Dear Birthers: STFU, GBTW
A conspiracy theorist is never troubled by facts.
The vexatious Birther movement has been trying to crowd out rational commentary for some three years. And it should, in a sane world, have died Wednesday–not with a bang but with a whimper.
But a conspiracy theorist is never troubled by facts. Ace has done yeoman’s work explicating this phenomenon:
What makes a “conspiracy theory” different from an actual theory of a conspiracy isn’t the conspiracy part. It’s the inversion of the relationship between premise and conclusion.
When we say something is rational, we usually mean that there are one or more well-founded premises which, taken together, fairly imply a conclusion. That conclusion need not always be logically inevitable — outside of mathematics and computer programming, it rarely is inevitable, or definite. Usually it’s a fuzzier thing — the premises tend to support the conclusion. A probabilistic thing more than a mathematical, binary necessity. But the conclusion must at least be fairly derived from the premises. It must at least be likely or at least plausible.
We say conspiracy theories are irrational because they do not observe the rules of rational, reasonable, fair deduction and inference. In some cases, the premises are simply false and easily provable as such, and yet the conspiracy theorist insists on a different set of non-existent “facts” which, if true in the hypothetical, would support his conclusion. And/or: The conspiracy theorist makes unfounded, implausible leaps from premise to conclusion.
But both of these irrationalities are caused by the same irrationality: For the conspiracy theorist, premises to (sic) not lead to conclusions. Irrationally, conclusions now lead back to premises, invented on the fly or discovered by wishcasting….
In a conspiracy theory, with its irrational inversion of the relationship of premise and conclusion, premises do not grant evidentiary support to a conclusion; the conclusion, instead, grants evidentiary support to the conclusion. If the premise is consistent with the conclusion, it is asserted as true; if the premise is inconsistent with the conclusion, it is asserted that it must be false.
It must be. It must be. We know the conclusion is absolutely true, therefore any and all premises which tend to undermine it must either be false, faked, or forged.
It was not unreasonable, prior to this week, to wonder why President Obama didn’t simply put this nonsense to rest when Hillary’s supporters first bedunged the public discourse with it. One could speculate that, perhaps, there was some embarrassing detail included in it that Obama simply didn’t wish to make public. Or one could–indeed, still can–surmise that his handlers found Birther loonies politically useful and therefore saw no reason to stamp it out before now. Or one could simply conclude that he wanted to preserve his privacy and not kowtow to nutjobs (another premise that remains operative).
We now know that there’s nothing on his “Long Form Birth Certificate” he’d have ever had any reason to want to hide. And, of course, we now know that the document conclusively establishes what most of us never doubted in the first place: That the President was, in fact, born in the United States. Even if one was inclined to skepticism before, that’s over now.
Well, for those of us who are sane, anyway. But–pace tua, Ace–it was always inevitable that the dyed-in-the-wool Birthers would find some sort of handwavium that would enable them to hold onto their cherished delusion (just as JFK conspiracists, faked moon landing whack jobs, 9/11 Truthers, and Andrew Sullivan did before them). And, as surely as the Sun rose in the east Wednesday morning, they had done so before it set Wednesday night:
Naturally, it didn’t take long before this facile dodge had been debunked. National Review did so the same day. And now Fox News has taken the time to deflate it, as well.
I’ve mocked and derided Birthers since they first appeared on the scene. Almost two years ago I called for the Right to “expel them — noisily and unequivocally.” While they were, until The Donald came along, largely relegated to the fringes, the Right’s opinion leaders didn’t go anywhere near far enough to cast them out. Ann Coulter (also in July, 2009) tried. And Glenn Beck has been equally dismissive. National Review and a few other mainstream publications tried to quash “this red-herring discussion.” Charles Krauthammer was brutal on Trump’s descent into this morass. By contrast, Rush, to his eternal shame, fanned the flames.
Well, enough is enough. I don’t care how fervently one wants to believe that President Obama was born in Kenya. The much-demanded Long Form Birth Certificate is a matter of public record. Anyone persisting in pushing it is hereby declared persona non grata. Find another hobby.
—
I anticipate a slew of comments about how Birthers are, like, totally mainstream in the GOP. No need to waste your time if you’re inclined to submit one such. Lest there be any doubt, I mean for this post to be taken as unequivocally castigating the Right’s opinion leaders for their dereliction in not smothering the Birther movement in its crib when it crossed over from Hillary’s camp. But inaction doesn’t equate to assent to their lunacy, no matter how nutty you think Bachmann is. So any such pablum will be ignored.
He did, in 2008, when he posted the birth certificate. That was the document legally required and legally recognized in every state in the union, and he put this to rest for any sane person. That’s why no state challenged him on the ballot in 2008. He had put this to rest.
It’s been noise ever since.
A fair point. Obviously I agree that it’s all been noise. Progressively more irksome noise.
However, releasing the LFBC when the subject first came up 3 years ago rather than waiting until now would most likely have prevented the conspiracy theory from ever gaining any traction at all.
You’d like to think, but I have my doubts.
Indeed, the argument underlying your post would indicate that it would not have helped.
I concede the possibility that I am being overly confident in the rationality of my fellows. But I indeed do want to believe that it wouldn’t have caught on if it had been well and truly smashed before the die-hards got entrenched in their delusions.
Actually that goes against what you said in your main post – and I think you were correct in it. Releasing it right away would have been taken as proof that he was hiding something (not sure how they’d make that stretch, but they almost certainly would have).
I keep thinking of the scene in “Life of Brian” where Brian tries to deny being the messiah.
Dodd, I NEVER agree with you…. but this time I do.
But I have to disagree with you on this point: A lie by any other name is still a lie. In other words, allowing this stupidity to stand is only slightly less egregious than stating the lie oneself (as much as I hate to give Karl Rove kudos, he did not let the lie stand)
“I anticipate a slew of comments about how Birthers are, like, totally mainstream in the GOP. No need to waste your time if you’re inclined to submit one such.”
Well, almost 50% of Republicans think Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii according to one recent poll. Now I think some of those are people who just heard there’s controversy over the birth certificate, don’t know much about the issue, and would perhaps change their mind if they learned all the facts (as opposed to the hardcore birther), but still.
Not to mention Donald Trump is riding a wave of popularity from pushing the birther issue. The birther issue has frighteningly gained traction in among Republicans in a way the truthers never did among Democrats.
No, per my reply, I don’t think it contradicts the post.
If rationality was going to win the day the COLB released years ago would have been more than sufficient.
We fiction writing types would come at this from a less complicated direction: motivation. What is the character’s motivation for leaping to some unsupported conclusion?
When this whole thing started I said it was racism. Not all that many people agreed. Now most people do. But it was actually obvious.
If a person believes the sky is green despite reams of evidence to the contrary, and despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, then that person is either a) mentally ill or b) has chosen that belief for a particular reason. He has a motive for choosing an obvious falsehood. He has a need that is being met by that falsehood.
In the long history of this country no other president has faced this particular assault. So, why now? What has changed? The complexion of the president.
There was never any other plausible motivation. This wasn’t an attack on Obama’s politics, it was an attempt to identify him as “other,” as “not us,” as “not American.” Foreign. Alien. Outside the tribe. It was a visceral, emotional, irrational need to reject.
It was obvious the motivation was racism.
By the way, on the politics of this, what’s interesting is not that the Birthers are still the Birthers. That was inevitable.
Now, though, because Obama has taken away their one, tiny shred of false hope, they — and by extension the GOP and some of its most powerful spokesmen — are publicly stripped and revealed for what they are. Now even a lot of Republicans who deliberately averted their gaze from the obvious racism and the madness behind it are forced to confront the reality of who and what makes up close to half of their party.
Birther and Tea Party are not identical, but they overlap to a very great extent. So as we go into the election season, and the budget-cutting season, we see displayed for all the world the sickness at the heart of the GOP.
How will the GOP react? As Dodd points out, Rush and his ilk will double down. They have no choice. They’re riding the tiger.
Two guys come out looking smart: Obama, and Roger Ailes. Ailes saw this coming and fired Beck. He’s trying to walk back the crazy before the election season. But the crazies are hard to just stuff back in the closet once you don’t need them anymore.
Manifestly, unequivocally false.
Were, at least, correct about being a fiction writer.
That doesn’t leave your premise any better supported than the one you want it to explain. But not all conspiracy theories are so easily debunked as yours is.
Occam’s Razor says it’s more likely ideological than racist. But feel free to hold onto your delusions in the face of contrary facts, Mr. Reynolds. Just like a Birther would.
I don’t think “smothering it in its crib” by the GOP leadership was ever a viable option.
For one, there was a lot of leftist support fanning the flames on that one — see this report about how CNN and MSNBC gave a LOT more attention to the birthers than Fox.
For another, the right’s low-level membership has always been a lot harder to keep in line and on message than the left’s. The left has made that into a science — they practically invented astroturfing through the unions, the “community organizers,” the “civil rights” groups, and all their ilk. To them, collective action and collective thinking is second nature; to the right, it’s often anathema.
And as you noted, Obama could have taken much of the steam out of it a while ago, but he (or his advisors) caught on to its usefulness and kept it alive, occasionally throwing out a bone or two to keep it going.
I can’t say I blame them; when presented with an opportunity like that, it would almost be criminal negligence for the left not to exploit it.
But yeah, it’s frustrating to try to stomp it out…
J.
@Dodd,
I beg to differ. While, yes, Romney, McCain (and Goldwater) had such questions raised, the depth of the attack was quite different here.
There is a rather substantial difference between a sustained multi-year attack and having questions raised.
Further, Obama has had these questions persist while he was president and with 43% of the opposing party questioning his place of birth. That is unprecedented and not comparable to Romney, McCain or Goldwater.
Actually, Occam’s Razor very much suggests that it is race, especially when coupled with other attacks (such as on his academic record). Ideology plays a role as well, but Michael is right: the attacks on Obama have been very much about him being the “other” (e.g., born in Kenya, a secret Muslim, etc).
Actually, the reaction this week proves why. he CANNOT put this nonsense to rest because conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists do not work that way. The argument last week was “it’s pretty likely that he’s a NBC, but he’d put all arguments to rest if he’d just show his ‘long form'”.
So now that he has? Half the movement is looking for reasons why it’s fake, a quarter is saying that they never really needed to see it anyway (speaking of handwavium) and a quarter has decided that the next goal is some other random document that Dodd will no doubt declare a puzzling thing for Obama to hide.
And while we are so quick to castigate birthers on the one hand, let’s not forget that Rodney Dill, a birther, has posting rights here.
I’d also argue that the very nature of the document he just released would have only made the conspiracy much worse if it was released early on.
It’s an archival document with no legal standing which was buried in a binder somewhere and that had no provision in HI law for releasing a certified copy of it. The President’s lawyers worked out an ad hoc way of getting it but look what that produced: a photocopy of a page as it’s bent still within a three ring binder. After the Birthers found so many invented issues with the much more official looking COLB does anyone believe this much more slapdash looking reproduction wouldn’t have massively fueled the conspiracy?
IMO some of the more recent Trump-idiocy-triggered press coverage and press exasperation was actually a prerequisite for the release to be treated as a closing chapter and a final proof by the media.
Dodd:
Did I miss the part where McCain was elected president?
Jesus.
Dodd, you ignore the racial component to birther motivation, and its tea people overlap, at your electoral peril. It does not require your belief, or your permission, or any kind of razor. No conservative candidate on the horizon can win nationally due to a demographic wall my conservative friends have spent decades and millions of dollar demonizing, voters my conservative friends absolutely have to have.
Ryan’s Release The Hounds approach to senior care is not helping these matters.
I am unaware of any political cure for this that will act in the 17 months remaining until the 2012 elections. It’s generations-old ugly nasty stuff that is so obviously racist you’d need to be raised on the moon not to see it.
May my conservative friends see it, too, before it’s too late. Which, regrettably, it already is for 2012. And 2014. And 2016. And…
The idea that the attacks on Obama is not motivated by racism are immediately destroyed when one considers how often the wingnuts (including some of the commenters on this site) refer to our president with an emphasis on his muslim-sounding middle name.
I agree with earlier comments. He did and he can’t. But should he be expected to attempt to satisfy the nonsensical? If someone fans the flames about the authorship of “Dreams From My Father” Obama has to provide evidence to put that to rest too?
Yea, McCain’s birthplace was an issue for about 10 minutes in 2008. And Democrats yawned, said “bogus issue” and moved on. To call this a false equivalence is a raging understatement.
“Obama wasn’t born in America” isn’t even close to being the nuttiest belief held by Republicans.
I’d nominate “Cutting taxes increases government revenue” or “The poor can get adequate medical care at emergency rooms” for that honor.
Dodd:
They were not challenged in the way that Obama was. In none of those instances (except for Arthur) was there a claim that the person wasn’t born where they said they were born.
The Arthur instance is the only one that’s comparable, because that’s the only instance where that claim was made. And this is an important point. The birthers aren’t just saying that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen. They’re also saying he’s a liar (and that his mother was a liar). This is a much more extreme claim. The opponent is not arguing with you about how to interpret the law. Instead, he is accusing you of being an impostor who is intentionally deceiving the country by lying about your birthplace. When was this done before? Only with Arthur.
There’s another important distinction. With the possible exception of Arthur, in none of these instances was the person challenged after becoming president (and Michael made essentially the same point). I think Arthur was only challenged before he became president, not after, but I’m not sure. Except Arthur, none of those people became president. So this is another way in which the Obama situation is more extreme. Directing this kind of attack against a president is fundamentally different than directing it against a candidate.
I also think Arthur was challenged by just one nut, or a small group. It was not this kind of mass movement.
Also, none of those people ever presented a birth certificate. Not Arthur, not any of the others. No president ever has. Our first black president is also our first president who was made to show a birth certificate. What a disgrace.
On 11/5/08 a lot of people were proud that the US was ready for our first black president. But we’re finding out that maybe we’re not.
=================
James:
Indeed. I think the whole thing as properly viewed as the latest stage of the Civil War, which isn’t really over.
See here (click on “Voting shifts”):
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
You can see the exceptional areas where McCain/Palin did better than GWB. I find it pretty interesting. These are the places where Rs disliked Obama more than they disliked Kerry (because I think it’s hard to imagine that there were many Rs anywhere who liked McCain in 2008 more than they liked Bush in 2004).
Of course Rs will dislike both Obama and Kerry, but what kind of R especially dislikes the former? What would be the logic in that? This map lets you see where those people live.
I didn’t explain that very well. It probably makes more sense to look at it this way. Imagine a place where a lot of people who voted for Kerry in 2004 decided to vote for McCain in 2008. Obviously this is the reverse of what happened in most of the country. That’s what makes it interesting. In most of the country, pretty much every Kerry voter went to Obama, and a bunch of Bush voters also went to Obama.
So what kind of person would vote D in 2004 and then vote R in 2008? What kind of person would want to support Kerry but not be willing to support Obama? Doesn’t that seem unusual? What would be their motivation? Where do they live?
As my friends would be able to attest, I have spent many years attempting to distance the GOP and the conservative movement from charges that most of them are racists. No more. The birthers have taken the movement and the party so far beyond the pale that there is no return beyond absolute and comprehensive repudiation and exclusion of its membership, views, and pronouncements. This is not a free-speech issue–they have the right to spew any garbage they want, but conservatives have an obligation to say “liar, liar, pants on fire” or whatever equivalent you wish. Conservatives, YOUR reputation has been tarnished and YOU will have to live with the consequences of YOUR silence in much the same way that Christians have to live with the tarnished reputation THEY have collected by saying nothing about Terry Jones and that other “God hates gays” guy and his merry band of funeral protesters. But what I expect that you will do is tune into Rush and Sean and Laura on Monday to get the latest “ammunition” in your continuing attack. Prove me wrong!
Dodd:
You’re kidding yourself. What we’ve been getting from many GOP leaders is something worse than “inaction.” We’ve been getting implied “assent,” or worse. This was explained nicely in a nytimes editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/opinion/28thu1.html
That point is quite important and quite subtle: “a suggestion that the proof was insufficient.” Exactly. In other words, ‘I believe it’s true because I trust him, not because I am confident that the document is authentic.’
If you hand me a document and I say ‘I’ll take your word for it,’ that means I trust you, but I don’t trust the document (if I trust the document itself, I would never say those words). And I’m signalling to everyone watching that they shouldn’t trust the document, either. And if they also decide not to trust you? Well, I’ve cleverly distanced myself from that part of the problem.
It’s important to notice that Boehner is not alone. Various other GOP leaders have used that same vile, insidious formulation.
You need to face the fact that Palin, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and various others all “fanned the flames,” in their own way. And I expect them to keep doing it.
I think there is quite an opportunity here for a GOP candidate to condemn the birthers quite fiercely, directly and repeatedly. Just imagine how much press that would get. He would be like the anti-Trump. Imagine how much instant respect and attention he would get from independents and even Dems. Not to mention all sane Republicans, who are tired of being shamed by the birthers. But none of them have the guts to do it.
This moral cowardice and spinelessness on the part of GOP leadership is also explained nicely in these places:
http://www.slate.com/id/2285017/
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/83429/boehners-quasi-birtherism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/time-for-conservatives-and-republicans-to-call-for-an-end-to-birtherism/2011/03/03/AFqsHlyE_blog.html
The Slate piece points out the irony that Beck and O’Reilly have shown more courage than Boehner, Cantor and McConnell.
Never mind. The GOP is f88ked unti they show me something rational.
cracker:
Exactly. Think about the zillions of comments that have been posted everywhere that say something like this: ”moderate Muslims haven’t done enough to condemn Islamofascism; therefore they share responsibility and one way or another are going to pay a price for their silence.”
That’s the opposite of the attitude Dodd expressed: “inaction doesn’t equate to assent to their lunacy.”
As I explained, we’ve seen something worse than “inaction.” We’ve seen various forms of assent and support. But I think we’ve reached the point where even inaction itself is unacceptable.
==================
Janis:
I think a lot of people feel the way you do. That’s why I think there’s a golden opportunity for a GOP candidate to put Trump in his place.
Rand Paul is experimenting with that (“I want to see the original long-form certificate of Donald Trump’s Republican registration”), but it needs to be much more emphatic, and it needs to confront birtherism head-on. This would drive a wedge between the sane wing of the GOP, and the cancerously insane wing. And this is what’s needed to save the patient from the cancer.
I think this is a show the country would love to watch. All that’s needed is the right person to step on stage and get that glory. But I don’t see anyone ready to do that.
What I find puzzling is, why there is a new birther story on here everyday. Comrade Obama has released his long form and his short form. I know there are a few sour grape birthers out there, but it is the nonbirthers that are keeping the story alive.
Look at how many stories there are on here and how many comments there are for each story. Nonbirthers won, birthers lost. Move along folks nothing to see here,
Liberal Concern Trolls are Concerned.
If you wanna talk about delusional beliefs, they got far more serious fantasies they’re trying to implement:
* Energy prices will decrease if you refuse to allow energy companies to find new sources, attack them, and threaten them.
* Having the government take over health care will actually decrease costs and increase efficiency.
* Repeatedly bombing a sovereign nation after demanding its leader give up power is not an act of war.
* A federal debt that exceeds over 20% of the GDP is not only sustainable, but should be increased.
* A government that already consumes over 20% of GDP needs even more in taxes.
Those insane delusions are far, far more dangerous, short-term and long-term, than the whackjob birthers.
J.
Tell me about it, Southern. According to mantis, I’m some kind of “birther” myself, or an ally/supporter of theirs, but the only articles about them I’ve ever written have been trashing them. I ain’t the one keeping them going.
And in the media, Fox News has given only a tiny fraction of air time to the whole birther mess as CNN and especially MSNBC. And in blogs, it’s the leftists who devote far more attention to the issue than the righties.
Because it serves their purposes.
J.
Show me something rational.
@J I believe birther is Orwellian NewSpeak for racist. I learned long ago that if you question anything that Comrade Obama does, you get called a racist.
Question any of those delusional beliefs and you will end up being called a racist before the discussion is over.
@Dodd
“It was not unreasonable, prior to this week, to wonder why President Obama didn’t simply put this nonsense to rest …”
He did put it to rest publishing the COLB at the time, and it is therefore completely unreasonable to think that any action would end this nonsense.
The reaction to the release of the long form COLB actually suggests Obama should have stayed put and just laughed at these conspiracy theories.
Southern, I disagree. “Racist” is the code-word for “shut up, you’re not letting me win the argument!” Or, if you prefer, “a conservative who is arguing with a liberal… and has the effrontery to be winning.”
For decades, it worked, too. But now… it’s lost nearly all its power. I switch back and forth between ignoring it, mocking it, or claiming it as a trophy. It’s a mark of honor when a leftist calls you a ‘RAAAAACIST,” because it means you’ve forced them to exhaust all their other techniques.
Wear it with pride, Southern!
J.
“Having the government take over health care will actually decrease costs and increase efficiency.”
This is a fantasy? By Jay Tea’s standards the government controls health care in France and Germany, and by anybody’s standards the National Health Plan in the UK and our VA are examples of government controlled health care. France has a single payer system comparable to our Medicare. Germany’s system is the model for our Affordable Care Act, but with more heavily regulated insurance organizations. The UK’s National Health Plan and our VA are socialized systems. Is JT seriously arguing that these systems are less efficient than our present health care system? If he is, what criteria is he using?
How are we disagreeing? Being called a racist is not the same as being a racist.
Southern, lemme steal something from either Michelle Malkin or Robert Stacy McCain here: we both agree that when liberals yell “RAAAAACIST!” at us, they don’t mean “racist” as we mean it and what it historically means. Where we disagree is…
hmm… maybe we don’t. You’re saying that “birther” is a synonym for “RAAAAACIST!,” where I’m saying that “RAAAAACIST!” means something else. There isn’t necessarily a contradiction there.
Liberal language logic always leaves me a bit turned around. It’d be so much easier if they’d just dump the code words and the doublespeak and the constant redefinitions, and be honest for a change…
J.
Stan, the VA’s a special case — it’s payment for services rendered, a debt of honor. And it’s got its own quality and cost issues.
England’s about to enact huge cuts on their NHS, and has a history of horror stories.
Canada, too.
No one’s saying our system is perfect, and doesn’t need fixing. But ObamaCare is only making things far worse.
J.
Government run heath care 101. You want the same people that delvers our mail delivering our health care? You want people that spent $600,000 on this so-called art of a gurgling toad sculpture billing you for medical services?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401394.html
@J
Bingo!
I’m basing my view of medical economics on observations, not theology. To start with the government run systems, the VA is a well managed medical system that delivers good care comparatively inexpensively, as shown by research published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the RAND corporation. It’s not Walter Reed, so Southern Hoosier’s post is off topic. And I have no idea what Jay Tea is getting at with his comment about a debt of honor.
Regarding the National Health Plan in the UK, I’ve been reading bad stuff about it in the American press for the last sixty years. It’s always awful, it’s always going broke, the Brits hate it, yet, somehow, no British political party, even the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher, proposes scrapping it in favor an American style system. Yes, decisions on what treatments are covered are made centrally by panels of doctors. In the view of the radicals who now dominate the Republican party, this is awful. They prefer the kindly folks at Aetna and Wellpoint, who think of nothing but the well being of their customers.
Regarding the single payer systems in Canada and France and the German/Dutch/Swiss system on which the Affordable Care Act is modeled, I again note these systems insure ALL their citizens at a per capita cost HALF of ours, and they have better outcomes than we do. And no political figure in these countries, not even the highly conservative parties of Charles de Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, or Canada’s Steven Harper ever suggested going over to the American model.
I don’t know if this actually happened, but in my teen years I fantasized about Galileo rolling two balls of unequal weight down an inclined plane to show that they traveled at same rate while an agent of the Inquisition put his hands over his eyes while muttering heresy, heresy. We have the same kind of thinking going on now in our parody of a conservative party.
“For one, there was a lot of leftist support fanning the flames on that one — see this report about how CNN and MSNBC gave a LOT more attention to the birthers than Fox.”
Do you have any grasp at all of the meaning of the term “leftist”?
Well, Socrates, in this context, I was using it as shorthand for “liberal-leaning institutions,” and using it to describe CNN and MSNBC in contrast to Fox News. You feel the need to “correct” me?
J.
How are the birthers any different from the anti-vaccine people, the anti-nukes, the anti-electric fields, the anti-geneticlly modified food, the anti-irradiated food, the anti-cell phone people.
No matter how many studies are done, how many experts testify, how many reponse are made to the activist, it does not matter. How many of the anti-vaccine activist have backed down and admittd that they were wrong now that the initial study was shown to be a fraud and many studies since have how minimal harm?
“Yea, McCain’s birthplace was an issue for about 10 minutes in 2008.”
No, it started in 2008, with fairly reasonable legal questions covered in all the major papers and news channels. Beginning in early 2009, anti-McCain activists from the right began questioning the operative facts, such as whether the hospital he says he was born at existed and why he declined to release his birth certificate. McCain’s name wasn’t on the official birth registers. Supporters pointed to the news paper article announcing his birth.
The first birther lawsuit was filed in the Spring of 2009, containing a purported birth certificate showing he wasn’t born where he said he was born. Then the firestorm about whether the certificate was a forgery or not. A second lawsuit filed by an Alan Keys supporter was decided in the Fall before the first lawsuit was brought against Obama on the birther issue. And as Michael said, next McCain lost.
It was an issue from the beginning to the end of the McCain campaign, and to my eye developed the line of attack later used on Obama.
Jay, maybe you weren’t a full blown birther, but you did like to defend their flank. This included BS about needing the LFBS. You didn’t. the SFBS and newspaper announcements were enough.
It’s amusing to see you try to put more distance between yourself and them … while blaming the liberals for it all.
Actually, I don’t think there’s anything extreme about anyone claiming that any politician is a liar. Most people would say that claim is true for 99.999% of all politicians who’ve ever lived. In fact, I suspect most would say that ‘liar’ and ‘politician’ are synonyms.
On the other hand, I don’t think there’s ever been an attack based on birth with anything close to this intensity or duration, and its hard not to suspect that its based not only on the usual political partisanship (there certainly have been Presidents who’ve been as hated by the opposition as Obama is … most recently Bush Jr, Clinton, and Reagan fall into that category), but also racism just because what the focus of the attack has been on. If the attacks were based on his policies, then it would the usual partisan team sport in play. But attacking his birth place (especially given that it was proven from the start that he was born in Hawaii) has a definite feel of racism to it.
Ahhh, Republicans. Such obvious liars.
We have here the inevitable results of decisions made in the 60’s. When the Democrats under LBJ made the huge shift toward support of civil rights, the GOP might have joined them.
Instead the GOP under Nixon decided to embrace the racists.
The Dems who had been the chief defenders of Jim Crow switched sides from evil to good. The GOP chose the opposite path. The party of Lincoln became the party of race-baiting.
None of this is even controversial. This is settled history. The GOP wins national elections by carrying white southern votes.
But in order to hold any number of younger more diverse or more tolerant voters, Republicans have to play a game. They have to whisper n*gger, then act like they didn’t say it. Like little children who say a bad word in class and then tee hee! shrug and try to look innocent.
Birtherism is just the latest “n*gger!” from the Republicans.
The problem they have now is that as slow as many people are on the uptake, it has nevertheless become obvious — especially to younger, well-educated voters — that this is the GOP’s game. And as the GOP base becomes older, more rural and whiter, the subtlety is lost. The GOP base is no longer able to maintain deniability. Now they don’t whisper n*gger, they shout it.
So along come people like Dodd — from an older school, from the days when racism was sotto voce and tee hee, wink-wink! deniable. Now it begins to occur to people like Dodd that the game is up. No one is buying the act. So now, almost 3 years too late, now Dodd thinks everyone should STFU. Because now it penetrates his dim brain that his party stands nakedly revealed.
Way too late Dodd.
Liberals still insist on lumping everyone who questioned why Obama didn’t release his LFBC sooner into the same category as Orly Taitz.
Although people like Jay Tea and me always insisted that Obama was a citizen, plausible arguments were presented as to why the SFBC and the newspaper announcements could have been made for reasons other than an actual birth in Hawaii. Naturally, liberals fought furiously to decry these arguments as racist trying to prevent the release, most likely in fear of what might be found.
The majority of “birthers” felt Obama was hiding something. This feeling was rooted in the fact that Obama was hiding his LFBC, which is undeniable. If Obama hadn’t placed playing a political game above the growing divisiveness of the general public, he would have released the document at the moment it became an issue. The only counter arguments against releasing the LFBC (that there was no way for Obama to legally obtain it) were so ridiculous on their face that it was embarrassing to read them.
Now the issue is settled to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the public. The only hangers-on that can’t let it die are the Kenya conspiracy nuts, MSNBC, OTB and a few others. As it stands, the entire episode will go down in history as just one of many political miscalculations by a thin-skinned hapless president, thrown into the deep end of the pool long before learning to swim.
Jay, way to avoid the fact that the SFBC was right all along. As were the newspaper birth announcements.
You had to be *nuts* to want more.
Again, the only way demanding the LFBS could prove sane would be that it showed something different.
It didn’t, so it was a stupid and crazy demand all along.
John,
The better argument is that it only made sense to conceal the LFBC if it showed something different.
So it was stupid and crazy not to release it immediately.
In other words it’s the damn n*gger’s own fault racist morons attacked him.
You are a disgusting individual.
lolz jay, seriously. That is the “logic” that gets you labeled a birther!
See Dodd on conspiracy theories above.
It is actually more sane to say, from Obama’s perspective “they want a birth certificate? they HAVE a birth certificate!” Or from Obama’s perspective “like the long form is any different …”
“So it was stupid and crazy not to release it immediately.”
rotflmao
Michael,
Being a writer you operate in relative obscurity, so you can understand why I’m asking if you are able to interact with the general public without screaming “RACIST” at every third person you pass on the street.
If you don’t have a point or an argument to support your position, just sit back and read. The whole liberal meme of crying racism when what you really mean is that you can’t defend your position anymore is getting more than tiresome.
For those that insist that GOP inaction is tantamount to assent, I remind you that the Democratic leadership never did anything to stamp out Truthers, either. This despite the fact that it was just as, if not more, prevalent among their base: “More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.” We’re talking here about believing that Bush knowingly let an atrocity occur with the willing cooperation of hundreds of other people. Compared to that, Birthers, as ridiculous and stupid as they are, are pikers.
Do you even read the stuff you’re responding to or do you just have a hotkey to insert specious allegations of racism into every post? I ask because, as anyone who actually read the post can see, I said the same thing two years ago. I linked and quoted it — and then called out the GOP for not being active enough in following suit.
Or maybe you just never get tired of being wrong. Like ignoring the half a dozen white guys not named McCain who also had their citizenship questioned when they ran for President. But you’ve got your conclusion, and it simply must be true, so any fact that undermines it is obviously false. You’re no better than a Birther, and yet you have the audacity to insult my intelligence.
Jwest:
Actually I’m not relatively obscure. I break the NYT bestseller list from time to time and have sold 35 million books. But perhaps you didn’t mean obscurity but isolation.
I scream racist at racists. Like you.
You’ll note that I’ve never said anything of the sort about Mataconis with whom I disagree vehemently on many subjects. You know why? Because I don’t think he’s a racist. Same for Joyner. Same on other blogs for Rick Moran. Or in politics for McCain or Graham or Boehner. I disagree with all those people, and I don’t call them racists because I don’t think they are.
You are.
And I’ll keep telling the truth.
Except that I said “president” not “presidential candidate” which made your ludicrous victory dance even funnier.
Others have dealt with the speciousness of your claims even as relates to candidacies.
And I know “race card!” is supposed to be some kind of magic talisman for you, but it doesn’t work. As explained to jwest above, I don’t call everyone a racist. I call racists racists.
Dodd, I think the truthers were isolated by the nature of their obsession. They were off there with this thing they could never prove, but which had no real political impact either. It was a traditional government conspiracy.
They were more like UFO nuts, of the “UFO’s at Area 51” variety.
Goodwin’s law should include calling someone a racist.
Michael,
If you truly cared for your profession as a writer, you would have acknowledged and praised the accuracy, brevity and forcefulness of words I chose.
Instead of making a fruitless argument trying to deny that Obama was thin-skinned and hapless, both of which are undeniably true, you ran to the racist charge. Quite a sad commentary on your abilities.
The saddest thing is that you fail to understand that your liberal positions constitute the very heart of racism. If you had the capacity to look back at your life, the policies you supported and the people you helped put in office, and then saw the damage to African Americans that those decisions have done, I have no doubt that you would place yourself in a class along with the Grand Wizards of the Klan.
What you said was “In the long history of this country no other president has faced this particular assault.” And yet skepticism about President Chester A. Arthur’s eligibility persists into its third century….
Also, nice job completely ignoring that fact that I called out the GOP to quash the Birthers two years ago even after it was pointed out to you. I realize that it doesn’t fit into your absurd notion that I am only calling out the Birthers because they expose the racism I’d prefer was kept behind closed doors, and therefore must, must be elided over. But it’s right there in black-and-white. Like Obama’s birth certificate, it completely destroys your argument. And just like a Birther, you have to handwave it away to hold onto your precious delusion.
Sure. Except for the fact that a majority of Democrats agreed with them. Smith makes a good point that both phenomena are likely explained, at least in part, by the fairly typical trash-talking of partisans rather than genuine belief. But if the GOP was complicit in promoting Birtherism merely because they didn’t do what I said they should two years ago then, by that same logic, Reid, Pelosi, Dean, et al are just as liable for Trutherism. Hell, even Bachmann came out and said that Obama’s word was good enough for her. When did Harry Reid ever say anything to gainsay the majority of his base that thought Bush let 9/11 happen?
Dodd:
I don’t like you much, but you’re dead right as to your statements 2 years ago on birthers:
There was more, actually, and yes you were very clear. I apologize for lumping you in unfairly with those elements of your party that have pandered to the birthers and raised them from a manageable 28% at that time to roughly half today.
Mea culpa.
Apology accepted.
That’s not the way I (the independent still technically Republican) experienced it.
I saw the truthers as odd and disconnected from conventional politics.
Did they ever have any high-profile supporters?
personna:
No. There are a couple of minor examples (a vague statement by Dean, and a vague statement by Edwards), but it comes nowhere close to what we see in the GOP.
Dodd:
You are completely ignoring what I said here. And I think this particular point is quite important.
Let’s try this thought experiment. Imagine that it’s summer 2004, and Reporter X is interviewing Kerry. X asks this question: ‘some say that Bush blew up WTC. Did he?’ Now, consider these possible answers by Kerry:
A) He says he didn’t, and his word is good enough for me.
B) It’s an absurd question. The fact that you’re even asking the question indicates that you are either a nut, or you are pandering to nuts.
Do you really not understand the extreme difference between A and B? And let’s take a close look at A, because you’re completely missing a point that is quite subtle and quite important. Here’s what I’m really saying when I say “his word is good enough for me:” I’m saying that other than his word, we have no way to know what the truth is. So if you trust him, then you know he didn’t do it. But if you don’t trust him, then you have no reason to believe he didn’t do it.
Here’s another way to put it. You’re not sure the earth is round. So I present you with a stack of scientific reports that prove, in plain language, that the earth is round and how we know the earth is round. Imagine these two possible responses:
A) OK, I see now that you’re right, you have actually proven that the earth is round, and I accept this proof.
B) Your word is good enough for me.
Here’s the important thing to understand: no one would ever say B if they felt comfortable saying A. The only reason B is said is when the person is not willing to say A. When the person says B, that are signalling that they are not willing to say A.
This was pointed out in this nytimes editorial, which I have already cited:
That’s the key point you’re not getting: “a suggestion that the proof was insufficient.” Boehner, Bachmann et al are all winking at the birthers. I think you are in denial about this.
Stan, nice job.
Southern Hoosier:
Nonsense. Watch this. It’s a five-minute news report from East Texas. The message of the report is essentially this: the birther issue is still not “settled.”
Here’s another clue. Are you familiar with Corsi’s new book? It’s called “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” It’s due to be released 5/17. From the blurb:
The book is currently #45 at Amazon Books. Those ranks are updated very frequently. What are you telling us? That it’s “the nonbirthers” who are going to Amazon today and placing orders for that book?
I explained this to you, and you never answered the question I asked you (“If that observer asked you to explain why, how would you answer them?”).
But that’s OK, because your evasion itself is a kind of answer.
Jay Tea:
Proof of your birtherism is here.
George:
I agree. I should have expressed myself more clearly. I don’t mean to say that there’s something inherently extreme about accusing Obama of telling a lie. The problem is the nature of the lie. The subject matter is not, say, oral sex. When I accuse the president of telling this particular lie, I’m accusing him of being a foreigner, an alien, who is deliberately deceiving the citizens of the United States in order to become president in violation of the constitution.
Birtherism is about accusing the president of doing something tantamount to treason. It’s about our government being infitrated, at the highest level, by a foreigner, perhaps even an agent of a hostile force like Islamofascism. It’s about accusing the president of being the leader of a conspiracy to undermine our system of government. It’s about accusing the president of being an enemy of the United States, an enemy of the people.
If Obama was really doing what he has been accused of doing, that would be a very, very serious thing. So guess what: falsely making the accusation is also a very, very serious thing. It’s not just defamation. It’s a very serious kind of defamation. I don’t know if you’re familar with the term defamation per se.
Well said. That’s the key point. And despite claims by SH et al, the attacks are not stopping.
jwest:
I have always insisted that jwest does not rape nuns and torture kittens. On the other hand, plausible arguments have been presented that it’s possible that he does. So why doesn’t he prove otherwise?
See how this works?
Dodd:
The article you are citing has a number of problems. For example, it grossly mispresents the underlying survey. I explained that here.
I know that’s what you’re “talking here,” but that’s not a honest summary of what is reported by these polls. See here.
That’s a misrepresentation of what those polls actually say.
Good. I’m glad you did.
You are completely ignoring what I said here.
That might have something to do with the fact that he never, ever showed any birth records. And where is your evidence that there was any substantial opposition during his term? My understanding is that it was mostly a case of one nut who mostly shut up once the guy was elected.
The fact that you have to go back more than a hundred years to find even this poor comparison proves the rare nature of the current situation.
Jukeboxgrad,
The people who are in denial are the ones who defended the amateurish political theater of Obama withholding his LFBC.
Using your form of examples, how should a logical person respond to the following scenario?
I tell you the world is round and produce a document that seems official stating such. You examine the document and are prepared to accept it, however it becomes known to you that a more definitive document exists that I could give you as easily as signing my name. I refuse to take the few seconds to produce the second document.
In this instance, would you:
A. Totally accept the first document and my assurance that it is factual.
B. Conditionally accept the premise of the first document but remain skeptical because of my refusal to release the definitive document.
C. Totally reject my documents and insist the world is flat.
If you pick “A”, you are a fool.
If you pick “C” you are an idiot.
The only logical choice if “B”.
Amusing. I mean really funny.
The SFBS was enough. The newspaper birth announcements were enough.
But poor birthers feel played because they demanded a long-form in place of the short-form .. and when they get it, it says the same thing.
Geez, think it through. You were injured how? By not getting the same info you already had?
John,
Now that you know the ease with which Obama had the LFBC released, doesn’t it seem odd to you why he didn’t do it sooner?
Also, now that you know that the birther issue hurt Obama’s poll ratings (as evidenced by his releasing of the LFBC), which will impact his reelection chances and those who were relying on his coattails, don’t you believe he made a political miscalculation?
Wow
Now that you know the ease with which Obama had the LFBC released, doesn’t it seem odd to you why he didn’t do it sooner?
No, it’s a f*cking embarrassment to the nation, you twit. Ignoring it was the correct move, until Trump and his enablers decided to start the real carnival, bringing what until then had largely only thrived on the fringe to the mainstream. It was time to do something, lest your insanity be contagious.
According to mantis, I’m some kind of “birther” myself, or an ally/supporter of theirs, but the only articles about them I’ve ever written have been trashing them. I ain’t the one keeping them going.
I call you a birther to annoy you because you repeat their lies long after they’ve been shown as such. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…
jwest:
Once I show you proof that the world is round, or that 1+1=2, there’s a word that applies to you if you insist on seeing “a more definitive document.” This is the word: nut.
For all non-nuts, the COLB, especially after being authenticated by multiple R officials, was more than sufficient to prove what it needed to prove. That’s why WSJ said, long ago, that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”
Once that is known, only a nut demands “a more definitive document.”
Now that you know that birtherism is still alive and well (proof), even though “Obama had the LFBC released, doesn’t it seem odd to you” that he bothered to do it at all?
A key argument against doing it was that it would make little or no difference. We now know that this argument was correct.
Dodd:
Just a little more to underline the seriousness of the self-destructive mistake you’re making.
According to his son, William F. Buckley said this:
Buckley is dead, and he lost that battle. It’s clear now that birtherism is not a fringe phenomenon in the GOP. The GOP has been assimilated by the kooks, and it’s the GOP itself that is a fringe phenomenon.
There are a handful of sane conservatives who warned about this. Look what Henke and Ruffini said two years ago: “Henke has laid out the case for the Right more strongly disavowing outfits like WorldNetDaily that actively peddle Birther nonsense.”
And, to your great credit, you said the same thing: “it is incumbent upon us to expel them — noisily and unequivocally.”
Trouble is, that “strongly disavowing” never happened, and it’s still not happening. And it’s probably too late. As former Republican John Cole has pointed out, “the entire party has been taken over by crazy people,” and Henke/Ruffini are “Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gone.”
Richard Posner is someone else who was willing to describe the problem:
(link, link)
The rise of Palin proved that Buckley lost that battle (“I’ve spent my entire lifetime separating the Right from the kooks”). Now, the rise of Trump is making the message even clearer.
Palin demonstrated that the GOP has been taken over by ignorant, resentful rubes. Trump has demonstrated that the GOP has been taken over by ignorant, resentful, racist rubes.
These hateful nuts are like cement boots on the GOP’s feet. The GOP might still have a chance to decisively separate itself from those cement boots. Because if it doesn’t, it will continue to sink into a dark place, a place that will become its tomb.
Or the GOP may be sinking too fast, and it may already be too late.
Think this is hyperbole? Think again. The GOP is facing a demographic tidal wave. The white population is shrinking. The non-white population is booming. And it’s not just blacks who hate racists. Hispanics and Asians also hate racists. A major reason that Jews vote D is that they hate racists. And of course there are many, many sane, honorable Rs and white independents who hate racists. How will the GOP ever again win a national election once it has fully transformed itself into the party of the New Confederacy?
Now that you know that birtherism is still alive and well (proof), even though “Obama had the LFBC released, doesn’t it seem odd to you” that he bothered to do it at all?
Exactly. The important question is why did he have to do this at all. It certainly wasn’t to convince the birthers, who Dodd and Ace point out very well will never, ever be convinced by evidence.
The answer is he did it to shame the media and Republicans into ceasing their enabling of believers of crazy conspiracy theories largely motivated by racism. To shame the media and Republicans into basic decency. Anyone who seriously entertains doubts about President Obama’s birth from here on will no longer be cottoned to. It’s embarrassing that it had to even come to this.
I fear my terse edict to Michael that he reexamine his life has yielded the appropriate results.
Through an epiphany of introspection, Michael has finally realized the unspeakable evil he unwittingly wrought with his desire to help others. By taking the easy path of substituting intentions for the hard work of thinking through concepts to their logical and inevitable conclusion, Michael now bears the weighty chains of guilt by intellectual laziness.
Alone, naked, rocking back and forth in the fetal position in a dark corner, Michael sobs uncontrollably with each new remembrance of liberals he helped to elect and policies he argued for, never dreaming of the poverty, ignorance and misery each would cause.
“I am not a racist!” he cries to the empty room, not even believing it himself.
From the depths of what little soul remained, he finally admits to himself that the “help” he wanted to bestow on others was the product of an attitude that those who needed help were lesser beings.
Spent, rolling in vomit induced by the revelation that he was indeed a racist, Michael sought the only refuge he could imagine…
“That might have something to do with the fact that he never, ever showed any birth records.”
People didn’t have birth certificates until relatively recently. I would say 1900 it became common and probably not until Social Security was it universal. Eisenhower didn’t have a birth certificate; he had to get a delayed birth certificate issued before he ran for President.
I wouldn’t be shocked if McCain didn’t have a birth certificate, and the reason he showed one only to a reporter was that it too was a delayed birth certificate.
In any event, Occam’s razor says that the reason so few birth certificates were demanded of U.S. Presidents is that it’s only recently that they were assumed to exist. That until recently few Presidential candidates had such an exotic past as Obama (not including his races). And that other candidates were deterred from running given such an ambiguous law.
So what was that doc he released more recently then?
🙂
jukeboxgrad, lol, rule no.1 Don’t get high on your own supply.
Sigh….
I NEVER said Obama “had to” present the long form. I merely noted that the birthers were correct in saying he had not.
I have ALWAYS said that the birthers were nuts, that Obama was (and is) Constitutionally qualified to serve as president.
I’m trying to figure out why there’s a disagreement here.
I say the birthers are nuts. You say they’re nuts.
I say the birthers are wrong. You say they’re wrong.
I say Obama’s eligibility is beyond any reasonable doubt. You say Obama’s eligibility is beyond any reasonable doubt.
I want the birthers to shut up and go away. You want the birthers to shut up and go away.
Wait. No, you don’t.
You want the birthers to stay around so you have a convenient way to paint all of Obama’s critics as nutjobs and racists and racist nutjobs. You need them to keep up your rhetorical attacks.
You are just as nuts as the birthers. I agree with you, pretty much across the board, on this issue, but because I don’t parrot your specific magic phrases and embrace your entire supporting doctrine (which is based on “we think most conservatives are evil rotten racist sexist doo-doo heads”), I obviously belong in the “birther” camp.
To you on this issue (like so many, such as abortion and voter ID), you’re absolutists. It’s black and white, with no room in between. Everyone has to agree with you down to the very letter, and for the politically correct reasons, or they are the enemy and must be cast out.
Screw you, I”m not playing by your rules. I’ll keep largely ignoring the birthers, only bothering to kick them when I feel motivated to do so. They’re nuts.
But they got nothing on being crazy compared to you folks.
J.
Considering that this person is a Confederate apologist and actually used to comment at Stormfront, not to mention what he/she has written about “Comrade” Obama, it is little wonder that some might think that he/she is a racist…
Could you be a dear and provide some evidence to substantiate that claim…
And why wouldn’t they, especially when people who question this but also claim not to be like Orly Taitz write things like…
Come now, what could those “plausible arguments” possibly be…
Well, certainly if the hood fits…
I’ve asked this question elsewhere, but I’ll ask it here…if liberals are so racist, why does the majority of black people in this country overwhelmingly vote for them again, again, and again?
Interested Party,
“…if liberals are so racist, why does the majority of black people in this country overwhelmingly vote for them again, again, and again?”
Shhhh, you don’t want to ask that question too loudly. Black people are sleeping.
But one day, they will wake up, look around and wonder why only one in five of their children in the inner cities can read. They’ll look for the criminals who stole the hope for entire generations of blacks, the villains who chained them to lives of poverty and the racists who did all this because they needed the votes of the teachers union.
And then they will look at you.
Your buddy Jukeboxgrad is correct that a tidal wave is coming, but it’s a wave of black voters finally coming to the realization that liberals have done more damage to their race than the Klan ever did.
I’ve asked this question elsewhere, but I’ll ask it here…if liberals are so racist, why does the majority of black people in this country overwhelmingly vote for them again, again, and again?
I can think of several reasons, ones you’d never acknowledge.
Here’s one: blacks have seen how you liberals treat blacks who stray from the liberal plantation and express their conservatism. Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain, Michael Steele, Allen West, just to name a few. It doesn’t take the demonizing of enough “Uncle Toms” to get the message out.
Here’s another: Democrats keep telling blacks “you’re special, you deserve help, you deserve extra considerations and benefits,” and it’s real hard to say no to that kind of thing.
Carrot and stick, interested. Old as time, but it still works.
J.
Damn, jwest, you done took up that challenge and rammed it right down his throat. I’m embarrassed to even put my answer up next to yours.
J.
Jay Tea,
I honestly believe the Great Awakening is coming.
How liberals can look at themselves in the mirror is a source of constant amazement to me.
Related:
http://minx.cc/?post=315498
Is this a birther website? I don’t think so, but look at all the birther stories on here. And most of the posts are from non-birthers. As Comrade Obama said “We have more important things to talk about.” You need to listen to the words of your great leader.
Nonbirthers won, birthers lost. Move along folks nothing to see here,
Thanks, gentleman (a term I use extremely loosely) for answering that question…I’m sure most of those “sleeping” people would appreciate the candor and insight (again, extremely loose) you have displayed…
Oh, by the way, Jay, while jwest was supposedly ramming his answer down my throat *COUGH* I noticed that you failed to back up your claim that “ObamaCare is only making things far worse”…
Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly believes that one day she will be president…I’m sure everyone honestly believes something…
Michael Moynihan at Reason:
“Instead of wasting time on mindless conspiracies, let’s get back to having misinformed debates about issues that matter.”
Amen! Sister Janis and Brother Michael are preaching to the choir on this one.
It is hardly surprising that you would prefer misinformed debates…
Better misinformed debates than misinformed mindless conspiracies
Why on earth would they want to Dodd? Idiots such as yourself are solid gold to the DNC. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if this post itself wasn’t paid for by the DNC!
You obviously don’t realize it but idiots like you are actually catnip for the politicos out there on the left.
Sure, it pays a bit for James through pedophilia like advertisements of young girls wearing right wing logos on T shirts but seriously, what’s in it for you?
The answer to me is obvious but I’m curious. Is that what it comes down to for you?
”
As is how the sun keeps rising in the east. Your constant amazement is similar to how my 100 lb puppy gets distracted by something shiny in the yard when we are playing fetch.
In other words, you just aren’t that bright yet way less cute than my Lab puppy.
“Ah..yeah, all that stuff you said…and you’re not even cute as my dog….and you’re dumber too..”
Touché, fair liberal. You’ve bested me again.
Mantis, you are the liar, not Jay Tea. But then that was pointed out to you over and over again at Wizbang. I am amazed the number of people here who take the word of a proven liar at face value. Obama hides his past. His father was not an American citizen and his mother had not reached her majority when he was born. If you knew how easy it was to get a certification of live birth or rather cared it would be different. For those of you willing to accept this long form at face value. Ever hear of photoshop. I don’t care one way or another. He is still a bum President and will serve one failed term.
There are two issues 1) the numbers on his birth certificate are out of sequence. 2) his social security card.
Enough said about that, he is a bum president, but will probably be reelected, because the Republicans can’t get their act together.
This from the person who has had to change the aliases that he has used here…
Typical birther mealy-mouthed worminess…
@An Interested Party I am sure there is a reasonable explanation for 1) the numbers on his birth certificate being out of sequence. 2) his social security card. I’d just be curious to know it, not that it would make much difference to Comrade Obama being president.
You’ve got to love those ads. A bunch of girls who would never, ever so much as talk to your average wingnut 🙂
Either that or I spent the day at the LA Times Book Fest signing books, talking to fans, and hanging out with other writers.
Yep. One of those two.
PD Shaw:
This is what I said: “that might have something to do with the fact that he [Arthur] never, ever showed any birth records.”
There’s a reason why I said “birth records” and not “birth certificate.” Here’s the reason: because I know that “people didn’t have birth certificates until relatively recently.” But what you may not know is that while birth certificates are a relatively modern innovation, birth records are not. Take a look at this article about Arthur and you’ll see that birth records are discussed.
He could have made some attempt to find and show some. It’s important to know that he did not. As far as I know, he never tried. Maybe he did not want to dignify the attack by responding to it. There’s a strong argument that Obama dignified the attack by ever showing anything.
Wrong. He did not have “to get a delayed birth certificate issued before he ran for President,” although many birthers (and perhaps some non-birthers) think he did. This is a great example of how various chunks of birtherist fiction are spreading across the internet. Ike’s BC was obtained and released by a supporter. But this was not required (i.e., it was not something Ike “had to get”), and it was not done by Ike (link).
[comment split for technical reasons]
This too is wrong. The BC he showed to a reporter was not “delayed” (link).
This is baloney. Before there were birth certificates, there were birth records. Except regarding Arthur, they were never demanded. Why?
As you pointed out, it was possible to obtain a delayed certificate for Ike. He was born in 1890. Why would anyone born after him have trouble getting one?
Reagan’s birth certificate is on display in his library. He was born in 1911. An official certificate (delayed, obviously) was created in 1942. A certified copy of this was issued in 1991. Why was no copy ever released to the public until after he left office?
McCain was born in 1936. His birth certificate, created at birth, has never been released to the public. Why?
JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Ford were all born between 1908 and 1917. If a supporter of Ike, born in 1890, could obtain a “delayed” certificate for him, then this was also possible for JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Ford. Why was such a thing never demanded or seen? Likewise for Carter and Bush I, both born in 1924.
Clinton and GWB were both born in 1946. By this time, birth certificates were virtually universal in the US. Where are their birth certificates?
More baloney, which I addressed here. Obama’s mother never stepped foot outside the US until 1967, when he was six. Not even once. That’s “exotic?”
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Eric Florack:
The same information in a different form. Duh.
Are you familiar with the concept that the same information can be presented many different ways? I guess not.
===================
Jay Tea:
Proof of your birtherism is here.
===================
jwest:
I bet black people feel really, really respected by you when they hear this description of their current alleged state: “sleeping.”
Cite?
Maybe you could also find this statistic: how many of them regularly make bullshit claims that they can’t prove?
Keep hope alive. I’m sure you also think that any day now the WMD will be found.
====================
Southern Hoosier:
Your obtuseness is legendary. Please consider these two things:
A) A site posting material that promotes birtherism.
B) A site posting material that condemns birtherism.
Do you understand that A and B are not the same? Obviously not.
Birtherism is alive and well. I cited proof. Your reaction? “Move along folks nothing to see here.” In other words, you have decided to assume this position. And you are hoping everyone else will do the same thing. Like I said, keep hope alive.
====================
Wiley Stoner:
Wrong. She was born on 11/29/42. He was born on 8/4/61. That means this was her age: 18 years, 8 months, 7 days. In the US, age of majority is 18.
You’re an ignoramus.
By the way, why would it matter?
Didn’t you get the memo? Birtherism is dead. How do I know? Southern Hoosier et al said so. You were obviously sent here by George Soros to make SH and the other wingnuts look like idiots.
Keep up the good work. And if you bump into George, tell him I could use a raise.
The pictures of you at that event are Photoshop fakes…
juke, you consider that “proof” of anything? That I said I’ve heard Obama’s spent money keeping his birth certificate out of the public eye, and that it’s helped him politically by helping to keep the birther movement going? And I think that — until recently — it was “money well spent” because it did help him politically?
Weak tea, chump. Very weak tea.
And utterly consistent with my countlessly-repeated statement that I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and is fully qualified Constitutionally (but not in any other way) to be president.
And also consistent with my assertion that you, mantis, and the like are as cultish in your devotion to the issue as the birthers. I departed from your gospels on the matter and said something you didn’t like, even though I am 100% in agreement with your core precept, and therefore am a dangerous heretic who must be exposed and cast out.
With michael, the motivation is clear. He wears it on his sleeve. He’s so consumed with his white guilt, and he sees being rabidly anti-birther as a way of assuaging it. It’s almost sympathetic.
But you and mantis… to you, it’s a holy crusade where you can use this to destroy the heathens and the apostates and heretics. All who do not follow your doctrine to the letter must be exposed and cast out to the eternal flames of perdition.
It’s very understandable. It’s very human. It’s what fuels the internecine warfare among Islam, it’s what led to the Salem witch trials, it’s what led to the Spanish Inquisition.
It’s also very ugly, and one of the things we should try to overcome.
But feel free to wallow in your hate and intolerance and self-righteousness. It’s your right, after all.
Just stop demanding that others play your reindeer games. You can make up your own definitions of “birther” and “racist” and “bigot,” but you don’t have the right to demand we actually recognize and accept your little fantasies.
J.
Doesn’t matter.
All these stories and all these comments have people talking and keep the birth certificate story on the front burner. Are there truthers still out there? Yes. Do they keep coming up with new conspiracy theories? Yes. Are people talking about them? No. Nobody cares what the truthers have to say. It should be the same way with the birthers. Ten years from now, there will be birthers out there. Ten year from now they will be coming up with new theories and new facts. Ten years from now, will anybody care? Hopefully not.
Isn’t that what Comrade Obama has been saying for the last two years. “Move along folks nothing to see here.”
Southern, as one “birther” to another, I gotta tell you: you really suck at it. Pretty much everything you say on the matter is running it down and trying to keep people from talking about it. Keep it up, and I’ll have to take away your Genuine Notarized Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate (TM).
J.
@J Think of this way, everything I say seems to have the opposite affect. If I point out the stupidity of all these attacks on birthers, it only encourages them even more.
@J If it wasn’t for us and a few others, what would these people on here have to talk about? Who would they have to beat up on and call names?
Rest assured, Southern, they’d find something to entertain themselves…
The phrase “circle-jerk” comes to mind.
J.
I think Jay, Hoosier, Eric and jwest are getting along so well they should form their own klavern.
Anjin:
I went back and looked at the video I uploaded to Facebook and even I wasn’t sure it wasn’t a fake. That woman I claim to be my wife isn’t even looking at me, the teenager playing the part of my son is wearing a Portal 2 t-shirt — very unlikely given that Portal 2 just came out — and anyone can see that my supposed “daughter” is Asian. That and the improbable size of my head. . . I’m with you: I think I faked it.
The truth is: I was in Kenya.
I think Jay, Hoosier, Eric and jwest are getting along so well they should form their own klavern.
GFY, asswipe. Go project your own white guilt on someone else. I’ve gone face-to-face with white supremacists and stood my ground. I was “offered” to be tossed through a plate glass window for insulting and mocking them.
I’m walking PROOF that there’s nothing genetically superior about being white — I’m stuck with several genetic ailments that will eventually kill me, but I can claim to be nearly 100% Nordic Caucasian. I ENVY Obama’s genetic muttery — he’s a hell of a lot healthier than I am, as most half-breeds and hybrids often are superior to the purebreds.
You claim to be a writer, and (laughably) a good one. Come out and say it — say that the three of us all share identical views with the Ku Klux Klan. Don’t chickenshit around.
Whoops, I forgot. That’s what you do. That’s your defining characteristic — cowardice. Too afraid to admit your own prejudices, too afraid to admit your own white guilt, too afraid to actually say what you mean.
J.
Jay:
Normally I ignore you. But this was too much:
I have never claimed to be a good writer. Just a successful one.
How about we call it the Robert Byrd Memorial Klavern?
SH:
If you want to name it after a person who admitted to a lifelong regret for having believed the kinds of hateful things you still cling to, go ahead.
That part is true, and has been true for every President in my lifetime – and from what I’ve read, for over a century.
The party system almost ensures that anyone really qualified to be President will not get their party’s nomination. Its always a question of the best of a very bad lot.
I stand corrected, he was very apologetic, for the Klan. Nice to know there were no racist rednecks in the Klan. Sounds like you would fit in better than me.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/30/110806.shtml
Let’s measure this thing, for just a moment. Replace the name Obama, with the name “Bush”. does anyone think the left wouldn’t have been all over it like a wet tee shirt in that scenario?
All over a million in legal fees, to that end, truth to tell. And again , I asked that that be measured in this scenario I’ve drawn here. Does anyone think that the leftists in here wouldn’t be on the head into the Lynch mob?
Sorta like carrying a handwritten copy of your driver’s license information. Gee, that’s useful for legal purposes, isn’t it?
And Reynolds, you may be a successful writer, but your sense of logic seems lacking. I raise questions about Obama, and you immediately lead to the conclusion that the only reason that I could possibly do that is because I’m a racist? you’ll forgive me if I’m less than impressed.
Jay Tea:
I’ve heard that Jay Tea rapes nuns and tortures kittens.
You also said this:
This claim you promoted (“Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up”) is this: 100% pure unadulterated birtherist bullshit (see details here). Defamatory bullshit. There is this much evidence that Obama has ever spent a cent “to keep his birth records locked up:” none. (The politifact article mentions one letter written by an Obama lawyer regarding a birther lawsuit, but that lawsuit was not asking the court to compel release of “birth records.” It was asking the court to declare that Obama was “constitutionally ineligible.”)
If I happen to have “heard” or “seen” defamatory information, and I choose to relay that defamatory information to others, here’s the proper name for what I’m doing: defamation. Especially when I treat the defamatory claim as if it’s a known, proven fact (“that has certainly been money very well spent”).
You don’t actually know that any actual money was ever actually “spent.” But this didn’t stop you from describing it as “money very well spent.” And you’re still describing it that way in this thread. Which means that you are presenting your claim (“Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up”) as if it’s a proven fact, or that you believe it’s a proven fact. You didn’t even bother to include some kind of qualifier, like this: ‘if what I’ve heard it true, then it’s money well spent.’
When you relay a defamatory claim, especially in a way that suggests you are sure the claim is true, you are guilty of defamation. Trying to avoid responsibility by saying it’s something you’ve “seen”or “heard” somewhere else is not a defense. Not at all.
This is a key concept in the law of defamation. It’s also something most people learn in kindergarten. Thanks for making it so obvious that you never got that far.
Your record of promoting birtherism is clear. So are your cowardly attempts to run away from that record.
The problem is not that you “said something [I] didn’t like.” The problem is that you said something that is 100% pure unadulterated birtherist bullshit.
It’s not that you’re “a dangerous heretic.” It’s that you’re a cowardly birtherist bullshitter. If you were something other than cowardly you would admit that your claim (“Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up”) is backed by exactly as much evidence as this claim: Jay Tea rapes nuns and tortures kittens.
Here’s my “doctrine:” it’s a good idea to not make shit up. So when you do, I’m going to point that out.
================
Eric Florack:
Oh good, another birtherist bullshitter. Do you have a citation for that claim? Maybe your source is Jay Tea? Trump? Palin?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Try to say something that isn’t utterly incoherent. The COLB he released in 2008 is a legal birth certificate.
When you “raise questions about Obama” that you never raised about any other president, the burden is on you to explain why.
================
Southern Hoosier:
I can’t find the part of your comment where you explain why Corsi’s new book (“Where’s the Birth Certificate?”) is currently #47 at Amazon Books.
Wait, I think I know why. Soros must be placing lots of orders, just to make you look wrong.
When your best proof of D racism is what one dead Democrat did seventy years ago, that’s pretty good proof that you don’t have much to work with.
Juke, you really need to take Basic Reading 101 all over again. Even though they are, no one was talking about Democrats being racist. I was talking about an unrepentant Sen Byrd and his fondness for the Klan up until the end of his life.
He was first mentioned by you. You said this:
What was your point?
Well, there have been approximately 80 eligibility cases since the campaign started, 45 appeals, and 15 Supreme Court petitions. Only 3 cases involved President Obama’s personal attorneys. (Cases since the election have been defended by Department of Justice attorneys, many of the other cases didn’t name Obama but were against State elections departments or Bush Administration officials.) which of course means, that we aren’t including what the government had to spend to defend Obama.
That said, have a look at the amounbt of money “Obama for America” paid to Perkins-Cole.
Oh, and maybe this will help, also.
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2009/jul/21/who-really-barack-obama/
Heh. Clearly.
No, it isn’t. Else, why release the actual cert under greater pressure?
That’s because the rest of them were natural born citizens, and proved it.
Then I wonder why you said this:
Are you saying those 3 cases cost Obama “millions of dollars in legal fees?” Where is your evidence to support that claim?
I did. That’s explained here. Where is your evidence that this money has anything to do with birth-certificate cases?
Wow, I love how this works. Challenge a birtherist bullshitter to show evidence supporting their birtherist bullshit and they cite another birtherist bullshitter who cites another birtherist bullshitter who has no evidence. The article you’re citing says this:
Where can this “study” be found? I’ve looked for it, and I can’t find it. Do you know where it is?
You’re claiming that the 2008 COLB is not a legal birth certificate. Then please explain why WSJ said, long ago, that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”
Are they part of the Marxist conspiracy?
In order to be able to make a fool out of Trump last night (link).
When and how did any other president ever show proof that they were natural born citizens?
You’re claiming that the 2008 COLB is not a legal birth certificate. Then please explain why WSJ said, long ago, that “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii.”
Are they part of the Marxist conspiracy?
In order to be able to make a fool out of Trump last night (link).
When and how did any other president ever show proof that they were natural born citizens?
Can’t you f#####ing read????? no one was talking about Democrats being racist
Do you know what a klavern is? I suggested that we name it the Robert Byrd Memorial Klavern. michael gave me his reasons why he thought the name was inappropriate. I gave him my reasons why I thought it was. Do I need to repost all 140 sum post for you?
Juke, I’ll bet your the type of persons that walks into a crowded room and just starts talking without a clue to what the conversations are about.
OK folks new birther/nonbirther story, time to move on.
Southern, If it’s time to move on why did you write this earlier?
SH,
“no one was talking about Democrats being racist”
I was saying that earlier in the thread, at least I was saying liberals are racists. That’s probably why they disgust me so much.
Just to put it in the Klan perspective, I believe liberals have done far greater harm to far more African Americans than the totality of plantation owners and Klan combined.
I agree. The Black family survived slavery, but not the Great Society and the War on Poverty.
And who is it that opposes tax credits to get Black kids out of failing schools? Democrats.
I’ve heard that Jay Tea rapes nuns and tortures kittens.
I told you, those nuns and kittens had it coming.
Now that I’ve had a little time to think it out, what’s really fundamentally stupid is that the “racism” is based on ONE aspect of ONE person. Talk about extrapolating from minimal data.
And even better, only on HALF that person’s racial identity.
Based on that kind of evidence, it’s infinitely more logical to state that I’m anti-Irish, because I’ve said far more and far worse things about Ted Kennedy.
So, Michael, you’re successful? Obviously your field of expertise is nothing related to these discussions, or “how to win friends and influence people.”
J.
I meant to the next birther/nonbirther story. So many on here, its hard to keep up with them all.
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama-zings-trump-birthers-at-correspondents-dinner/
@J What I find fascinating is, if you go to a racist webpage and read something and you think to yourself, “What a crock.” Then you go online expecting to come back and slam them only to find out they were right.
You lost me on that last one, Southern…
J.
@J Like the Rosa Parks myth. Had to find out the truth on a “racist” website The bus boycott was carefully planned. Rosa was Communist trained. And the boycott did not interrogate the bus system.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/05/a_curious_madne.php
I fact checked it on the web and the Rosa Parks story is largely a myth,
OK, Southern, first I said “you lost me” when I wasn’t understanding you. Now, I mean it in the context of “I’m stepping off here.”
I don’t give a rat’s ass if Parks’ protest was staged or spontaneous. I don’t care who might have been involved in helping her plan it and carry it out. It was still an act of great courage, an act that needed to be done, and an act that helped bring about long-overdue changes for the better. I don’t particularly care to hear about the details behind it, much like I don’t care about the details involved in the whole “birther” argument or the details behind how 9/11 was a government conspiracy or the details about who really killed JFK.
Like the preacher in “Blazing Saddles” said to Black Bart, “Son, you’re on your own.”
J.
@J NP, I understand how you feel, I use to feel the same way, till I tried to disprove what I thought was a ” Real crock.” The truth can be ugly, but never racist. Unlike the birthers, the truthers and JFK the Rosa Park myth is simple, straight forward and easy to check.
The real heroines were Aurelia S. Browder, Susie McDonald, Claudette Colvin, and Mary Louise Smith, not Rosa Parks. Browder v. Gayle
Indeed, especially in the earlier back and forth between you and Southern Hoosier…
Southern Hoosier, if you want to go around calling Robert Byrd an “unrepentant” racist up until the end of his life, we can apply that same logic to you, considering you’re a Confederate apoloigist, you used to post comments at Stormfront, and you are now trying to smear Rosa Parks…maybe you could find the hood that Byrd may have once worn and put it on your own head…
Don’t take my word for it. Read “Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields” and see how he really felt about the Klan toward the end of his life. Here are some quotes from his book.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/30/110806.shtml
And you are smearing the real heroines Aurelia S. Browder, Susie McDonald, Claudette Colvin, and Mary Louise Smith, by not acknowledging their acts of courage and giving credit to someone else. Browder v. Gayle
Southern Hoosier:
Yes, and you did that to suggest that Ds are racists, and no, you never gave any reason that denies this obvious reason.
That article you keep citing does not present “some quotes from his book.” What the article treats as a quote from the book is actually a quote from this book review. It contains zero actual quotes from the book.
Jay Tea:
I guess the crayons I used weren’t thick enough.
Criticism of Ted Kennedy is not automatically anti-Irish, and criticism of Obama is not automatically racist. The problem is not that you’ve criticized Obama. The problem is that you are a promoter of birtherist bullshit (“Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up”). You haven’t just done it in the past. You’re still doing it, even in this thread.
Birtherism is racism, for reasons that have already been explained. Therefore, promoters of birtherist bullshit are racists.
And you’re not just a racist promoter of birtherist bullshit. You’re also a cowardly, racist promoter of birtherist bullshit. You’re still too cowardly to admit that the claim you made (“Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up”) is supported by no evidence whatsoever.
Florack, another racist promoter of birtherist bullshit, at least made a feeble attempt at posting some phony evidence. It’s important to notice that you can’t manage to do even that much.
@jukeboxgrad
Birther, Orwellian NewSpeak for racist.
Oh, my god. I suggested a black man hired a lawyer and paid him. No, that’s right, I just said I had “heard” it, when I actually meant I had “read” it. I didn’t assert it as fact, just as a comment on it — if true — that it was a good political tactic and had reaped benefits far in excess of whatever he paid.
As I’ve said numerous times, I think the whole story is bullshit. That means I don’t care about which of the supporting arguments are accurate or not; the end product is still BS. And ALL the people who obsess over those minutiae are nuts pursuing BS agendas.
Thanks for volunteering that you’re one of those nuts, juke. Although just knowing you’re a leftist hack was sufficient, adding in this particular strain of asshole helps flesh out the picture.
J.
Oh, cut poor Jay a break…maybe his envy of the gentic mutt blinded him from being able to even do that much…
Florack, another racist promoter of birtherist bullshit, at least made a feeble attempt at posting some phony evidence. It’s important to notice that you can’t manage to do even that much.
juke, even if I cared enough about the issue to gin up some fake stuff, I wouldn’t bother. That always blows up in your face. But please, get back to your circle jerk and see who can throw around the most white hoods. It speaks VOLUMES about how the leftists here are the ones most schooled and knowledgeable in the finest details of the issue, and the conservatives find the whole thing — and those arguing it — exceptionally stupid.
J.
Wow what a stretch. I name one unrepentant Klansman and you paint the whole Democratic Party with a broad brush.
Nice to know there were no racist rednecks in the Klan, just upright moral citizens,
I guess Southern Hoosier isn’t a conservative…or perhaps he’s exceptionally stupid…
Boy, ever since Jay Tea, Southern Hoosier, Wiley Stoner, jwest et al started commenting here at OTB, the quality of discussion has dropped considerably. Those four alone post so furiously with their brand of Krazy that it totally steers discussion off course and wears down rational commenters to the point that they don’t even want to engage anymore. Krazy has a mania that sane people can’t keep up with.
I’m almost wistful for the days of the Eric Florak, G.W., and Zelsy kind of krazy.
OK, you want a reasonable explanation for the numbers being out of sequence? I got a couple, all plausible.
1) The bureaucrat who was assigning them got them shuffled.
2) The bureaucrat at the hospital processing them got them shuffled.
3) They arrived at the government office separately.
We’re dealing with very low-level paper-pushers from over 50 years ago, on a matter that really doesn’t mean a damned thing in 99.9999% of the cases. A certain amount of carelessness and margin of error and sloppiness should be assumed, especially when it comes to government-employed low-level paper pushers.
As far as the SS#… dunno, don’t care. Is there a process for reassigning one? Maybe he lost it or had it stolen, and got a new one? Possibly during one of his extended stays abroad?
Don’t know, don’t care. I’d say let it drop, but the left is far, far too invested in keeping it alive to even hope for that to happen.
J.
Read more: What is it about twin girls born day after Obama? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292457#ixzz1L9JhSY77
Jay-Tea,
No offense but
You do get the irony that Southern Hoosier in the following post then brought up “World Net Daily” — which has been selling subscriptions on birtherism for quite a while and many Right Talkers and commenter list as reputable source.
Likewise recent editorials in the Washington Times (Conservative) and on a number of conservative talk radio programs.
The birther movement has been rather good for the more extreme conservative press too.
Southern Hoosier, did you know that you are part of the left…
Of course, I post on NPR all the time with the rest of the lefties.
mattb, no offense, but did you pick up on the little fact that Southern and I are different people? Or that I chose to distance myself from a few of his points earlier?
I don’t expect him to answer for me, and I won’t answer for him.
MSNBC and CNN have given far more air time to the birther BS than Fox has — even counting Fox’s recent thorough smackdown of the whole stupid mess.
But I just know we can count on Doug to keep us posted on the latest developments, and the usual gang of clowns here to cheer him on…
J.
Right, like Rosa Parks
Southern Hoosier:
Are you familiar with the term ipse dixit? It’s what you do routinely, and it’s what you’re doing now.
If you’re in a position to explain why birtherism should be seen as something other than racism, then what are you waiting for? Instead of offering any such explanation, you’ve responded to all these questions with cowardly evasions. Why was no other president required to show his birth records?
“Paint the whole Democratic Party with a broad brush” is what you tried to do. You still haven’t bothered trying to explain what purpose you had in mentioning Byrd, other than to “paint the whole Democratic Party with a broad brush.”
Even though I have pointed out the dishonesty, you are still pretending that this is a quote from Byrd. It’s not. It’s a quote from this book review.
More egregious dishonesty. Byrd didn’t say “there were no racist rednecks in the Klan.” He made a different statement, and it was about only his own chapter, not the entire Klan. This is explained in the review I cited (although it’s important to read the whole thing, because there is some sloppy writing in the first part.)
Shorter Southern Hoosier: ‘Birtherism is dead. Only leftists want to keep birtherism alive. By the way, did you read the latest birther story that WND just posted?’
Jay Tea:
You said something far more specific. You said this:
That’s not just “a black man hired a lawyer and paid him.”
That makes no difference. Nice job trying to focus on anything except the parts that matter.
Funny how you are suddenly tossing in that qualifier (“if true”), as if that’s what you actually said. Trouble is, it’s not. Consider these two statements:
A) I’ve seen estimates that Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up. That has certainly been money very well spent.
B) I’ve seen estimates that Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up. If true, that has certainly been money very well spent.
Do you really not understand that there is a material difference between A and B? I guess not. By omitting any such qualifier, and flatly saying “that has certainly been money very well spent,” you did indeed “assert it as fact.”
Of course it’s no surprise that you are a coward who is running away from your own words, and that you are dishonestly pretending that what you said is something other than what you actually said.
By the way, even if you had included the qualifier, that would still be defamation. Imagine that I paint some big signs that say this: ‘I heard Jay Tea is a pedophile. If true, that’s pretty bad.’ I then hire a bunch of people to carry those signs around where you live and where you work.
According to the law of defamation (and also according to common sense), those extra words (‘I heard’ and ‘if true’) don’t inoculate you against liability for defamation. You are only inoculated if the claim is true. So when are you going to prove that the claim is true?
Are you saying that the claim you made (“Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up”) is bullshit?
Thanks for explicitly admitting what we all already know: that you “don’t care” if the claims you promote “are accurate or not.” The problem here is that you promoted that claim (“Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up”), and asserted it as fact, even though you had no idea if it was accurate or not.
Are you saying that the claim you promoted (“Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up”) is “minutiae?” If so, then why did you bother promoting it?
And the real issue is not that particular claim. The real issue is your cowardliness and dishonesty.
I guess you must mean that Southern Hoosier is part of “the left,” since he’s the one that brought up the ‘problem’ with the numbers being out of sequence. I see that Interested Party has made the same point.
@ Juke
Your really serous aren’t you? There was at least on racist in Byrd’s klavern, Byrd.
http://rightwingnews.com/quotes/leftwingracists.php
This was written after he quit the Klan, so he only became racist from the time he quit the Klan until sometime after he filibustered Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wow, you’ll bend over backwards to swallow anything. Go ahead and believe whatever you want.
Good lord. juke is such an obsessive o this matter, he MUST be a lawyer.
To most people, the “I’ve seen estimates” is in no way a definitive statement of belief, and the “if true” is assumed to follow.
And the more you rant on that single sentence of mine, the more you prove my point: you’re completely consumed with the issue, because it lets you put on your ‘good guy” cape and pretend you’re waging war against the forces of Evil and Racism (but I repeat myself).
And what’s a good guy, without Villains to face? So you gotta find someone, even if you have to stuff the black hats on their heads yourself.
I think I grew tired of playing along with your little games a long, long time ago. Go find some of your fellow True Believers — apparently, WND is infested with them; I try to pretend they don’t exist — and play Heroes and… well, Villains Who Think They’re Heroes and duke it out with them.
According to you folks, there are an awful law of True Birthers around. Can’t you find even one to play with, instead of trying to rope “heretics” like me into your little game?
J.
Southern Hoosier:
Your reading comprehension sucks. I didn’t say there were no racists in his chapter, and neither did he. Go back and read the review I cited, and then maybe you’ll be able to get your facts straight for once.
Jay Tea:
English translation: ‘how annoying that he caught me bullshitting, and won’t let me get away with it.’
There are other examples, but that one is sufficient to make the point.
Here’s “the issue:” the difference between truth and fiction. I care about that difference. You obviously don’t. I’m interested in pointing that out. You don’t like that? Too bad.
Making shit up is actually evil. I’m sure you will keep doing it, and I will keep pointing it out.
Please continue to make it really clear that you know nothing about the law of defamation, and that you know nothing about common sense, and that you know nothing about what it means to behave decently.
When I choose to recite some defamatory “estimates” that I’ve allegedly “seen,” I am automatically giving those “estimates” credence. It is understood that decent people do not recite defamatory claims unless they have reason to believe that the claims are true. The mere act of reciting the claim lends credence to the claim (unless I explicitly say that I believe the information is false). Especially when any qualifier (“if true”) is omitted. No, the qualifier is not automatically “assumed to follow.”
You would not dare to pretend to not understand this if the shoe was on the other foot. For example:
‘I’ve seen estimates that the amount of dynamite Bush had planted in the twin towers was in the range of 10-20 tons. This was an effective way to bring the buildings down.’
With regard to the way the information is framed, what you did is no different than this.
Please tell us with a straight face that someone who said that is not fairly accused of promoting the idea that Bush planted that dynamite. And that they could defend themselves by pathetically asserting that they had not presented “a definitive statement of belief.”
What’s funny is the way you seem to think you’re fooling anyone. You’re only fooling yourself.
Please continue to make it really clear that you know nothing about the law of defamation…
Then sue me, asshole.
It seems I was right; you apparently are a lawyer. (Oh, noes, I defamed you!) And if “defamation” laws are anything like libel and slander laws, I’m perfectly safe; Obama’s a public figure, the actual damages from saying “he’s spent money to keep the controversy alive” are non-existent, I said nothing definite but speculated.
I’d have a better case against you for your nuns and kittens BS, as I’m far less of a public figure and you have no sources you could cite, and actual malice would be a snap to prove, but I took that as seriously as I take you, and don’t feel like giving more money to lawyers.
You really need to investigate just why you feel this overwhelming compulsion to know every single detail of the whole stupid situation, and to find straw men so you can show just how big your metaphorical dick is by “exposing” the “birthers” and “racists.” You need to get over it, and get back to finding out who stole that quart of strawberries, and then go avenge yourself on that white whale…
J.
Jay-Tea,
I didn’t say that you were Southern Hosier or that you agreed with him. It was just that his post, and the link to “World Net Daily” was an ironic demonstration of how much a section of conservative media was IN FACT very much about keeping the story alive for their own benefit.
I was using that a proof to suggest that this ISN’T simple the liberal media keeping this alive.
As for Fox, the statistics that you’ve mentioned — did that include the “editorial shows” or just the “News Programming”?
Jay Tea:
I mentioned the law of defamation not because I think someone could or should sue you for this. I mentioned the law of defamation only because it is one of many ways of seeing how wrong you are about this. Because in this instance the law just reflects common sense, and it reflects basic principles of common decency that most of us learned in kindergarten.
Not everyone who knows something about the law is a lawyer. Also, my apparent identity as a lawyer or non-lawyer is highly irrelevant. But I understand your urge to change the subject.
What you fail to understand about both law and common sense is that this doesn’t matter. When I walk around with a sign announcing my ‘speculation’ that you’re a pedophile, my claim that “I said nothing definite but speculated” is worthless as a defense. Both in the world of law and also in the world of common sense and common decency.
If I talk about “estimates” of how many tons of explosives Bush planted in WTC, you would not hesitate calling me a truther, and you would correctly laugh in my face if I tried to use this pathetic defense: “I said nothing definite but speculated.”
All those things would be relevant if we were talking about an actual lawsuit in an actual court. But they’re not relevant, because that’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is your failure to comprehend the difference between right and wrong.
This isn’t about an “overwhelming compulsion to know every single detail of the whole stupid situation.” It’s about catching you bullshitting, and then watching you squirm like the worm that you are.
I suggested a black man hired a lawyer and paid him.
Hahahaha. Hey, all I was doing was stringing words together into sentences! They aren’t supposed to mean anything!
Such a pathetic hack.
Exactly. This is all about the hackery of using words to accomplish a certain goal, and then pretending that you (i.e., Jay Tea) didn’t actually say the things you actually said, and that the words you used don’t actually mean what they actually mean, and that you weren’t actually trying to accomplish the goal that you were actually trying to accomplish.
juke, if you wanna use the legal standard, you and mantis have repeated my tossed-off remark so many times, it’s almost to the level where you two would be on the hook for any “defamation” imparted by it. I initially said it in the context of a larger point — that the whole birther mess has been a net gain for Obama, politically, which is fairly self-evident.
Your obsession (well, yours and others) with that single statement of mine, in utter disregard with pretty much everything else I’ve ever said about the birther idiots demonstrates that you are just as fixated as they are — and purely because you see it as a way to win political points. Like Obama, you NEED this to stay alive as long as you can, and you will say and do whatever you can to keep it alive.
You take “beating a dead horse” well into the realm of necrophilic bestiality, and it’s really gross.
I’m thinking of starting a betting pool on when Doug posts his next story on the birthers — “my latest attempt to make the issue go away by talking about it over and over and over and over again.” I’m thinking Bin Laden’s death will suck up the oxygen for a while, so he just might hold off until Friday.
Unless, of course, he finds something else to bash Sarah Palin over. And if he can tie both into some poll that says bad things about Republicans, he just might keel over in glee.
J.
You seem to be saying that you only said it once. I guess it must be a different Jay Tea who said this:
Should I keep looking?
Yes, you called them “nuts” but you implied (“he’s certainly got more than $2 million in benefits from it”) that this claim of theirs was correct. Unless you want to claim that you don’t know what “certainly” means.
If you want to admit you were wrong to say it and you never should have said it, you’re free to do so at any time. But it’s helpful to notice that your preference is to just come up with more bullshit (“single statement”).
Hey, jukebox — thanks for the link. But you wanna stop cherry-picking and give the context of the whole piece? Such as the paragraph that came IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THAT:
Real ringing endorsement there.
And the gist of the original article? Go ahead, feel free to sum it up.
Let me clarify, because of your recent performance: “feel free to sum it up HONESTLY.”
Let’s see… you dug out a comment I made over a year ago that reinforces what I’ve been saying all along — the whole thing is so stupid, it should be physically painful to get wrapped up in the details — but nope, you’re not obsessed. Not fixated. Not just as crazy as the birthers.
No sirree, Bob.
J.
This is the same bogus argument you’ve been making all along. Yes, you repeatedly said the birthers are nuts. Trouble is, you also decided to help them promote one of their key phony claims. The former doesn’t make the latter OK.
Who cares when you made it? Your claim that you only said it once is a falsehood. One in a steady stream of falsehoods that you have produced.
You kept repeating their bullshit claims long after it had been pointed out to you that they were bullshit. That makes you a lying hack.
Until you come up with a real explanation for that, all you’re doing is frantic hand waving.
Whoa there, pardner. Just when did “Obama spent money keeping the birther movement going” become “one of their key phony claims?” It’s tangential, at best. It’s the “Richard Nixon was in Dallas that day” of the Kennedy assassination, the “a Bush relative was involved in WTC security” of the Truthers.
Note that both are factually true — and utterly irrelevant.
Oh, I get it — because I referred to it without IMMEDIATELY CALLING FOR THE BURNING OF THE HERETICS AND BLASPHEMERS, it’s been promoted to “key” status. Sorry, I missed that. Musti’ve been raping kittens and drowning nuns that day.
J.
@Jay Tea: Jukeboxgrad is absolutely correct when he states
1. You have, in fact, promoted the notion that Obama has spent millions to hide his birth records (which is an untruth).
and
2. You have not in this exchange with him either admitted what you have done nor have you provided an adequate explanation for why Jukeboxgrad is wrong on this point.
Indeed you are missing the fundamental point (or purposefully ignoring it) that the claims about millions spent to “hide” records reinforces the notions that a) there was something to hide and therefore b) that the COLB was not valid proof of citizenship. This is why bolstering the claim about the monies allegedly spent is a birther move.
Jay Tea:
No, it’s not “tangential.” It’s a central claim. That’s why it gets repeated so frequently:
http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+spend+millions+birth+certificate
And that’s why you repeated it.
If it wasn’t an important claim, we wouldn’t have heard it from leading birthers like Trump and Palin.
You didn’t just ‘refer’ to it. You recited it in a manner that added credence to it.
But your hysterical arm-waving now (“THE BURNING OF THE HERETICS AND BLASPHEMERS”) is fun to watch, so please don’t stop.
Steven, thank you.
Whoa there, pardner. Just when did “Obama spent money keeping the birther movement going” become “one of their key phony claims?”
A long time ago, and it was one commonly used among shameless birther-enablers and the apparently ignorant and witless folks like yourself (so you claim) who repeated their claims. It pretty much always went like this, “If he has nothing to hide, why has he spent $80 Bazillion dollars hiding his birth certificate?” It was always the “proof of the coverup.”
It’s basically the same as those idiot 9/11 truthers who harped on about security tapes near the Pentagon that, if publicly released, would have shown that a missile hit the building instead of an airplane.
What if I had repeatedly stated that “I think the truthers are wrong/nuts, but isn’t it interesting that they won’t release the tapes? They must be hiding something!”? You would have called me out for repeating crazy 9/11 truther claims as if they were true. And you would have been right in doing so.
Jay Tea, the reason people call you out the “Obama spent millions of dollars on the coverup” thing is because you keep saying it over and over again and when someone says that is wrong, your response is basically “you shouldn’t be so obsessed with the details.” No one would care anymore if you had admitted your error when someone corrected you and then stopped saying it.
No one would care anymore if you had admitted your error when someone corrected you and then stopped saying it.
This is true, but that would have taken a little bit of honesty.
@jukeboxgrad:
no prob.
Thank you, Jay Tea…this thread has provided definitive proof of how disingenuous you really are…no wonder Sarah Palin is your heroine…
Steven, I’ll answer you, and with the respect you are due.
Yes, I said what the regular group of chuckleheads have quoted. But no, I haven’t repeated it here. Nor do I intend to repeat it — I never dug into its veracity on my own, and they challenge it. I simply don’t care enough to dig into it, so I’m walking away from the whole particular. No retraction, but no repetition.
The basis behind the remark, though, I stand behind. The whole birther idiocy has, until recently, been a net plus politically for Obama. For evidence, note that the most passionate people on this thread are those who are rejoicing in being able to smack around alleged “birthers.” In my case, I have said from the very outset that it was an incredibly stupid issue, and needed to be dropped quickly and permanently. But note how the “anti-birthers” simply won’t let go — they are the ones who constantly bring it up, over and over and over again, because they know that it’s been a net gain for Obama and their side.
So, to sum up: yeah, I said I had heard/read that Obama had spent upwards of two million to fight off the birthers. I never bothered to verify it, as it was tangential to my point — that the birther issue was a net gain for Obama, and whatever he and his allies expended to keep the issue going was effort well spent. I’ve gone toe-to=toe with actual birthers, and confronted their insane arguments and done my best to shoot them down. (The one that got me most angered was the “Obama was born here, and has birthright citizenship, but isn’t enough of a ‘natural born citizen’ to be president’ — that one means that we actually have two classes of Americans born here, one with lesser rights than their ‘betters,’, and I find that so inherently repugnant I nearly banned the birther from Wizbang purely on that basis.)
To the rest, Steven included: keep on talking about how awful and evil and RAAAAACIST the birthers are. I’m content to simply call them nuts. But let me know if you ever actually find any who will argue with you about the issue and it’s “merits:” you wouldn’t know what to do with them if you found them. I’ve found it simplest to alternate between heaping abuse on them, ignoring them, and pointing out that they have no winning end-game scenario: they literally have no idea what they want to happen once they get Obama out of office.
And let’s head off one particular line of argument: race may be a factor for some, but not for all. Others are just so appalled with his policies and principles that they will resort to any kind of legal chicanery to get him out of office.
This whole stupid mess needs to just go away, but the Obama supporters just can’t give up such a useful tool.
J.
Jay Tea:
What do you mean you “haven’t repeated it here?” I cited an example of you saying it at wizbang, and I cited an example of you saying it at OTB. Do I have to show you the links again? What are the words “I haven’t repeated it here” supposed to mean?
Thanks for explicitly admitting what’s already obvious from your behavior: you don’t mind spreading a defamatory rumor without bothering to find out if it’s true. You cared enough about it to say it, more than once, but you didn’t care enough to find out if it was true.
And you don’t mind admitting that you still don’t care whether or not it’s true, even though you’ve been shown proof that it’s not. Part of what you’re doing is pretending this proof hasn’t been shown.
You think you deserve a medal because you’ve decided to not keep repeating it? And it’s too late to say “no repetition,” because “repetition” of that false claim is already part of your record. Even though you falsely claimed otherwise. And you seem to be repeating that false claim. Speaking of repetition.
And thanks for confirming that you don’t understand what decent behavior looks like. When caught making a false claim, decent people retract it. They don’t dig in their heels and say “no retraction.”
You’re still attempting the same hackish misdirection you’ve been attempting all along. You still don’t understand that it’s fooling no one. Consider these two statements:
A) The whole birther idiocy has, until recently, been a net plus politically for Obama
B) Obama has spent between one and two million dollars to keep his birth records locked up
You are still pretending that A and B are the same. Sorry, they’re not. A might be true. B is not. A being true does not justify you saying B. The possible or likely truth of A is not a “basis” for saying B. That’s the outrageous claim you’re making.
This is your feeble, pathetic argument: that since A might be true, or is probably true, that it’s OK to say B. Really? What a joke that you imagine this sad excuse for an argument is tricking anyone.
Here’s what I refuse to “let go” of: your pathetic attempts to pretend that you are something other than deeply disingenuous.
If it was “tangential to [your] point,” then you needed to make your point without saying it. Trouble is, you did say it, and it’s quite entertaining to watch you avoid taking responsibility for your own words.
You have a hard time getting through a sentence without saying something disingenuous. That’s not a complete list of how you related to the birthers. It’s missing this item: you helped them promote one of their key bogus arguments.
And here’s a key thing you don’t understand: those other things you did don’t relieve you of responsibility for helping them promote one of their key arguments. In fact, as a critic of birthers in other ways, you gave that argument extra weight. Let me know if I have to explain this point further.
The way you repeatedly demonstrate how disingenuous you are is indeed “useful.”
Juke, I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond to you, as it’s obviously a waste of time, but:
1) I have not said one word about how much Obama and his lackeys have spent keeping the “birther” mess going SINCE I WAS CHALLENGED ON IT and realized that I didn’t care enough about the particulars to argue it. I gave it up, because a key element of my fights with the birthers is to refuse to get into particulars and details, but instead to focus on the big-picture aspects: that there is no Constitutional resolution should they win, that they have no end-game for their arguments, and the whole thing is a net plus for Obama. To get into the nitty-gritty on this is a losing issue; as Scott Adams says, “Avoid arguing with nuts. You can’t cure them but they can certainly turn you into a nut.” Or, to put it another way, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
And I STILL reject that this point is a “key” element in the argument. It does nothing to advance the core precept of the birthers: that there is some circumstance of Obama’s birth that disqualifies from holding the presidency. As has been demonstrated over and over again, until recently the “birther” mess has been a political plus for Obama. (Why else would Obama supporters keep bringing it up over and over again, if it was somehow harmful or dangerous to him? Why would the vast majority of his critics not bring it up, but instead hope it just goes away?) Even a minimal effort to keep the pot stirring would be a no-lose proposition, virtually guaranteed to pay great dividends in political gain.
So no, I haven’t repeated the “I’ve heard Obama’s spent up to $2 million keeping his birth certificate sealed” since it was challenged, once I realized I’d done what I had decided was a bad idea: to get into the finer details of the whole debate. And no, I won’t repeat it again: to get into the particulars on this matter is catering to the nuts.
J.
Not really. Every time you speak you make it more and more clear just how disingenuous and untrustworthy you are. This vivid demonstration on your part is an inadvertent public service.
Would you like a cookie? It’s nice that you stopped, but stopping is not sufficient to correct the false claims you made before you stopped.
Who cares what you “reject?” You routinely “reject” all facts and arguments you find inconvenient. What else is new?
You have pointedly failed to explain why the point was brought up by leading birthers like Trump and Palin if it’s unimportant. Anyway, it doesn’t matter if it’s unimportant. Making a false accusation is wrong, even if the accusation is (allegedly) unimportant. Common decency requires that you take responsibility for making a false accusation, once you’ve been caught, even if the accusation is (allegedly) unimportant.
Steven did in fact patiently explain this to you (“the claims about millions spent to ‘hide’ records reinforces the notions that a) there was something to hide and therefore b) that the COLB was not valid proof of citizenship. This is why bolstering the claim about the monies allegedly spent is a birther move”). And, in your usual style, you simply ignore that argument without lifting a finger to explain why it’s wrong.
But even if you’re right (“it does nothing to advance the core precept of the birthers”), that ultimately doesn’t matter, because it’s still a false accusation.
I actually agree with you that birtherism is probably a net plus for Obama, but his supporters allegedly “bringing it up over and over again” doesn’t prove this. There are other possible explanations, so this is yet another place where your ‘logic’ falls apart. Anyway, all this doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if it’s a net plus for him, and it doesn’t matter whether or not his “supporters keep bringing it up over and over again,.” What matters is that you made a false claim, and you are refusing to take responsibility for doing so.
In other words, you are still refusing to acknowledge that the accusation is false. You are making a point of saying that you won’t say it again not because it’s false, but because of some other reason (that it’s “a bad idea: to get into the finer details of the whole debate”).
So what you’re doing right now, instead of retracting your claim, is underlining it, by implying that the claim is true.
Let’s reflect on the three choices you have:
A) Retract your false accusation.
B) Show evidence that your accusation was not false.
C) Jump up and down and wave your arms around in a pathetic attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you have rejected both A and B, the only choices that are honorable.
Thanks for being so clear about your choice.
@Jay Tea:
Here’s the crux of the problem:
First, this is a mis-characterization (and a dishonest one at that). Speaking for myself, I have never used the words “evil” or “awful”. Moreover, I haven’t simply tossed out “racist” in some cavalier way–I have stated that I believe much of the birther (and other attacks not linked to policy) have frequently been motivated by racist and xenophobic considerations. I certainly have not come to this conclusion lightly and nor have I done it simply as a means of tarring those with whom I disagree. There is a racial component to this entire discussion and honesty dictates the need to acknowledge that fact.
Second, your own cavalier attitude on the race issue underscores the fundamental problem and perhaps explains why you don’t see jukeboxgrad’s point: it is not enough to call people nuts if there is a clear motivator behind their behavior other than insanity. Your whole “RAAAAACIST” bit (which I have seen you do more than once) is simply making light of a serious socio-political problem in the US. A problem that is worth calling attention to when it manifests, which I believe that it is manifesting in the birther issue.
A fuller version is from another of your comments from above:
Even if we stipulate that accusations of racism are sometimes incorrect (if not malicious), that does not mean that every time the issue of race is raised that it is invalid. For such a position to be true, there would have to be no more racism in the world. Sadly, that is not the case. Gee whiz, you need no more evidence than this very comment thread to know that this is not the case. For example click.
Jukeboxgrad–
Longtime lurker, sometime poster Eric here.
Thanks for making the effort to curb Jay Tea and the rest of the Krazy Krew. Your line of argumentation brings out perfectly the complete dishonesty of their arguments, whether it’s about this particular issue we’re discussing now, or some other issue.
The Krazy Krew tries to have it both ways: they at once want to be taken seriously while at the same time not wanting to be held to serious account for those claims. They usually do this by saying, well, y’know, they didn’t say that, someone else did; or they were only speaking metaphorically; or you’re being way too serious, chill out man; or they give a non-retraction retraction, which is really an implicit doubling-down on the original assertion. Krazy likes to make broad, misleading claims then feign innocence or naivete about obvious implications attached to those claims–as if their assertions are simply made in vacuum and and they’re just, y’know, throwin’ it out there with no particular interest one way or the other of the outcome.
I have tried myself in the past here to combat the Krazy, but, as I posted earlier, Krazy has a mania all about it that most sane people simply cannot keep up with; the more you show them the error of their logic, the more vociferous they respond with double, triple, and quadruple word vomit. They simply do not know how to fairly assess claims and argue in an honest, serious manner. “Serious” means making any unsupported assertion as you please and everyone else having to refute them, and–what?–you don’t respect that? How dare you.
Anyway, thanks again. I’m enjoying your deconstruction of Jay Tea’s (and, by extension, the Krazy Krew’s) logic.
Crap. Steven, I apologize for the “Steven included” at the end. I let my frustration go, and I shouldn’t have.
But I stand by my statement that the allegation that “most birthers are primarily motivated by racism” is unproven — and, perhaps, ultimately unprovable. Obama’s childhood is unique among presidents: a foreign national for a father AND a stepfather, a lengthy period of his childhood outside the United States. I can’t think of another president — or presidential candidate — who had such an upbringing.
And his stated policies, beliefs, and actions are more than sufficient to antagonize a great deal of the far right, utterly divorced from his skin color.
To simply ascribe the whole “birther” issue — or even a significant part of it — is not just laziness, but also serves to (if you’ll pardon the expression) “whitewash” the very solid, very significant, very profound reasons to oppose Obama. And in that context, it’s not surprising that some will grasp to any straws — even crazy ones, like the birther arguments — to try to fight off what Obama is doing and promising to do as president.
I didn’t vote for Obama. I oppose most of his policies. I see virtually no chance I would vote for him in 2012. And I can spell out in precise detail just why I say those things — none of which have anything to do with his race, circumstances of birth, or any other factors over which he had no control. No, my opposition is based purely on things he can control, the things he believes, the things he’s done, and the things he wants to do — which I believe will be ruinous for the nation, as they already have been.
The “racist” argument says that I — and others — would be just fine with those things if they were being pushed by Joe Biden, ‘cuz he’s one of us white boys. And that’s just BS. I didn’t like them when they were pushed by Kerry, Gore, Clinton, or Dukakis, or Mondale, or Carter, or Ted Kennedy. I don’t like them when they’re pushed by Reid and Pelosi. And I won’t pretend I like them when they’re pushed by Obama, simply because I’m afraid someone might call me a RAAAAACIST.
J.
Eric, thanks for the kind words.
That’s a good way to summarize what it’s all about.
The nice thing about this process is that, although it’s obviously like pulling teeth, it doesn’t need to be done over and over again. This thread is now a permanent monument to Jay Tea’s lack of seriousness (and the more he persists, the more monumental it becomes). In the future, anyone in doubt about that can just be advised to review this thread. People who care about facts and truthfulness will get the picture. Anyone else is just like him and beyond help anyway.
Jay Tea:
More baloney. Those are things that make racists view him as un-American. Those things provide no basis whatsoever to question his birthplace.
By all accounts, Obama’s mother never stepped foot outside the US until 1967. Not even once. She was born in Kansas. The family then lived in these places: CA, OK, TX, KS, WA. The family then moved to HI in 1960. Obama was born in 1961. She moved to Indonesia in 1967, when Obama was six.
It would be a little different if there was a record of Dunham traveling frequently outside the US prior to 1961. But there is no such record. There is no record of any travel by her outside the US prior to 1967. None whatsoever. So the fact that the father was an African is not any kind of legitimate basis to speculate that the baby was born outside the US. Not even close.
The distance from HI to Kenya is 10,762 miles. And this was not a rich family, especially at the time.
“His stated policies, beliefs, and actions” are a reason to criticize “his stated policies, beliefs, and actions.” They are not a reason to claim that he’s a foreigner who has usurped the presidency by lying about his birthplace.
The problem is not the people who think there are “very solid, very significant, very profound reasons to oppose Obama.” The problem is the people who think there are “very solid, very significant, very profound reasons to” claim that he’s a foreigner who has usurped the presidency by lying about his birthplace.
Then you should oppose him by discussing those matters, rather than promoting birtherist crap. But promote birtherist crap is what you have done, and you have conveniently provided a vivid demonstration of how you refuse to take responsibility for doing so. Which conveniently signals to everyone sane that nothing you say can be trusted and that only a fool would take you seriously.
Let me spell it out to you in simple terms, juke:
I said it.
I regret saying it.
I ain’t saying it again.
Hell, I’ll even toss in the standard liberal non-apology: “I apologize to anyone who might have been offended.”
You want more? Go micturate up a rope.
J.
This is what you needed to say when you were shown that the claim was false. That happened a long time ago. What took you so long? Better late than never, but hopefully next time you’ll say it when it needs to be said, not thousands of words later.
Apparently juke doesn’t have a rope.
J.
Well, you’re still a mealy-mouthed lying hack, but I guess we can remove birther from the description. For now. They don’t seem to be going anywhere, so we’ll just wait and see if you start picking up their fun little “facts” again.
Damn. A day late and a dollar short, but I think I need a cigarette after reading this entire thread.
jukeboxgrad,
If you happen to read this, please accept my most humble thanks for your blistering of Jay Tea. It needed to be done.
Jay Tea and Southern Hoosier,
If you are waiting for black folk to ever vote Republican in substantial numbers, I can safely state that you’ve got a long wait coming, especially after what we black folk have witnessed since the election of the first black president. But then you already knew this. If you even cared about black people as a voting bloc, JT wouldn’t have been so vehemently defending his birther crap and SH wouldn’t have made the claim that Democrats have done more to destroy black Americans than slavery ever did. SH, only a RAAAAACIST would make such a slimy statement.
Nikki, thanks for your kind words.