Orly Taitz, bless her heart, has a new article up, titled:
Now Chinese media followes (sic) dozens of US publications in reposting an article with the notification Attorney Taitz sent to Obama’s new attorney, Neil Eggleston, in regards to Obama’s use of a stolen CT Social Security number and fabricated IDs. Our main networks are still silent. No decisions from courts yet.
Taitz cites Newsvine.com, a Seattle-based community-sourced news site. Taitz’ link is broken, but she says the article is at “china.newsvine.com,” so whoever posted the article (“seeded” is how they label copied content) put it in the China section. I say “whoever” because I was not able to find any article mentioning Taitz and Eggleston at 
Newsvine. In any case, this is not “Chinese media” in any sense.
This is not to say that there aren’t articles about Orly Taitz at Newsvine. One of my favorites is the one titled: “Totally not crazy Orly Taitz running for California General.” It’s a hoot, and not too long.
This reminded of the old saying (Lincoln? Twain?):
Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
To the extent this news service is published in China (or anywhere else) one can only imagine the face palms of folks reading it. We know what Dr. Taitz means, even if she has leaps of logic or gaps in facts. A stranger, however, will likely move on rather quickly. It is much like her ballot statement, of which she is quite proud, where she makes it quite clear she is an anarchist. (Although I think, were she to get into power, she would be a Fascist, as it is clear she would criminalize dissent and criminalize support of any opposing party or viewpoint.
Which is just a remix of the old Latin saying “Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses” (“If you had remained silent, you would still be (considered) a philosopher”).
A favorite saying of my father, along with “Boy, your mouth is going to get you into more trouble.”
I would try to diagram that sentence but I fear it might cause the universe to shatter. For Doc’s faithful readers, I will summarize her statement.
I apologize if there is there is more depth in my summary then her original sentence.
She sure has FedEx-ed a lot of literal garbage across the country.
I’ve always wondered if she might be a double-agent, employed by Obots to make the birth-brigade look (even more) foolish. Now I’m thinking this has to be performance art.
Think about it. She wears false eye lashes, heavy makeup, maybe a wig AND she lives in California.
I think she needs to prove she is neither one!
Orly Taitz is a “Borat” type character played by Lady Gaga. But don’t tell anyone.
There are real, honest to goodness, dyed-in-the-wool members of the Birther Cult who believe that Orly Taitz works for Barack Obama.
There is no doubting that she has poisoned the legal well for more competent attorneys and she has established many anti-birther legal precedents.
This just proves that Orly googles herself. Sounds like narcissism to me.
I’m not a huge fan of Lady Gaga, but, this character is merely a Lady Gaga wannabe.
@Thomas Brown
“Orly Taitz is a “Borat” type character played by Lady Gaga. But don’t tell anyone.”
BRILLIANT!
(On phone, quote option not available)
During one of her “Obots are hacking my computer” episodes, she posted a screenshot of her browser. There was a “favorite” bookmark for a Google search of Orly Taitz.
AttorneyOrlyTaitz @AttorneyTaitz
When I’m to be #winning attorney Gen of Calipornia I will nullify Obama, uphold Constitution and depravation of the civil rights.
where to begin?
a) to be attorney general? hysterical
b) Calipornia? where is that?
c) how do you “nullify obama”?
d) uphold ……….. depravation [sic] of the civil rights. really? how many votes will she get for that one?
LOL!! Probably better not to know. But a dental chair is there, and it was used in ways a dental chair should never be used…
Crustacean: But a dental chair is there, and it was used in ways a dental chair should never be used…
LOL was “nitrous oxide” involved?
That’s actually a parody twitter account… but Poe’s Law certainly applies here.
Daniel:
sorry, i’m not on twitter but saw it on doc’s stream
as an aside, watch this: Marines singing Frozen – Let it Go in HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWnGwj9s-Fk
Honestly, after watching the give and take for some time (although there are some racists and dipshits at the Birther Report), you guys seem like bigger dildos. Not because you are, or are not. smarter, but because your ideal seem to be to block and not to get at the truth for anything. You don’t really care what the truth is, you just don’t want to be proven wrong so you are into obfuscation.. carry on as you were.. I’ll keep watching both sides.
I hear that complaint from the birther side a lot, but I don’t recognize it as valid. I cannot think of a single instance where I or anyone who comments here has ever blocked, or attempted to block anything.
I personally am committed to the rule of law, which means in this context that birthers are entitled to everything the law allows them. Perhaps your are confusing observations that birthers are demanding things that the law doesn’t allow, with a desire to thwart them.
The truth is found by gathering what evidence can be found and evaluating it critically. I, for instance, discovered two important documents confirming the validity of the obscure penciled codes on Obama’s birth certificate. I dug up obscure statistical tables on travel from Kenya to the US in 1961 (proving Obama’s mother didn’t make that flight). I published obscure 1981 State Department documents regarding travel to Pakistan. Others did painstaking experiments scanning documents on high-end office machines to test Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
Further, I take considerable pains to write clearly and frankly. I do not attempt to obscure anything. On those rare occasions where I make a mistake, I admit it. There’s nothing shameful about being wrong.
I completely reject the claim that anti-Birthers attempt to block the truth. That is complete and utter fantasy.
I do apologize for throwing my two cents into the matter. You didn’t solicit my opinion. I’m sorry as I’m tired of all the bs. I’m pissed at myself for commenting one way or the other at all.
I suggest that if you’re going to make a claim, you provide some evidence to back it up. You accused us of blocking the truth and using obfuscation, yet you provided not a single example. Your comment was a waste of time. I accept your apology for posting it.
I don’t think you block the truth. You cheerlead for the blocking of the truth. It’s just an observation and as I said previously I apologize for commenting on your site.
I get that you may get into semantics that I accused you personally of blocking the truth. That was not my intent. You just carry water for the people who have something to hide. It’s obvious at this point, even if it is as simple as the bs narrative that the people were force fed in 2008. Then it expands from those lies. Where? Nobody knows.
Again, you make a claim without providing evidence. For which “truthblocker” does Doc C. cheerlead (or carry water)? Examples, please.
Again, do tell, name an example or two of wicked evil Obots “blocking the truth”. I mean, you seem so certain it’s a fact, ergo you have proof of same……don’t you?
It’s an observation. I could care less about the “Obot” label. I’m talking about what it appears the desires of the Individuals who post here to be. Cheerleading the lack of transparency of our leaders actions and history, or the protection of the twisted truth that was presented to us in 2008.
Your vague accusations are unconvincing. Which individuals? What “lack of transparency”? What “twisted truth” that was presented (and by whom)?
Again, sorry. My opinions were unsolicited and I should have remained a watcher. I’m not as emotionally invested as those who argue the subject daily.
It’s an observation about the theme here. I kick myself for the first post. It’s kind of like when you are a kid and your mom tells you not to play with the hornets nest. And you do it anyways.
I encourage those who aren’t too lost to step outside the circle jerk to at least acknowledge that some of the narrative in 2008 was complete garbage.
But I’m sorry for giving my two cents. I really am. I don’t hate anyone.
More unhelpful vagueness.
In what way was it complete garbage? Please, be specific.
That is all. I won’t bug you guys any more. Kicking myself for saying anything in the first place. I’m just a lurker on all these sites, for and against. Tonight, for some reason (beer) I commented. Truly I would not want to be associated with some of the racist and homophobic garbage over at Birther Report. I just watch and have my opinions.
As best I can tell, you’re not really a serious reader of this blog, but a reader of generalized birther nonsense elsewhere. I’ve read pretty much every one of the 222,268 comments on this blog, and I don’t ever recall anyone cheer leading anyone’s lack of transparency. It’s certainly not in my articles.
I will admit that I only started frequenting this site two weeks ago. Some stuff you say is thought provoking and convincing. Other times it seems aimed at the cheerleading of keeping a lock on information.
It’s all good, buddy. It will all come out in the wash. You seem like a decent fellow and time will tell. It usually does.
Acknowledging that the privacy laws exist is not the same as “cheerleading of keeping a lock on information.” Neither is noting that President Obama was held (and continues to be held) to a standard higher than any other president or candidate.
Privacy laws? If we had a robust press the info would already be in the public domain. Hall passes were given early.
Thank you. I was going to say something similar, but I couldn’t have done it better myself.
Making FOX incompetent, an enabler, or both?
Of course that’s the case, Steve. It’s an echo chamber.
You guys seem like smart folks. Polite etc. Again, I have myself in a pickle and should bow out gracefully. There is no resolution to our contrasting opinions at this point.
Might I recommend you read many of the old articles here. In the early days, there was quite a bit of discussion of details since many of the birther claims were new. Now, there is less because there have been now new claims but rehashing of old ones.
I should point out as the others have, you have made many claims of people here “carrying water” and “lack of transparency” but you have not provided any specifics for your statements. Without details backing up your context, your “opinions” are nothing but buzzwords.
An echo chamber … where your “contrasting” opinion is being actively solicited. *shrugs*
There is no valid argument in promoting “privacy laws” to protect the narrative of the highest office in the land. In a legal sense it may be correct. However a robust press would have pressed the issues and all of the cards would lay on the table prior to a public decision (election) in 2008. Many aspects were hidden from public view or downplayed and so here we are. A rational (or so I believe ) person arguing with other rational people. I know that a second election was held in 2012, but arguments (and a silent press) were made that a proper vetting had already occurred four years prior. When it had not.
I’m not just talking “birtherism” stuff. I’m talking about the entire picture.
Sure there is: It is the law. If you don’t like the law (and want privacy laws to not apply to presidential candidates), then you change the law.
Which proverbial cards were not on the proverbial table in 2008? Or 2012?
If only the electorate had seen John McCain’s kindergarten records…..
Which singularly saved that shipping company from the woes of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Remarkably, FedEx has been able to pay its shareholders a dividend every quarter since 1Q09.
I want privacy laws to apply to every one. You miss my point. Cheers. I should bow out now. There is no resolution for our diametric points of view. Privacy laws have nothing to do with a lazy press and a stupid populace.
No one here (except maybe you?) is advocating for a lazy press or stupid populace.
If you asked 99.9% of the population if there were a possibility that Obama carried Indonesian citizenship, via adoption, in order to attend public schools there they wouldn’t have a clue what you were talking about. Whether this precludes him from being President really isn’t the issue ( and I don’t know the answer to that), but most people would have no idea what you were talking about because the press never mentioned it in a mass form. Therefore, the citizens of our country were not really presented with all of the facts in a robust fashion as in other elections.
One of many obfuscations.
I should not have commented here and I’m sorry. You guys seem like good folks.
Obama’s attendance at an Indonesian public school was reported by CNN, ABC, etc. as early as 2007.
The press didn’t on report on Obama’s Indonesian citizenship because he never had Indonesian citizenship. Legitimate news agencies don’t pass off speculation, rumors, gossip, or lies as news. And thankfully so: it leads to a less-stupid electorate than the alternative.
The surface was never scratched. A narrative was dictated and a lazy press complied.
Narrated by whom? Again with your vague, meaningless, fact-free accusations.
The “lazy press” was doing its job by not wasting its time with a non-story, and instead focusing on meaningful issues. That you disagree with how to run a newsroom suggests you should pursue a career in journalism.
But since it is a free country, the electorate was free to read this 2008 WND article, or this 2012 Blaze article. I guess the electorate was too stupid to not trust these paragons of accurate information, eh?
Fair enough.
Obama never, at any time, ever held Indonesian citizenship. There is not a single shred of evidence that has been provided that shows otherwise. For the news to report that he had ever had Indonesian citizenship without any evidence to support it would have been as embarrassing as the Benghazi flop that CBS and 60 Minutes had.
As best as I can tell, Billy Bob is concerned that the possibility that Pres. Obama has Indonesian citizenship did not make a dent in the popular press like Fox or WND. Hours of commentary later that is all Billy Bob has.
I’m far more interested in why Pres. Obama was not as qualified as McCain or Romney based on reality, and not fiction.
But if our friend Billy Bob is truly interested in transparency and a truthful narrative, let’s start with Pres. Bush’s school records, passport records, military record (we know what the forged ones say, but not the real ones), and criminal record. And while you are at it, please link to Pres. Bush’s birth certificate.
And you might explain why you can’t even get Rep. Stockman interested in your fantasies.
And by the way, I’m one of the folks who post here who never voted for Pres. Obama. If you actually have something that could be what the lawyers would call admissible evidence that Pres. Obama has Indonesian citizenship, let us know.
There is really no way to detect ‘contrasting opinions’ since you have made no opinion clear enough that it can be contrasted with any other opinion here.
Please stop apologizing for commenting here, you are absolutely welcome to openly discuss any “on-topic” subject you want. But discussion does not entail vague accusations of somehow having a nefarious difference of opinion with you.
Please explain your complaint. If you have only been reading here for two weeks, how do you know what the discussion was in 2008? Exactly where do you disagree with the general point here.
You ask ‘what privacy laws’. Every state has laws describing exactly who can access State managed vital statistics (births, marriages, deaths) information. Schools have similar rules. Those laws apply to the person occupying the Office of President of the United States in exactly the same way that they apply to the person sitting in the Salvation Army soup kitchen.
Rather than make vague accusations about ‘transparency’ why can’t you say exactly what you are complaining about. Obama has broken a specific first campaign policy promise about transparency in government. No one here (that I have heard mention it) has done anything other that criticize him about it, and certainly have not done any cheer-leading for it. By your difficulty in being specific I suspect that broken promise is not what you have in mind, and I suspect that you don’t have a clue about which promise I am describing.
By all means, please prove me wrong.
Then what EXACTLY is your point?
Exactly what topics should the press be pressing? Are you saying that if the press wasn’t lazy, they would be breaking the privacy laws in order to get the dirt on Obama?
What if the press isn’t lazy, they did do everything humanly possible to dig into back story, even to the extent of breaking the law (and we know some people have at least been fired over privacy violations and misuse of data systems), and there was nothing to be found?
Does that possibility ever occur to you at all?
Because one of the things I have noticed is that the individuals that make up ‘the press’ seem to be willing to sell their grandmother in order to launch a scoop.
The only members of the press that I would describe as lazy (and I have to use the term ‘members of the press’ very loosely here are folks like Limbaugh, Beck, the entire Fox ‘News’ Organization, and the wannbe conservative blogosphere, who rather than wanting to actually work for a story to fill their air time or blog posts, just make shit up. All the time. Day after day after day after day.
I don’t think Billy Bob is vague at all. He doesn’t like Black people. If he actually had a fact to share, he would have done so.
No ‘mass discussion’ of the topic because there is no story to it.
Obama was never adopted by Soetaro; Indonesian law and Islamic custom forbid it in his case. It just simply could not have happened, there is no debate about it, it is a fact of Indonesian law. There is no press hiding or ignoring the story – there is no story to hide or ignore.
Obama was never an Indonesian citizen – Indonesian law forbids it for a child of his age, adopted or not. It just simply could not have happened. there is no debate about it, it is a fact of Indonesian law. There is no press hiding or ignoring the story – there is no story to hide or ignore.
Even if he had somehow gained Indonesian citizenship and kept U.S. citizenship so that he was a dual citizen, it would have made no difference what-so-ever. Constitutional eligibility is about U.S. Citizenship period. Obama is a natural born citizen of the USA. That is all that counts, theoretical citizenship of other countries is totally irrelevant to that status.
To maintain that a second country claiming a person as a citizen would be a controlling factor in determining that person’s eligibility is to maintain that the law of that second country is superior to the Constitution and laws of the U.S.A. I don’t think that is the result you want to come up with is it? Again, there is no press hiding or ignoring the story – there is just no story to hide or ignore.
Even if he had somehow been adopted and granted Indonesian citizenship against all Indonesian law and custom, it has no affect on his U.S. Citizenship. Nothing that the parents of a child do, NOTHING, can remove the citizenship of a U.S. Citizen. Only the actions of the individual concerned can have any affect of the citizenship of that individual. U.S. Law essentially excludes a minor from ‘revoking’ his own citizenship – it just isn’t going to happen. There is no debate about this, it is a fact of American law. Once again, there is no press hiding or ignoring the story – there is no story to hide or ignore.
Having said all that, the main stream media has discussed all this stuff, for as long as it was needed to note that his mother remarried, Obama lived in Indonesia, went to school in Indonesia, returned home. MSM stories have discussed concerns that these things may have affected his eligibility. Once the concerns are answered with facts, there is no story left to tell, nothing to hide, nothing to ignore.
Telling the same facts over and over and over is nowhere near as fun as repeating lies over and over and over again, however, especially when you really really really want lazy thinkers to keep their concern levels on a knifes edge.
The responsible press doesn’t keep reporting the same facts over and over – it gets boring and they lose readership – they move on to other stories. The echo chamber press, on the other hand, sees those lies – and once the ‘concerns’ have been answered, they become lies when repeated – as their bread and butter.
I repeat, you are more than welcome to comment, as long as you engage in discussion. Be aware that if you descend into trollery like repeating long debunked ‘concerns’ (like the Indonesian citizenship thing) without paying attention to the replies, and without acknowledging the arguments, and without engaging in honest discussion, some folks here will lose patience quickly.
First, since you’re a newcomer here, let me mention that I’m a French attorney who was drawn here in order to debunk the utterly false interpretations of an 18th century Swiss legal treatise made by various “birthers”.
With that out of the way, let me say that you seem to be under the impression that President Obama (and more specifically his past) was given some kind of free pass by your mass media.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I, as a foreigner, have learned more about Mr. Obama’s past than I knew about any other US President before; in fact, I dare say no one has been under more public scrutiny than Mr. Obama.
Two, you also seem to be under the impression that all the folks who post here are Obama supporters. Not so. A number of posters, including other foreigners and myself, have deep disagreements with Mr. Obama’s policies. True, I’d rather have him in power than any of the Republican politicians vying for the position, which would be worse IMHO, but it doesn’t mean that I approve of many of his actions.
If the people on this blog have one thing is common is that we oppose, nay, despise, the bigotry, racism and xenophobia that lure some gullible and ill-informed folks — the “birthers” — to create or propagate an irrational web of preposterous lies about Mr. Obama, instead of simply campaigning against him and his policies.
The school registration form showing Obama’s nationality as “Indonesian” was broadcast on the the national television program “Inside Edition.” The story ran its news cycle in 2008.
The idea that one has to be an Indonesian citizen to attend public school is a flat out lie, and one would not expect any news outlet to let such a think past fact checking. See:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/hollister-v-indonesian-citizenship-law/
There seems to be a tacit assumption underlying your comments that just because there is disagreement that both sides have merit. This is not the case with birtherism. Most of birtherism is a flat-out lie and the media have no obligation to broadcast lies. The old saw, “there are two sides to every issue,” doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to make up your mind and be confident of your conclusions.
I might actually disagree with you there. I think that in 2008 Obama, Clinton, McCain, Edwards and Palin pretty much all got passes from most of the press–Obama on Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, Clinton on a host of scandals, Palin on her serious ethics problems in Alaska and general incompetence, Edwards on his affair, and McCain on his anger management problems not to mention his abysmally negligent vetting of Palin.
Before Obama came along the notion that the president was treated the same as anyone else under the law was considered a feature and then suddenly it became a bug.
Hmmm . . . what changed?
“Lazy press” strikes me as a vague and meaningless target for your complaints.
No doubt there are some pro-Obama members of the press who would prefer not to find negative information about the President, just as there are some who would love to uncover the smoking gun that will bring him down.
But there’s no doubt that there exist competent journalists who know — as we all do — that nothing would catapult an ambitious investigative reporter instantly into the Woodward-Bernstein pantheon faster than uncovering deception surrounding his claims of eligibility. Attributing the lack of progress in this area to laziness strikes me as — well, as laziness.
I have confidence in the reports that state that both sides in the 2012 presidential campaign spend about a billion dollars on their campaigns. How much opposition research can you buy for $10,000? For $100,000? For $1,000,000? Even a million dollars would have been about a tenth of a percent of the Romney campaigning budget. Was it laziness that prevented them from uncovering the hidden incriminating facts that would surely have guaranteed the Republicans a win?
This farce has been going on for six years, and the birther side has come up with *absolutely nothing*. And I notice you haven’t mentioned a single piece of actual evidence that suggests that information relevant to eligibility has been hidden or misrepresented.
What have you got — promises from Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio of great revelations to come?
The stakes in U.S. politics are high. To suggest that the total lack of ineligibility evidence can be attributed to laziness is, as best, deeply disingenuous.
“The press has failed to uncover evidence which I believe to exist; never mind why I believe this invisible evidence exists. I believe it does, and belief is equal to facts. Therefore, lazy press.”
After six years, Birfoon arguments are weaker than ever.
Or the supposed affair he was having with a lobbyist that got buried. McCain’s own staffers started restricting access of the lobbyist to McCain as they were together way too much. The whole thing went away rather quickly
I was remiss not to mention that, something covered in the book I just finished reading on the 2008 election, “Game Change.”
Your “history” is fiction.
There was actually quite a lot of early coverage of birthers. CNN sent reporters to Hawaii and did a two-part prime time report, including an interview with Chiyome Fukino, the immediate past director of the Department of Health, who said on camera that she personally had viewed Obama’s birth certificate. Look at my media archives for some of the coverage:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/media-archives-index/
The press looked at the claims, and moved on. The birthers keep repeating the same old debunked stories.
How would the “robust press” have done that?
Again…..how would a “robust press” have preempted privacy laws to gain access to information about Obama? About all candidates?
Are you suggesting that people should give up their rights when they run for the Presidency……for any public office?
You guys are unfair. How can some innocent troll compete with all that archives
….
For those who do not read Mr. Sibley’s blog, here is a link to another troll creeping back under his rock.
http://amoprobos.blogspot.fr/2014/04/pandoras-box-has-been-opened.html
And if you post there, please be courteous to Mr. Sibley. He does not censor. I doubt that he has ODS.
Or Palin’s college transcripts or Barak Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate. Oh wait forget that last one, we did see his Hawaii BC in June, 2008
That seems to be a fairly common and delusional birther sentiment. Birther bigots regularly display contempt for the law. It’s part of their bizarre fantasy and sickness.
There also was the claim that the public school which Obama attended in Indonesia was a madrassa, which got plenty of press. I believe that it was CNN which sent out a reporter to investigate, and the reporter discovered that it is a moderate, non-ideological school and always has been.
“Billy Bob” wrote a lot of words without actually saying anything.
Hey Doc,
I see you have a brand new Concern Troll pelt on your wall. Very nice! It looks kinda like that guy who was married to Angelina Jolie for a while…
What would have been relevant are McCain’s fitness reports during his career in the Navy. He was in the Navy for 21 years and retired as a Captain, but he was never given command of a ship even though he was a war hero and his father and grandfather were full Admirals. The only command which McCain was ever given was for a Navy Air training squadron in Florida.
I suspect that he never was given a sea command because of his reputation for recklessness and his history of poor judgment. He had a well-deserved reputation as a womanizer, and in 1976 he was reprimanded by his commanding officer for spending too much of his time working on Ronald Reagan’s campaign during the Republican primaries.
Of course, McCain never released his military records and he only released selected portions of his medical records.
I agree that a robust media investigation (or opposition research by his opponents) should have caught the fact that John Edwards had a child with another woman while he was married to his cancer-stricken wife. I don’t know the story behind why they all dropped the ball on that one. But the rest of this stuff…I don’t see that anyone got a pass because either there was no story to be had (E.g., the poor vetting of Palin is a story that probably couldn’t have come out during the campaign because the people who knew the story were still too close to McCain at the time) or had already been aired out (the Clinton scandals, Jeremiah Wright) or were non-stories (the Bill Ayers stuff). I think the Palin ethics stuff probably got lost because the “Palin is a moron” headlines wrote themselves.
Oh…..I think Billy Bob spoke volumes here…..just not what he thinks.
Strange that he used the words dildos and circle jerk to describe this blog ‘s posters….hmmm
Good Lord. A couple of beers and I’ve agitated an army. Peace to all.
Well naturally, as with all birthers, when presented with facts, you run away. We’re used to it, don’t worry about it. I’m sure you’ll find a nice echo chamber/ hug-box to find comfort in.
I’m not running away. No point in arguing with people that I don’t know. I made a mistake by posting the first time and I’m sorry. Some of the folks here seem like decent people.
That “depravation,” it’s a thing they do in Calipornia.
So what’s with that haircut in “Fargo,” anyway?
Oh. My. God.
I figured out the connection. It’s Mario Apuzzo’s barber!
But that’s not the only option, is it? Your presence on the internet suggests strongly that you do see a point in at least conversing with people you don’t
know. There’s no need to be argumentative.
As others have pointed out, your earlier posts were very short on specifics. If I understood you correctly, you have been under the impression that the press neglected to follow certain leads about Obama’s background in areas relevant to his eligibility for the presidency.
Come on, let’s have a discussion. What supports your assertion that there was a “bs narrative that the people were force fed in 2008”? What specifically do you consider to be bs and on what basis?
Decent people should be able to have a decent discussion based on honest consideration of the evidence.
We are decent people. That’s why we spend our precious time de-bunking the mischaracterizations, rumors, bogus assertions and outright lies of the rabid right wing disinformation campaign.
We (OK, I and a lot of others here) have nothing against conservatives. One of the most effective debunkers of the Birth Certificate “anomalies” was John Woodman, a man who wouldn’t vote for Obama with a gun to his head. He just can’t stand liars and idiots calling themselves experts, and was appalled at how loopy the Birthers made sane conservatives look.
Please don’t consider it a mistake posting here. And don’t mistake our tone for knee-jerk boosterism. We get right flippant with posters who seem to be seeking the truth, but ignore us when we point them in the direction of an answer, and eventually come back and repeat the crap they started with. They get derision and contempt, and rightly so.
But others like yourself who honestly seem open to finding out what the facts are, and who evolve away from the right-wing garbage (even if they still don’t like Obama, which is fine) are more than welcome; they are the “loyal opposition.” They provide an opportunity for exchange of ideas. Nobody’s getting anywhere when the conversation goes “Communist!”… “Nazi!” and that’s the end of it.
You may think there is something about the “narrative” you claim is less than factual concerning BHO’s background. As far as I’ve been able to determine, not a single element of it is misrepresented. His birth, travel, education, citizenship, secondary schooling, college, Harvard professorship… NOTHING doesn’t check out. But it’s understandable that you think so… there is a concerted effort, every damn day, to spread lies about the man. So many that even decent folk like yourself say “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” And generally that’s true.
But it’s also true that sometimes where there’s smoke, there’s a smoke machine backstage.
Another thing: The right spends a lot of time telling their followers “don’t pay attention to any other sources of information. It’s all a liberal conspiracy. They’re in the tank, etc. etc.” You know who also says “don’t listen to anyone else”? Con men.
Progressives, on the other hand, have no fear of wide-ranging research and information. We say: please do. Look around. Read sources on both sides, plus the more reliable sources overseas like the BBC. Get as many viewpoints as possible. Then make up your mind.
Best luck to you, whoever you are.
FOX news even reported on his Indonesian school .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY&feature=player_embedded
“But it’s also true that sometimes where there’s smoke, there’s a smoke machine backstage.”
I like that !
Sigh, I miss the old days.
That’s an odd statement. One would never debate online if that were the case.
And most of us are quite decent, just a bit insistent on actual facts.
Whatever. I agree that it’s an odd statement in that I reached out to argue and then backed away. I’ll blame it on the beer last night. I hear the arguments and I process them. I am still skeptical. I know this statement will open up another can of worms and open me up for critique. Cheers.
Because some of us are conservatives.
Just as one shouldn’t assume all conservatives or Republicans are gun-toting, redneck sons-of-bitches, one shouldn’t also assume all progressives or Democrats are lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead communists. [The West Wing: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics] The Electorate is a very large graph with a huge middle and many outliers.
What about to stop drinking ?
As are many of my friends, and my only brother. I try to do my part by reminding folks on the Left that conservatives are not to be painted with the same brush as the Westboro gang, Michelle Bachmann, Orly Taitz, Cliven Bundy, Roy Moore, Alan Keyes, Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc.
Thomas, name the decent ones, please. Do you need more than two hands ?
You will never be criticized for curiosity, nor healthy skepticism. The worms will stay in the can, and the frogs will not be marching.
I just noticed that I meant to say “ALL conservatives are not to be painted…” But here’s the thing: you wouldn’t recognize their names. Because of the Volume-Doofus Correlation: The louder the political speech, the more likely it is to be hopelessly extreme.
European. Don’t be so angry. It’s unhealthy. Thanks Thomas.
Plus I’m more of a libertarian. Live and let live. So you don’t have me pegged.
Thomas, I know, that there are hundreds of thousands of decent conservative politicians on city councils pp. On your national stage ? Not so many, I fear.
Here’s my question. What is your point in posting here? If you want responses to the things you are skeptical about, you have to state with some specificity what those things are.
You have hinted at a couple of things, things which some folks here have addressed, but I’ll give you the Cliff Notes version:
1. There is not a shred of evidence that Obama was ever adopted by Lolo Soetoro. None whatsoever.
2. Even if Obama had been adopted by Soetoro, it would not have affected Obama’s U.S. citizenship. The law is very clear on this. A child cannot lose his or her U.S. citizenship because of actions taken by the child’s parents.
3. Obama could not have renounced his citizenship while he lived in Indonesia because he was too young to do so.
4. Obama could not have become an Indonesian citizen because, pursuant to Indonesia law, he was too young to become a citizen.
So you can see that Obama’s Indonesia connection is a non-issue, not to mention one which has been thoroughly investigated.
Ricky. I’ll stop it at my point for posting here. I drank a few beers last night and just did it. I hear all of the counterpoints that people make here and many seem valid.
It’s better than that, BB. If you are incurably curious about any specific argument (God help you), somebody should be able to cite sources and often even provide links to them. Nobody here will say “You must accept what I say just ’cause I said it… and if you don’t, it means you hate America.” You are welcome– in fact, encouraged– to look the shit up and see for yourself what’s what.
Cheers.
I hear you and I do, Thomas.