WTF, Obama?

[steve74baywin]

Yeah, just media nonsense to cover up things like Libya.
He could have just ended it and there was reason to doubt even if he was a white Christian.
There was a this statement
" Sunday, June 27, 2004


Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations."
Found here
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/2004 ... 060403.htm
Whether the article was true or not, it was more than racist.
I would agree if someone said people who didn't want him to be president made a big deal of it.
Some of the dems would do the same if Panama McCain was elected.
If the dems said Bush rig the election, the repubs would say the dems are just crying.

[turk]

I agree. It's all very convenient for this kind of thing to be scoffed at, and yet the subtlety of it is easily dismissed as racism, conspiracy theory, et al.. What it really is is classic bait and switch B.S.. I love how people get all upset about it. Yeah, OKAAAAAY. Go back to yer hovel little prairie dog. (I'm not talking about you Russ, so relax)

[RussellK]

No my friend racism isn't the trump card to pull out on any issue. But in this instance it's pretty fucking obvious. His origin was settled long before the election. Did I touch a nerve?

No you didn't touch a nerve. I am challenging you with the plain facts. Those would be: GW. Bush was similarly discredited in the media while he was president. Remember Rathergate? All the hoopla, over his Air Nat'l Guard service, and his college transcripts. Well, I wasn't very interested myself, but nonetheless, was that racism? How about Andrew Jackson, 7th president- link How about Chester Arthur, 21st president : link Are they because of racism? Since it's so obvious I'd like to hear what those controversies were about then, if not racism, like today. But the race card is predictable. And apparently you hold it in high regard if you assume it "touches a nerve". That is what is truly disgusting. But now, you have some "Jeopardy" material to hold up your sleeve, compliments of me. So, do something good.

Thanks but I'll just stick with my instincts

[ruckman101]

Republicans realize they can't win and are busy making it as difficult as possible for folks likely to vote "wrong" to even vote, namely youth and the poor who are disproportionately people of color. Dismantling education, busting unions, again, institutions that tend to support those who vote "wrong". This campaign is being waged by pandering to fear, not reason.


neal

[turk]

I would say the only thing the "dismantling of unions, and education" should result in, is people who can vote, will vote against the people supposedly "dismantling" them next election. They should be able to do that, if it's so important. Or aren't they like the rest : they don't have the same right to vote now?

[turk]

I'm challenging your instincts to be more than racist. Just saying it's obvious is pretty racist. It is more subtle than that. I could say the recent Supreme Court decision denying class action suits by consumers against corporations, in favor of arbitration by corporations, and only individual rights of consumers to sue corporations is "obviously" all because of the Tea-Party, with no real connection. That would probably be applauded by liberals. Yet, what did the Tea-Party have to do with the SC decision? link. An analogy, but you get the idea. If I'm wrong, and the Tea-Party was behind the SC decision, let me know of my error.

[turk]

One might ask: "where does turk come up with these ideas?" Referring to the analogy ^. That one was from a facebook update by a grade-school friend. That person assumed "those political types (in the Tea-Party) always vote against their own interest, like I pick a foot-ball team". So, though I responded to that person's up-date according to what I discerned to be a sweeping generality, I figured there is a parallel to this issue, of automatic racist assumptions being the cause, barring all other causes. Although this kind of summarizing and synthesizing of an issue can sometimes help one to form an opinion, I need to point out the flaws. It's an obligation to any discussion. Especially controversial ones. I could be wrong. That's the whole point. Rhetoric is all any of the discussions on this forum are. That's not a derogatory thing in the least.

[ruckman101]

Those who scream loudest they aren't are.


neal

[turk]

Right. The racism blame is most often heard by those screaming it loudest. Like I said, it's the trump card pulled by them with no other good reason to defend. They think it touches a nerve. So, I have to challenge that whole dog and pony show head on. There's all kinds of damned good reasons to question Obama, and they aren't racist in the least. But simply questioning brings out the screamers.

[RussellK]

Candidates are screened by the FBI to determine if they meet the requirements for the office of the Presidency. That should be enough. When you continue to question his origin based only on his heritage, his unusual name and his skin color there is an element of racism there. I'm not playing the racist card, I'm not prone to screaming racism. I'm observing what the birthers are doing and that is manipulating people through their fear. It is racist. If a group had been questioning his Harvard transcript that would not have a racist quality to it, but that is not what they are doing, is it? As far as his producing his Birth Certificate? He already had. When will it be enough? If some group now makes the claim the real Obama has a birth mark on his inner thigh will you continue to hew and cry he won't drop his pants for us therefore he must be an imposter?
What's really asinine is how this truly non issue detracts from real issues. Criticize Obama. By all means there are things that need criticizing, but this? It makes the US look like a nation of morons.

[turk]

Unfortunately, there's lots of inconsistencies in the narrative. Just too many for it not to be continued to be investigated by whomever has the inclination. I agree there are enough issues already in the wide-open that are enough on their own merits to criticize Obama. So, the birth certificate is something he uses to distract. Yes, he. Let's put the responsibility where it belongs. Now, I have nothing more to add to it, because there's plenty of other things we need to focus on with this hype. Energy policy, health care, the debt, 3 wars, the economy, jobs- just to name a few.

[ruckman101]

Racist.

A guy who grows up with the help of food stamps becomes prez. The pull yourself up by the bootstraps anyone can be successful american dream realized, but he isn't worthy, nope, impossible.

But a silver spoon privileged party boy with a C average, no prob.


neal

[Amskeptic]

So, the birth certificate is something he uses to distract. Yes, he. Let's put the responsibility where it belongs.

This is schizophrenic insanity. Amazing. Pathetic.

[steve74baywin]

So, the birth certificate is something he uses to distract. Yes, he. Let's put the responsibility where it belongs.

This is schizophrenic insanity. Amazing. Pathetic.

Huh? I you trying to say that to suggest the Obama administration would have delayed showing the document to cause a distraction is out of the question? I disagree.
Or are you trying to say the responsibility thing is insane?
The whole thing being in the media in the first place is smoke and mirrors, to think one person or side in this is guiltless is incorrect.

[Lanval]

So, the birth certificate is something he uses to distract. Yes, he. Let's put the responsibility where it belongs.

This is schizophrenic insanity. Amazing. Pathetic.

Huh? I you trying to say that to suggest the Obama administration would have delayed showing the document to cause a distraction is out of the question? I disagree.
Or are you trying to say the responsibility thing is insane?
The whole thing being in the media in the first place is smoke and mirrors, to think one person or side in this is guiltless is incorrect.

Steve,

I disagree, for this reason: The media is a business ~ they pander what sells. If there wasn't a group out there interested in maintaining this, the media wouldn't have anyone to sell to.

What I find interesting is that the Bush era 'birther types' ~ the idiots who argued that Bush and Co. were responsible for 9/11 ~ were never given the air time of the birthers, nor did the media take the claims of the 9/11ers seriously.

In other words, the first blame is to be laid at the feet of the those who believe what they want to believe, so long as it fits their worldview.
The second blame is to be laid at the media who pander to them, because: controversy = money.

*********************
Turk's analogies are a bit problematic. Obama's birth location was confirmed from the get go. You don't need a long-form birth certificate to prove your status as an American. According to the birther concept, NO ONE IN HAWAII IS REALLY PROVEN TO BE A CITIZEN. And there are other states that operate the same way.

There was never any doubt about his citizenship status.

On the other hand:

Bush was actually in the National Guard
1. There are no records of him reporting for duty
2. When asked where he was or when he served, he said "I can't remember".

One would think that you guys would recognize that for the bullshit it is. In any event, those are two totally different issues.

Obama was proven a citizen from the get go. Some people just don't like it.
Bush was never accepted as having actually served.

L.