The Obama Conspiracy Theories irony meter has been pegged at maximum since the inception of the site. Since 2010 it has threatened to go critical on an almost daily basis. Today, triggered by the following self-ironic comment, it blew.
PetJake: This place is overflowing with condescending, egotistical, liberal elitist Stupors who can only get their points across by belittling everyone else who has a differing view.
I don’t know how you can call this ironic — PetJake is not a liberal.
And he shall be called Ferrous Bueller.
A pure-ironic statement with hypocrisy to give it the right feeling.
Have you ever heard the expression “You think your shit doesn’t stink”?
Well, both sides of this debate are guilty of thinking along those lines.
Maybe Doc, Bird, Will, Sneezy, and Dopey think that “birfers” isn’t the slightest bit condescending.
The only thing truly ironic is that the Obamatards (Yes. We get to choose our pet words too!) see their speculation and hearsay as fact, while at the same time they chastize the Birthers for doing the same.
If the cards were all laid out we would soon see that neither side really knows jack. One side wants to know more, and the other is completely satisfied with not knowing.
And his goal is to become Ferric Bueller.
PetJake, aka Ron Polarik is just a craven and insecure con-artist who is upset because he’s so incompetent in his scams that even a good number of those gullible freepers and even more gullible birthers have caught on and turned on him.
He’s got nothing of substance to go on and his reputation is abysmal, so all he has left to protect his fragile little ego is to loudly whine and fling poo and project his own inadequacies onto others. It is nothing more than a pathetic act of desperation resulting in meaningless tantrums from an overgrown baby who is desperate to convince himself and others that he’s anything other than a miserable failure and fraud.
But Ferrous is late 18th century. More time to forge or steel fake credentials. He won’t be cast as Ferric until at least the mid-19th century.
please point out which aspects you consider hearsay and speculation.
thank you.
I do not see how this comment aligns with the facts.
The director of the Hawaii Department of health personally examined Obama original birth certificate and posted a signed statement on the State Department of Health web site stating that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. To say that this [and a list of other things] isn’t “jack” is by any objective standard willful ignorance or pathological confirmation bias. Willful ignorance seems to be the hallmark of birthers when describing the evidence that makes their theories impossible.
While it is true that both birthers and anti-birthers sometimes get their facts wrong, it is the birther side and the birther side only whose entire case relies on faked documents, fallacies and smear tactics. The anti-birther side, supported by the Executive and Legislative branches of government, the State of Hawaii, every major media outlet, federal and state courts, consistently have the evidence on their side.
Well-informed normal people do not share your delusions.
“Normal people do not share your delusions”…..FIFY…..8-)
“I leave you a cabin boy. I will return to you a cabin man.”
Chris Elliot
So this pretty much translates out to WAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH on your part. You have presented nothing, no argument other than the peewee herman “I know you are but what am I.” The only problem with what you said is that the side that wants to know more and shows intellectual curiousity isn’t the side you think. The birthers are the side that are satisfied without knowing because they continually making up conspiracies even after more evidence is presented.
So why do you go by the ironic name factchecker? Once again your side seems to not understand the rules of evidence and what hearsay is. Hearsay isn’t a statement from the Department of Health saying they have verified and seen his birth certificate and that he was born in Hawaii. Hearsay is people like Taitz who believe this fake birth in Kenya story because they hear it from someone who said something.
I find this website extremely useful as an exercise in double-checking my own biases and tendency toward creduility when it comes to fantastic but enticing claims about history, sometimes referred to as “conspiracy theories.” Although the central allegation against the President (that he was born outside the United States and is therefore not a citizen) has shifted, for some detractors, into a new one (that his parentage somehow denies him status as a “natural born citizen” despite all existing legal precedents implying that he is an NBC) this website still continues to stick to discussion of the known facts, and evaluates the conspiracy theories about the President’s birth in light of those facts. I’d like to make my own attempt at contributing to the discussion here, which is to point out something that I believe debunks the claim that President Obama won’t release his 1961 birth certificate copy because he has “something to hide.” The President has an alternate, and completely sufficient motive for not releasing that document to the public, which is that it would undermine the modernization of the vital records system in Hawaii and in the other states which have done so in the past two decades. To release his “real” birth certificate would do serious damage to the credibility of birth certificates issued by states which have standardized and modernized their systems. Given that he is 100% confident of his birth status and location, not wanting to cause those problems for various states is more than enough reason for him to “withhold” something that his critics pretend would “solve the whole thing.” I have tried to get anyone critical of the President to rebut this explanation, but I never get any takers.
Dr. Conspiracy,
You are as guilty of confirmation bias as anyone else!
“The director of the Hawaii Department of health personally examined Obama original birth certificate and posted a signed statement on the State Department of Health web site stating that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.”
So what? So Fukino says that Hawaii has a document of file stating that Obama was born their. I’ve got a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report that says birth reported by midwives and home births have a high potential for fraud. Can you provide a shred of evidence to support that Obama’s birth was reported by a physician? A nurse? A midwife? Maybe it was reported as a home birth. You know that is something you can’t answer. Yet you will continue to act as though you know he was born in Kapi’olani.
If you have a fact, you can prove it. I happen to think that the position held by Obama is deserving of proof. That proof would include the ability to know whether his birth report should fall into the category of those where a high potential for fraud has been recognized.
But did you bother to read that report? Those were in states that are easy to access. There has been no proof that there was a high amount of midwife fraud in Hawaii. So you use some report to base your conspiracy theory. Do you have any proof that a midwife falsified Obama’s birth record? I have no conclusive proof you were even born at all or that we’re not in the matrix. See how easy it is to act idiotic and doubt everything based on nothing.
Or, considering all the sock puppets: Here’s my brother, Ferrous, and my other brother, Ferrous.
Except your comparison is illogical with no direct correlation between the two.
One one hand, you have state officials from HI at various levels discussing and confirming a specific individuals birthplace within their state, a matter of which comes under their direct purview and authority.
Then there is you, who read some government article about a generic and unrelated topic that only referenced states with no casual nor direct correlation to HI and had no reference to Obama nor his birth situation at all…and you make some fantasy leap to create speculative connections for which there is no support.
Sorry. I and the rest of us sane and rational folks will stick with direct and relevant facts from the officials in charge.
You can keep playing your fantasy games of connecting non-existent and irrelevant dots, but it gets you absolutely nowhere and achieves nothing except for bringing ridicule upon yourself.
what really breaks the irony meter is a poster who chose the handle “FactChecker”, that is really funny! He can’t provide a shred of evidence that he is not gay nor a child molester. Isn’t he required to register as a sex offender?
1,000 points for sound and logical reasoning! Well done.
I do not accept that.
Birth Certificates are generally accepted in this country as PROOF OF THE FACTS OF BIRTH universally in legal processes. The ONLY TIME this prima facie evidence is insufficient is when there is evidence to the contrary, which you have already admitted that the “birthers” do not have jack of. Your notion of “proof” differs from accepted legal and societal norms.
You cite the the Inspector General’s report (which has been referenced on this blog long ago) which says that the instance of fraud is higher among home births and midwife births. However, the national trade organization for vital statistics, the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (NAPHSIS) qualifies the risk when they say in their 2005 White Paper on Recommendations for Improvements in Birth Certificates:
It is the combination of unattended birth AND late registration which increases the risk of fraud. We know that Obama’s birth was registered within 4 days–part of the store of facts of the anti-Birther.
Even so, is simply false to say that this category has a “high potential for fraud.” The potential for fraud is higher, but not high.
Further, the implication of what you are saying is a photocopy of the original birth certificate showing a home birth is proof of fraud. Because if you are not saying this, then you must admit that what you will find on the certificate is irrelevant to the question of Obama’s eligibility. A certificate showing birth at home is still prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and by your own admission, there is no evidence to the contrary.
See also: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63128.000/hju63128_0f.htm
He should be convicted until he can provides copious amounts of irrelevant information depending upon random and constantly changing requests from illiterate, anonymous strangers motivated by hatred and bigotry.
If you’re going to accuse the legal authority and state health official of fraud, then man up and prove it or STFU. Your lack of respect for U.S. law and the Constitution is repugnant.
Birthers are repulsive cowards.
What about the many posters here who generally just post their interpretation of the relevant law complete with references (to actual laws and court cases, too ;-)) and their reasoning? Also, can you explain why nearly all blogs questioning the president’s eligibility quickly erase (or should I say ‘scrub’?) any obot posting (if they allow it to be posted at all). Clearly most people who challenge the president’s eligibility feel that their arguments are unable to prevail on a level playing field.
OMG, PooPooPolarik has triggered a nuclear holocaust!
I posted this as a reply to Factchecker and it got put in moderation:
What about the many posters here who generally just post their interpretation of the relevant law complete with references (to actual laws and court cases, too ) and their reasoning? Also, can you explain why nearly all blogs questioning the president’s eligibility quickly erase (or should I say scrub’?) any obot posting (if they allow it to be posted at all). Clearly most people who challenge the president’s eligibility feel that their arguments are unable to prevail on a level playing field.
Stupors? Stupors?! What the, what? Come on, Petjake, you can do better than that. How about
Dumbletrons
Thickeners
Obama-llamas
Confusahtards
Simpletonians
Witless Woodenheads
Deris-o-ronies
Imbecilisteins
Abusurdlies
Idiot-en-tots
Dopesters
Sappy Pappies
Scatterlames
Ridic-u-lons
Blathertoids
Asinine-to-fives
Gaga-bamas
Barack-a-noobs
And really, no one’s belittling you. That would be mean. In point of fact, what we’re doing is mocking your foolish ideas.
Fraud is a criminal offense. If there was any evidence of fraud, a grand jury could have been convened, Obama’s birth certificate could have been subpoenaed and witnesses could have been compelled to testify under oath. In the more than three years since Obama announced his candidacy, has there been a grand jury investigation for fraud, election fraud, or document forgery?
There is an objective standard of difference between the poster “factchecker” above and the Governor of Hawaii, the Attorney General of Hawaii, the Director of Health of the state of Hawaii and the Registrar of Vital Records for the state of Hawaii. The latter four have official capacities and direct access to Obama’s original birth records. Who is a Court going to see as more credible, appointed and elected state officials (all of whom are Republicans, by the way) or anonymous screen names on the internet?
“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing
“Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009
See also: Obot, Obamabot, Obamatron, Obamathug, Obamaniac, Obongoite, Obamanoid, Obamatoid, O-Borters, ObaMORONS and Oboto Brigade.
You probably copied the “S” word, which is automatically moderated.
So what? So Fukino says that Hawaii has a document of file stating that Obama was born their.”
Which of course is more than we have for any previous President. You keep assuming that the President has some requirement to prove that his birth certificate is legitimate, but he doesn’t. He was already voted in as President, and the voters were satisfied that he was born in the United States. Therefore, you as the accuser have the obligation to bring something to the table other than “hey its possible that some document none of us is seen shows that its possible he was born at home and that if he was born at home its slighly more likely that his birth was reported fraudantly”
“Can you provide a shred of evidence to support that Obama’s birth was reported by a physician? A nurse? A midwife?”
Somehow I missed that requirement in the Constitution. Maybe you can do me a favor and point me to where Clinton provided that information?
“Yet you will continue to act as though you know he was born in Kapi’olani.”
I don’t care whether he was born in a hospital at all. As long as he was born in Hawaii- and all the actual evidence supports that common knowledge- he is a natural born citizen. Bring us some proof he wasn’t born in Hawaii, proof that refutes the official documentation and then we can talk.
“If you have a fact, you can prove it.”
It is a fact that Obama published a copy of his COLB
It is a fact that voters voted him into office
It is a fact that the State of Hawaii has declared that he was born in Hawaii
By the way- there are more ‘facts’ that establish that Obama was born in Hawaii, than I, or most Americans have to prove that we were born in the United States.
” I happen to think that the position held by Obama is deserving of proof.”
Great- could you please provide the proof that GW and Clinton gave you when they were elected President? Because I am certain that you wouldn’t apply a double standard when suggesting that the Presidency is ‘deserving of proof’
Please get back to me on those documents sooner, because I have always had doubts about GW Bush, but I was too scared of being thrown in a detention camp to ask.
Shred? Yes, I have a shred. A woman named Barbara Nelson who lived in Hawaii when Obama was born recounted in a newspaper article a conversation she had with Dr. Rodney T. West, an obstetrician practicing at Kapi’olani and a family friend, where he told her about the odd combination of names: a woman named “Stanley” giving birth to a child with the poetic name of “Barack Obama.” Conclusive? No. Shred? Definitely.
Barack Obama himself said he was born at Kapi’olani. Conclusive? No. Shred? Yes. Congressmen Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii (an Obama family friend) says the President was born at Kapi’olani in a NY Times article. Conclusive? No. Shred? Yes.
Abercrombie’s reading of the letter from Obama mentioning his birth in Hawaii was published in a Kapi’olani newsletter. Conclusive? Maybe. Shred? Yes.
FactChecker doesn’t seem to be well-informed about the state of the evidence.
Yes! I can provide many shreds.
Another “shred” is that Eleanor Nordyke said that she and Stanley went to the same OBGYN practice and those doctors primarily used Kapi’olani for deliveries. Mrs. Nordyke knew both the Obama’s and Obama’s grandmother. She and Madelyn Dunham even took a cruise together a few years ago. Unfortunately she was kind of busy giving birth to twins at the same time Stanley was giving birth to the future President so she can’t claim to have been an eye witness that all the brithers want 49 years later.
Woman’s hospital memories contradict “birthers”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2_OOWqWdx20J:www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/43081/group/News/+Woman%27s+hospital+memories+contradict+%22birthers%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
“Nordyke, 82, of Honolulu, Hawaii, says that on Aug. 4, 1961, she was in labor with her twin daughters Susan and Gretchen at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital — the same place Barack Obama was being born. The hospital has since been renamed Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children.”
Another “shred” of evidence the poor, put-upon birfers will cry about and then ignore.
Ooo Ooo I got some shreds too! http://www.photographyuncapped.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/big-league-chew-shredded-bubble-gum_0211.jpg
But birthers would reject something so useful and convenient. However, the exercise wheel would keep them mesmerized for months.
OK, I tell you what. So we have a concrete example of the kind of proof that you find adequate, why don’t you show us proof that George Bush was eligible. Either George Bush, you pick.
Speaking of the irony meter going BOOM, am I the only one having a chuckle at the fact that “factchecker” apparently needs a spellchecker?
Factchecker needs more than a spellchecker.
I told Factchecker not to have that lobotomy.
Since proof of hospital is a birther eligibility standard that would apply to every President before Carter since none of them were born in a hospital.
Oops. I guess that nullifies the actions of 37 Presidencies (thank you, Grover Cleveland for your non-consecutive terms).
Many of them were delivered by mid-wives or relatives instead of physicians. Oops, again.
Why would a birther care that their made-up standards are not in the U.S. Constitution?
And why just this President? Hmmm. That is a puzzle.
From 1900 to 1946 the U.S. Census Bureau designed standard birth certificates. So, how many Presidents never had a birth certificate and how many different formats from all fifty states have there been?
Let’s the brilliant birther “Factchecker” come up with credible answers.
Not be pedantic, but a spell check would not catch “their.” 😉
However, point taken. Birthers are usually not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Man, this is the blantant tactic of conspiracy theorists from JFK conspiracy theories to the moon landing conspiracy theories. You take something completely unrelated to the facts at hand and connect imaginary dots to arrive at your foregone conclusion.
I heard Neil Armstrong say Obama was nowhere near the grassy knoll! 🙂
Aye spill choker wooden hemp ham…
Hardly beyond the occasional typo myself (usually an omitted word), I have enough sense to use a spell checker.
However, Mrs. Nordyke did not say that she remembered Obama.
One observes that FactChecker dumped his potty-mouthed comment onto an article that was about someone else, thereby largely hijacking the conversation to his agenda. I smell ode de troll.
There is no debate.
Obama has produced a birth certificate. The state of Hawaii has confirmed that they have the original birth certificate. It has been over for almost two years.
Ditto, and those dam homonyms trip me up as well! 🙂
I think the birther illogic and hypocrisy is what’s irksome.
That’s “Rendition Center” not detention camp. Detention camps are Un-American.
I smell Glen Beck
Well, he’s PooPooPolarik, of course you will smell something!
Mrs. Nordyke did say that “[s]he told us that her daughter had passed away and that she had raised her grandson, and he was a social worker in Chicago.” [Referencing meeting Madelyn Dunham on a cruise to Tahiti in 2002.]
If you didn’t know the facts, you would read this as Stanley Ann died so Madelyn raised Obama. They supposedly met up on the cruise after Madelyn Dunham “was placed at our table,” whatever that means. Imagine that. But life is strange at times.
Additionally, the article from the Honolulu Advertiser begins as follows:
“Retracing the steps of history, Eleanor Nordyke now realizes that she was in labor with twin daughters while Barack Obama, now the president-elect, was being born at what is now Kapi-‘olani Medical Center for Women & Children.”
If the kids knew each other while growing up*, they likely would have known that they had the same birthday. Think 10 year old existence. Hey mom, guess what? Barack has the same birthday as us! Really? Mrs. Dunham may have been in labor when I was! Yet it was “[w]hen Obama was making his successful presidential run, Nordyke realized that her daughters were born within hours of him at the same hospital.” Her daughters grew up with Obama yet Mrs. Nordyke never met Madelyn Dunham until 2002? Possible I guess.
So, Mrs. Nordyke had an epiphany in 2008 and not when her daughters went to school with Obama because…. it might make her an important person. Mrs. Nordyke is probably a nice person, but I wouldn’t put stock in anything she says beyond the circumstances of her twins’ birth.
*”I think it was remarkable that they just so happened to be born within 24 hours of each other and grew up knowing each other,” Nordyke said.
Well, don’t take stock in me either! The twins were born the 5th as I now see. Still doesn’t change the idea that their birthdays would have been known to each other as children, particularly with being so close in time.
How do you know she didn’t? Most likely Obama was an unknown to people such as yourself before 2006 so Nordyke speaking up wouldn’t matter much. How do you know she didn’t tell friends and family about it? But as usual you’d rather jump on anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived conclusion.
“When Obama was making his successful presidential run, Nordyke realized that her daughters were born within hours of him at the same hospital.”
From the article [Honolulu Advertiser]. I don’t know whether she contacted the paper or someone contacted her with the information.
I mean, how the interview came about.
The President returned to Hawaii when he was 10 years old. He lived with his grandmother, this may be what she meant by raising him.
The Nordykes and the President attended the same school from 1973 to 1979. A school with 4000 students ( 500 to 600/class). There is no reason to assume they were in the same social circles. In fact the only recollection is that they hung out in the library together. Nothing about going to each others house, or the mall or anything outside of school.
Charo, did you know the birthdays of all the members of your high school class, did you meet their parents?
Mrs. Nordyke said they knew each other growing up. When I was in elementary school, we usually had cupcakes for birthdays, had homeroom mothers, events where there was parental involvement.
Mrs. Nordyke made the implication in the article, not me.
“The President returned to Hawaii when he was 10 years old.He lived with his grandmother, this may be what she meant by raising him.”
I know that, but it didn’t appear as if Mrs. Nordyke did.
I mean, that Mrs. Nordyke made it sound as if Madelyn Dunham were raising him because Stanley Ann Dunham died.
What makes you think anyone ever did?
Also from the article:
“With the names Nordyke and Obama, the twins were often pictured near Obama in their class yearbooks, their mother said.”
Good one. I was going to point that out, but thought I would leave the fun to others. You win for being first.
LMAO ! ! Ellid FTW.
There birthdays are in early August – summer vacation. This was not elementary school more like intermediate and high school (7th through 12th grades). Having their pictures on the same page in the high school year book, was because o follows n in the alphabet. Does mean they hung out in the same social circles.
I guess you can’t recognize a set-up. Don’t you think I am aware of what the response would be to that? And some say birthers don’t have a sense of humor… So go ahead and high five!
I think summer birthdays were recognized at the end of the school year. But, you don’t understand that I agree with you. Mrs. Nordyke played things up.
We have a phrase in English; “It is a small world after all.” Two people can pass each other everyday for 20 years without realizing it. On meeting one day, they both remember witnessing the same event 20 years earlier.
FactChecker and PetJake have different IP addresses.
Well, that joke sure didn’t go over well.
You still have an excellent batting average. Chin up, slugger! 🙂
“Shapes of the Earth — opinions differ”
I wonder what makes Obama different. Hmm.
A better looking wife?
A wife who didn’t kill an ex-boyfriend with her car?
(Now I am just being plain mean & crabby. And for those birthers wonderin’, I am not referring to Hillary.)
Abe Lincoln may have had the toughest marriage but there were others.
And yes, I got the Laura in a t-bone accident reference. Pretty horrible. She and Karl Rove probably ran the country for eight years.
Charo,
I’m sure you realize that you can’t map your personal experience to others at other times and in different states. Yes, I too remember parents baking cupcakes, etc. to bring to school during the early years of elementary school. But the “parental involvement” pretty much ended at delivering me and any goodies to the classroom. Not sticking around for the celebration or having any idea or caring who else “might” be having a birthday around that time.
In my city there were 4 elementary schools and mine was the smallest of the four. In my school, there were maybe 50 kids per grade, spread across 2 classrooms. Even so, there did happen to be another kid named Jim who had the *exact* same birthdate as mine…and he & I were even in a smaller program called G/T together through those years, which only had 7 kids from my grade in it. So I hung out with that kid a lot. I knew that his birthday was the same as mine, but I can guarantee you that my parents weren’t really aware of it at all.
Remember too that Barack was gone for a good portion of “elementary” and returned to HI at the age of 10 to finish his schooling there. So it is also very unlikely that “cupcake” birthday parties, if they had them at all, were still even going on at that stage. From memory, I only remember doing that stuff in the early years of elementary school and I don’t remember any of that stuff still continuing in the last few years of it and certainly not once we got to Jr. High. I have several other friends who I grew up with and hung out with all the time, who my parents all know very well because they were often over the house and I still keep in touch with them to this day whose birthdays are only 1 day apart from me. I know I’ve mentioned their birthdays to my folks numerous times when I was young and to this day, yet they never seem to recall no matter how many years I remind them that these friends have a birthday only a day apart from me. They only remember mine.
So, in summary, although I appreciate your personal childhood experiences and understand that folks can often only form a basis based upon their own recollections, your entire argument comes down to pointless “grasping at straws” speculation that serves no purpose.
It seems like a softer gentle mommy grizzle bear … change the outwards appearance, but keep the inter bitterness.
Well, Barack Obama wasn’t exactly an “important” kid to know as a child. Obama lived in Indonesia in early childhood, so the Nordyke twins would have known Obama in the middle school years and beyond. Girls tend to hang out with other girls in middle school — they become interested in guys later when the are interested in dating. As far as I recall, Obama doesn’t mention any female high school friends in his autobiography — he talks about hanging out with other guys, playing basketball.
So it is very likely that the twins “knew” Obama but never socialized with him. There was no reason that they would have had much contact.
Common sense and logic means nothing to a birther who clings to baseless speculation, anecdotal evidence and delusional paranoia.
“charo wrote:
Well, don’t take stock in me either! ”
No worries. No one does.
It would also apply to two presidents after Carter, namely Reagan and G. H. W. Bush. Obama is only the fourth U.S. President that was born in a hospital.
Ten presidents were exempt from the natural-born requirement because they were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. Thus the requirement for a hospital birth to prove natural-born citizenship would nullify 30 of the 44 presidencies, or counting Cleavland just once, 29 presidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_date_of_birth
Furthermore, even though Carter, Clinton, and G. W. Bush were born in hospitals, they did not show their birth certificates, so they’d be eliminated too. To hear the birthers tell it, you’d think Barack Obama was the only president who didn’t show a birth certificate to prove his eligibility. The truth is the opposite: he’s the only one who did.
Excellent work. Thanks.
Birthers go into hum mode when presented with facts.
You’re late to the game. That insult has already been taken. Being the charitable Catholic that you are, just pray a novena to St. Dymphna for me, the patron saint of ? (are you googling yet?)
G,
What I related was in response to a direct question to me:
“Charo, did you know the birthdays of all the members of your high school class, did you meet their parents?”
I didn’t launch into personal experience when I first made my comment. Go back and read above.
”I think it was remarkable that they just so happened to be born within 24 hours of each other and grew up knowing each other,” Nordyke said.
She made the implication that they knew each other well. She also made the implication that Stanley Ann died and therefore Obama’s grandmother raised him. I therefore said that I wouldn’t take much stock in anything she says except for the birth of her twins. It’s all there above.
Charo. Honesty is the best policy. It is also best to admit you are wrong or just drop the subject. There are many people who will continue to view your position negatively, because of your past behaviour. I hope that you have learned an important lesson today.
Meaningless, pointless drivel. Do you do anything other than promote speculative, anecdotal crap?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Wrong about what? Mrs. Nordyke implied that Stanley Ann Dunham died and Madelyn Dunham raised him for that reason. She implied that her daughters knew him well. She is not reliable IMO. Reality Check brought the issue of Mrs. Nordyke up. Doc C made a comment to him and I made a comment as well.
My past behavior here is quite limited.
Actually, in following the FOIA request thread and the documents displayed, I was going to make a comment that would surprise you.
Forget it.
So then it would be my mistake. I really don’t think Nordyke has any relevance other than used by birthers to distort the facts.
Dr. Conspiracy said that “However, Mrs. Nordyke did not say that she remembered Obama.”
Anyways, Nordyke never met Obama’s mother. I think you stumbled across some misinformation, which could explain the consistent rebuttals you have encountered.
Please check obsolete’s link, and read the article.
You were going to make a comment that would surprise us.
You had to tell complete strangers you had an epiphany.
I think you’re full of nc1.
I don’t think this is as likely as you think – if they were in the same class at school and had a birthday durning the school year, then I would agree, but the president’s birthday is in the summer. Would you expect them to know the birthday of everyone they knew?
I quoted from the Honolulu Advertiser.
Do you mean these rebuttals?
1. How do you know she didn’t tell friends and family about it? But as usual you’d rather jump on anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived conclusion. (the article directly said she realized in 2006 not years ago- but I had preconceived conclusion???)
2. What makes you think anyone ever did? (take stock in what I say- no substance, just an insult)
3. What makes you think anyone ever did? (quoting ellid)
LMAO ! ! Ellid FTW. (no subtance, just insult)
4. We have a phrase in English; “It is a small world after all.” Two people can pass each other everyday for 20 years without realizing it. On meeting one day, they both remember witnessing the same event 20 years earlier. (If you read my comment, I said it was possible that the event transpired)
5. I’m sure you realize that you can’t map your personal experience to others at other times and in different. (continuing with a detailed response that was much longer than what I related, and my limited personal revelation was in response to a query to give personal information.)
6. “charo wrote:
Well, don’t take stock in me either! ”
No worries. No one does.
(unprovoked insult from kimba- no substance)
7. Meaningless, pointless drivel. Do you do anything other than promote speculative, anecdotal crap?
(unprovoked- I quoted from the Honolulu Advertiser)
When I answer a question posed, I get accused of drivel.
Well, Charo, I’ve got to say, I don’t know about this one. See, when I was in 4th grade we moved to a new house, and it turned out that one of the neighbor kids had the exact same birthday as my brother. Same day and same year. We all thought that was really neat.
But somehow I don’t remember it ever coming up, for anyone (even my mother) to wonder if maybe they were in labor at the same time at the same hospital–maybe even right next to each other. It’s certainly possible. My brother was born in some hospital in that area, I don’t know which one, and the neighbor kid was born in some hospital in that area, I don’t know which one. So they totally could have been.
But it actually never occurred to me to think about it, until just now when I was reading your comment. And if I was talking to my mom one day (40-odd years later), and she was to say, “You know, Mrs. ___ and I were just talking, and we suddenly realized that we must have been in labor at the same time at the same hospital!”, I wouldn’t really think that was weird. It had just never really come up. You know?
Anyway, everyone’s acknowledging that this isn’t definitive proof. They were talking about “shreds.”
No, I don’t believe she played things up. Just the opposite. If she were playing things up she would have said she remembered the President;s mother in the hospital, lying in the next bed, or that she remembers young Obama come to her house for sleep overs, and she knew when she met he he was bound to do important things.
Really? I don;t get that feeling at all. The entire narrative starts after they are in Jr. High school. In fact, it sounds like they only knew him at school and not outside of school.
And the boat trip? Why would she make that up? Two elder women meet on a boat and find they have something in common, their kids and grandkid. And her recalling of what they discussed is hardly a verbatum, on the record account. In the article, Mrs. Nordyke said ‘she was told that Mrs. Nordyke did say that “her daughter had passed away and that she had raised her grandson, and he was a social worker in Chicago.”
She is paraphrasing the entire conversation, how can you draw any implications from it? Would you feel better if Mrs Nordyke had said that the grandmother told them, “she had raised her grandson and that her daughter had passed away,and he was a social worker in Chicago.” I think you are being alittle hard on the woman.
Frankly, I don;t see that this article has any significance beyond verifing where the President went to high school, which I don’t think was ever in doubt.
Charo,
In a casual conversation on a cruise ship, it would be easy to conflate two statements (‘I raised my grandson’ and ‘his mother died’) in ones mind as ‘I raised my grandson after his mother died’ – in fact, we don’t know if Ms. Nordyke did this or you did (her statement can be read either way). Also, she only said that her girls knew President Obama growing up – you seem to want to add the adjective ‘well’ to this – why?
Everyone else,
Many people here seem to refer to Charo as if she is just another birther like nc1 or yguy – she’s proved she’s not. She might take birther positions, but she stays around and engages in the discussion and doesn’t continually repeat the same thing in the face of evidence rebutting it. Ad hominem attacks against some of the brithers may be justified (I think that ad hominem attacks are always bad tactically, but that’s just me) but, in my opinion, many of the attacks on Charo only reflect poorly on their authors. (Many of her ideas, on the other hand, should be torn to shreds and killed until it is clear that they wont be coming back as zombies ;-))
Doc C has repeatedly expressed a desire for more civility, and even if it’s not being enforced anymore, do you really want to disrespect our host by ignoring his wishes? Finally, we’ve all seen that most birther sites are replete with ad hominem towards the president and his supporters – why would you want to adopt their tactics when being civilized and rational (in addition to having all of the facts on our side) is much more effective in convincing any undecided person who is reading this.
Not to worry. This whole web site and the topic it covers is drivel.
passerby,
The imagined conversation I related is speculative of course (hey we were in labor at the same time kind of thing). I don’t know how such a conversation would have occurred. I guess that such a conversation occurring is no more weird than having someone placed at your table on a crowded cruise who happened to be Madelyn Dunham. Or someone remembering that “Stanley Ann had a baby.”
This interview took place because Mrs. Nordyke wanted it to. Have you thought about who initiated the interview? Did the reporter investigate all of the
classmates and parents and come up with Mrs. Nordyke? Or did Mrs. Nordyke contact the paper? It seems that you are open to my curiousity and don’t view it as sinister.
I am not being hard on Mrs. Nordyke. I said that she is probably a nice person.
Night of the Living Birther Theories
Yeah, but that’s not a good reason not to answer questions you see as legitimate. In my opinion, your willingness to engage in debate is one of the biggest things that separates you from posters like nc1, Sven, and yguy.
Thanks. I enjoy debate, especially the underdog position. I’ll continue at another time if you are interested and before the thread becomes too stagnated.
Many of the bithers like to recycle long discredited theories – proper zombie control techniques are a required skill for us Obots. 😉
*grabs his cricket bat* Got my proper Zombie control measures…
charo:
Nah, nothing sinister or anything. I agree, BTW, with everything Slartibartfast said above.
No, I haven’t really thought about the question of how that interview came about, who contacted who and so on. But then this is the first time I’ve seen that particular interview.
I would be willing to bet that there are, or have been, reporters, especially in Hawaii, diligently searching through old yearbooks and class photos and whatnot, and contacting a bunch of them in the hope of finding someone who would be willing to be interviewed for an article. They do that kind of thing. It’s their job.
Or maybe … well, on the web site of our local paper, a lot of the time they’ll have a blurb like, “Were you there when ….?” or “Did you know so and so? Please contact us!” Because they’re writing a story about it.
Or maybe she contacted them. I really have no idea. I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference really.
If your point is just that we shouldn’t take Mrs. Nordyke’s statements as proof, that’s fine. They’re not. It was a casual interview, not some kind of court proceeding or something. It’s possible she exaggerated or something, no way to know. I don’t personally see any reason to think so, but who knows?
See, to me, the only really authoritative source concerning whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii would be the official custodians of Hawaii’s birth records. They’re the ones with the records, and that’s their job, and they say he was born there. To me that pretty much closes it–unless someone came up with some pretty good evidence to the contrary. Not just speculation that they could be wrong, but real evidence that they are wrong. And I haven’t seen any.
Don’t be so dramatic. You’re a birther with no credible evidence our President isn’t a natural born citizen.
Your paranoia is not evidence.
charo wrote:
“I am not being hard on Mrs. Nordyke.”
Sure you are. You’re being quite nasty about Mrs Nordyke. That’s why you say this:
“This interview took place because Mrs. Nordyke wanted it to. Have you thought about who initiated the interview? ”
Any non-birther who read that story knew they were reading a simple home-town human interest story – Lady has twin daughters who were not only born just a day after the first President born in Hawaii, but they were born at the same hospital and went to the same schools! Only birthers want to make Mrs Nordyke seem a suspicious, not-to-be-believed person because her story is about Barry Obama, regular American kid. Birthers hate that. They want people to think young Barry was some foreign, dark, suspicious non-Christian, non-cupcake serving kid.
“I don’t know how such a conversation would have occurred. I guess that such a conversation occurring is no more weird than having someone placed at your table on a crowded cruise who happened to be Madelyn Dunham.”
Nonsense. Most people have had the experience of being seated next to someone they think they do not know and with even a brief conversation discovering they know people in common. It’s only birthers who try to make this seem unlikely or suspicious. Maybe they don’t get out much.
Can I invent bizarre, random, irrelevant crap about your life?
AHA ! !
I can’t recall Charo ever saying or implying that her paranoia is evidence (to the best of my knowledge, she hasn’t displayed any paranoia, evidentiary or otherwise) – she generally qualifies what she says as her opinion (which I may think is wrong, but I’m willing to accept her as an authority on what her opinion is ;-)). On rereading the exchange, it seems to me like Charo gave an honest answer (I didn’t find her answer persuasive, but it wasn’t in any way ridiculous or insincere to me) to a question that G asked her after which you referred to her comment as drivel. It seems to me that your knee-jerk reactions are the real meaningless, pointless drivel here.
I appreciate your above response. When attacked in the past, I sometimes responded in a sarcastic manner. I try not to, but it happens. Because you are the more regular commenter here, I will bow out of this particular thread because I don’t want to cause dissension between you and the others with whom you interact more often than I do.
There is nothing wrong with being interested in the circumstances of the president’s birth and upbringing or even inquiring whether or not these circumstances affect the president’s eligibility – it’s only when you advocate baseless conspiracy theories in the face of evidence to the contrary that your motives should be questioned and to the best of my knowledge Charo has never done this. Can you cite one piece of ‘bizarre, random, irrelevant crap’ about the president’s life that Charo has invented? She generally raises questions about things she has heard or read elsewhere. Doc can correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t one of the purposes of this site to provide a place for people who have questions about conspiracy theories regarding the president’s eligibility to find answers based on the facts and the law?
Charo has admitted to being a birther.
I say put up credible evidence or STFU.
A birther does not believe Barack Hussein Obama II is a natural born citizen of the U.S. and is therefore ineligible for the office of President,
I respect the legal authority of the state of Hawaii.
I respect the U.S. Constitution.
What is your question?
You’re welcome. I’ve been meaning to do it for a while – some people’s responses to you bug me. Please don’t worry about me getting in a fight, be assured that I wouldn’t pick a fight if I didn’t want to and I’m more than confident that I can handle this one. You can bow out of the discussion if you like (just like Miranda, everyone on the internet has the right to remain silent – it would be nice if more people availed themselves of this right… ;-)) but please don’t bow out of it on my account. I would argue that posts like yours are an essential first step in getting to the truth – raising questions. The question of what Ms. Nordyke and Ms. Dunham discussed on a cruise may not be important, but some of us at least find it interesting and it is also useful (in my opinion) to show that even trivial, tangential stories like this are consistent with the president’s narrative of his birth and upbringing. Say what you want on this thread – if anyone makes an unjustified attack on you then I’ll gladly take on the fight they’re picking.
Thanks again (and you also passerby-didn’t see your response immediately). I’ll get back as time permits then. Our country needs more of an attitude like yours right now. You may be interested in reading Peggy Noonan’s articles recently.
“Slartibartfast wrote:
The question of what Ms. Nordyke and Ms. Dunham discussed on a cruise may not be important, but some of us at least find it interesting and it is also useful (in my opinion) to show that even trivial, tangential stories like this are consistent with the president’s narrative of his birth and upbringing.”
Except charo didn’t make the connection that Mrs Nordyke’s story is consistent with the President’s narrative of his birth and upbringing and is supporting evidence that it’s the truth. Instead, charo strongly suggested Mrs. Nordyke made up the story about meeting Mrs. Dunham, made up the story of her daughters knowing the first President of Hawaii and contacted the newspaper to “plant” her made-up story. Rather than seeing supporting evidence for what it is, birthers see it as just more evidence of a grand, wide-reaching conspiracy to cover-up for the President.
And this means that she is not entitled to any respect and must answer for any assertion made by anyone identified as a birther?
Can you give me an example of where Charo has asserted that the president is ineligible? (rather than just saying that she had doubts about the president’s eligibility) It seems to me that shouting someone down and making ad hominem attacks when they raise a question is poor debating tactic. I would guess that Charo would have been much more likely to have been convinced of the president’s eligibility by now were it not for comments like yours.
What does ridiculing anyone who raises the question do? Does it make you feel a little better or superior to someone? Because what it certainly doesn’t do is help convince anyone that the birthers are wrong and all of their theories are totally baseless.
Good for you!
I didn’t have a question, I just took exception to your comments and said so. Like Charo, I enjoy debate and I would much rather see some interesting analysis or legal reference from G or Black Lion or the Doc (or many others) than you trying to show off how clever you are. Since you asked for a question: are you so obtuse that you can’t see the difference between Charo and Sven or yguy or nc1?
Thanks. See you later. Will and I are just going out back for a minute… 😉
Okay, but don’t count on me doing any mud wrestling with kimba 😉
And her suggestions were refuted by several posters leaving anyone reading the opportunity to decide for themselves which arguments were most compelling. In what way did Will add to the debate? I have no problem with people flaming trolls (that’s just pest control ;-)), but not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll and not everyone who calls themselves a birther is a Orly-loving, Vattel-qutoing, Lakin-worshiping wingnut. I believe that there’s never anything wrong with asking a question (completely disregarding the answer because you don’t like it is another thing entirely). The only way to debunk conspiracy theories is to let them ask their questions and then shine a light on the facts for an answer.
Charo – Again, you are reading into and implying more than the article conveys. You are the one making the implication that they “knew each other well .
The only implication that is made by her in the article is that they “knew each other”. That merely implies some awareness and interaction and to read “well” into it is your own interpretation, without any basis to support that.
I’m sure that there are many people that you’ve encontered in your life that you don’t actually associate with regularly or know that well but you might recognize their name or face if you see them and even strike up a conversation of minor acknowledgement and general chit-chat if/when you bump into them. So you have general awareness of who those types of people are and could recollect them if they suddenly made the news, but otherwise they don’t cross your mind that often and you likely don’t know many personal details about them.
You are merely trying to create an exaggeration of the known situation in your own mind because it helps you to support your own preconceived conclusions and biases and try to introduce straw-man arguments on inconsequential trivia to distract from the basic NBC eligibility issues for which all evidence points to only one conclusion – Obama is NBC and born in Honolulu, HI.
Because there is no real argument that disproves or can get around that evidence, those that “wish it were otherwise” merely try to distract and deflect and focus on inconsequential side tangents.
Why I must ask you, do you even do this or feel the need to? What is it about Obama as president that you can’t internally accept? There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with his policies or positions, but why do folks like you feel you have to go way beyond that and must delegitimize those you disagree with or who are simply different than you? I just don’t get it.
When I have the time, I’m trying to go beyond just answering comments to add a hyperlink to a story I’ve written on the subject,where one can find more detail and links to original sources. What I’m finding is that the links (for example here) are sometimes a year and a half old! I think the zombie analogy is very apt.
In fact the concept is quite old too, first seen in the 2008 Salon.com article: Why the Stories about Obama’s Birth Certificate Will Never Die.
The saddest thing (and most ironic) about the people trying to delegitimize the president is that they claim to be patriotic while doing one of the most un-American things that I can imagine.
Well said.
I know lots are frustrated and have no patience when even the “whiff” of birther appears here, but a number of you are being a bit harsh on Charo, from my POV. Maybe you are just not familiar with her or her history here.
Even though Charo utters a fair number of birtherish statements and sentiments, she has an established history of trying to be civil and engage in rational debate, so she’s not a full-blown birther zombie by any means.
She sometimes will overreact and take a response out of context, which is something that just about all of us, (myself definitely included) tend to do from time to time. So, that’s just human nature trying to interpret context to what is merely typed on a screen and not something to overly dump on someone about. When those situations happen, as long as meaningful dialog is continued on both sides to explain what is meant, usually the situation gets resolved as both people finally get what the other’s actual point and intent was and realize what threw things slightly off track.
Charo is really good with having that dialog to get to that understanding, if you will be patient and respectful and let her. Trust me, I have learned a lot from her followup and feedback, which has many times led me to realize that I overreacted and misunderstood part of what she meant and for her to sometimes realize that she could have stated things better to avoid the misconception in the first place. In the end, both of us have often ended up in a much calmer and more reasonable place of understanding…but it can take several back & forths to get there.
Yes, I too crack fairly hard on her for taking positions that I think are untenable and appear to be motivated by emotional bias instead of logic or by falling for bad birther data out there and being susceptible to spouting RW memes without thinking them through – but as Slartibartfast wisely points out, these are attacks on bad ideas or bad data, not on the person.
I truly think Charo is a fairly honest broker here. She just comes from a worldview based on certain “conservative” thoughts and therefore seems to start out with a strong perception bias of assuming anything from a RW source as “more likely” true on its face without having to question it too deeply and anything else as highly suspicious. Like any of us, she can have her bad days too where she comes across more negative or stronger than usual. All part of being human, if you ask me. We are all far from perfect and don’t always represent ourselves well and all make mistakes. The difference between Charo & actual birthers is she will eventually get around to admitting a mistake once she realizes she made one and she is also able to simply agree to disagree, which is fair and acceptable, if you ask me.
So, with Charo, I think it is really about having to break down past those perception biases and get at the heart of what is driving why she brings up a particular piece of data or puts excessive weight into a lot of seemingly speculative and irrelevant trivia and then getting past that to find out and discuss what is valid about that notion and what is mere speculation and whether or not such speculation has any purpose or adds any value.
Also, Charo has a subtle sense of humor, which being familiar with her writing for awhile now, I am getting better and better at picking up on it quicker. Humor is one of those things that translates the worst to mere two-dimensional text on the screen instead of direct human interaction. I think a lot of folks here are sometimes jumping to more negative conclusions of Charo or her statements because they too are misreading or missing those spots where she is adding humor to her reply and is actually being more lighthearted and flippant about making a comment instead of actually trying to push that speculative position.
In summary, all I’m getting at it to try to encourage better dialogue between Charo & the rest of the serious community here and to be patient and not jump to conclusions or overreact.
“In summary, all I’m getting at it to try to encourage better dialogue between Charo & the rest of the serious community here and to be patient and not jump to conclusions or overreact.”
I liked Charo better when she was hanging with Xavier Cugat.
“Slartibartfast wrote:
The only way to debunk conspiracy theories is to let them ask their questions and then shine a light on the facts for an answer.”
Only the hard core birthers remain. All the light in the world shining is not going to change their minds. They want an excuse to not believe President Obama legitimately won the Presidency.
I agree and concur.
Me too.
Tis but a flesh wound.
LOL! Hilarious! And good-natured humor to help defuse the situation too, I might add.
Very well said and good advice too.
Thanks Slartibartfast for everything you’ve posted here to help restore fairness, balance and decorum. You’ve earned your Magrathean pay for the day! 😉
I don’t want to give them the ‘Obots were mean to me’ excuse. Certainly many, if not most, of the remaining birthers would qualify as ‘hard core’ (sticking with it for years of compiling an 0 and 70-something record will select for that) but there are likely to be some people new to the controversy (in my experience most normal people know very little about it – we few, we happy few… ;-)) and people who haven’t before ventured out of the echo chamber and don’t realize how biased the information they have been getting is (I think this is true for many Americans, not just birthers). In any case, it’s my personal policy to give people the benefit of the doubt and then react to them based on their actions. I don’t think that Charo’s actions merited some of the responses she received.
But… Your arm’s off!
Thanks. I’m saving up for a retirement planet with nice fjords…
So you too are pining for the fjords.
Kimba,
I do feel that there is a lot of validity to the statement you just made positing that only “hard-core” birthers remain after 2 years of this stuff.
I believe this is mostly true, but I still think that there are those folks who constantly hang out in mainly RW conservative-only circles and who get a steady diet of their news from mainly RW conservative sources who are still rational and decent people who unfortunately have allowed themselves to be too overly influenced and susceptible to some of this nonsense out there.
There are a lot of folks out there of this persuasion who have been only subjected to negative stereotypes about anyone different than themselves including that they must hold anyone to the “left” of themselves in utter distrust and suspicion. These types tend to like the “idea” of what the birthers offer, because it fits into the “worldview” and biases that they are constantly inundated with.
However, not all of these folks are the insane and dishonest “hard core” birthers in the same way as yguy, Polarik, Taitz, BZ, nc1, etc. Those are folks whose intent is obvious trolling and who continuously display serious issues of defiant cognitive dissonance and other indications of mental and emotional defectiveness and paranoia in their ability to think and function in the real world.
Charo seems to fall more in a “wishful” thinking category of emotionally empathizing with “birtherism” but she does not display these other pathologies of those mentioned above and when confronted, quite often is capable of providing a rational response. Therefore, even if it is a long process, I believe dialog is still very worthwhile and helpful in these situations and can eventually lead to some common ground and agreement, even if the perspectives remain different.
Surely you can see the vast difference between Charo and those other hopeless and often intentionally deceptive, dishonest and disruptive trolls….
No, no no! You are mixing your Python with your Adams! Now go cut down the tallest tree in the forest with your towel and bring me a pan-galactic gargleblaster and a shrubbery!
😉
😉 😉
LOL! Awesome, Misha!
Building upon the wonderful British humor of Douglas Adams with a comeback reply from the British talents of the Monty Python troupe… that’s what I call pure bada-bing beauty!
LOL! I see you picked up on it as quickly as I did too.
Well, I’ll award you 😉 😉 😉 for your equally apropos mixed-metaphor response!
I love mixed metaphors – my favorite is: ‘We’ll burn that bridge when we get to it.’
Thanks for calling me obtuse. That makes things easier.
Even concern trolls are birthers. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig. Enjoy your pig.
It isn’t debate when you’re fishing and questioning whether the President is the legitimate Chief Executive.
This is Obama Conspiracy Theories not Concern Trolls Who Wonder if Obama Played Pin the Tail on the Donkey with the Nordyke Twins (dot com).
But please continue to insult me.
Since I’m so obtuse, I’ll make this simple so I can follow.
Is Barack Hussein Obama II a natural born citizen and the legitimate President of the United States of America?
Yes or No.
There is no maybe any more than you can be a little pregnant, very unique, or somewhat dead.
Slarti and G, IMHO, you’ve misjudged. In my estimation, charo is one of the hardest of the hard core.
I apologize for calling you obtuse, but my question still stands: Do you see a difference between Charo and nc1, yguy, or Sven? By your response, I’m guessing that you don’t. In my view the important difference between them is that Charo is willing to respond to the arguments that others give and engage in a dialog while the others are not. There’s nothing wrong with having incorrect opinions or not knowing something and a willingness to debate opens the possibility of being convinced that you are wrong. The comments that you made are responding to an open hand with a fist. And I don’t understand why anyone confident of the president’s eligibility (as I am) wouldn’t welcome a civilized debate based on the facts with any birther.
They’re cut from the same cloth.
Majority WIll –
I am well aware of what Concern Trolls are and I call them out on here regularly. I’ve called out all the usual trolls, such as NC1, etc. when they try to pull true Concern Trolling behavior.
Concern Trolling uses intentional deceit and insincerity. It is very much part of a passive-aggressive pattern that often shifts between pure trolling and concern trolling.
If you need to better understand what it really is and how to properly recognize it, may I suggest the Urban Dictonary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
Now, I will ask you politely to please state your case and give evidence of where Charo’s statements or actions are clearly “concern trolling”, because I just don’t see it that way.
Instead of getting so defensive at Slartibartfast and simply lashing back at him for asking you to display some restraint in your tone towards Charo, maybe you should pause first and be a bit more reflective on why many of us here would feel the need to step in and ask for some decorum and what part your statements might have played in bringing that about.
I don’t know where they are getting their information from. Sometimes it seems uninformed or not clear on their position.
Charo seems more willing to engage in a rational discussion, but they don’t seem to do research outside of the particular article. In the context of birtherism I don’t think that they are one.
Charo seemed to have quoted a false article without knowing it. Then they expressed doubt about the recount of Eleanor Nordyke. Charo does suggest that the recollection of Eleanor Nordyke maybe due to “it might make her an important person.” This is all based on what seems to be a “birther article” that Charo read.
Charo’s is to suggest that Obama and the Nordyke twins knew each other. Others have clearly expressed the problem with this scenario.
The problem with Charo is that they has read incorrect information, and seems to not understand the problems with the article they sourced.
It should be obvious that I have no doubts as to the president’s legitimacy. I just don’t think that there’s anything wrong with raising questions and I think that facts and rational arguments are the most effective response.
Perhaps. Time will probably tell. It wouldn’t change my responses at all if she were – reasoned debate best serves my interests in either case.
Not at Majority Will in particular but to this “spat” in general. Birthers aren’t pigs. Obots aren’t pigs. We’re all human beings. If all you can see in anybody is a label, then I feel sorry for you. That said, some people are very difficult to deal with, and I get angry sometimes. Still no one does himself credit with a cheap insult, or a mean-spirited response.
If you think you’re better than a birther, or better than an Obot, then act like it.
We will have TWO shrubberies.
Holy crap. Please refer to Monty Python’s argument clinic.
A birther or doubter or whatever doesn’t want debate any more than you do.
I won’t insult YOUR intelligence. You know the motive.
Another Bird,
If someone is mistaken due to a biased source, isn’t that good reason to respond by correcting them in a civilized way?
Misha,
I disagree, but it will probably become clear one way or the other. Now where’s my pan-galactic gargleblaster?
Seriously? Now that IMHO is a ridiculous and over-the-top statement to make.
Can you honestly say that Charo comes off more “hard core” than Orly, Sven, Apuzzo, nc1, yguy, James or Polarik?
Based on what?? Please, I’d like to hear this and see your comparative examples to back it up, because such a statement seems as illogical a comparison as most of the nonsense arguments that birthers make.
Best advice of this whole thread.
Can we get some swallows to perch on them?
Have you read the threads on birther blogs calling Barack, Michelle and their young girls monkeys or sub-human who should be deported and hanged?
I agree that ad hominem cheapens the discussion but give credit to Black Lion posting on this blog for showing the pure evil in Birferstan.
Wow. I find it sad that you think in such binary stark terms. IMHO, that type of thinking is part of the problem of ever getting past crazy issues and finding common ground.
charo: I guess you can’t recognize a set-up.Don’t you think I am aware of what the response would be to that?And some say birthers don’t have a sense of humor… So go ahead and high five!
I am giving you a standing ovation.
Well done. Well done.
And I alerted the media but only WND and the P&E.
Please don’t try to tell me what I do or don’t want – debate IS what I’m interested in. I lost interest in the president’s eligibility once I was reasonably certain that he was eligible – my interest is the people who believe this nonsense and why they believe it. I don’t believe that they all have the same motive or believe the same things and I am fascinated by their reasoning and how they defend it in the face of contrary facts and legal citations.
Since you apparently missed it:
Hey, yes I have. And I think its quite clear that I find those things disgusting.
However, I have not heard Charo make such statements – not once, ever.
If she ever did, I would leap to call her out on it harshly and I would have no problem with you doing so as well.
And this is directed at you, kimba and Misha –
I don’t have any problem with you personally having no tolerance for “birtherism” (trust me, I have very, very little tolerance of it) and I don’t care if you personally are extremely skeptical of Charo.
All I am asking is for you to please show a bit more decorum in your responses – attack crazy ideas and not the messenger unless they have personally started it or earned it by responding in an obviously sleazy way.
Demonstrating bad behavior and jumping into attack mode at any individual just because other people’s words have offended you is unfair. Honestly, that is how this has come across. It does not appear that you’ve stuck to only calling her out for bad ideas or bad insinuation, but have crossed the line to personal attacks where she has made none and have treated her much more harshly than anything she has said would deserve.
There is a huge difference between her statements and her behavior and the other bad actors (yguy, etc) that we have on here. They have repeatedly well earned the ire and flack they receive.
What are you debating? Whether or not there are absolutes?
Please help me since I’m so slow.
Slart, Majority Will, G et-al
As I’m sure you may have gathered over time, I have verrrrrryyyyyy little time for the Birferstani and take pleasure in the poking wirth large pointy stick game.
As an example I continue to hound Yguy with gay abandon…actually I detect a touch of homophobia in his stances, I think that’s my next stance with him/her/it……..
Back on topic
If any one of we happy, smiley, brain washed, Soros funded, NWO Obots wants to engage with one of the muppets in an attempt to break the programming let ’em.
I personally feel the exercise is as futile as trying to make friends with a rabid rat but it’s their choice.
No need to support them but equally no need to snipe at them.
Sermon off, I return you to your regular scheduled programming
1973-1979 for Obama was middle school and high school, not elementary school. I don’t remember having cupcakes for birthdays when I was in sixth grade. Besides, Obama and the Nordyke twins were born in August, when school is not in session.
There was a girl in my high school class named Jane who was a casual acquaintance (by that I mean that we didn’t socialize outside of school). In fact, there is a picture of Jane and me together in a high school yearbook. Last year we reconnected for the first time since high school on Facebook. It was only after reading her Facebook profile that I realized that we share the same birthday, and she later confirmed that not only were we born on the same day, we were born in same hospital.
So it would not surprise me at all to learn that Obama and the Nordyke twins went to school together but did not realize that they shared the same birthday.
No, I don’t think they all have the same motive either
I wouldn’t put “charo” with James von Brunn.
So, I guess my question is . . . are there levels of birtherism which are o.k.?
There’s your debate.
I’m too obtuse to contribute.
To me this is like suggesting that we should torture people because Al Qaeda would torture our soldiers if they had the chance. I generally don’t set my standards according to groups that I disagree with.
My Soros check is late! It better come soon or I’m going rogue!
Right now I’d say we’re debating the efficacy and decorum of reasoned debate versus preemptive mocking and ad hominem attack. And in regard to your next post, the question is not ‘are there levels of birtherism that are okay?’, but ‘are there birthers (or fence-sitters) that could be convinced that the president is eligible.
“Auschwitz was divine retribution because you people have refused to accept god’s only son.”
Palin’s denomination preaches that garbage, as does John Hagee, every single day.
“You are a typical Jew.” That’s how my first marriage ended.
Rev. Bailey Smith: “God does not hear, nor answer, the prayer of a Jew.”
Don’t forget James Kopp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp
And this:
http://www.armyofgod.com/POClist.html
I’ll lay off when I get an apology.
Deal?
No. Anecdotal, but no.
And I hope you know I think you’re all right except for a few soft spots.
No, I won’t “deal”.
Because obviously you don’t “deal” with your issues. Once again, as you have done in the past, you leap from examples of how a number of A-holes have treated you poorly or the broader jewish community poorly in manners of clear bigotry and hate against jews. I think we can all agree that such antisemitism is vile and unacceptable. However, I do not see any of that happening here, so such an analogy comes off as just another unrelated inflammatory accusation.
Where on earth did jewish bigotry enter ever into anything that Charo has said and how in any way is that directly relevant to asking people to treat others in a civil manner unless they themselves act uncivilly? HINT: There is no direct correlation within the context of this specific conversation thread we’ve been having here. You’ve made a wild leap off the ledge.
Neither I nor Slartibartfast nor Charo nor anyone who didn’t do those things to you or to people of your faith owes you any apology for what you’ve been through. None of us have done those things to you.
Misha, you obviously have personal issues that you should seek help on, because you have allowed the actions of a few hateful bigots to be an excuse that you project unfairly onto others that have not displayed such actions. So you are the one who needs to just deal.
That is a very unhealthy attitude to have and I find it very sad and hypocritical that one who decries being persecuted for how bigots group them and react to them continually uses that to justify making negative broad judgmental assessments on those who you disagree with…
My grandmother’s brothers and sisters were rendered like pigs for soap and lamp shades in Nazi concentration camps. Her lucky escape was my chance at life. She had one surviving brother who lived in Russia. Her letters with cash were robbed. After many years, my uncle finally got a visa to visit the U.S. in the 70s. We took him shopping. He demanded K mart. O.K. We walked in the door and my Uncle Usher collapsed on the floor and started sobbing. He was overwhelmed. We had to keep telling him he could buy anything he wanted.
Have you ever lived under a genocidal dictatorship?
Uncle Usher gave me a Russian watch. I love it but it never worked.
And I say yes as a philosophical position (I haven’t seen it happen but I chose to act as if it were possible on the grounds that if I act differently it probably isn’t possible). And I don’t have any problem with you except for your tendency to consider everything you identify as ‘birther’ as a free-fire zone. Just try to save your venom for the people that invite it by their actions… (where’s Sven when you need him?)
The fact that it is understandable (or even justified) only makes it sadder that you see the world in black and white. We’re all at least a little gray.
Misha,
The fact that its understandable (or even justified) only makes it sadder that you see the world in black and white. We’re all at least a little gray.
I quoted the Honolulu Advertiser. http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Dec/22/ln/hawaii812220320.html
I have so much more to respond to, and intend to, especially out of respect for some of the commenters here. I can’t do so now, but I will as soon as I can.
Let’s try this a different way.
I’m a literate, college graduate with a degree in Political Science. (Oxford College of Emory and Georgia State University) I found that my cartoons and computer programming ability made more money.
I love debate but birthers never offer anything new.
Why is that?
Rickey: 1973-1979 for Obama was middle school and high school, not elementary school. I
The twins, Susan “Nunu” Bell and Gretchen “Nini” Worthington, were not only born in the same hospital hours after the future president, but also ended up in the same classes with Obama at Noelani Elementary School and later at Punahou School from the seventh grade to graduation in 1979. (from the same article)
G, in my long years of experience on the Internet, I have found that such comments never have the desired effect.
The birthers are continually coming up with new theories (as well as recycling old ones – see, the birthers can’t be all bad, they’re green!). Just look at all the theories popping up as to the meaning and significance of ‘Soebarkah’ (it’s perfect for them – a foreign-sounding name tied to the president in an unclear way, it’s like Christmas for people like Mario* or Orly). I’m not expecting them to come up with evidence that the president is ineligible (I don’t believe that can be done), I’m just looking to see how well they defend their positions and how intellectually honest they are if they turn out to be incorrect. If you go back and look at everything that Charo has written, I don’t think you can find any case where she was proven wrong (say by the citation of a law or a court case) and she continued to insist that she was correct. I may be wrong about Charo, but if we all did things your way, we’d never find out and you wouldn’t have the chance to jump up and down and yell ‘I told you so!’ at me if she starts using troll tactics like nc1 or yguy (and, believe me, if Charo ever says something to the effect of ‘I believe that President Obama is eligible for his office’, I’m going to jump up and down and say ‘I told you so!’ to you for at least 10 days ;-)).
* Mario is a good example of what I mean about effectiveness – you hurt him far more by giving him a reasoned answer which shows his ignorance of the law than you do by figuratively martyring him and helping him with his pay pal button.
G: Misha, you obviously have personal issues that you should seek help on
I have been in and out of therapy for years, and had a major breakdown in ’97. The pyschiatrist hated me. He asked me a question, which I answered Yiddish style, with another question. It went like this:
Dr: “Do you always answer a question, with another question?”
Me: “You got a better idea?”
Charo – what drew me to post acomment was what i preceived as an over-the-top reaction to a rather innocuous story. The most remarkable thing about the story is how incredible unremarkable it is. There is absolutely nothing in the stroy to discredit the birther narrative. Yet, you felt compled to implied that Mrs. Nordyke was some kind of opportunist trying to jumb on the Obama bandwagon. Why do you care where the President went to school?
One of the birther’s tactics (not you necessarily) is to portray the President as foreign, different, not American.
Does the fact that he was just a normal American teenager bother you? Is that why Mrs Nordyke’s story cannot be true. How did you put, ” I wouldn’t put stock in anything she says beyond the circumstances of her twins’ birth.” that strikes me as alittle harse.
”
“G wrote:
Can you honestly say that Charo comes off more “hard core” than Orly, Sven, Apuzzo, nc1, yguy, James or Polarik?
Based on what?? Please, I’d like to hear this and see your comparative examples to back it up, because such a statement seems as illogical a comparison as most of the nonsense arguments that birthers make.”
I didn’t say “more”. I say charo is hard-core because she wants to debate insignificant details of birtherdom, like how well Mrs. Nordyke and her daughters rrrrreallly knew the President and whether Mrs. Dunham being seated next to Mrs Nordyke at dinner on a cruise is rrrrealllly likely to have happened.
Now, the key birther leaders like Orly, Mario, Berg, Kerchner are basically brunt toast. Nothing left for them but an appeal or two. Maybe a race by Orly and Mario to see who can get the highest sanctions. And there’s a few bottom feeders like Lakin and Meroni trying to work their way into the limelight.
But overall, birtherism is basically dead. Sure there’s 25% who don’t like the President who’ll answer a survey question that they don’t believe he was born in the US. But there are very few left who are interested enough in the minutiae to come to OCT to read the resource material. charo has though. And suggests young Barry might not be a rill murcan because he doesn’t seem to have had cupcakes in homeroom from the class mom who knows every child’s birthday. Hard core is after 18 months in office, still trying to gin up doubt that the President’s story is American enough to qualify for being President.
As far as ad hominems, don’t say charo is all sweetness and honey, and misha and kimba attack. Nonsense. I will remind you that charo told me I “have always had a stick up my butt.” ( is she 13?) It’s just that kimba, and I’ll venture misha, recognize who charo really is.
Ooh…ooh. Lemme answer this one. NO, Obama is not a natural-born citizen – not by any stretch of your endless imagination . NO, there is nothing legitimate about Obama, period. His candidacy was illegitimate. His nomination was illegitimate, His election was illegitimate, His Presidency is illegal. But, YES, you are very simple.
Give it up Polarik. You have failed miserably to prove anything. Obama is the president, you lost get over it
Oooo, I’m soooo impressed with your latest rant. Here’s something to really make your blood boil.
I am going to write a series of articles for my blog, to restore the reputation of Leon Trotsky.
Hope you have a stroke.
Obama attended kindergarten at Noelani, and he attended third grade there for a few months during a visit to his grandparents in 1969, but that’s it. A 2004 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin says that when Obama moved back to Honolulu from Indonesia “He enrolled in the fifth grade at Punahou School.”
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html
If the Nordyke twins didn’t enroll at Punahou until seventh grade, they didn’t really have an opportunity to know Obama until he was 12 years old. And as I pointed out, even if Punahou recognized students on their birthdays, the birthday of Obama and the Nordyke twins is in August, during summer vacation.
Thank you for the excellent example! We are all clearly inferior and bow to the elegance and strength of your arguments. Out of curiosity, what did you intend to accomplish by this post?
Majority Will,
I see Charo’s willingness to engage in a dialog as very different than this kind of crap (if this truly is ‘Dr. Polarik’ then he is even more pathetic than I thought he was). Charo doesn’t post these kind of unsupported blanket assertions and ad hominem attacks (and I very much doubt that PetJake will ever respond to any rebuttal (which is really unnecessary here since he didn’t even bother making up any fake facts for this screed).
I nearly had a stroke! Trotsky. Very funny. 😉
Polarik stopped responding to rebuttals. We’ve mopped the floor with him every time, he just posts some more BS in another thread
“PetJake 07. wrote:
Ooh…ooh. … NO… NO…YES”
That’s it Ron, let it all out. There, there, all better now? Good. Deep cleansing breaths.
I’m just curious how you know that PetJake is Polarik.
Kudos to Rickey for staying on task through all of this!
Thanks for the link to this article. There is an interesting quote that speaks to cupcakegate, “Eric Kusunoki, Obama’s homeroom teacher at Punahou for four years, said, “I’m proud, but not surprised, that he is where he is today.”
Homeroom is typically a block of 10 to 20 minutes out of the day when the same group of students meet. It is the time when things like birthdays are celebrated. There is absolutley no guarantee that the Nordykes would have been in the same homeroom as the President.
Second, since this article was written before the Presidential campaign, it cannot be people in awe of the Presidency. I especially liked this quote,
“I could see he was bound for bigger things,” said longtime friend, classmate and football teammate Bobby Titcomb. “He looked at the world more globally than the rest of us. There was something driven about him.
“But he also played basketball, tennis and hung out at the beach with the rest of us.”
Sounds like just just your normal American teenager. And there is nothing more American then high school football.
profiles.yahoo.com/polarik
Hey PooPooPolarik!
You can post those words until the end of time, but they will never become the truth.
Seriously dude, you need a shrink.
By the way, President Obama is a natural born citizen and the legitimate POTUS according to every credible interpretation of the Constitution, the law and the rulings of the SCOTUS and the seditious crap that you and your ilk spew is some of the most un-American stuff I have ever heard.
It warms the cockles of my heart to know our President is out there presidentin’ and there’s not a thing you can do about it, Ron.
I was quoting the article. If there is misleading information there, then blame the reporter.
Yeah, I had the same impression and I was rather disappointed. You have this famous character in birtherdom who shows up here and one expects at least a little mental challenge.
Why do you think that?
I think it has something to do with duckies. Maybe PetJake could comment.
Here were you can’t defend yourself. You can’t shift the blame to others because you failed to do adequate research. There are too many articles out there with deliberate inaccuracies inserted to misinform people.
You can’t get a degree in forensic document analysis from a box of Cheerios.
Poser.
Stari, G, passerby,
I mainly leaned towards the notion that it was the birth father rather than the birthplace of Obama that has been the issue. I said so several times, mainly because Obama Sr. was so quickly out of the picture and there isn’t strong proof that they had a real marriage, as well as a couple of other things. I don’t mean that the marriage was illegal or non-existent. I gave my reasons why and noted that a different father would not conflict with the information released by Fukino. I don’t think anyone would prosecute her if she remained silent knowing that a fraudulent COLB was presented on the internet. That is not to say that it is fraudulent. This issue does not affect eligibility but credibility. I still say answer yes or no as to whether there was a receipt for the COLB transaction. That is what I, charo, would like. It won’t happen. I know that.
I remained hesitant about the birthplace of Obama because I didn’t like what I perceived as obfuscation by Fukino again for a couple of reasons that are not relevant now. The FOIA request partially granted in the Strunk case shows a document indicating that the birthplace of Obama is Honolulu. This FOIA case is before a court. Although the documents were released under an agreement, the whole matter is before a court. I find that proof corroborative, and actually, more reliable than Fukino. Unless there is some evidence to contradict what was released in the FOIA matter, then that is the proof I needed.
I’ll still follow eligibility happenings and question what I find questionable. As for Mrs. Nordyke, I stand by my comments. The reason that article was newsworthy had nothing to do with the school Obama attended, but that the story lead to the release of the twins’ birth certificates. I had the trite phrase “in the tank” but that is descriptive of how the press handled the vetting of Obama. I have a distrust of the reporting done regarding Obama when you compare it to the total vetting that was done of the former Governor from Alaska. [I am not stating this to make a rallying cry for the former Gov.] Reality Check initially brought up Mrs. Nordyke as a credible witness. Maybe she is, maybe she isn’t, but I prefer the kind of proof that a FOIA request gives rather than that of biased reporting.
[Actually, kimba, I believe I said up your behind. Butt is so crass.]
I quoted the article. As I said above, I don’t trust in the tank reporting. So, I guess I should not have relied on the Advertiser at all.
Charo, its pretty common for newspaper reports to get minor details wrong, including the quotes they attributed to people. They usually do a series of interviews to prepare an article, take written notes, and prepare the article based on their notes — and that’s where a reporter’s impression or assumption sometimes takes hold over what was actually said.
The only thing significant about the Nordyke article is the fact that the twins knew Obama and attended the same school as him for awhile — and happened to meet the grandmother once on a cruise. Nothing else reported comes from the personal knowledge of the interviewee.
You are the one who wants to read more significance into the article than is there, to somehow mine it for some sort of contradiction.
I see the gray. But you may be giving people too much credit.
You don’t know evil.
But birthers prey on mistakes and makes then gospel.
WND makes it into money.
That was worded badly. Sorry, Doc.
uh ohs someone needs to change their yahoo settings. Yahoo is anti sockpuppet
Dr. C, you are correct about this and I should have been more thoughtful and reflective before I typed that.
I am not going to deny or hide from what I said or that I meant it, but I definitely will agree that my words here can come across as hurtful and inflammatory and such things often result in the opposite effect of getting someone to confront or deal with their issues and only result in a more defensive and negative reaction instead, which is a completely natural and understandable human response when an attack is perceived.
So, in an instance like this, with Misha, I will apologize for how my statement likely stings and I will state that I am not trying to pick a fight with Misha. I have to say, I was quite impressed and moved by Misha’s heartfelt and openly honest response to what I said:
Misha, thank you for the response and I commend you for replying how you did instead of just getting more upset by my choice of terse words.
I think we both know that there is no question that virulent anti-antisemitism has harmed your people for thousands of years and that what happened during the Holocaust was probably one of the most awful examples of cruel and extreme bigotry being carried out in all of human history – which is why such tragic horrors can never be forgotten nor allowed to happen again.
I also agree that you personally have been subject to some extremely terrible, terrible incidents of unwarranted prejudice. Obviously and understandably so, those events have caused great emotional pain and scarring to you. I do not in any way attempt to take away the rightful anger you have towards those bigoted A-holes who treated in that manner.
I did not intend by my words to imply any mental defect on your part and I hope you didn’t take it that way. I think the scarring you carry with you is on a deep emotional level and it makes you very wary and bitter towards those that remind you of your persecutors in the slightest way. I do not think you should ever forget what happened to you. Nor do I feel that you have to forgive those that directly treated you that way. I also think it is quite understandable for you to strongly go after and call out anyone who directly expresses actual bigotry – whether it is anti-antisemitism or other forms and to come to the defense of those victimized by it.
All I ask is that you please try to judge individuals fairly by their own actions and not leap to condemn them for the failings of others, even if they seem to fall in general groups from which you’ve seen such bigotry in the past. Trust me, although you might not have “personally” encountered them, there are good conservatives out there who do not act or express such bigotry and who do not view jews negatively or as just “convenient tools” to bring forth the Rapture.
My words are more intended as helpful advice, even though I realize you may not take them that way. Even though scars are permanent, they still can heal and it is not helpful for them to remain fresh, open wounds. So, it is fine for you to remember, but I honestly hope that someday you can heal and let go of carrying the weight of broader hate within yourself. It is clear that your sense of humor is a helpful coping tool to express yourself and to vent your frustrations in a more productive manner and I encourage you to continue to do that.
It is obvious that you recognize that this is something you struggle with and I commend you for having that awareness and that you’ve taken steps in the past to try to address it. For what you’ve experienced, such emotional pain and anger probably requires more of a spiritual healing in order to achieve inner piece than what can be brought on by any psychiatrist or psychotherapist. If there is a good and wise Rabbi who you trust, they might be a better source of advice on how to get past the pain and negativity and find that inner piece. As Yoda always cautions, hate leads to the dark side…and I only encourage you to return to the path of the Jedi. 😉
I only hope you understand my intent here, as well as what things rubbed me the wrong way and that you don’t take offense to my clumsy attempts to help and give advice.
(Stari, G, passerby) charo, whether or not you copying someone else comment, you still don’t seem to understand. Why bother make the assert against you seem correct. I kind of feel foolish for admitting any mistake.
Let see from your latest comment what you have done.
– smeared children from single parent families.
– suggest some for of moral superiority over people who have failed marriages.
– suggest you are a better authority on government records, when you DON’T work for any government agency.
– suggest that a government agency isn’t ensuring the integrity of their records
Sarah Palin contradicts the entire argument by Stari, G, and unable to engage in logical reasoning (or skepticism) you just don’t realize that.
I wasn’t blaming you. I was just pointing out that the article wasn’t entirely on the mark.
Reporters make mistakes all the time. In Friday’s CNN story about the Lakin arraignment, for example, the reporter failed to challenge Lakin’s assertion that McCain released his birth certificate. In fact, the only person who claims to have seen a copy of McCain’s birth certificate is a single Washington Post reporter, who wasn’t allowed to make a copy of it for himself.
The reality is that life is full of inconsistencies, so making a big deal about minor ones really doesn’t make any sense. Someone gets a fact wrong, and then we have the likes of NC1 calling that person a liar. We have to keep in mind that memories are just memories. They are not infallible records of past events.
Ha! Like clockwork, Polarik rears his stinky head to help prove the very point that Slartibartfast and I were making.
So thank you “PetJake” for providing such a clear example of what a true vile birther troll looks like and how they speak and act.
Your blast of utter nonsense in full defiant and delusional denial capped off by an immature intentional attack is a perfect summary contrast to the words and method of dialogue expressed by Charo.
So congrats on giving that perfect example in a nutshell. This might have been the first time that your words and actions haven’t been utterly useless.
Actually, there is proof that they had a real marriage. The Soetoro FOIA documents include the Obama divorce decree. They couldn’t have gotten a divorce if they hadn’t been married.
No Kimba, don’t try to insult my intelligence and try to make it out like you didn’t say what you did and imply that I said things that I didn’t .
For one thing, I’ve never said nor implied that “Charo is all sweetness and honey”. You just came up with that all on your own out of thin air.
I’ve merely argued that her commentary has been generally civil and she has a proven capability to enter into actual dialog, including in situation to respectfully resolve disagreements and misunderstandings and therefore has not done anything that I see that has earned nor deserves the extent of uncivil treatment you have shown her.
Here is exactly what you said:
That is the exact and full extent of your statement at 6:15pm, to which I replied and explicitly quoted in my reply. So, there is no way to pretend confusion as to what I was referring to and I find it disingenuous that you tried to dodge and quibble about my use of the word “more” as a tactic of deflection from taking responsibility for making such an over-the-top comparison.
By any simple understanding of your statement of “one of the hardest of the hard core”, that is a direct implication that Charo is “more” hard core than others who are hard core.
All of my commentary and inquiry on this specific matter up to that point (as well as in that direct response to you) used explicit examples, casting characters such as yguy, NC1, Polarik, Orly, etc. as “hard core birthers” etc and arguing the case that Charo, in direct comparison to them, wasn’t what I viewed as “hard core”.
You did not come back and say that you merely lumped her in as hard core as well, but instead responded with placing her as “one of the hardest of the hard core”. In proper context as a response to me and what I had said up to that point, you implied a direct comparison of her to those others mentioned; which comes across as not just putting her in the “hard core” category, but also conveying that amongst them, she’s somehow on the “extreme” end.
Also, your whole response here still never directly answered my specific question on the matter; so I will ask you again for an explicit response and not a clumsy dodge– are you seriously trying to imply that Charo is “one of the hardest of the hard core” in direct comparison to those characters? If I’m failing to understand you here, than please give me a ranking scale of where she fits as a “birther” compared to those others mentioned…
***
Now look, obviously I’m being very anal about this, but only because you chose to respond in such a weasel-ish and insultingly dodging way back at me.
What I think you meant to imply here (and should have just directly said) was that you didn’t mean to be hyperbolic in your earlier analogy but only meant to express that you simply define a hard-core birther as anyone who A) is still holding onto birthish beliefs – period – at this stage of the game and who B) spends time on websites that deal with the matter by arguing for meaningless bits of smear-based esoteric trivia.
Then you could have simply said that (the rest of what you posted in your reply which falls between those statements I quoted above) was your examples and explanation of how you classify these birthers and how you view hard core vs not hard core.
Had you just done that, I would have understood and accepted your POV and respected it as how you view the breakdown. I would still hold an opinion that I remain unconvinced that Charo really is a “hard core” birther, but I would understand why and how you classify things differently.
But unfortunately, you did not simply respond in an honorable manner like that…
Majority Will,
I’m only responding to this statement because I’ve read all of your others and take no issue with them, but this one I do.
Your statement about “evil” seems to be another generalized hyperbolic impugning of the intent within the hearts of others. It comes across offensively harsh to me and therefore I take issue with such an extreme statement.
But I’m open to hearing you clarify what you meant by it and who you were directing that towards.
Charo,
Thank you for the consolidated response to explain your current understanding of the situation and where your positions now stand on the issues. I want to see if I understand you correctly, so here is the summary of what I’ve taken in from what you said. Please let me know if I’ve got your POV down correct or if I’m misunderstanding anything of what you are conveying:
1. Your main concern is with feeling secure about Obama being an NBC has/had to do with Obama Sr. (the President’s father) and that you primarily base your reason for finding this a source of concern is/was due to his limited involvement in Barack’s life? You are not implying that they weren’t married but you feel unsure. (Note: I hope that Rickey’s response helped answer that aspect for you)
2. You don’t deny that the existing evidence to date, including the FOIA all corroborates the likelihood of Obama being born in Honolulu, HI and that alone would make him an NBC.
3. On a personal level, you wish you could have access to more details and even stronger confirmation of the COLB to set your mind at ease (for whatever reason), such as seeing an actual receipt for the COLB or a courts ruling on the COLB, but you also fully realize and accept that those things are unlikely to happen.
4. Your quibbles seem to basically come down to be more about feeling that existing answers and info weren’t handled or presented in ways that you would have liked to see them handled and that in and of itself bothers you about the whole issue.
5. It seems to me that you are not really challenging that Obama is NBC but merely unhappy with the process of how information has been provided or presented.
6. You also felt that the media (or at least certain media) is biased in favor of how they cover Obama (at least during the election season) and that they treated certain conservative candidates unfairly in contrast.
Would that be a correct summary of your current positions? Before I comment further with my responses, I want to make sure I understand where you are coming from correctly. Thanks.
I say to you: “so what.” No matter if his birth was reported by an obstetrician, midwife, grandmother or third cousin, the registrar was satisfied with the evidence presented and concluded that the birth was in Honolulu. Therefore, as a matter-of-law, President Obama’s birthplace is Honolulu.
Unless, you can show fraud which conclusively proves birthplace outside the US (which you can’t do), his birth in Honolulu is a legal fact–regardless of the method of registration. Why? Because the person (or persons) legally tasked with vetting the evidence presented in the matter have already spoken.
As I see it, the only way to overturn their decision, is to conclusively prove (not offer hypotheses or speculation) that Stanley Ann Obama was not physically present in the United States on August 4, 1961. Lots of luck with that.
My grandmother has a wedding ring. I’ve read reports that jewelry theft is quite common, and many stores and individuals are robbed every year.
By birther standards, it is now up to my Granny to prove her ring isn’t stolen goods. They have as much proof against Obama as I do against my grandmother.
I NEVER SAID THE MARRIAGE WAS NOT LEGITIMATE! READ!!!!!
1. Your main concern is with feeling secure about Obama being an NBC has/had to do with Obama Sr. (the President’s father) and that you primarily base your reason for finding this a source of concern is/was due to his limited involvement in Barack’s life? You are not implying that they weren’t married but you feel unsure. (Note: I hope that Rickey’s response helped answer that aspect for you)
-No, G, this is what I said:
“This issue does not affect eligibility but credibility.”
2. You don’t deny that the existing evidence to date, including the FOIA all corroborates the likelihood of Obama being born in Honolulu, HI and that alone would make him an NBC.
-I would phrase it as the FOIA document corroborates Fukino.
3. On a personal level, you wish you could have access to more details and even stronger confirmation of the COLB to set your mind at ease (for whatever reason), such as seeing an actual receipt for the COLB or a courts ruling on the COLB, but you also fully realize and accept that those things are unlikely to happen.
– My mind is at ease. I don’t fret over things which I cannot control. I think that the age of the internet is going to bring the issue of electronic document fraud to the courts, and I don’t mean COLB’s alone. There are some really skilled people with tech skills. The corroboration of a receipt is not necessary for me to believe that he was born in Honolulu but I think it would set the matter of internet fraud to rest for some. I think the only reason to not set the matter to rest for all (in a better way than has been done so far) is because this can be used as a political scheme.
4. Your quibbles seem to basically come down to be more about feeling that existing answers and info weren’t handled or presented in ways that you would have liked to see them handled and that in and of itself bothers you about the whole issue.
– I would say that the existing matters should have been handled differently. I think if they were, there wouldn’t be 25% (or whatever the number is) of those who doubt the birthplace of the President.
5. It seems to me that you are not really challenging that Obama is NBC but merely unhappy with the process of how information has been provided or presented.
-I am not challenging his birthplace. I don’t believe the Supreme Court has made the final call on the citizenship issue, but because the Court has not taken any case and probably won’t, there will be clear precedent. If an eligibility challenge is not taken on now concerning the presidency, it realistically will never be. The reason this disturbs me is partly because of radical Islamic fundamentalism. I don’t mean immediate threats but future ones: the growth of terror cells with people who will wait a generation or more. The NBC had a purpose. But I don’t want to tie up the thread with an issue that has been debated hundreds of hours.
6. You also felt that the media (or at least certain media) is biased in favor of how they cover Obama (at least during the election season) and that they treated certain conservative candidates unfairly in contrast.
Yes.
Children are completely innocent concerning the circumstances of their birth. A government agency released the FOIA documents.
Hell hath no fury like a gentleman defending a lady’s honor.
Charo, whether intentionally or not, is pretty good at playing the victim card. The result is as disruptive to the online community as any classical foul-mouthed troll. I’m not going to try to judge intentions; I only see the results.
???? Your “theory” doesn’t make any sense. The only person whose credibility would be in issue would be Stanley Ann Dunham — and she’s long dead. If she was sleeping around with someone other than Barack Obama Sr, she clearly didn’t tell either her husband or her son — and obviously if she named the kid Barack Hussein Obama II she wrote down Barack Obama Sr. as the father on the birth certificate. (And if they were married at the time of birth he was the presumptive father in any case).
But then you’ve got a pretty far-fetched story, because now you’ve got to theorize that Stanley Ann was impregnated by some-other-black-guy…. none of which would matter in any case.
What do you want next? DNA testing of Obama’s half-siblings to figure out if they really share a father? What does that have to do with qualifications for the Presidency?
I never begged for help. I appreciated it when it came. I’m sorry that it disrupted things.
No one said you did. READ!!!!! You suggested that the marriage was not “real” which is an ambiguous phrase, and there’s no need to shout about it not being interpreted the way you meant.
Maybe these words “They couldn’t have gotten a divorce if they hadn’t been married” came across differently to you than to me. I’m going to stay away from the issue because it is not eligibility related.
I guess the caps doesn’t make one’s message heard any better.
“I don’t mean that the marriage was illegal or non-existent” were my words from above. I should have quoted that. I am sorry about the caps and for presenting myself in a way that was viewed as a “victim.”
hmm. I want to respond to all this, but I also want to get some things done around the house this morning. What to do?
Charo, there’s a whole bunch in your long post that needs to be unpacked. I’m still not totally clear on your position. In a nutshell, is this close?
–You’re pretty well satisfied Obama was born in Hawaii. Yes?
–On whether or not that makes him an NBC, you’d like to see it explicitly decided in a court, because you’re unsure. But you recognize that it probably won’t be, and meanwhile he’s president, so you’ll deal. Yes?
–You have some kind of doubt about the Obama marriage–I’m not quite clear on what kind of doubts. Not that they were legally married. Something else. That Barack Senior wasn’t the real father?
–I’ve got to say, I disagree about Hawaiian officials remaining silent about a forged internet COLB. Since they’re obviously aware of it, remaining silent about it would be complicit in the forgery. I don’t think they’d do that. They have a real interest in the credibility of their records. I just can’t see it.
–I do think you’re right about the issue of electronic document fraud, especially on the internet, being a more important issue in the future. Just another case of the technology outstripping our responses to it. There will be better procedures for verifying this sort of thing–eventually.
(I don’t worry so much about the online COLB itself. The statements of the Hawaii officials are what does it for me, really.)
–As far as the way the Obama campaign (and administration) responded to this stuff, I don’t know. Honestly, I think they were kind of caught by surprise that people made such a big deal of this, accusing them of forgery and so on. It surprised me. I looked at the COLB when it came out (at the time I thought releasing it was good move), said “Yup. Looks like a birth certificate to me,” and figured that was the end of that. Maybe they thought so too. So that would lead to some disjointed responses on their part.
Okay, getting too long. I have stuff I wanted to do this morning, got to go. The other debate in the thread: I could say a lot, but for now just assume that I agree with G.
G, thanks for all that. I don’t want to get into the Misha thing–I’m not really a regular here and have no kind of relationship with Misha, so I don’t feel qualified to say anything about it really. But for the rest of it, I have no hesitation to say I totally agree.
“charo wrote:
The FOIA request partially granted in the Strunk case shows a document indicating that the birthplace of Obama is Honolulu. This FOIA case is before a court. Although the documents were released under an agreement, the whole matter is before a court. I find that proof corroborative, and actually, more reliable than Fukino. Unless there is some evidence to contradict what was released in the FOIA matter, then that is the proof I needed.”
So you have the proof you needed. But you now bring up you have a question who his father is, whether his mother and father had a “legitimate” marriage. We know they were legally married. Judging the quality or legitimacy of their marriage is just another way of suggesting his upbringing is not murcan enough to be President, just like trying to judge whether young Barry was murcan enough based on cupcakes for birthdays in homeroom. But it’s funny you bring it up after you admit you’re satisfied he was born in the US and that was the proof you needed. Apparently it wasn’t.
This is hardcore birtherism folks. One theory was proven wrong, so charo picked up another one. Hard-core birthers invent qualifications that don’t exist in the Constitution or the law to try to disqualify Obama. They find new things that are their “real problem” with his eligibility that they never mentioned before, like charo did.
“I mainly leaned towards the notion that it was the birth father rather than the birthplace of Obama that has been the issue”
There is no discussing or bringing around to the truth, because every time you answer a doubt, charo will have a new one. And when you’ve answered every one, she’ll circle back and start over as though never discussed before. Hard-core birtherism.
charo, if you are satisfied Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, then you know he is legally eligible. There is no other qualification. Any other “problem” you have is a personal one. You’ve made it clear you have your ideals about who is American enough to hold office in this country. You have every right to judge the candidates against your ideals when you fill out your ballot. But your right stops when you try to insist your ideal of who is American enough to be President should determine who is on the ballot.
“charo wrote:
I’m going to stay away from the issue because it is not eligibility related.”
Exactly. Maybe you can tell what issues you think are eligibility related. You’ve already said you are satisfied it has been proven Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. You admit his parents’ marriage isn’t an issue or eligibility related. Where are we going next? Will it be down the “Malcolm X or Frank Davis might be his real father” path? ( How would that make the President ineligible when they were both born in the US themselves?) Or are we going off-shore to Indonesia?
I think the technical term is “passive-aggressive.” Either way, it’s very annoying.
.
And G opens his stinky rear.
.
Y’know, I never met anyone who gets himself off with a thesaurus.Too bad you spent your life savings on all those vowels you bought, Vanna. Might I suggest taking English as a third language, given that your first two are Libanese? In the words of the immortal Bard, your words are "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (or whatever was the Elizabethan equivalent for cow dung)
.
With all the intellect and critical reasoning skills of an answering machine, you sit there, nodding your noggin like a Bobblehead doll, babbling on about a nonexistent nativity story that is repeated more often than Jesus born in a manger.
.
And if Fukino also said she saw his birth certificate, you’d believe that, too.
If you want to compare my stack of credentials to your Post-it note resume, let’s do it, G, aka Gee, I don’t know nuttin’ Other than one has the Colorado River and the other has a giant reservoir of mush, the Grand Canyon and your cranial cavity have a lot in common.
.
Unlike you, I do not need to cram a carload of pedantic crap into what I say just to sound intelligent. I do not make excuses to explain away the facts. Oh, my Gosh, G! You are never at a loss for your lame-brain excuses, are you? You simply pluck them from the terminal end of your Alimentary Canal, slap a coat of paint on them, and then pass them off as intelligent thoughts, when they are nothing more than ungermane gibberish.
.
I don’t know if there’s a cure for genius-envy, but I’d lay off the Twinkies and Red Bull before you write your next masterpiece.
.
Oh, and shorten that sock puppet username of yours. Dr C. – Dr. G here is your real pathological narcissist.
Oh my, if this angry PetJake is really the great birther legend, Ron Polarik, he is quite a disappointment and seems to be dealing with some serious issues.
Where did you get your credentials in forensic science and forensic document analysis?
Yes, this sounds like an imminent 911 call.
Not that he will be missed.
Tom Toles has the birthers figured out:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/08/born_to_run.html
Poor Ole PetJake
No one gives him/her/it any love….could that be due to the self absorbed, narcissistic, vain, racist, intellectually facile, moribund lies put out by you?
Come on Polie, try and string together at least a few sentemces with a couple of facts sprinkled through them.
We could start with, I don’t know, the FOIA data and how it conclusively proves, to the requirements of the law that
1. SAD was Obama’s mother and retained her US citizenship throughout her life
2. No adoption of BHO by Soetoro or anyone else
3. BHO had a passport in his name from at least 1965 which would have required ….wait for it……legal proof of US citizenship via a birth certificate
4. SAD was legally married and dovorced from BHO Sr
Then we can move on to how this demonstrates conclusively that President Obama inherently and legally meets all the legal requirments to stand and be elected President.
Go on, spin little one, spin….lets see you try and splutter some discredited De Vatell nonsense.
Ah Birfer Fail….it smells like…..Victory
kimba,
I wrote to G, passerby and Stari the evolution of my thinking, and all of it is in the archives here. At the time of my first discussion of the paternity issue, I was still hesitant about the birthplace because I didn’t trust the COLB. I first commented here in April sometime so you can go back and see what I said, which is not different from what I have said on this thread except for one thing: the confirmation of the FOIA documents. I am glad for it.
You need to go back and read the “cupcake” issue. I was asked for personal experience, and I provided it.
From above:
“There is no reason to assume they were in the same social circles. In fact the only recollection is that they hung out in the library together. Nothing about going to each others house, or the mall or anything outside of school.
Charo, did you know the birthdays of all the members of your high school class, did you meet their parents?”
My response:
“Mrs. Nordyke said they knew each other growing up. When I was in elementary school, we usually had cupcakes for birthdays, had homeroom mothers, events where there was parental involvement.”
The kids that I went to elementary school with, I went to high school with. I answered the question. You are taking my meaning that Obama is somehow deficient because his mom didn’t bring cupcakes, and he is therefore un-American. I don’t know what more I can say to you except repeat the two comments above.
As for what it is next?
I have already answered.
“I’ll still follow eligibility happenings and question what I find questionable.”
That will not include discussions about the father of Obama.
Anecdotal, pointless and irrelevant.
And a response to kimba’s analysis. For instance,
1. just like trying to judge whether young Barry was murcan enough based on cupcakes for birthdays in homeroom.
2. Where are we going next? Will it be down the “Malcolm X or Frank Davis might be his real father” path?
“charo wrote:
“I’ll still follow eligibility happenings and question what I find questionable.”
That will not include discussions about the father of Obama.”
If you are convinced by the FOIA document that the President was born in Honolulu, HI, but you still aren’t convinced he is legally eligible, then there is something you can identify that you still believe is “questionable”. What do you think is “questionable”?
Do you know the President well enough to be that familiar?
Where are we going? I’m not going anywhere with you.
His parentage has absolutely no relevance to his Presidential eligibility since we have proof & confirmation that he was born in Hawaii. You can speculate all you want about who his father might be, whether his birth was attended, etc. It just doesn’t matter one hoot.
LMAO! Give it up Polarik. Insults coming from the likes of you are as harmless and hollow as they can get.
Face it. You have no credibility. You have been repeatedly revealed as nothing but an insecure narcissistic con artist – and a fairly pathetic one at that, as you’ll pathetically waste 6 months of your life (or so you claim) on trying to create a forgery in photoshop that gets called out and ravaged by even freerepublic within a matter of minutes, for crying out loud!
You have been wrong about nearly everything you spout on about – either just way off base or just completely full of l.i.e.s., on which you quickly get caught. You have no honor as all you do is slink away or try to distract and dodge from your failures. You are mercilessly mocked because you have earned it. In the end, that seems to be the only thing you are good at – getting people to loathe you.
So spare me your sad little attempts to try to convince people how awesome or smart you are – it isn’t working and no one believes you or any of your resume claims. You’ve made up so many ridiculous stories and falsehoods that nothing you say holds any weight at all.
So you can waste all your time trying to stomp your feet and sling poo and cry your little bitter tantrums of rage, but I’m am neither impressed nor going to take anything you say seriously as you are simply not credible at all and I don’t value anything you say or do.
Remember that Polarik is the “documents expert” who decided that the memo in the Soetoro file is suspicious because it was typed with a typewriter which had a mis-aligned letter. If he really knew anything about forensic document analysis he would know that it was common for typewriters to develop such problems, and unless that particular typewriter was used for preparing formal documents it is unlikely that repairing it would have been a high priority.
Here is an excellent review of this pathological liar:
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/07/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-22-july-2010.html#more
Thank you for the response breakdown, Charo. I think I understand a little better where you stand and where you are coming from and as you’ve pointed out in other posts, the evolution of your thinking over these months.
I thought your clarification for me on your 1st point almost could sum of the whole of where things are at for you:
“This issue does not affect eligibility but credibility.”
Would it be a fair statement to say that at this point, that you really don’t doubt that the president is NBC and therefore lawfully elected, but that you just view him, the government and non-conservatives in general with a sense of mistrust and hold doubts about their motives and credibility?
So, would you say that your issues with Obama are not about whether he was lawfully elected or not at this point and more of a typical position from an opposition party/stance that you just wish he wasn’t holding the office that he holds?
I.e. – Do you simply accept that he is the duly elected president of the USA at this point in time, whether you agree with his positions or actions or not?
As a followup, do you concede that, regardless of your opinion of the man or his motives or his party, that in following our American system of government, the proper way for citizens to decide that they might want someone different serving as president would be to vote for a different candidate in 2012?
I did want to respond to one other specific point you made under #5 above in regards to radical Islamic fundamentalism:
On a serious note, I think most people across the political spectrum recognize that as a general source of concern and a threat. The legitimate debate is that people honestly have different opinions as to how to address that specific threat – both from an attack/defense standpoint, as well as issues of defusing and mitigating it. (I doubt that we can ever truly eliminate the threat altogether).
However, what I don’t get from you statement is this whole “Manchurian Candidate” scenario. Personally, that seems more in the realms of fiction in terms of any scenario where such underground cells could legitimately enter into our system of government, especially not in the most nationwide elective office of POTUS.
It just does not seem realistic nor plausible by any stretch of the imagination where people holding those views could get elected. Even under the bizarre ripped straight from the movies type scenario, all the other built in checks and balances on power would easily come into play to prevent such damage from being done. What I’m getting at is in reality, such a scenario would require such a vast government-wide level of conspiracy in order to pull off that you’d need the majority of all branches of government to be in on it to happen. Such fantasies make for fun novels and movies but they just aren’t realistic at all.
I’m more concerned about radical “Christian” domestic terrorists.
I was also struck by this statement from Charo. In fact, I found it to be incredibly irrational. And more importantly, there is nothing that any definition of NBC (even Vattel’s) would do to prevent it. That’s what makes it so insane. Generations of radical IFs would be natural born citizens.
PooPooPolarik, Ace Detective…
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-12846-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=277195&messageID=2625551
“Do you know anything about finding evidence of Photoshop tools used in forging images?”
I’m more concerned with them too at the present time.
You’ll find this interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/anti-abortion-violence-th_b_210368.html
Wow. Interesting read. I quit supporting Amnesty International in college because they opposed capital punishment.
I like what the Wikipedia says about genius:
Where can I read that? I always want to check out the really crazy claims I hear.
Oh great polarik no one can compare their credentials to the ones you have written in crayon on your parents walls. Serious I don’t know how anyone can compete with you considering how often you’ve been caught making up your credentials. Lay off the crystal meth, its sad when even Free Republic doesnt want you hanging around.
For more on this subject, see http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/barack-obama-is-a-communist/ and the comment left here by Davis’ real son Mark.
He has genus envy.
I gotta agree to whoever thinks he’s coming close to a 911 call. I can hear it now over the thunder crashing: “They all thought I was MAD!?”
And that’s the real question right there. Taking the birthers beliefs at face value, you’re talking about a national (international?) conspiracy involving both parties and every branch of the government. Which makes no sense at all considering that the Presidential contest included a bonafide American war hero with near impeachable credentials. Why go through all this trouble to put in Barack Obama when you had John McCain? Or even Hillary Clinton?
Thanks. A lot of Thorazine might help this genius.
Kimba’s words right from her comment on both counts- why don’t you admonish her. I quoted what she said and responded.
I’m sorry Doc, but I don’t know why you are giving this to me. I quoted kimba. I also said that I wasn’t going to discuss Obama’s father.
G,
There aren’t any present matters anymore concerning eligibility for me. As for future terroristic acts, I understand your point about checks and balances. But I saw a press so enamored with a candidate that it was not a trustworthy institution anymore. I say that outside of the issue eligibility. IMO, there won’t be any Christian domestic terrorist that will attain power. Some probably say that was Bush. I make these statements of course as my opinion and not to high-iack the thread.
I’ll be curious to see what happens with Lakin, but that is just a wait and see. Unless there is some new information, eligibility is done for me. The only reason I keep responding is that some quotes seem to be attributed to me that I did not make.
Thanks G, for your viewpoints.
Charo,
You’re welcome and thanks for the response.
Even though you come from a much more conservative perspective than the rest of us on here, it sounds like we can now put to bed the use of associating the term “birther” to describe your current beliefs and maybe end some of the unnecessary controversy and reactions that occurred on here.
If we can just agree that the term “birther” in its standard sense, applies to those that either push or truly believe various speculations that Obama is not NBC, thus making him ineligible to hold the office of President.
Therefore, by that simple definition, you do not currently qualify as a birther. You may not like Obama or be happy with his administration, but you recognize and accept that he is currently the President.
You are now merely following the strange goings on in birtheristan, like the rest of us, just from a perspective of someone who neither likes nor trusts the current government.
On the issues of the media, that is an area where we can both respectfully agree to disagree as it is a mere matter of opinion; which we are both entitled to. From your POV, you thought the media was too much in Obama’s favor.
I simply did not see it that way at all. I see a media that has become mainly “infotainment” over time and which follows whatever story seems to be hot or has buzz and can glean better advertising dollars because they think the noise of the story will garnish more ratings or eyeballs or whatever standard.
I think those that are able to respond well to the media or do well at defusing sensationalized stories and tangents simply appear favorable as a result. I think those that don’t handle it well or respond antagonistically end up just sensationalizing things more and making themselves more of a media target. When you favor one political viewpoint over another, you will simply be more sensitive to where those stories tend cover and favor or disfavor your preferred candidate / or even general worldview. Therefore, you see what you chose to see and discount what you don’t value as much. I think it is really simply nothing more than that.
But as I said, that is more in the realm of personal viewpoint and opinion, so each to their own and it is completely fine and normal for us to see things differently on stuff like that and just accept that we have differences of perspective.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html
Just so you don’t think I was the only one.
Majority Will,
regarding:
I TOLD YOU SO! 😛
G,
Excellent analysis of the media ‘bias’ towards more advertising dollars!
Charo,
We know you’re not the only one, some of us just don’t agree with your interpretation (personally, I think G hit the nail pretty much on the head).
As the instigator of this little episode, I don’t think that it was disruptive in a bad way – we covered some interesting ground, we had ‘Dr. Polarik’ thoughtfully drop by to illustrate the difference between Charo and a birther troll, and we determined that Charo isn’t a birther. I’d call that a good day’s work, although I would offer an apology if you feel differently.
Trust me, Charo, I did not in any way think you were the only one.
I think most people tend to ascribe media bias in one direction or the other. Those on the right see it biased towards the left, those on the left see it biased towards the right… Are there some valid criticisms within many of the arguments from each of those perspectives? Yes. Are there a lot of things that are merely nothing more than seeing things through the lenses of their own subjective bias? Yes. Regardless, are they all pretty much nothing more than opinion. Yes.
The article you linked was an interesting example. I noticed how you focused on the article and only latched onto Mark Halperin’s comments within, because you perceived that it matched what you felt and therefore provided you the confirmation bias you were seeking.
However, the article in its entirety, if you read beyond just the headline and the beginning, expresses a broader range of perspectives than just that, including a POV quite similar to what I expressed:
Even Halerpin himself acknowledged this within this very same article:
So again, all this comes down to is that people have opinions, opinions differ and their POV will influence how they feel about the same situation or story. Quite simply, people see what they want to see and react to that.
Halperin’s views were merely his opinion, which he is entitled to. The whole situation in this article was completely a bunch of panelists giving their opinions. Similar to the purposes of the editorial pages and very different from any scholarly journalistic analysis.
Opinions also don’t make someone right. Sometimes we put too much stalk into what someone’s educated guess or predictions will be and treat them like gospel “facts” instead of just simply the expression of feelings that they merely are.
At the end, I’ll add some good examples of that from Halperin’s own past. As you can see he’s commented and held past views on the elections that have appeared to come from different sides of the political perspective and has made proclamations and predictions before, but they don’t always come true.
Like most people, I’m sure his POV is right sometimes and wrong sometimes, but the lesson here is just saying “look, they agree with me”, while interesting, isn’t of any value other than pointing out that you are not the only one with that opinion on that topic. As I said at the beginning, I never assumed you were alone in thinking like that, so this whole article is only of interest in saying that a bunch of folks got together and had differences of view about bias in the media and why it happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Halperin
Right here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/08/government-investigation-into-barack-obamas-citizenship/#comment-59862
PetJake, commenting on the W. I. Mix memo:
This also confirms that if you found a balled-up piece of toilet paper in a gas station bathroom with this written on it, you would present it just as nicely as this. A blank piece of paper with no headers, footers, date stamp, case stamp, signature, and using what appears to be 30-yr old old typewriter with its lower case “l” that is bumped up an entire 1/2 line everywhere it appears. And I thought Birthers were grabbing at straws.
An examination of the Soetoro FOIA documents shows that W.I Mix was a clerk to the District Director, John F. O’Shea. Several of the memos and letters prepared by O’Shea were typed by “WIM.”
You obviously weren’t watching Fox News during the election. I sat taking notes one time. Everything Obama did was either criticized or minimized and everything McCain did was praised or emphasized. It was 100% program after program. Even I was surprised at how one-sided the coverage was.
That is a very good point. I noticed that too. It was a very interesting evolution of how FNC treated Obama early on in the primaries (when they were obviously much more worried about Hillary and their coverage of her was initially harsher) until it became evident that he *could* win…the tone started to change noticeably and went completely on the negative by late summer 08 and their initial occasional sniping of McCain during the early primaries went into cheerleader mode.
Just goes to show that we were never dealing with an actual news channel, but merely a GOP propaganda arm. Fair and Balanced they are not.
Let’s not also forget that the spectrum of talk radio media has been dominated by the right and the far-right for several decades. Unfortunately, most of that has long been a very dark and biased cesspool, which IMHO has long been a major factor preying on the right by feeding them endless paranoid exaggerations, distortions and ginned up controversies to stoke hatred and fear and keep their followers frothing.
The coverage of Obama on many of those sites has had a vicious and vile slant against him for a long, long time. I can’t think of any examples on the left that legitimately compares to the RW smear machine and the level of the tactics they regularly deploy.
Would you consider Fox to be a balance to the cheerleading provided by members of Journolist?
Then they both suffer from the same criticism of cheerleading for a particular candidate. Why is it okay for FOX to do it and not the other media?
No, I do not at all. First of all, from what I understand of the story, that is not even a good comparison at all.
How do you compare a 24/7 cable news network passing itself off as “news” while near continuously engaging in an active one-sided propaganda campaign to the minor revelation that *shocking*, some journalists on a list server, behind the scenes traded comments between each other of their private left-leaning political biases?
Maybe I’m missing something about that Journolist story (sounds like much ado about nothing and merely making a tempest out of a teapot to me), but I fail to see how on any level those two things are even remotely close to being similar or at the same scale of impact.
Here is a perfect example of how Fox News and the Washington Times slant the news.
When Judge Bolton ruled that most of the Arizona law on illegal immigrants is unconstitutional, both foxnews.com and the Washington Times made a point of highlighting the fact that the judge was appointed by Clinton.
When Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 in California is unconstitutional, neither foxnews.com nor the Washington Times saw fit to mention that he was appointed by Reagan. However, both saw fit to report that Walker is “openly gay.”
Enough said.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201008050015
Another perfect example is the National Republican Committee….
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/112523-nrsc-slapped-with-racial-bias-suit
“A longtime employee of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has accused its leaders of racial discrimination after they fired him last month.
Keith Carter, who joined the NRSC in 1995, has charged Republican officials with creating a hostile environment for the two African-American employees who worked at the committee.
Carter, who is black, said he was referred to as “boy” and forced to clean up the feces of dogs white employees had brought to work.
He filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court on Monday.
Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the NRSC, disputed the charges.
“This is an unfortunate action taken by a disgruntled former employee,” said Walsh. “The suit is meritless, and we look forward to its resolution.”
Walsh declined to comment on the specific allegations of the 11-page complaint because the suit is pending.
In his lawsuit, Carter names three senior NRSC officials: Executive Director Rob Jesmer, Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross and Chief Financial Officer Jay Banning.
The law firm Alderman, Devorsetz & Hora is representing the plaintiff.
Carter, who was hired as a building engineer, claims he was a respected NRSC staff member for nearly 14 years. He was given the duties of building manager of the committee’s headquarters and often invited to participate in management meetings.
Carter says that changed in 2009.
“In March 2009, Mr. Carter’s duties and the manner in which he was treated changed dramatically,” his complaint states.
He said he was excluded from regular management meetings, stripped of his supervisory responsibility and ordered to perform menial tasks.
The complaint alleges that senior GOP staff referred to Carter and another African-American employee — the only two black members of the staff — as “boys,” even though they were both older than 40.
Carter claims that when one Republican official asked him and his co-worker to do a job, he would often say: “Boys, we need you to … ”
Carter alleges he was instructed to clean up trash after political events, a task not previously included in his job description.
The complaint also states that Carter “was instructed to clean dog waste that other employees (who regularly bring their dogs to work) neglected to pick up.”
Carter said he was not allowed to remind the white employees to pick up after their own dogs.
Carter also claims he was “berated and cursed at” when he explained that he could not immediately fulfill a request to expand the political director’s office. Carter said he told a senior committee official the wall could not be moved without consultation with an electrician.
The complaint alleges the senior official who berated Carter “does not speak to any of the other white employees of the NRSC in this manner.”
In May, senior GOP staff stripped Carter of his responsibility for setting up telecommunications equipment and managing office supplies, according to the complaint.
Oversight of telecommunications was shifted to a white employee, the complaint states.
Committee officials fired Carter last month. The NRSC now has one black employee, a building engineer.
A termination letter cited Carter’s failure to obey instructions without question or delay, leaving work early and smoking in the basement, according to the complaint.
Carter has accused the NRSC of racial discrimination, creating a hostile environment based on race, failing to pay him fully for overtime work and firing him in violation of D.C. labor law.
He is suing the committee for economic damages “resulting from the loss of his employment and severe emotional pain and suffering.”
The charges come at a time when political discourse is rife with racial tension.
Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) suggest that the House ethics committee unfairly scrutinizes black lawmakers. Two CBC members, Reps. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), are facing public ethics trials.
The issue of race blew up last month when the NAACP accused the Tea Party of tolerating bigotry within its ranks.
That confrontation spawned a battle over Shirley Sherrod, a black Department of Agriculture (USDA) official accused by conservative activists of exhibiting prejudice against white farmers.
The USDA fired Sherrod, only to backtrack after discovering that an incriminating video of a speech she gave to the NAACP had been heavily edited.”
Another article regarding this very issue….
Washington – The conservative legal icon who won the same-sex marriage case called the ruling constitutionally sound yesterday, dismissing complaints from social-issue Republicans.
“It’s not judicial activism, it is judicial responsibility in its classic sense,” said Theodore Olson, who argued the 2000 Supreme Court case that put George W. Bush in the White House.
Olson told “Fox News Sunday” the federal judge who struck down California’s law banning same-sex marriages correctly interpreted the Constitution’s guarantee that marriage is a fundamental right.
“We do not put the Bill of Rights to a vote,” Olson said. “We ask judges to make sure that when we vote for something we’re not depriving minorities of their constitutional rights, and that’s what the judge did.”
Olson added that “41 states once prohibited interracial marriage, so that [until] the Supreme Court finally struck that prohibition down, the President’s parents could not have been married.”
Olson’s co-counsel David Boies, who argued for the Democrats in the landmark Bush versus Gore showdown, ridiculed opponents of same-sex marriage for offering “junk science” and legal theories that were “just made up.”
“A witness stand is a lonely place to lie,” Boies told “Face the Nation” on CBS. “We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council countered that “anybody with a half a brain can see” that policies like no-fault divorce have weakened traditional marriage “and, as a result, have impacted the well-being of children.”
“This issue is not going to go away,” Perkins added. “This is far from over.” The case is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/08/09/2010-08-09_legal_whiz_backs_judges_prop_8_ruling.html#ixzz0w74tdoIh
Palin isn’t ‘dismissive’ of the MSM, it’s all part of her, and the GOP’s, long-term plot
by John Aravosis (DC) on 8/08/2010 10:10:00 PM
Palin isn’t dismissive of the traditional media. She’s an idiot, and she knows it. And the only way she can get around constantly being called out for being wrong, and making up fake words (and thinking they’re actually real words), is by going after the gate-keepers. It’s what Republicans have been doing for years. While some, I’m sure, actually believe the mainstream media is wrong and biased. I think conservative leaders, who long ago master-minded the effort to undercut the traditional media, are more concerned that their message – their false message – can’t survive in a country in which a free press fact checks false politicians. So they constantly undermine the press, and at the same time, hope to push the press even farther to the right than it already is.
Palin isn’t dismissive of the traditional media. She’s trying to get rid of it, in the public’s eye, because it poses a danger to her plans to snooker the people into office.
PS At some point, the traditional media had better start fighting back. Their name is already, increasingly, mud to the public at large. And a good portion of the blame goes to the GOP, and their propaganda organ, FOX News, who have been telling the public for years that the media is biased. The media, the real media, then turns around and embraces FOX, while trying to figure out what they’ve done wrong to so anger people like Palin. And then they wonder why their readership is down.
http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/palin-isnt-dismissive-of-msm-its-all.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Americablog+%28AMERICAblog%29
“Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council countered that “anybody with a half a brain can see” that policies like no-fault divorce have weakened traditional marriage “and, as a result, have impacted the well-being of children.””
Agenda:
a) Outlaw gay marriage
b) Outlaw divorce
c) Declare Christianity the official religion of the United States
d) Allow States to require prayers in school.
You forgot E) Overthrow the 14th amendment and get rid of Black/Muslim/Nazi/Socialist/Facist/Communist usurper in the White House….
Fanned +100
The Journolist “scandal” is more ginned up nonsense by the right wing. We are now living in an age where one political party is completely fueled and driven by conspiracy theories, and we are quickly reaching the point where it will be hermetically sealed in a closed loop, where any source that isn’t a part of the echo-chamber is dismissed, because an opposing viewpoint is prima facie evidence it is a part of the “conspiracy” and not to be believed.
The old saying “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts” isn’t true anymore. The right wing is actively arguing that they ARE entitled to their own facts.
And you forgot F) cut Janet Leigh to ribbons in the shower while wearing a granny dress and a bad powdered wig.
Not to mention go to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW as interpreted by lunatics who can’t even punctuate, like Borderraven, who still hasn’t learned a thing if this thread on another blog is any guide:
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-08-08/story/fact-check-no-again-not-obamas-birth-certificate-kenya
Journolist was a private mailing list that was more social than anything else. It has zero connection to Fox’s known history of supporting right wing causes and slanting the news to support Rupert Murdoch’s agenda.
Good article regarding the desire of the conservatives to change the Constitution to fit their view of how things should be….
Monday, August 9, 2010Civics for Dummies (or: The Constitution for Conservatives)
You’ve got to give credit where it’s due: Conservative TALK a really good game when it comes the Constitution. Unfortunately between their talk of “Liberal Activist Judges” and “restoring the congress to their Constitutional limitations” their blind ignorance and/or blatant hypocrisy because self-apparent when one considers the propensity of the Roberts Court to completely ignore precedent whenever it suits them, the way the Bush Administration rode rough shod over almost every part of the Bill of Rights, and John Boehner’s latest pet project to reform, amend or repeal the 14th amendment. This after the Bush administration wanted the AMMEND the Constitution to ban gay marriage, thus stifling any possibly of common sense winning out in court. (As it has just thhis past week in California.) In any case, one thing that’s become abundantly clear to is that there is nothing CONSERVATIVE about the Conservatives any more. Altering the Constitution is, by definition, inherently a RADICAL ACT. Particularly to do so in a way that effects a Legal AGENDA, rather than in a way that merely describes how laws are made.
Actual First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Conservative First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion other than Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity; or abridging the freedom of corporate speech, or of the conservative press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, heavily armed, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Actual Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Conservative Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be regulated in any way whatsoever, at all.
Actual Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Conservative Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless said persons have been accused of being under suspicion of something, in which case, their conversations and electronic correspondence can be intercepted and read with impunity by agents of the executive branch.
Actual Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void
Conservative Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, unless they are the offspring off one or more illegal immigrants. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the deportation of illegal immigrants from the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law, unless they are illegal or accused of terrorism related crimes.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Immigrants and Liberals. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in an effort to challenge the established, conservative dogma, or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies of the Conservative agenda. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability, assuming the reformed Liberal now accepts Jesus as their savior..
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned when the Republicans control the Congress, or a Republican is the President. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of a Liberal Cause or rebellion against the Conservative position, or any claim of fair compensation for a honest day’s work; but all such debts, obligations on the parts of Corporations and claims brought against said Corporations shall be held illegal and void.
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2010/08/civics-for-dummies-or-constitution-for.html
G, this is for you as well. You said in response to me that I latched on to what Halperin said and didn’t note what the other panelists said. I provided the quote so I knew what was in there. Here is something that Howard Fineman said in an interview with Laura Ingraham. [I left out the snarky commentary by Newsbusters.]
***
INGRAHAM: How is it though with all these smart people at Newsweek – I went around the block with Evan Thomas about this as well. How did you all think that a guy who basically went from the Harvard Law Review, to some community leafleting, organizing, whatever you want to call it, to a short stint, a few lectures about constitutional law at [the University of] Chicago, very short stopover in the state Senate, and a very short stopover in the U.S. Senate. How does that add up to experience to run the biggest economy and the biggest military in the world? And why wasn’t Newsweek, instead of doing these celebrified covers of Michelle and Barack as historic, and celebrity culture, and all this love-love-love-love-love, why wasn’t – Why weren’t those questions asked before this election took place? Because to me, those were the questions to ask. . It wasn’t about personality. It was about experience and outlook.
FINEMAN: Well, uh, first, I’ll plead nolo [contendere] on a lot of this. But –
INGRAHAM: That’s what he did, in the U.S. Senate. He voted present. So you’re voting present for Newsweek.
FINEMAN: No, no. Part of the problem is, or part of the reason is that we – as political reporters, we become enamored with the mechanics of the campaign, and I would still insist that –
INGRAHAM: You’re gonna do that if Paul Ryan is the nominee, for the Republicans? You’re gonna celebrify him? I don’t think so.
FINEMAN: No, no. Let me back up for a second. That was – Whatever you say about Barack Obama and David Axelrod in your diaries and everything —
INGRAHAM: Yeah.
FINEMAN – It was a brilliantly run campaign. And I have come to despair of the notion of the relationship between the quality and shrewdness of a campaign that someone runs and the kind of presidency that they have.
When Ingraham joked that Lady Gaga is good at branding, too, Fineman added; “We were mystified and mesmerized by the quality of the branding campaign that was Obama’s.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/08/10/under-ingrahams-interrogation-newsweeks-fineman-pleads-no-contest-newswe#ixzz0wIArzDr5
****
Just because someone runs a good campaign doesn’t excuse the press from doing its job. Fineman spoke using “we” we as political reporters. He used the words enamored, mystified. Let’s look at what I said:
“But I saw a press so enamored with a candidate that it was not a trustworthy institution anymore. I say that outside of the issue eligibility.”
Now, you can focus on Laura Ingraham and Newsbusters if you like. That would not be addressing what Fineman said. I am wondering what group you think is being persuaded by Fox News and “right wing” radio that don’t already have a mindset.
A sidenote: An acquaintance gave me the novel Bleeding Kansas by Sara Paretsky (whom I had not heard of before.) You can google her to see her mindset. I am not very far in the novel, but one of the characters she created is a religious fanatic named Myra whose family is raising a perfectly red calf to sell to some Jews who are trying to restore the Jewish temple. This will bring about the return of Christ. It is simply laughable that Ms. Paretsky referenced that her grandson when possible would set the tractor radio music to metal (probably Christian rock) to upset Myra who had the station set for Rush Limbaugh. The way this woman is described, Limbaugh would be a total heathen: living with women, divorced a few times, smoking cigars, living in luxury, paying Elton John to perform at his wedding. This woman so faithful to her beliefs would be listening to some kind of prophet. Let’s thrown in Rush Limbaugh as background even if realistically nonsense because he is “right wing.”
I provided the link (to Halperin) not quote
Charo,
Despite the right wing cries about the ‘liberal media’, we have three cable news networks – CNN, which displays a blatant centrist bias (not the same as unbiased), MSNBC, which has a liberal bias (with several conservative voices like Joe Scarborough and Dylan Ratigan), and FOX which is little more than a propaganda outlet for the Republican party. CNN and MSNBC both display a reasonable amount of journalistic integrity while FOX spins everything to conform to their ‘R good, D bad’ agenda (or ignores it if it can’t be spun). To paraphrase Keith Olbermann last night (speaking about Robert Gibbs’ comments), the left doesn’t mindlessly support the Democrats, they support good policy. I cannot imagine MSNBC or CNN being given the talking points from the administration and repeating them verbatim as news, but FOX did just that during the Bush years. Similarly, I do not recall FOX every making any serious criticism of the Bush administration while CNN and MSNBC regularly criticize President Obama. If you’d like to see documentation of FOX’s propagandizing, check out this website:
http://www.newshounds.us/
That is not responsive to my comment… respectfully submitted.
Clarification, my comment about Howard Fineman in support of my original comment. This is kind of an old thread, so maybe the topic will just end where it is unless it comes up again.
I was speaking to a misconception that seems common in the American public and which I believe underlies your comment – in other words, I think that your comment can’t be properly discussed in the context of the false equivalence of the actions of the ‘left wing media’ and FOX News, so I tried to provide a better context.
Over on CAAFlog “yguy” seems to be using this “non-responsive” language. I wonder if “yguy” & “charo” share a brain.
“And why wasn’t Newsweek, instead of doing these celebrified covers of Michelle and Barack as historic, and celebrity culture, and all this love-love-love-love-love, why wasn’t – Why weren’t those questions asked before this election took place? Because to me, those were the questions to ask. . It wasn’t about personality. It was about experience and outlook.”
As a subscriber to Newsweek, I think I still have all of the 2008 campaign issues, so I will look at the issues, but more to the point I think Ingram is showing her bias.
Reporting the news would be reporting accurately the experience of the candidates- which Newsweek did in multiple issues throughout 2008. Questioning a candidates experience is an opinion piece, not news.
I think if it can be shown that Newsweek have opinion pieces questioning Sarah Palin’s lack of experience but did not have opinion pieces questioning President Obama’s lack of experience that would be a more clear case of bias.
Now lets discuss you actual point- you say that: ”
Fineman spoke using “we” we as political reporters. He used the words enamored, mystified.”
Yes, he used those words, but in what context?
“we become enamored with the mechanics of the campaign”
“We were mystified and mesmerized by the quality of the branding campaign that was Obama’s.”
I think Fineman is clearly speaking about the campaign- not the candidate. I don’t get from Fineman’s statement that the press didn’t do an adequate job, but that Newsweek campaign reporters were blown away by the quality of the campaign- and it was a brilliant political campaign.
Am i missing your point somehow?
No- Charo and Yguy are not the same. Yguy will not tolerate any ideas outside of his very narrowly defined viewpoint- anyone who thinks differently is branded as wrong, immoral or insane.
Charo i find refreshingly open to dialogue compared to almost any other ‘dissenter’ who posts here.
The two official languages of Lebanon (Polie, you are confusing English Lebanon with Bulgarian Livan) are Arabic and French. Quite a compliment for G.
As for the MacBeth reference, the complete sentence is:
”
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
”
Sounds like Leo Donofrio, actually. Luckily, some people love the kibitzer: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=96583953200#!/group.php?gid=96583953200&v=photos
It will be awhile for any response from me. My van was totaled today, but no one seriously hurt.
Sorry to hear that Charo- hope everything turns out okay.
That’s OK. My wife has totaled three cars, all her fault. Our neice totaled one, when she was 17. It runs in the family.
Charo, I’ve had a busy week, so I’m just catching up on things here. I see you directed this comment towards myself as well, so I wanted to give you a response. I’ll try to keep this short and cut to just the points where it appears you are looking for me to answer:
This appears to be your first question & the your supporting info to back it up:
Ok. You seem to have completely not understood my point, as all you’ve just responded with was providing more examples of opinions on the subject as if opinions are facts.
Let me try to be more direct – my whole point was that there are lots of different opinions on the topic of whether media was for or against Obama or McCain and that the simple truth is across the spectrum of “mainstream media”, you’ll find tons of examples of all of these different opinions out there.
Opinions and facts are two different things…I never said that you weren’t entitled to think that aspects of the media were extremely enamored with Obama’s candidacy. My arguments were more taking issue with your implication that the “media” was “in the tank for Obama”. Hey, that’s your opinion and you can feel that way, but I certainly am entitled to have a different POV of the situation. My point is that for every example you have that some areas of media seemed “glowing” or went “easy” on Obama; there is a WHOLE segment of media that was completely agenda-driven against Obama and intentionally tried to smear him and attack him at every step.
So, I fail to see the point or benefit of you needing to keep finding more opinion pieces where someone else felt the way you did. I never ever implied that you were the only one out there with that opinion, so I don’t see what you are getting at and why you waste time getting defensive just because I point out that the campaign coverage was all over the spectrum and that for any “positive” coverage he was getting in some areas, there was also plenty of purely intentional “negative” coverage as well. THAT was my point.
It seems you are trying to latch onto this opinion piece from the Laura Ingram show with Howard Fineman giving “his” opinion to make another point as well –
That you personally felt that Obama was not qualified to become president because you felt he was not sufficiently “experienced” for the position.
Again, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. If you somehow think that the topic of his meteoric rise and his background and resume wasn’t discussed and argued about and covered quite extensively across all major media outlets, then you either weren’t paying attention or are in a state of denial. That was always a hot topic of debate and was a key one that even all of his opponents in the primaries tried to use against Obama too. The McCain campaign certainly tried to hammer on that theme everywhere they went too.
That was a legitimate argument that people had to consider and weigh when deciding who to vote for and there are numerous people out there, across all parts of the political spectrum who expressed concerns with the issue of “experience” as a factor in his qualifications for the job.
However, nowhere in the Constitution is experience listed as a requirement for ANY elected job, NOR any appointed job for that matter. So, it easily comes down to a matter of personal preference and choice and in no way an issue of eligibility.
Bottom line, these issues were out there and debated and discussed openly in the media, online and in households and within peoples minds throughout the country during that lengthy election cycle.
In the end, everyone who voted had to weigh their options, make up their minds and cast their vote. Obama won the primary and then went on to win the election with a significant majority of the votes and now serves as president.
Therefore, in the end, the majority of voters did not feel that his background or limited experience mattered enough to vote otherwise. Obviously, you disagree, which is your right. You can hold whatever opinions you want and you can feel that he’s inexperienced or making decisions you disagree with all you want. That is your right, but again, these things have nothing to do with eligibility , nor do your opinions have any right to over-rule the majority of voters who did not share them with you.
You are free to be unhappy with your elected officials all you want. Your remedy is at the ballot box to vote for the candidate of your choice at election time. However, please understand you live in a country with a diverse population, who all have their own views and opinions. If your candidate doesn’t win, you have to accept the results and face reality. You don’t have to like it, but you have to just deal with it and accept that a majority of voters did not share your views or decision on the matter.
I agree with the point that many who watch FNC regularly already have a “conservative” mindset. Of course, there are quite a few centrists out there who I’m sure tune in, as well as a lot of liberals who regularly watch Fox just to monitor and see what they are saying.
Just because someone has a “conservative” mindset or any other “mindset” doesn’t mean that they come into an issue with as positive or negative an opinion about it as they might come out of it. So, when a station claims to “report and you decide” but doesn’t do straight journalism and instead does consistent negative spin and slant, then anyone who gets a majority of their news from sources like that comes out with a very skewed sense of things, because all they are hearing are all these biased negative stories or fear-based alarmism and therefore its hard not to come away with anything other than a negative attitude and increased paranoia. That’s what propaganda is and why it is so effective. Its basically brainwashing.
Also, on the FNC viewer issue – many business establishments that are run by conservatives will ONLY have FNC on their TV sets all day. Most people don’t watch cable news at all. Most don’t follow politics regularly and pay very little attention to these things, unless its right in their face. Therefore, if someone who doesn’t pay attention to this stuff or follow much news is subjected to just hearing FNC’s propaganda spin while they are in a bar, waiting at a doctor’s office, waiting for their car to be repaired, etc. – then their only exposure to what is going on in the world and in politics is coming from this fear/smear driven negative slant.
Charo, two questions for you from this, because I’ve read what you’ve written several times and I still am unclear on what points you were trying to make. Maybe some of the sentence phrasing is throwing me…so, I have 2 questions for you:
1. Re; Bleeding Kansas & the whole “red bull issue”. I haven’t read the book, but I’m aware of it and I’m also aware of the whole “red bull” plan and some religious groups that have been trying for the past few decades to breed a perfect red bull to give to the jews because they think it is necessary to rebuild the temple, etc…so that Armageddon can happen….
So my question for you is this – what are your views about their “goal” here…
2. Re: Rush Limbaugh –
If your are trying to point out the irony that for a leading “conservative” voice, who has a major impact in shaping the RW agenda, Rush is definitely a hypocrite and falls way short of what are touted as “conservative” values, then I agree. As are many of the so-called “conservative” leaders out there. The list of big name “conservatives” whose personal lives show that they don’t “practice what they preach” is a fairly long one.
My question for you conservatives then is why are these hypocrites so often given a “free pass” by other conservatives or Republicans and allowed to keep powerful positions and still followed by so many in the “movements” on the right? It is sad that this is so common, that there is an entire acronym devoted to this overwhelming hypocrisy: IOKIYAR.
Charo, very sorry to hear about that. I too hope that everyone is all right.
Hang in there – I know you’ve had a string of tough situations to deal with for over a year now. May you look to the positive aspects of your faith and family to sustain you through these challenges and may some good fortune find its way to you as well.
charo also has the right to campaign for the candidate of her choice, and even contribute money to their campaign.
My former dentist had FNC on the TV suspended over the dental operatory chair. Talk about misery.
My vote had nothing to do with eligibility. (It had to do with life issues.)
I never heard of the perfect red bull issue before. Regrading end times, I was reading Trial, Tribulation & Triumph: Before, During, and After Antichrist by Desmond A. Birch last summer and haven’t had time to get back to it. We are taking a mini-vacation soon so I’ll have time to catch up. Fascinating reading. I don’t hold to evangelical/fundamental beliefs. There may be some commonalities, but I am not well versed in them.
Thanks! No one of us were hurt (I had all three kids with me). It is now just a matter of insurance issues. I have a great partner in life to lean on as well as faith.
Actually, I spoke of the Limbaugh reference in the book because I doubt the author ever listened to him. A fundie to the degree of the character developed in the novel would abhor Limbaugh. He doesn’t spout religion (like G Beck) and lives a hedonistic lifestyle by the fundamentalist standard. It is just an example of the lumping together of all conservative voices.
I remember that red bull thing from way back in the last century. David Koresh (Branch Davidian) was part of that movement to get the red bull to Israel. Some Texas cattle rancher had been trying to breed one, and actually flew it to Israel. The Israeli’s are somewhat leery of Christian fundamentalists trying to precipitate the end of the world.
My fun book pick is Bruce and Stan’s Guide to the End of the World: A user-friendly approach, Harvest House, 1999. For something more serious: Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, by Bernard McGinn, Columbia University Press, 1979 and Apocalypses: Prophecies, Cults, and Millennial Beliefs through the Ages by Eugen Weber, Harvard University Press, 1999.
Doc,
The short summary located at the link is several years old but what he says about the entire world not yet being evangelized remains true. [I assume it is okay to veer off eligibility on This Old Thread.]
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/chip.htm
I am conservative theologically and have heard of these people. I might add that just like conservatives some progressives tend to view all conservative Christians as monolithic in their beliefs. Quite the opposite is true. My view is that the God I worship does not need my help. His plans and their timing are beyond my understanding. I am reminded of the time when one of my sons viewed some minnows in a stream. He asked what they thought of him (he was very young) and I told him the minnows could not comprehend him. They lacked the capacity. But so often people tend to try to make I AM into a god.
Considering how many Christian “heresies” (from the Greek word meaning ” choice”) there has been over the centuries, I view Christians as anything but monolithic. Arguably, Christianity is a heresy of Judaism, and so is Islam, so we’re dealing with a lot of variants here. Speaking for myself, I like the way the various religious figures were parodied in Monty Python’s LIFE OF BRIAN, the best deconstruction of religion ever.
As a the example proved about one too many “Christians” can “not comprehend” that that simple fact.
Whether a Christian, Muslim, Agnostic or Atheist accepts the heresy argument depends on how they view the station of Jesus and Mohammed. So often when we discuss topics we act like preoperational children. That is we-all of us- see only what is in front of us and fail to or acknowledge other perspectives. My perspective is that of a Christian who stands on the Gospel of Christ. I do not expect yours to be the same. What you have decided about your spiritual life is yours to decide. And mine is up to me, my husbands to him, my children to them. Peace comes in accepting that and that others who differ on this subject should be respected.
Agreed. Jewish with a respect for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Little known fact: Moses was sent back up the mountain to ask if the commandments were in order of importance.
So, then what is the point? What is the relevance? These a things that seem to be hidden behind vial of verbose.
Catching up here & wanted to try to squeeze 1 quick reply to all those posts since my last one.
1. Charo – Thanks for your reply. Glad to see nobody in your family was hurt and I hope the insurance process goes as smoothly as it can. Your other responses helped me to understand, so I’m good for the moment and don’t have any follow-up questions.
I did want to comment back on the whole “Armageddon” issues and issue of non-monolithic viewpoints in religion to you and the others with my perspective of things:
1. I completely agree that religion is definitely not monolithic, nor within it is Christianity, nor within that is “conservative” nor even “fundamental” Christianity and that for even those sects and individual churches that adhere to very “rigid” sets of beliefs and practices that you can often find members within that group that have differences of view and opinion. So, I think it does always come down to the individual in the end and their views and personal relationship with their faith, regardless of who is preaching to them. That being said, there are many common generalizations that are often made or assumed on groups, just because the public awareness of such groups and their positions indicate a likelihood to believe a certain way and until there is interaction with a specific individual to get their particular viewpoint on an issue, broader assumptions are often all there are to go on.
2. I personally don’t believe in Armageddon prophecy, but I’ve always found the topic to be a fascinating one and I enjoy apocalyptic fiction. I personally don’t mind what others believe and try to be respectful of that as long as their beliefs “do no harm” to others. I’ve always been a “Golden Rule” type of person in that respect.
However, I do have concerns with those who seem to wish to take their apocalyptic beliefs too far and actively engage in wanting to bring such events or to slander individuals by painting them as the “anti-christ”. To me, that kind of stuff completely crosses the do no harm line and is dangerous. I lump the whole “red bull” stuff into that category, as well as any of the Christian groups who really only support jews or the state of Israel because they want to actively encourage steps that would lead to events or hostility that they feel can help bring about the end of the world. Same thing with any neo-con type actions to try to encourage war between Iran & Israel or Israel/Palestine…
So, for me it is one thing for people to simply believe in “end of the world” prophecy, which I think is generally harmless, whereas it is a completely different thing for people to actively be wishing for or trying to bring about destruction, including the “end of the world”, which I view as extremely dangerous, destructive and hostile behavior that should be actively opposed and prevented whenever possible.
Also – major props to those that referenced Monty Python’s Meaning of Life & also the FSM!
LOL! Great stuff…
What is the point? The relevence of respect for others and their choices. The survival of a diverse society depends on it. It astounds me how many folks on both sides of the cultural wars don’t get that point. Whatever our starting point, our values are only values if we practive them when it is difficult. I pray everyday that God gives me the grace to do that.
I don’t see the relevance. All I see is a Christian attempt to preach to others without making it seem that way. You have a group of people here who are content on their differences to discuss an issue that they all view it differently. However, they all have come to a common understanding. So, I still don’t get the point. Drop the vial of verbose and be more direct.
I am being direct. What are you afraid of? Many folks here are very openly irreligious. That is there perspective. It seems sometimes that just like folks on the right some on the left want to put blinders on to other points of view. My point will continue to be that we cannot do that in a diverse society. Your views are your own. Mine are my own. I don’t expect you to be silent and I will not be either.
I’m not sure what is going on, but I didn’t see any “preaching” in anything Mary Brown wrote; just her explaining where her background and POV come from, which is nothing that anyone should take any offense nor harm from.
I think maybe there is a simple misunderstanding of intent and message here that is causing an argument to arise when there doesn’t seem to need to be one.
Equally enjoyable is NOT THE MESSIAH, Eric Idle’s oratorio which is based upon LIFE OF BRIAN.
“Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you’re chewing on life’s gristle
Don’t grumble, give a whistle
And this’ll help things turn out for the best…
And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…
If life seems jolly rotten
There’s something you’ve forgotten
And that’s to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you’re feeling in the dumps
Don’t be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle – that’s the thing.
And…always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the light side of life…
For life is quite absurd
And death’s the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin – give the audience a grin
Enjoy it – it’s your last chance anyhow.
So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath
Life’s a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true.
You’ll see it’s all a show
Keep ’em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the right side of life…
(Come on guys, cheer up!)
Always look on the bright side of life…
Always look on the bright side of life…
(Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
Always look on the bright side of life…
(I mean – what have you got to lose?)
(You know, you come from nothing – you’re going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!)
Always look on the right side of life…”
There is nothing wrong with open debate on issues, as long as it an honest discussion. There will always be people who want to make their world view as the only world view. This is something that we can not change, because it is up to the individual. The value that our society has is that it allow people of different backgrounds to get together and interact. It is honestly and respecting others that is important in that kind of friendship. I don’t believe a person religious conviction or lack there of is important in the public sphere, but the respect of those who want to honestly engage with you.
G, I think there is a greater misunderstand that there really is. The word was “attempt to preach” in an attempt for the comments to be clear. I think the correct negative term is “preachy,” but I may be wrong. It must be my poor English skills, but it always good to get a comment within some form of context. Thank you for your concern, but I understand her much better now.