay it's not really their fault. Birthers haven't been in the news much lately. But the new Democrat Governor of Hawaii decided to take charge and go after the birthers. Unfortunately he has been unable to get the proof that he said he was. He said he was going to get the "Long Form Birth Certificate." And as of recently he stated that he couldn't find any records of it...

Does that mean anything? Nope. Well aside from Hawaii may be bad at keeping records.

If I were Obama, I would make sure that birth certificate stays hidden. Not because I believe that he was born elsewhere, but because it keeps people looking at the Right as crazy people who think Obama shouldn't be president. I would put money on him being born in the US. Why you ask? Simple Clinton would have used it during the primaries. If he was ineligible the Clinton campaign machine would have uncovered it.

But of course now there is a resurgence of the birthers...

What's you're opinion? Do you believe that he should produce his "long form" or just keep doing as he has? Do you believe that with the world getting smaller it shouldn't matter if he was born here, just that he is a US citizen?

Totenkopf
01-19-2011, 11:20 AM
I understand this issue is on Issa's list of things to "investigate" (granted, not near the top). Until the rules change, his place of birth is relevant.....otherwise Prez. Ahnult would not be beyond the pale (or at least before he became Gov of CA). :xp: That said, the birther argument came out of the Clinton campaign, or at least from her supporters. I agree that if they are sitting on the birth certificate, it's to try to allow the birthers to look crazy to their fellow citizens. Still, like with his academic records iirc, it proves that transparency is far from a concern to this administration despite its claims. So, if the evidence were found and he turned out to have been born in Africa, he'd end up only being a 1 term president, but probably not till 2013.

mimartin
01-19-2011, 11:47 AM
Yes he was born elsewhere and the birth announcement was planted because they knew one day that the black baby born in Africa would grow up to be President if only they put a fake announcement in the local paper.

All I know is I want to ask, whoever could predict a African American President was even possible in 1961, who will win the Super Bowl.

Sabretooth
01-19-2011, 12:01 PM
Why can't they just let Obama play his turn in peace and then let Palin restore justice and power and properness?

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-19-2011, 05:38 PM
Why can't they just let Obama play his turn in peace and then let Palin restore justice and power and properness?
Aaaack.



Groan.


No.

Anyone but the pinup.

Working Class Hero
01-19-2011, 05:54 PM
Meh, I don't really care if he was born elsewhere. It doesn't affect his governing ability.

What's you're opinion? Do you believe that he should produce his "long form" or just keep doing as he has?Why not produce it? It certainly couldn't hurt.

Tommycat
01-20-2011, 09:29 AM
Why not produce it? It certainly couldn't hurt.

It doesn't help. Most people with any kind of rational mind either like him or dislike him based on what he's done. The birthers make the right wing look like crazy people. So it's better to have something out there that makes the right look nuts, than a birth certificate that just says, "Yup, he's legally allowed to be there." That would shut up the birthers, but do nothing to add to his popularity. Most people who believe he is Kenyan dislike him already for any number of reasons. So he has a choice: 1) Show the birth certificate to shut up the birthers and do nothing for him politically, or 2) Not show it and have the birthers look like crazy people and turn people away from the right.

Politically it's a good move to leave it as is.

Actually it's about the same as the "Selected not elected" crowd was for Bush. Even after the vote counts were completed and the most liberal counts were used, Bush picked up more votes. It didn't stop them from bashing him for it.

mimartin
01-20-2011, 09:38 AM
1) Show the birth certificate to shut up the birthers You do not seriously believe that. Showing the short form birth certificate that is legally acceptable did not shut them up. Showing the birth announcement in the local paper did not shut them up.

Do like the attempt to make the lunatics the victims though. :thmbup1:

Working Class Hero
01-20-2011, 11:05 AM
Wouldn't it be better to prove that the birthers are crazy? If he released the full form, he could use that to point out how ridiculous they were.

As it stands now, there's still a little doubt whether he actually has the long form, which impairs his ability to make them look crazy.

Totenkopf
01-20-2011, 11:33 AM
You do not seriously believe that. Showing the short form birth certificate that is legally acceptable did not shut them up. Showing the birth announcement in the local paper did not shut them up.


Doesn't really matter if it would have shut them up or not, it would have effectively spiked the issue had it been available for release early on. As it is, the refusal to do so then (assuming they actually had it) can only be for political reasons. I'd say that the "elected/selected" argument is an apt comparison. People will always believe whatever they want, often in spite of hard or compelling evidence to the contrary.

Meh, I don't really care if he was born elsewhere. It doesn't affect his governing ability.

....so the law doesn't matter as long as the person is deemed competent?

mimartin
01-20-2011, 12:05 PM
As it stands now, there's still a little doubt whether he actually has the long form, which impairs his ability to make them look crazy. So what? Why does anyone have to produce a long form when the short form certified copy is perfectly legal? Maybe he does not have the long form. Why would you ever need it if you already had a copy that was perfectly legal? Does the short form not show he was born? That is the only real question was he born, when was he born and where the birth took place; the “short form” provides that information. It is further confirmed by the birth announcement in two papers. So unless someone can show me where time travel today is possible I believe there is no doubt.

Now if all you want to do is kick a duly elected official out of office because Hawaii keeps bad records, then we need to rewrite the Constitution to exclude the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of Homeland Security from being from Hawaii. May need to include other states for not keeping records up to the birthers extrordinay standards before the age of computers. I can say right now, Texas needs to be on the list as it is impossible to get a copy of the original birth certificate for either my mother or step-father (County Court House Fires) and my birth certificate list my mother’s date of birth incorrectly. I’m pretty sure if we look close enough we can eliminate every state in the union..


Fact Check if you want to see what the short form and see if it is legal (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html)

The same people that are yelling to high heaven about the “long form” defended Bush for not releasing his Military Records even though he did release his discharge papers. So if the “short form” is good enough for Bush it is good enough for Obama.

Totenkopf
01-20-2011, 12:34 PM
.....I can say right now, Texas needs to be on the list as it is impossible to get a copy of the original birth certificate for either my mother or step-father (County Court House Fires) and my birth certificate list my motherís date of birth incorrectly. Iím pretty sure if we look close enough we can eliminate every state in the union..



that settles it.......I'm not voting for you if you run for president, pilgrim. :xp:

At this point, if we found out that the birthers' were somehow correct, I seriously doubt that the result would be anything other than invalidating a 2nd term run and a lot of political hot air and investigations into what did BO know and when did he know it. Such a revelation would likely only make him a lame duck 1 term president and remove any wind from his political sails. If you think political discourse is coarse now.....

mimartin
01-20-2011, 01:00 PM
At this point, if we found out that the birthers' were somehow correct How could they be proven correct when it has already been proven a fact that he was born in Hawaii? Giving them any benefit of the doubt is ridiculous. I love how people can make the most stupid comments with the facts of the case right before everyone eyes, yet people still want to give them some credibility. Oh, but they may be right this is all a evil conspiracy by the left who have been planning it since 1961. How did the know the baby would not grow up to be the next Ronald Reagan? Or is political party a genetic trait now that can be detected before birth? :rolleyes:

The only way the birthers will ever prove anything is by hiring a better forger. If at first you donít succeed try, try again.

JediAthos
01-20-2011, 01:10 PM
I'm of the opinion that the surely the FBI, or Secret Service looked into this issue when it first came up if not before. I would be surprised to find out they had not....

As far as whether or not a "long form" needs to be produced...I've long thought that these "birthers" are simply clinging to this issue simply because their candidate didn't get elected and they need something to make themselves feel better.

Tommycat
01-20-2011, 06:06 PM
You do not seriously believe that. Showing the short form birth certificate that is legally acceptable did not shut them up. Showing the birth announcement in the local paper did not shut them up.

Do like the attempt to make the lunatics the victims though. :thmbup1:

Good point that nothing would satisfy the Birthers. If I somehow gave you the impression that I was trying to make the birthers look like the victims, I apologize. Honestly I feel that they hurt the image of the Right/Conservatives. They are an ugly part of the Right. It's more useful to point to them and say, "See how crazy the Right is, they refuse to accept that the birth certificate that we all use for any legal purpose is valid."

Again, at best it MAY shut them up. Or it may just make them switch to claiming it's forged.

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-20-2011, 06:31 PM
I want my own long-form Birth Certificate. The one I have doesn't satisfy me, as I do not really believe that I was born in Iowa, or that either of my parents had anything to do with my creation, or that I am really an earthling in the first place.

Never knew about long forms before all of this... Still don't care about them.

If the short form passed the legal burden, as mimartin has presented completely, end of story for the sane.

mimartin
01-20-2011, 08:24 PM
Never knew about long forms before all of this... Still don't care about them.Most states (at least the ones I have seen) do not have two forms of birth certificate. What I find even funnier is you cannot order the long form birth certificate in Hawaii. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html
If you order a birth certificate there is only one option and it will net you the short form.

Seriously everyone knows all you need to know is Name, Date of Birth, Place of Birth, Name of Mother and Name of Father. I don't know about any of you, but I have never been asked the name of the doctor that delivered me.

Lord of Hunger
01-20-2011, 09:47 PM
As an independent leaning to the right, even I find the birther theory silly. That being said, Obama hasn't really certified his status as an American over the course of his campaign and the Presidency. His company is just simply too leftist and critical of the US for his own good, and some of the statements he's made doesn't help his image either.

We really need a President, irregardless of skin color, who is "American". This includes wearing the flagpin because quite frankly the President IS supposed to assert the national identity. Nationalism is important because national works and public prosperity sometimes isn't enough to make a country stand out.

mimartin
01-20-2011, 10:26 PM
You are an American if you are born in America, born to an American parent or if you have become a naturalized American citizen. That is unless you renounce your American citizenship. Politics or religion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CITIZENSHIP. You can be on the furthest edge of the left or the right and you would still be an American. You can also love your country and still be critical of it. It is my belief that the American idea is to always strive to make this country better. You can't get better without first seeing what is wrong.

Wow what is the American President wearing?
http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-flag-pin.jpg

Although I see no reason any one would have to wear a flag to prove their love for the country. Just find it funny that people pay more attention to blogs instead of looking at the President them-self and I wonder why people cannot believe their own eyes on the birth certificate. It is because they are reading other people opinion on blog instead of checking the facts for themselves.

Working Class Hero
01-20-2011, 11:58 PM
As an independent leaning to the right, even I find the birther theory silly. That being said, Obama hasn't really certified his status as an American over the course of his campaign and the Presidency.Er...huh? I think mimartin just proved that he has in fact done that...


His company is just simply too leftist and critical of the US for his own good, and some of the statements he's made doesn't help his image either. So if somebody's a patriot, he's not allowed to honestly assess what's wrong with his country? He's just supposed to blindly cheerlead?

Nationalism is important because national works and public prosperity sometimes isn't enough to make a country stand out. Exactly, delude your citizens and persuade them not to observe reality. :thmbup1:

This includes wearing the flagpin because quite frankly the President IS supposed to assert the national identity.:indif:

Have you been watching Glen Beck too much? :xp:

....so the law doesn't matter as long as the person is deemed competent?Not when the law is as irrelevant as this. Da prez has proven that he was born here, but this law should no longer be a requirement for presidency.

purifier
01-21-2011, 12:28 AM
Not when the law is as irrelevant as this. Da prez has proven that he was born here, but this law should no longer be a requirement for presidency.


Now that would be a serious mistake and would cause more problems for this country then you'd ever want in your lifetime. If you do away with the requirement of this law, then everyone would regret it for generations to come.

Working Class Hero
01-21-2011, 01:03 AM
Why do you think that?

mimartin
01-21-2011, 01:07 AM
Now that would be a serious mistake and would cause more problems for this country then you'd ever want in your lifetime. If you do away with the requirement of this law, then everyone would regret it for generations to come. How do you figure?

1st it would take generations for someone that was not a born in American, but obtained American citizenship through immigration to even have a chance at being elected president. 2nd How is someone that actually had to study and work at becoming a citizen less of an American than someone that happened to be born here? 3rd If your one of your parents served in the military and you were born while they were stationed overseas then why should you not be allowed to be President? Personally I do not see where being born in the USA makes anyone superior to any other American citizen. Even more I do not see how we would possibly regret repealing a law that in antiquated. It made sense 100 years ago, but today with military bases all over the world, diplomatic stationed all over the world and with Americans involved in international business all over the world it makes no sense. Not all of our best and brightest are born on American soil.

God I wish George H Bush would have been stationed in China in 1946.

Tommycat
01-21-2011, 02:12 AM
How do you figure?

1st it would take generations for someone that was not a born in American, but obtained American citizenship through immigration to even have a chance at being elected president. 2nd How is someone that actually had to study and work at becoming a citizen less of an American than someone that happened to be born here? 3rd If your one of your parents served in the military and you were born while they were stationed overseas then why should you not be allowed to be President? Personally I do not see where being born in the USA makes anyone superior to any other American citizen. Even more I do not see how we would possibly regret repealing a law that in antiquated. It made sense 100 years ago, but today with military bases all over the world, diplomatic stationed all over the world and with Americans involved in international business all over the world it makes no sense. Not all of our best and brightest are born on American soil.

God I wish George H Bush would have been stationed in China in 1946.
Um mimartin, I think you are mistaken about the American Soil part If you were born in a military base, you are born on American Soil. All military stations are, like embassies, American soil.

But that was the point of the question. Someone who has worked hard to become a citizen in many cases worked harder to become an American citizen and may even care more about the USA than a natural born citizen, in my opinion, deserves the shot at being the President.

Totenkopf
01-21-2011, 02:59 AM
Have you been watching Glen Beck too much? :xp:

Thought that was more Hannity's bag pre-election.

Not when the law is as irrelevant as this. Da prez has proven that he was born here, but this law should no longer be a requirement for presidency.


Unfortunately, the law's relevant till it's overturned or amended. But I think the TC is quite correct in his observation that many naturalized immigrants often have a greater concern for their new found country than do the natives.

The only way the birthers will ever prove anything is by hiring a better forger. If at first you don’t succeed try, try again.


Maybe they should contact Dan Rather. :xp:

As to the the whole birther thing ...I've long thought that these "birthers" are simply clinging to this issue simply because their candidate didn't get elected and they need something to make themselves feel better. This pretty much applies both to the hilary supporters and anyone else caught up in their dissaffection w/BO.


@mim--the "if..." statement is merely a hypothetical. I don't believe anything will ever come of it anyway. Was only positing what the likely outcome of their "fantasy" would look like if it were somehow proven real, not its validity or lack thereof. The "birthers" are a democrat creation that has cross-contaminated some on the other side. :p

Astor
01-21-2011, 04:51 AM
How do you figure?

Watch Demolition Man. :p

Lord of Hunger
01-21-2011, 05:50 AM
You are an American if you are born in America, born to an American parent or if you have become a naturalized American citizen. That is unless you renounce your American citizenship. Politics or religion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CITIZENSHIP. You can be on the furthest edge of the left or the right and you would still be an American. You can also love your country and still be critical of it. It is my belief that the American idea is to always strive to make this country better. You can't get better without first seeing what is wrong.
:thmbup1: That's great!

A good portion of the country (not necessarily me) disagrees with you (in varying ways). They vote. They participate in government. They pay taxes. They are citizens of this country. And they are just as enthusiastic about their ideals of patriotism as you are.
Wow what is the American President wearing?
http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-flag-pin.jpg
I didn't say he wasn't. I only made that point because he didn't to begin with and only seemed to do so because of political pressure rather than any actual sudden out-burst of symbolic patriotism.
Although I see no reason any one would have to wear a flag to prove their love for the country. Just find it funny that people pay more attention to blogs instead of looking at the President them-self and I wonder why people cannot believe their own eyes on the birth certificate. It is because they are reading other people opinion on blog instead of checking the facts for themselves.
Because some people need to "villainize" something and our government, education system, and media frankly doesn't like letting them do that with Islamic terrorists or illegal immigrants...for whatever reason, valid or not. This is not changing any time soon, and the causes are not entirely insubstantial.
Er...huh? I think mimartin just proved that he has in fact done that...
:raise:
So if somebody's a patriot, he's not allowed to honestly assess what's wrong with his country? He's just supposed to blindly cheerlead?
You misunderstand me. I'm talking practicality, not idealism. A good portion of the population believes those that criticize the country in the way that they do demonstrate anti-patriotism towards America rather than tough patriotic love. Their representatives hold a substantial section of our government on all levels.
Exactly, delude your citizens and persuade them not to observe reality. :thmbup1
Who's reality? Yours? Mine? Theirs? If we're talking politics, then reality is certainly relative to each person.

Hell, that's also true in eastern thought.
:indif:

Have you been watching Glen Beck too much? :xp:
Glen Beck is not the first person to emphasize symbolic patriotism to an extreme, nor is the only one.

And furthermore, ignoring it because one disapproves of the direction of the country is, at least in my view, rather silly. If you want to get the common man enthusiastic about something above his understanding, you need an abstract object of his attention. Maybe you personally don't respond to the stars and stripes with tears of red, white, and blue, but a lot of folks good and bad do, genuinely and not always ignorantly.

America is not going to able to get anywhere if we have Presidents who can't balance challenging Americans to improve with reaffirming their national identity. And frankly, I don't have patience for Obama or any politician who says America has done wrong to the world without making significant effort to right those wrongs before hand. We can have a national catharsis over "American Imperialism" after we actually do good by those we claim to have wronged (true or not).

Talk is cheap. :thmbup1:

mimartin
01-21-2011, 09:05 AM
A good portion of the country (not necessarily me) disagrees with you (in varying ways). They vote. They participate in government. They pay taxes. They are citizens of this country. I hope people disagree with me in varying ways. Unlike people that wrongly believe they have all the answers, I actually know I don’t. Guess what the people that tell you how intelligent they are and how have all the answers, don't.

Just so you know a good portion of the country also voted to put President Obama in office. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they don’t exist. More people on the other side turned out for the mid-term election. Nothing new about that just look at every other mid-term election for the past 50 years.

Also the ones that actually honor the Constitution, especially the part about Freedom of Speech agree in varying ways with me.

I didn't say he wasn't. I only made that point because he didn't to begin with and only seemed to do so because of political pressure rather than any actual sudden out-burst of symbolic patriotism.
So you are saying he is damn if he doesn't wear it, but equally as damn if he does wear it. I always figured that was the case thanks for letting me know my suspicions were correct.


And they are just as enthusiastic about their ideals of patriotism as you are.Already stated that there are.
You can be on the furthest edge of the left or the right and you would still be an American. You can also love your country and still be critical of it.

You were the one that implied that if you were critical of your country, then you were not a citizen. I merely stated that anyone can be patriotic, yet still critical. I even stated from the far left or right. I hoped you would understand that includes all those in between without having to state it.
Because some people need to "villainize" something and our government, education system, and media frankly doesn't like letting them do that with Islamic terrorists or illegal immigrants...for whatever reason, valid or not. This is not changing any time soon, and the causes are not entirely insubstantial. Yeah, make them think you are doing something, but just pay the problem “lip service.” Got it!

I would much rather someone actually do something about a problem rather than just have outburst of “God bless America.” Wearing a Flag does nothing for strengthen education, to stop terrorism or protect our borders. If it did those problems would not be around today as they would have been solved by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush.

A good portion of the population believes those that criticize the country in the way that they do demonstrate anti-patriotism towards America rather than tough patriotic love... Just so you know the opposite of love is indifference. Being critical shows that a person cares. Doing nothing shows that someone has given up.

And frankly, I don't have patience for Obama or any politician who says America has done wrong to the world without making significant effort to right those wrongs before hand. Have you ever taken a class on problem solving? One of the first things you need to do so solve a problem is first define what the problem is. :rolleyes:

Also not everything wrong America has done in it past can be made right. We can't bring back the Native Americans, we cannot undo the Japanese American Internment Camps, we can’t stop the unethical 40 year experiment on human subject at Tuskegee, we cannot go back in time and stop our support of dictators, we can’t go back and help the people of Afghanistan after they helped us win the Cold War, we cannot make it right with those allowed to be slaves under government sanction slavery. I could continue if you would like…

Do you really think any of those wrongs can be made right? or Do you actually believe those were not wrongs at all?


Glen Beck is not the first person to emphasize symbolic patriotism to an extreme, nor is the only one.

Glen Beck would be ban from this forum in 3 minutes 2 years for his ad hominem arguments alone. :D Of course he most likely does not even know what that means.

Um mimartin, I think you are mistaken about the American Soil part If you were born in a military base, you are born on American Soil. All military stations are, like embassies, American soil.You are semi-correct. If both parents are American citizens, then you are correct. If one one parent isn't an American citizen then I'm correct. I should have looked it up instead of going by memory from my friend born in Cuba to a US military doctor. Of course if my friend would have been born before 1789 then he still could have become President.

Maybe they should contact Dan Rather. :xp:
I think they may have already contacted him and they had the very same luck with the forger as Lt. Col. Bill Burkett did.

Watch Demolition Man. :pYou actually may be correct. I’m wondering if people are using fictional movies and television shows to form opinions. ***Beat the information out of him ---that worked for Jack Bauer. ***;)

Qui-Gon Glenn
01-21-2011, 10:21 AM
A good portion of the country (not necessarily me) disagrees with you (in varying ways). They vote. They participate in government. They pay taxes. They are citizens of this country. And they are just as enthusiastic about their ideals of patriotism as you are.Just out of curiosity, what exactly is your point here? Are you just pointing out that there are millions of intentionally ignorant Americans out there? If a legal burden is passed, intelligent people let it go. I guess we should water everything down in our growing self-made idiocracy :giveup:

Because some people need to "villainize" something and our government, education system, and media frankly doesn't like letting them do that with Islamic terrorists or illegal immigrants...for whatever reason, valid or not. This is not changing any time soon, and the causes are not entirely insubstantial.This is hard to disagree with... yet I am not sure why it is important? Again, we are talking about a "some people" who do not think critically; are admittedly a part of our society yet it seems like you celebrate that?

You misunderstand me. I'm talking practicality, not idealism. A good portion of the population believes those that criticize the country in the way that they do demonstrate anti-patriotism towards America rather than tough patriotic love. Their representatives hold a substantial section of our government on all levels.Another celebration of the mediocre. That good portion of the population slept through history class and were raised by J Edgar Hoover, I guess.

Who's reality? Yours? Mine? Theirs? If we're talking politics, then reality is certainly relative to each person.Perception is relative, reality is what it is. Some say perception is reality, I say some people are stupid and their perceptions ought be ignored.

** Hell, that's also true in eastern thought. ** (I told Master Mark one time.... you know, so-and-so is crazy as a loon. He looked at me and said, "Grenn, sometimes crazy make very good Kung Fu." Deadpan serious, didn't debate my point for a minute, just pointed out the danger)

If you want to get the common man enthusiastic about something above his understanding, you need an abstract object of his attention. Maybe you personally don't respond to the stars and stripes with tears of red, white, and blue, but a lot of folks good and bad do, genuinely and not always ignorantly.I wantz be comun. Yes there are exceptions... like my Grandfather the WW2 vet... those that serve our country can be enthusiastic beyond reason: and I understand, their sacrifice is greater, therefore so is there attachment. Most of the "common" men you describe conjure visions of hayseeds.

America is not going to able to get anywhere if we have Presidents who can't balance challenging Americans to improve with reaffirming their national identity.Besides being grammatically awful, this is a bunch of hooey. Nationalism is not going to save anyone... except maybe Kim Jong Il. Nationalism of the kind you seem to be referring to, several times in your post, is a willfully-ignorant Nationalism, and will step out on a limb and say if you are and choose to remain willfully ignorant, that is stupidity.

And frankly, I don't have patience for Obama or any politician who says America has done wrong to the world without making significant effort to right those wrongs before hand. We can have a national catharsis over "American Imperialism" after we actually do good by those we claim to have wronged (true or not).[QUOTE=Lord of Hunger;2765271]Uh...... agreed :)

Talk is cheap. :thmbup1:

Lord of Hunger
01-21-2011, 06:07 PM
Just so you know a good portion of the country also voted to put President Obama in office.
Yes they did, and now a large portion of them seem to be regretting so (I live in a very "liberal" area, and I've been getting a good sample of opinions among other forms of research).
Just because you disagree with them does not mean they don’t exist.
Um, not saying they didn't.... :raise:
Also the ones that actually honor the Constitution, especially the part about Freedom of Speech agree in varying ways with me.
Honoring the Constitution is a claim that just about everyone loves to make and frankly can. This is because it has a lot of parts.
So you are saying he is damn if he doesn't wear it, but equally as damn if he does wear it. I always figured that was the case thanks for letting me know my suspicions were correct.
I am saying that he is of the same opinion as you are that symbolic patriotism doesn't have substantial value, so when he does wear it we know it's a political move. I'm just pointing out that's not really a good position to put yourself into as a President.
You were the one that implied that if you were critical of your country, then you were not a citizen.
Uh, no. Sorry, but if you got that then you misunderstand me. I am saying that there's a part of the population that believes such and has significant influence in the country. There's a difference.

To clarify, I am not arguing a position of my own that I hold with strong emotional drive. I really don't have that many positions of that type in politics anymore because there are few if almost no political causes that can inspire me at this juncture. I argue, for the sake of argument, political practicality, which from where I'm standing is the only way that America's political scar is going to be healed.
I merely stated that anyone can be patriotic, yet still critical. I even stated from the far left or right. I hoped you would understand that includes all those in between without having to state it.
I do, but I've obviously given you the impression that I don't. If so, my apologies.
Yeah, make them think you are doing something, but just pay the problem “lip service.” Got it!
Put it this way: you want reforms to the politics and culture of this country, correct? Trying to impose that on half of the population over night is not easy. And frankly, the attempts of certain politicians to do so has caused more problem than its solved.
I would much rather someone actually do something about a problem rather than just have outburst of “God bless America.” Wearing a Flag does nothing for strengthen education, to stop terrorism or protect our borders. If it did those problems would not be around today as they would have been solved by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush.
Well here's the thing: Ronald Reagan and George Bush (the latter briefly) got the majority of the population enthusiastic about solving America's problems with that "God bless America" spontaneous outburst. They made the country's problems matter to a segment of the population who don't readily believe there is a problem because they aren't directly experiencing it.
Have you ever taken a class on problem solving? One of the first things you need to do so solve a problem is first define what the problem is. :rolleyes:
Yes, and after you do that you start on the other steps. Unfortunately, a lot of people get stuck on step one because it's the easiest.
Also not everything wrong America has done in it past can be made right. We can't bring back the Native Americans, we cannot undo the Japanese American Internment Camps, we can’t stop the unethical 40 year experiment on human subject at Tuskegee, we cannot go back in time and stop our support of dictators, we can’t go back and help the people of Afghanistan after they helped us win the Cold War, we cannot make it right with those allowed to be slaves under government sanction slavery. I could continue if you would like…
And endlessly apologizing about it is tiresome and insulting to everyone (conqueror and conquered alike).
Do you really think any of those wrongs can be made right? or Do you actually believe those were not wrongs at all?
I believe that the best thing to do is to remain positive through it all. America the Wretched and Disgusting just doesn't sell well.
Glen Beck would be ban from this forum in 3 minutes 2 years for his ad hominem arguments alone. :D Of course he most likely does not even know what that means.
Glen Beck is a repetitive talking point for groups such as MSNBC and Daily Kos who are of the opinion that if they just point out how Fox News is the embodiment of all evil they are somehow divinely inspired. The same goes for Sarah Palin. If these people are so "stupid", they aren't worth bringing up in the first place (which I was trying to get at...sort of :D ).
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is your point here? Are you just pointing out that there are millions of intentionally ignorant Americans out there? If a legal burden is passed, intelligent people let it go. I guess we should water everything down in our growing self-made idiocracy :giveup:
My point is that many of the "progressive" reforms that are attempted die before they are even enacted because they lack a format that ALL Americans can get behind, which is necessary in politics so we can move forward.
This is hard to disagree with... yet I am not sure why it is important? Again, we are talking about a "some people" who do not think critically; are admittedly a part of our society yet it seems like you celebrate that?
It's not a question of whether I like it or not, it just is. My personal preferences are irrelevant in the eyes of truth.

DISCLAIMER: If you find that statement arrogant beyond belief or wrong, feel free to challenge it.
Another celebration of the mediocre. That good portion of the population slept through history class and were raised by J Edgar Hoover, I guess.
And they will continue to do so unless educational reforms can be presented in such away that everyone will get behind them.
Perception is relative, reality is what it is. Some say perception is reality, I say some people are stupid and their perceptions ought be ignored.
Then I guess you probably should not be replying to my posts. :thmbup1:

To be honest, I am not sure yet that I entirely agree with the idea of reality and perception being one. My personal meditation and study of various spiritual, philosophical, and psychological information says so, but as of yet, I refuse to make any absolute all-encompassing conclusion until I'm sure that I can't be sure of anything. :D
** Hell, that's also true in eastern thought. ** (I told Master Mark one time.... you know, so-and-so is crazy as a loon. He looked at me and said, "Grenn, sometimes crazy make very good Kung Fu." Deadpan serious, didn't debate my point for a minute, just pointed out the danger)

I wantz be comun. Yes there are exceptions... like my Grandfather the WW2 vet... those that serve our country can be enthusiastic beyond reason: and I understand, their sacrifice is greater, therefore so is there attachment. Most of the "common" men you describe conjure visions of hayseeds.
Perhaps. On the other hand, their set-mindedness does have value in that it is, in and of itself, very consistent. Environmentalism, if we are to continue to follow the stereotype that it is a "liberal" paradigm, has radically changed its stance on critical issues a number of times (accurate science or not). It does not help their argument that the world is warming up when about twenty years ago they were arguing that it was cooling down.
Besides being grammatically awful, this is a bunch of hooey. Nationalism is not going to save anyone... except maybe Kim Jong Il. Nationalism of the kind you seem to be referring to, several times in your post, is a willfully-ignorant Nationalism, and will step out on a limb and say if you are and choose to remain willfully ignorant, that is stupidity.
Expecting high-intellect of the consistently non-intellectual is impractical beyond belief. I believe this is why our education system is having so many hiccups right now.

purifier
01-21-2011, 08:14 PM
Why do you think that?

Well...let it get repealed then, let's take the chance and see what happens. But if the end result is not what you expected, and it turns out to go into a negative direction in the long run, from what you were hoping, don't look at me. Because I will just say "I told you so!"





How do you figure?

1st it would take generations for someone that was not a born in American, but obtained American citizenship through immigration to even have a chance at being elected president.

Yeah I know that Mimartin, didn't say otherwise. ;)


2nd How is someone that actually had to study and work at becoming a citizen less of an American than someone that happened to be born here?

Your too quick to make assumptions about me from my statements Mimartin, and I really have no idea how a immigrant with U.S. citizenship, would be less of a american citizen than anyone who is actually born in the U.S. like me.

Hmmm, but I tell you what......I'll ask a close relative of mine who is from Coventry, UK (who is now a U.S. Citizen btw) what the difference is, just for you Mimartin. Even though she might be surprised by my question after all the years that I've known her. It's not like were blood relatives or anything.......Oh Wait! My mother is a blood relative, gosh darn it! I keep forgetting that. Well then maybe I shouldn't ask her a question like that after all, she might get the wrong idea and make the assumption that I was being discriminative against immigrants or something, despite one giving birth to me. Now that would be really hypocritical of me wouldn't it? Well...she probably wouldn't make a far out assumption like that, since she knows me very well by now, unlike what soooome people on this forum seem to do. :dozey: *sigh*




3rd If your one of your parents served in the military and you were born while they were stationed overseas then why should you not be allowed to be President?

Do you mean whether you were born to a U.S. citizen parent over seas, and even if your birth was NOT recorded as a a birth to a U.S. citizen at a U.S. consulate overseas? If yes, then I don't see a problem with that....sure, why not....I say give them a shot at it.



Personally I do not see where being born in the USA makes anyone superior to any other American citizen.

Well good for you Mimartin. :thmbup1: You should run a political campaign against ethnocentrism in this country, most Anthropologist and democratic socialists like Michael Moore would be delighted with your cause. NOW GO FORTH AND MAKE IT HAPPEN MAN! :carms:


Even more I do not see how we would possibly regret repealing a law that in antiquated. It made sense 100 years ago, but today with military bases all over the world, diplomatic stationed all over the world and with Americans involved in international business all over the world it makes no sense.

Like I said to WCH above: Well...let it get repealed then, let's take the chance and see what happens. But if the end result is not what both of you expected, and it turns out to go into a negative direction in the long run, from what both of you were hoping, don't look at me.



Not all of our best and brightest are born on American soil.

Right, didn't say they all were Mimartin.





And just a word to the LF community here: I noticed many people on these forums in the past, and just recently, refer to American Indians as "Native Americans", that can be confusing to half-breeds like me, :xp: since most individuals who are actually born in the U.S. are Native Americans. Anyway just my two cents about that......

mimartin
01-21-2011, 08:25 PM
Yeah I know that Mimartin, didn't say otherwise. ;) Funny I could recall you wrote something about this causing problems in a lifetime.
Now that would be a serious mistake and would cause more problems for this country then you'd ever want in your lifetime. If you do away with the requirement of this law, then everyone would regret it for generations to come.

Since most people do not live for generations I have a really hard time seeing how you did not say otherwise. Silly me.


Your too quick to make assumptions about me from my statements Mimartin, and I really have no idea how a immigrant with U.S. citizenship, would be less of a american citizen than anyone who is actually born in the U.S. like me. I made no assuption.... Didn't you say write it would be a mistake to allow them to run for president?

That in no way means I assumed anything about you. I thought you wrote that you did not want to change the law to allow naturalized citizens to run for president. But really nice of you to imply that I am calling you anything and thanks for your creative writing, have you considered for the Coruscant Entertainment Centre?
Do you mean whether you were born to a U.S. citizen parent over seas, and even if your birth was NOT recorded as a a birth to a U.S. citizen at a U.S. consulate overseas? If yes, then I don't see a problem with that....sure, why not....I say give them a shot at it. No I meant not born on US soil. You do know that is the law you are against changing right?



Well good for you Mimartin. :thmbup1: You should run a political campaign against ethnocentrism in this country, most Anthropologist and democratic socialists like Michael Moore would be delighted with your cause. NOW GO FORTH AND MAKE IT HAPPEN MAN! :carms: who is making assumptions?

I guess that means you don’t want to discuss the topic in a discussion forum.

Right, didn't say they all were Mimartin. You do know I did not state you did?

I do think in a disscusion forum that I am allowed to state my opinions too. :(


And just a word to the LF community here: I noticed many people on these forums in the past, and just recently, refer to American Indians as "Native Americans", that can be confusing to half-breeds like me, :xp: since most individuals who are actually born in the U.S. are Native Americans. Anyway just my two cents about that......
:rolleyes: My grandmother was a Cherokee. If you called her an Indian she would have kick your teeth out. My great grandmother was full-blooded. Never meet her, but according to my grandmother if you called my great grandmother an Indian she would have killed you. I’m nothing, but out of respect for my grandmother I will either use the tribe name or Native American. In my case it has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything to do with not wanting my grandmother to crawl out of her grave and kick my teeth out.

Tommycat
01-22-2011, 04:07 PM
In my case it has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything to do with not wanting my grandmother to crawl out of her grave and kick my teeth out.

If she crawls outta her grave you might want to check to see if it's Z-Day first...

@purifier: Native American is the term used because they are from the indigenous peoples of the American continents. It's better than calling them Indians which is a term for those born in India. If you want to call Native Americans anything but that, you MUST learn their tribe. Since there are literally hundreds of tribes(most people only know of about 3-5) I think it's much easier to use Native Americans. Since you want a designation for those born in the US I suggest 'Merikins.

Using Americans, kinda seems odd. Seeing as then we have North America which includes Mexico, the US and Canada. Central America which includes um.. Panama, *mumble* and a few other countries. Then we have South America... man I forgot most of my geography... I remember Brazil, Columbia, Argentina, and Peru. Oh and Venezuela. Can't forget the one we get most of our oil from.

Long story short, though we adopted American as ours, calling yourself a Native American is a bad idea.

My feelings kinda mirror those of Teddy Roosevelt
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

I think all this squabbling over PC terms is silly, and does nothing but divide us into handy groups to fight against.

Darth Avlectus
01-22-2011, 05:05 PM
@ thread: I thought the reason for the whole "foreign born is not allowed to become president" thing was so that other countries could not have put in a puppet to usurp our constitution and cede our sovereignty to another country?

Though both main political parties have done such a good job of making us *so* in debt over the years that it wouldn't surprise me if this or similar was already the case. Ironically we did it all from within the country--didn't need a foreign puppet to do it.

*IS part Quapaw and looks around thread*


@purifier: Native American is the term used because they are from the indigenous peoples of the American continents. It's better than calling them Indians which is a term for those born in India. If you want to call Native Americans anything but that, you MUST learn their tribe.
I believe purifier knows that. There might even be a chance he and I are distantly related through our common heritage.

Since there are literally hundreds of tribes(most people only know of about 3-5) I think it's much easier to use Native Americans. Since you want a designation for those born in the US I suggest 'Merikins.

Using Americans, kinda seems odd. Seeing as then we have North America which includes Mexico, the US and Canada. Central America which includes um.. Panama, *mumble* and a few other countries. Then we have South America... man I forgot most of my geography... I remember Brazil, Columbia, Argentina, and Peru. Oh and Venezuela. Can't forget the one we get most of our oil from.

Long story short, though we adopted American as ours, calling yourself a Native American is a bad idea.
Especially if you have no Native heritage to begin with.

Unless you're related to a tribe that resided at least in some part/way/shape/form historically within the borders of what is now U.S.A., you are not Native American. Granted while there is undeniably crossover of U.S.A. and Mexico with some tribes (and I do also believe Aztecs did move around quite a bit too, before Cortez and Columbus and them), Native Mexican =/= Native American. Same with Canada.
Just like anything not Native American is simply not Native American.

It's also rather insulting when academics (especially secularists) try to make excuses for the revisions to textbooks that erase Native Americans from history by simple omission. In some cases the same crowd even claim all Native Mexican = all Native Americans because they're on a rant about how there should be no border control. In which case I have to stop them and tell them history like it really is.

My feelings kinda mirror those of Teddy Roosevelt

I think all this squabbling over PC terms is silly, and does nothing but divide us into handy groups to fight against.

There ought to be adequate terms to make distinctions: too few and you're just lumping us all in together, too many and it becomes divisive.

Totenkopf
01-22-2011, 05:14 PM
There ought to be adequate terms to make distinctions: too few and you're just lumping us all in together, too many and it becomes divisive.


I think TR's quote just meant that we should focus more on being Americans in the here and now than on where our ancestors came from. IE, focus on what unites us, not something that divides us into little groups at odds w/each other.

1/26/11
Just saw this.....http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255489

Tommycat
04-27-2011, 11:22 AM
Update: Well today Obama released his birth certificate. I say it was a bad move. The only people who still believed he was not born in the US is such a small portion that it's pretty insignificant. Releasing his birth certificate only serves to shift the debate to other issues, while the birthers fade to obscurity. Not having released it birthers would come out and look like fools when he releases it during the election season. With their main focus on the citizen issue, once you take that away, they are left looking silly(well more silly than they are now haha).

urluckyday
04-27-2011, 11:37 AM
It was a stupid debate, I'm glad it's done and even for as much as I dislike Obama, at least we don't have to deal with some sort of scandal, and he can just keep focusing on the actual issues that matter.

mimartin
04-27-2011, 11:51 AM
I completely disagree with you. The birthers seemed to have taken over a growing part of the Republican base (New York Times/CBS Poll released last week showed (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_GOP_042111.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody) 45% of Republicans believed Obama was NOT born in U.S., 33% said he was born in US and 22% were not sure). Even the Republican Congress seemed to being going along with the idea, even though privately they knew damn well Obama was born in the United States. If not they would have been holding a hearing every five minutes.

According to that poll the Birthers have gain ground because only 57% of American (at the time the poll was taken) believed the setting President of the United States was born in America. Yeah, rasism is dead and buried in the United States. :rolleyes:

Yeah the Birther crowd seems to have shut-up…

Birther – Joseph Farah – “We look forward to reviewing it like so many other Americans do at this late date. But it is important to remember there are still dozens of other questions concerning this question of eligibility that need to be resolved to assure what has become a very skeptical public concerning Barack Obama’s parentage, his adoption, his citizenship status throughout his life and why he continues to cultivate a culture of secrecy around his life."

Birther – Andy Martin – Now demands the release of President Obama’s transcripts and admission documents.

Birther – Orly Taitz – Does not believe the birth certificate; according to her “expert opinion” it should say “Nero” not “African.”

Birther – Donald Trump – Takes credit for putting pressure on President Obama to release birth certificate, but will he keep his promise to now release his own financial records? So far it does not sound like it. I guess if I was a “winner, not a loser,” like Mr. Trump I would not want to release my financial records. At least three bankruptcies in past 20 years is winning?

Well at least the Donald may shut-up for awhile at least until he thinks America has forgotten his promise.

Totenkopf
04-27-2011, 01:32 PM
I'd tend to agree w/TC on this. It was a political bad move on BO's part given his shift to campaign mode. He probably should have waited awhile longer (maybe seen how the primaries shook out). Still, if it does lay the issue mostly to rest, that is good as well. There are much better reasons to go after this president than the birther issue. Given the way it got some traction/focus in the '08 primary, I guess that means that the dems/left have to root out their own racism before finding it in others, though.

Also, now Trump is pushing the college records issue. I wonder what this will do for his show's ratings..... :p

mimartin
04-27-2011, 01:53 PM
I I guess that means that the dems/left have to root out their own racism before finding it in others, though.
Please show me where almost 50% of Dems/Left ever disbelieved the birth certificate released during the 2008 election? (hint they didn’t or Obama would not have gotten the Democratic nomination.

Also, I am not implying that Republican or the right are racist; I am implying that this birther crap would have been dead on arrival had the President been white. That is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is just a fact of racism in the country. I don’t really see how party affliction means someone is or is not a racist.

Totenkopf
04-27-2011, 02:41 PM
I think that if there were a question that a white candidate was actually a european and not an American, either side of the political aisle would make hay of it. Problem is that everytime someone disagrees w/an issue from the left in this country, they are axiomatically labled racists (everything from simply NOT voting for/supporting BO's candidacy to opposition to the US's immigration non-policy). Here is but another example of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOShq4pVTbk However, I'd also argue that as long as people are different, that (racism/bigotry) will always be a problem anyway. While I agree that party affiliation doesn't make one racist (at least as far as mainstream parties go over here), you can always count on the dem party leadership to raise the spectre of racism vs its opponents on a wide array of issues.

Since I never made any specific claims about % of people in a specific group, that issue is irrelevant. It's a dem side issue from '08 that has gained traction b/c of the way it's been handled since then....with people all over the spectrum wondering about it's validity. Btw, never accused you personally of making any implications, but that mentality is out there and the constant push to say x% of reps buy into this birther thing is one tactic being used to try to smear everyone on that side by association. Not complaining, just recognizing it for what it is. Don't know about you, but I've never had faith in polls in general as the sample is often too small to be truly reflective, questions are often leading and you don't know who's really being honest.

Darth InSidious
04-27-2011, 02:46 PM
Now that it has been conclusively proven that Mr Obama is indeed a genital wig, I have a question: Why does the President need to have been born in the US in the first place? Short of a Mr Cornwallis running for the Definitely Not Monarchist Party, what purpose does this law actually serve, aside from excluding first generation immigrants, and Americans who are, for one reason or another, living abroad?

Totenkopf
04-27-2011, 03:42 PM
I take it you mean in theory, b/c I'll agree that sometimes legal immigrants are more pationate about their new country than the natives. As to those living abroad, as long as they were born here on on some kind of sovereign US territory, so to speak, I'm pretty sure they can legally run (ie not aware of any prohibitions in that regard). Btw, can foreigners (ie non-brit/EU) become the PM of England or serve in either house of Parliament?

mimartin
04-27-2011, 03:51 PM
Don't know about you, but I've never had faith in polls in general as the sample is often too small to be truly reflective, questions are often leading and you don't know who's really being honest.

I have great faith polls, provided the question is clear and concise, the sample size is large and random enough, then polls can be as accurate as their margin of error. That written, I do not always trust the people that administer the polls. I do however have great faith in Statistics. In other words, I trust numbers more than people. :D

Totenkopf, is correct about U.S. citizenship - link covers all

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html
To be a Senator or Representative you must be a citizen. To be president, you must be a citizen, but you also must be natural-born. (next link defines that).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

Hallucination
04-27-2011, 04:06 PM
I take it you mean in theory, b/c I'll agree that sometimes legal immigrants are more pationate about their new country than the natives. As to those living abroad, as long as they were born here on on some kind of sovereign US territory, so to speak, I'm pretty sure they can legally run (ie not aware of any prohibitions in that regard). Btw, can foreigners (ie non-brit/EU) become the PM of England or serve in either house of Parliament?
According to this (http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/) site you don't even have to be a British citizen to run. It doesn't say anything about becoming Prime Minister, but PM's are really just MP's who lead a party, so I don't see why there would be more restrictions on them.

purifier
04-27-2011, 05:31 PM
According to this (http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/) site you don't even have to be a British citizen to run. It doesn't say anything about becoming Prime Minister, but PM's are really just MP's who lead a party, so I don't see why there would be more restrictions on them.


So if Trump doesn't win the Presidential election here, he could go across the pond and run for the MP, if he became a British citizen. Right?

Lol. Somebody should notify him of this. ;)

Tommycat
04-27-2011, 11:04 PM
Huh? Where did the racist crap come from? There were people on the left talking about McCain's birth location, so if he had won, we might have had the same debate(though he was born on US soil... abroad). The whole birther thing started in the HILLARY CLINTON campaign(though it gained more traction after the election in the Republicans post election). If you want to talk racism, only 1% of black voters voted for McCain, while 99% voted for Obama.

I'm so sick of people screaming racism at the drop of the hat. PROVE that the birthers were motivated by race rather than a general dislike of a Democrat President.

Sabretooth
04-27-2011, 11:32 PM
According to this (http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/) site you don't even have to be a British citizen to run. It doesn't say anything about becoming Prime Minister, but PM's are really just MP's who lead a party, so I don't see why there would be more restrictions on them.

Sounds accurate enough for the Indian constitution, (which is by and large, copy/paste UK constitution). I do know though, that there was a lot of debate about Sonia Gandhi becoming PM, as she is an Italian who took Indian citizenship on marriage. While not illegal, it was deemed unethical and in the interest of not-blowing-up-the-nation, she gave the spot to a relatively cool-headed guy named Manmohan Singh.

So yes, apart from suffering mountains of flak from British tabloids, I think a foreigner can take over the PM post in Britain.

mimartin
04-28-2011, 12:23 AM
If you want to talk racism, only 1% of black voters voted for McCain, while 99% voted for Obama. Just how many African-American candidates has the United States nominated in its history?

I'm so sick of people screaming racism at the drop of the hat. Prove where I have ever cried racism at a drop of a hat? In other words put up or shut up.

PROVE that the birthers were motivated by race rather than a general dislike of a Democrat President. never wrote that race was the entire motivation. :rolleyes:

Totenkopf
04-28-2011, 02:15 AM
Just how many African-American candidates has the United States nominated in its history?

Still, I have great reason to doubt 99% of them would have voted for a conservative black candidate vs a white liberal, though the outcome of such a race would be interesting to see.

mimartin
04-28-2011, 08:49 AM
Still, I have great reason to doubt 99% of them would have voted for a conservative black candidate vs a white liberal, though the outcome of such a race would be interesting to see.

You are forgetting how many yellow dog democrats did not vote for Obama because he was African-American.

Tommycat
04-28-2011, 10:20 AM
The demographics of the election were pretty clear. There was virtually no change in white voters' Democrat support. So while some Democrats may have voted Republican because he was black it can be inferred that many Republicans and independents also switched to voting Democrat for the same reason.

As for calling it racism, you did call it racism when there was no real reason to do so. And I did say people as in general. I did not say "I'm so sick of mimartin claiming racism at the drop of a hat" now did I. But it is more a general trend. We got a Black President, and suddenly every person who opposes him is called racist by the media, and in some cases the administration itself. I'm not out of line in saying it's been brought up enough to be silly. While I'm sure SOME people oppose him on race, others support him because of his race. Switch Obama for Bush and change racism to unpatriotic, and you get my drift.

Still, I have great reason to doubt 99% of them would have voted for a conservative black candidate vs a white liberal, though the outcome of such a race would be interesting to see.
I would have liked to see someone like Powell or Rice run. But sadly the last time Powell was thinking of running, he dropped out(I think it was 1996 and you should have heard just how racist the Democrats were back then).

Totenkopf
04-28-2011, 10:46 AM
You are forgetting how many yellow dog democrats did not vote for Obama because he was African-American.

Actually, no, but since that # never comes anywhere NEAR 99%.....big deal. As I said earlier, you'll likely never be able to remove racism or bigotry (perceived or real) as a factor in any election or selection process. Not here or anywhere else in the world. In Barry's case, though, I'm sure most of the people who voted vs him did so b/c they saw him as anti-American, not African-American.

mimartin
04-28-2011, 11:22 AM
I did not say "I'm so sick of mimartin claiming racism at the drop of a hat" now did I.Well since I am the one that brought up race in this thread, I thought it was pretty clear you were singling me out.

No it does not come anywhere near 99%. But are you telling me, if the roles were reversed, if there had never been a white President and one was finally on the ballot you would not see a large majority of whites voting for that white nominee? Plus let’s put this in perceptive, African Americans have consistently voted for Democrats between 86-95% so we are only talking 14-4% above the norm. Kind of puts that 99% in perceptive, doesn’t it?

Also where are you getting the 99%, everything I read says Obama received 95% of the African American vote to McCain’s 4%. Also the election was not won because of the African American vote. Even with the high African-American turnout African-American voters still only made up about 13% of the voters (up from the norm of 11%). Frankly I believe the Hispanic vote of 66%, the under 30 vote 66% and the Women vote of 56% for Obama is what turned the election for President Obama.

Jae Onasi
04-28-2011, 02:27 PM
Also, I am not implying that Republican or the right are racist; I am implying that this birther crap would have been dead on arrival had the President been white. That is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is just a fact of racism in the country. I don’t really see how party affliction means someone is or is not a racist.
This issue came up with McCain, too, since he was born on an American base in Panama. He had to produce his birth certificate, too. While this was difficult because McCain was born approximately a year before paper, he did finally get one. While racism could be an issue in Obama's case, I still think, given the fact that it happened to both men and they happen to be different flavors, that it is more political than racial.

Right now it's a 'splinter section of the GOP' issue in Obama's case. In fact, there was talk in the Obama camp of letting this issue stay unresolved as long as possible to keep the GOP chasing wild geese instead of the real issues. With Donald 'Toupee-Tower' Trump picking up on it, however, I think Obama finally decided enough was enough. If anyone can market BS, Trump can, and I don't think Obama could afford Trump taking it any farther.

Tommycat
04-28-2011, 02:33 PM
Well since I am the one that brought up race in this thread, I thought it was pretty clear you were singling me out.
It's all about you isn't it :P

No it does not come anywhere near 99%. But are you telling me, if the roles were reversed, if there had never been a white President and one was finally on the ballot you would see a large majority of whites voting for that white nominee? Plus letís put this in perceptive, African Americans have consistently voted for Democrats between 86-95% so we are only talking 14-4% above the norm. Kind of puts that 99% in perceptive, doesnít it?
There was a significant jump in black votes to Obama. Was there that same jump in white votes against Obama? No. it was a varying of one or two percentage points. In fact many of the Republicans I know pretty much stayed home. It isn't surprising that black voters tend to vote Democrat, since the likes of Sharpton and Jackson tend to label black Republicans "Uncle Tom"
Also where are you getting the 99%, everything I read says Obama received 95% of the African American vote to McCainís 4%. Also the election was not won because of the African American vote. Even with the high African-American turnout African-American voters still only made up about 13% of the voters (up from the norm of 11%). Frankly I believe the Hispanic vote of 66%, the under 30 vote 66% and the Women vote of 56% for Obama is what turned the election for President Obama.
I don't think I said anywhere that the black vote won the election. I was pointing out(since you brought up race) that there was a significant uptick in the black vote for a black president. That is racism.

mimartin
04-28-2011, 02:52 PM
It's all about you isn't it :P I don't know, you were the one that took exception to what I wrote.


There was a significant jump in black votes to Obama. Not really, if I discount the 99% that you did not reply where that number came from, and go with the 95% that I have read from multiple published sources, then it is within the norm as the Democrats usually get between 86-95% of the African-American vote. Now Obama did get 2% more African-Americans to the polls.

This issue came up with McCain, too, since he was born on an American base in Panama. Yes, and when McCain the white guy produced his Birth Certificate the issue dropped, but when Obama released his perfectly legal Birth Certificate the issue did not drop. All we heard then was long form, long form.

Tommycat
04-28-2011, 03:07 PM
I don't know, you were the one that took exception to what I wrote.

I took exception at you throwing the race card. Then proceeded to vent my frustration at how often that card is thrown for the smallest things. Don't like Obama? Race card. Don't like the health care bill? Race card. Don't like having taxes raised? Race card. Not a Democrat? RACE CARD! It's thrown out far too often, and you happened to be the most recent to throw the race card when it's not race so much as political.

Not really, if I discount the 99% that you did not reply where that number came from, and go with the 95% that I have read from multiple published sources, then it is within the norm as the Democrats usually get between 86-95% of the African-American vote.

Yes really when you include the 3% increase in the makeup of the total vote. I was going to link to it(since it was a Democrat's blog) but I'll concede that it was 96%. But with a significant jump in the volume of Black voters, does that not indicate racism?


Yes, and when McCain the white guy produced his Birth Certificate the issue dropped, but when Obama released his perfectly legal Birth Certificate the issue did not drop. All we heard then was long form, long form.
I don't know if you know this or not, but McCain didn't win the election. That may have been the reason it went away. Not to mention McCain's birth certificate was signed, whereas the one Obama produced was the unsigned one.

mimartin
04-28-2011, 03:11 PM
1% to 3% is significant now? There was a larger increase in younger/first time voters than that. Ageism too? :xp:


Sorry the race issue may just be in my head, but I can only come to one of two conclusions, either race is involved in this entire birther melodrama, or a large percentage of Americans are just plain idiots. I just don’t know which one of those things are harder for me to swallow, but when 45% of Republicans and 43% of Americans were unsure between April 15th and 20th that the setting President of the United States had the legal authority to govern, there is a problem with either racism or stupidity in this country. Personally it may just be wishful thinking on my part hoping we are not that stupid.

whereas the one Obama produced was perfectly legal, certified and acceptable birth certificate.


fixed


I don't know if you know this or not, but McCain didn't win the election.
Really I did not know that. I guess I'm just stupid, I should join the Republican party again. Fit right in.

Tommycat
04-28-2011, 03:46 PM
Yes a change in the voter makeup of 3% is significant.

And I can understand the stupidity of people better than I can accept that much racism which is even more stupid... Heck ask around town to see how many people in your area even know who the VP is. To expect them to do even a little research into the birth certificate issue... It's pretty effin sad when even Rush was the voice of reason on the issue... When RUSH is telling people that Obama was born in the US, there's some pretty dim bulbs out there.

Totenkopf
04-28-2011, 04:05 PM
No it does not come anywhere near 99%. But are you telling me, if the roles were reversed, if there had never been a white President and one was finally on the ballot you would not see a large majority of whites voting for that white nominee? Plus letís put this in perceptive, African Americans have consistently voted for Democrats between 86-95% so we are only talking 14-4% above the norm. Kind of puts that 99% in perceptive, doesnít it?

That's why I didn't make the argument that blacks were being racist in voting for BO. However, if that "first" black candidate had been Allen Keys or somone of a similiar bent, I doubt they'd have voted for him in such numbers. But they do tend to vote almost monolithically as a voting block, which if/when whites do they are called or implied to be racists by many a liberal social commentator/academic.


Also where are you getting the 99%, everything I read says Obama received 95% of the African American vote to McCainís 4%. Also the election was not won because of the African American vote. Even with the high African-American turnout African-American voters still only made up about 13% of the voters (up from the norm of 11%). Frankly I believe the Hispanic vote of 66%, the under 30 vote 66% and the Women vote of 56% for Obama is what turned the election for President Obama.

The "near 99%" was meant to convey a huge disproportionate # of a group voting in one direction. You seemed to be implying that a significant # of white dems were primarily motivated by racial concerns and I was only pointing out that as a % it paled in comparison to the % of blacks who voted for BO simply b/c he was black. However, I wonder how many of the swing vote will go for BO in 2012 and how many will defect in disgust in a fit of buyer's remorse.

Also, weren't you overwhelmed with pride @ Trump's reticence to take credit for "resolving" this issue. :xp: Now, if only someone can bring Alex Jones around...... :p

Q
04-29-2011, 12:07 AM
I'm far more concerned about the three quarters of a trillion dollars of our money (which we don't have) that the president used to pay off the people who got him elected than the stupid "birther" issue.

And the race card has been played so much that, for better and for worse, nobody takes it seriously anymore.

Tommycat
04-29-2011, 01:06 AM
perfectly legal, certified and acceptable birth certificate.


fixed


Really I did not know that. I guess I'm just stupid, I should join the Republican party again. Fit right in.

DON'T FIX WHAT I SAID! I said it as it was. McCain produced one that was signed. Obama produced one(at least publicly) that left his birth origin in question.

And besides, perfectly legal certified election results in 2000 didn't stop Democrats from screaming that Bush was never elected. So don't pretend that Republicans are the only stupid ones. My point about McCain(me being a smart alec aside) was that had McCain actually won the election then there would have been far more scrutiny on his birth origin by the ones who wished he hadn't won. Funny thing thinking about it though.. because even if Obama became invalidated by finding he wasn't legally allowed to be president, it would have simply just moved on to the next person in the chain of command... Biden. Even worse if McCain were elected and found to be ineligible... Palin... My guess to the thinking of those who want Obama not to be eligible(at least listening to the ones who called in to radio shows) was they thought it would invalidate the election results and McCain would win by default(though they would be wrong)... the other popular thought(as best as it could be labeled) was that it would preclude him from running again.

At any rate, I have a feeling that Obama knows that Trump isn't a serious candidate. So he could take up the issue and run with it without risking his election bid. And it's just extra publicity for Trump. And for those thinking that Trump really has a shot, you really have to look at his own statements. Obama would LOVE to run against Trump. He talks down the Chinese, but the Trump signature suit has a label of... "Made in China"

Totenkopf
04-29-2011, 01:11 AM
Well, at least Pelosi is no longer in the line of succession....thank God.

Working Class Hero
04-29-2011, 08:55 AM
Yeah, john boehner is so much better.

mimartin
04-29-2011, 10:33 AM
DON'T FIX WHAT I SAID! I said it as it was. McCain produced one that was signed. Obama produced one(at least publicly) that left his birth origin in question.

It only left President Obama’s birth origins in question if someone did not want to believe legal proof. In other words it left his birth origin in question to complete idiots or racist that refused to see the truth. This would seem to make up 45% of the Republican Party and 43% of voting America. IT WAS JUST AS LEGAL AS THE ONE PRODUCED BY MCCAIN. The signature means about as much as a pimple on my butt. Certified is what matters.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg


Also I will fix anything I want in my post (provided I did not fix it in a way that others would think the quoted member wrote it (in other words outside the quote)).

And the race card has been played so much that, for better and for worse, nobody takes it seriously anymore.True, even when blatant racism is staring people in the face it is ignored in the name of politics as usual.

Totenkopf
04-29-2011, 01:08 PM
True, even when blatant racism is staring people in the face it is ignored in the name of politics as usual.

Maybe if it weren't invoked so promiscuisly, like the proverbial boy who cried wolf, it might be taken more seriously and not as a scurriously utilized political ploy to smear rivals. As to the BC, until and unless someone proves it's fake/altered, it's the long form that people have been yelling for, so let's move on to other issues now.

Yeah, john boehner is so much better.

At least we know he's not crying crocodile tears. As corrupt as he is, I'd sooner have Charlie Rangel than that plastic fake pelosi in the LOS to be POTUS. John Boenher's virtue is that he's not pelosi. :D

mimartin
04-29-2011, 01:17 PM
Maybe if it weren't invoked so promiscuisly, like the proverbial boy who cried wolf, it might be taken more seriously and not as a scurriously utilized political ploy to smear rivals.
http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/obama_buck_liberal.jpg
You're right I don't know why anyone would cry about race in this day and age.

I could bring up others if you would like, but the others are way more offensive than this one.

As to the BC, until and unless someone proves it's fake/altered, it's the long form that people have been yelling for, so let's move on to other issues now.
Still want to give the idiots credibility I see.

Q
04-29-2011, 02:01 PM
http://laist.com/attachments/la_zach/obama_buck_liberal.jpg
I'm seeing more and more crap like this on the internet every day. I believe that this pic and many, many like it are part of a backlash generated by relentless overplaying of the race card.

No matter how serious it may be, it's becoming apparent that racism is now regarded as little more than a joke by a large percentage of the population.

mimartin
04-29-2011, 02:35 PM
I'm seeing more and more crap like this on the internet every day. I believe that this pic and many, many like it are part of a backlash generated by relentless overplaying of the race card. You do know where Obama Bucks came from right?

It is from a Republican women's group from 2008 who thought this was good clean political fun. No racism here, no, no, no...


ADDON: THIS picture is not directed at Q. It is direct at America being blind to racism in this day and age. I really hope Q or anyone else did not take that it was directed at Q.
I publically apologize to Q if he took this as any criticism of him or his ideas. I think he knows me well enough to know I don’t judge people based on their political ideas or opinions.



http://housebandwidth.org/bog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/head-in-the-sand.jpg

Liverandbacon
04-29-2011, 03:19 PM
Wow, this threads gotten... heated, in the time I've been gone. I'm exhausted right now from just getting back from a very long flight, so I won't weigh in on the whole argument about racism.

Personally, I don't care if any President is born in-country, as long as he's a US citizen, has clearly undivided loyalty to the US, and runs the government well, despite what the law says. Whether or not Obama fits that description (well, the last factor at least) is another debate entirely, so I won't talk about that here.

Of course, I might be biased in this regard, since I was born as a US citizen (and citizen of 3 other countries), but in the UK. While I have no interest in ever filling any political office, I find it absurd that I cannot be president, while someone who has done far less for this country can, just because they got expelled from the womb in a different geographical location.

Maybe people who have a problem with a leader should look for and point out real problems with how they run things. I've found doing that tends to convince other people to switch sides a whole lot better.

Tommycat
04-29-2011, 03:49 PM
You do know where Obama Bucks came from right?

It is from a Republican women's group from 2008 who thought this was good clean political fun. No racism here, no, no, no...



Yeah, because none of the Dems ever used racist comments. I mean nothing like calling Colin Powell a house n****r. Or calling Condoleeza Rice a Mammy.

mimartin
04-29-2011, 04:24 PM
Yeah, because none of the Dems ever used racist comments.
What is your point? Seriously do you have one or is your entire argument the equitant of I am rubber you are glue because I never wrote that racism had anything to do with party affiliation. I guess by your logic if someone does a morally reprehensible thing, it makes it fine for everyone to do that morally reprehensible thing. I assume I'm mistaken, but that is what your argument sounds like.


Since you did not bother to read it, I'll repeat myself again.
That is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is just a fact of racism in the country. I don’t really see how party affliction means someone is or is not a racist.

Tommycat
04-29-2011, 05:35 PM
But you're attributing racism to non-racial issues. I'm not pretending that there isn't racism. I'm saying that THIS instance is not so much about race as it is they don't like how the election went. Dems would likely have pushed for McCain to jump through the same hoops had he won the election. But he didn't, so the issue of his birth place went away as quickly as his campaign. If anything it's a fact about people not doing enough research or not bothering with boring things like facts. It's simply a vilification of the guy you didn't want to win. Race has nothing to do with the birther issue(or is so insignificant as to be a non-factor).

As a rule, I dislike racism altogether. The problem comes when people throw it out when it ISN'T racism. For example:
The Obama bucks: Racist.
The Obama whitehouse with the watermellon garden in front: Racist
Disliking Obama: Not racist.
Disliking Obama because he's black: racist.
Calling black Republicans "Uncle Toms": racist.

The issue started in the Democratic primaries. It started gaining momentum there. And like all good conspiracy theories, people who wanted to believe it, promoted it, even in the face of facts. Like those who believe that the WTC attacks were faked. Never mind that facts don't support your theory.

This was more political than racist. They didn't win. Both the people upset that Hillary didn't win and then the people upset that McCain didn't win. Simple. No need to pretend it's race. Maybe the reason I pointed to the racism in the Democrat party is that you somehow felt better thinking that 50% of the Republican party was racist than ill informed.

mimartin
04-29-2011, 05:54 PM
So none of the birthers belief that Obama was not born in the United States comes has anything to do with race?

You cannot be serious.

Tommycat
04-29-2011, 06:13 PM
So none of the birthers belief that Obama was not born in the United States comes has anything to do with race?

You cannot be serious.
Yes. I'm serious. The belief that he was not born in the US was politically motivated and supported. Now if you're asking if I believe that none of the birthers are racists, I'd say I'm sure there are racists. I don't like it but then I never thought too highly of the whole birther movement to begin with. I just don't believe that the whole motivation behind it was race.

mimartin
04-29-2011, 08:08 PM
That is funny, because I did not say race was the whole motivation behind birthers either. However, I do think it is part of it.

Tommycat
04-29-2011, 08:17 PM
I think I've said multiple times that I'm sure there are racists and that some are probably racist. I just feel that the whole thing has more to do with politics than race. You made it out like near 50% of the Republican party had to be racist to believe in that crap.

Lets see
you said:According to that poll the Birthers have gain ground because only 57% of American (at the time the poll was taken) believed the setting President of the United States was born in America. Yeah, rasism is dead and buried in the United States. That seemed to imply that in order to believe in the whole Birther thing you has to be racist.

then Tote said Given the way it got some traction/focus in the '08 primary, I guess that means that the dems/left have to root out their own racism before finding it in others, though.
Then you said
Please show me where almost 50% of Dems/Left ever disbelieved the birth certificate released during the 2008 election? (hint they didn’t or Obama would not have gotten the Democratic nomination.

You injected racism here when the issue was primarily, I don't like <candidate x> from that other party.

mimartin
04-29-2011, 08:22 PM
Sorry still don't see where I wrote race was the whole motivations, but please keep trying if you like I find the trolling very flattering.

I do like how you leave out most of the post and only use the snippet that supports you perceived premise. You do know that I wrote the post and know the rest of what I wrote too?

You injected racism here when the issue was primarily,

I did charge racism because I know there is racism involved in 43% of Americans thinking Obama was not American Citizen despite government, court review and a perfectly legal birth certificate anyone can see. I did not say, write or imply it was the sole reason for the 43%.

Totenkopf
04-29-2011, 09:36 PM
I could bring up others if you would like, but the others are way more offensive than this one.

Still want to give the idiots credibility I see.

How so? I didn't say they were right. I just stated that they weren't likely to completely disappear for the aformentioned reason. I further stated that people should move on from the issue now that a long form has been produced. So, should I be flattered and assume you're trolling me? Also, I've never said racism is never a factor, just that the dems/libs overuse it vs their opponents....specifically the reps. :rolleyes:

Tommycat
04-29-2011, 09:42 PM
Did I say you said it was the sole reason? I thought for sure I was saying that you were saying racism was the primary motivating factor. You did imply that it was racism that led to believing the birther thing. You also implied that the issue would have been DOA if the president had been white. Which is a huge presumption on your part. Unless you have some proof that another president had his origins in question at some point and it went away because he was white.

As I have said. Yes, there are racists who also believe it, but it is not the primary reason people believe it. The primary reason is they just don't like him.

mimartin
04-29-2011, 09:43 PM
@Tot - Sorry I was doing the same thing you and Tommycat have been doing to me and took acceptation to the use of “until.” It was just petty of me, never mind.

I was saying that you were saying racism was the primary motivating factor. I did not say that, I said it was a motivation.

Just because you don't like someone does not mean you can ignore facts when they are staring you in the face. (talking about the Birthers here)


Guess you missed this post too.
never wrote that race was the entire motivation. :rolleyes:

Jae Onasi
04-29-2011, 10:38 PM
Let's take the heat down a few notches, please, folks. We've got a little too much snarkiness going on here for the health of the topic and for pleasant discussion.

Re-read your posts and your responses to others' posts to make sure you haven't misunderstood and taken an argument in directions the person wasn't intending.

Joking about racism and making light of it is way too provocative here. I'm going to deem that off limits because it is creating too much negative emotion--I've been contacted about this particular issue already.

Thanks for working to keep it civil--I think it has merit as an interesting topic if we can keep the heat down.

Tommycat
04-29-2011, 11:14 PM
Just because you don't like someone does not mean you can ignore facts when they are staring you in the face. (talking about the Birthers here)
I think I've been pretty clear that I don't like the birther argument... Considering that I started this bloody topic with the title "Ugh! Birthers..." I agree wholeheartedly that facts should not be ignored just because you don't like someone.

Guess you missed this post too.
Speaking of facts being ignored....

Oh well since I'm just a troll according to you, I think I'll be the bigger man and quit feeding the other troll.

Q
05-01-2011, 06:20 AM
You do know where Obama Bucks came from right?
No, I don't, but, then again, I tend to give this kind of thing the attention that I think it deserves.
It is from a Republican women's group from 2008 who thought this was good clean political fun. No racism here, no, no, no...
Neanderthals will be neanderthals, and you can't force a neanderthal to think and act like a homo sapiens.

You can mercilessly ridicule a person who insists on being a neanderthal in a homo sapiens' world, however. That level of stupidity thoroughly deserves it, and, besides, it's fun. :devsmoke:
ADDON: THIS picture is not directed at Q. It is direct at America being blind to racism in this day and age. I really hope Q or anyone else did not take that it was directed at Q. I publically apologize to Q if he took this as any criticism of him or his ideas. I think he knows me well enough to know I donít judge people based on their political ideas or opinions.
There is absolutely no need to do this; at least where I'm concerned.

http://housebandwidth.org/bog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/head-in-the-sand.jpg

Yeah, that's right. I'm merely following the advice of a gentleman whose talent, intelligence and wisdom have earned my deepest respect over the past 25 years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2d2SzRZvsQ

Mandalorian Knight
05-02-2011, 12:39 PM
If anyone is interested in Obama's opinion of Trump pushing the issue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42848054#42848054

Personally, I feel like this is pretty much a non-issue at this point in time. I believe that Obama is a natural born American citizen and that a vocal minority has turned it into a media hoopla.

Liverandbacon
05-02-2011, 05:04 PM
If anyone is interested in Obama's opinion of Trump pushing the issue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42848054#42848054

Personally, I feel like this is pretty much a non-issue at this point in time. I believe that Obama is a natural born American citizen and that a vocal minority has turned it into a media hoopla.

That entire speech was hilarious, in a good way. Anyone here who hasn't seen it should, at least the intro, which has American flags, eagles, explosions, Optimus Prime, and a birth certificate, with a musical accompaniment of "I am a real American". It also has a live video of Obama's birth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E

Taak Farst
05-08-2011, 08:13 PM
Never been a fan of America as a country.

Hate their humour, also.

But even I lol'd when he showed his "birth video"

Donald got OWNED

Q
05-09-2011, 03:04 AM
Traditionally, British humor is superior. I'll give you that.