Case for Obama birth certificate forgery growing....

Page 17 of 19 [ 273 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,784

07 Jan 2014, 9:17 am

I never had an issue with Obama being dark skinned. He has a multitude of character flaws that alone made him unfit to hold the office. That's before you confront his utter lack of real world experience to show his ability to perform the role he sought or that every thing that came from his lips was a lie to trick the masses into voting for him.

I had similar issues with G. W. Bush (military deserter....only never prosecuted because his daddy [who was former CIA] pulled some strings to clean that mess up so he could go into politics.

I had similar issues with Clinton (draft dodger, gloried his drug use, was renowned to be corrupt and lacking in any moral character or real leadership ability as governor of Arkansas).

Pretty much since Regan, we've had presidents who got into office by being the "lesser of the two evils."

H. W. Bush....rode in on the coat tails of Regan...and Dukakis ran a lame campaign at best.

Clinton....rode in on "it's the economy, stupid," "character isn't important," and H. Ross Perot who got the masses riled up on "reinventing Washington" and then dropped out of the race...leaving Clinton and Bush clamoring for his supporters...most of which found Clinton more believable when he picked up Perot's campaign slogans.

G. W. Bush....rode in on the anger of Americans (both conservatives and many liberals) over the scandal-riddled Clinton administration. As lackluster as Gore's campaign was, many do attribute the taint of Clinton's eight years as why Gore didn't easily win the presidency. Absent that taint, his eight years as VP would have overshadowed any lack in his personality.

Obama....rode in on a wave of resentment over what Bush/Cheney did for eight years. Didn't help that the RNC ran McCain...who conservatives found repugnant because he was a Bush "yes man" up until he needed to run for office. Of all the real leaders in the conservative ranks, McCain was GIVEN the nomination. It's still an oddity that Obama got the DNC nomination over Hillary Clinton...who clearly was more suited for it, but that's a topic for another day.

Frankly, even Regan never really wanted to be president. He was pressured to put his hat into the ring by his peer because "America needed him."

Our leaders are indeed selected for us. Again and again I've seen this pattern, and my uncle told me this was so back when I was a teenager. I thought he was crazy, but years of being involved in politics and working campaigns has convinced me that indeed we don't really pick our leaders in the USA...we are given the illusion of choice. No matter who wins, the one left standing will serve the will of those who drive the political machine more than the people who cast their ballots.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,646
Location: temperate zone

07 Jan 2014, 10:50 am

George Washington was born a subject of the British Crown, and not a US citizen (because the USA didnt exist yet).


I think of the B-day of the USA as being July forth, 1776, when we declared Independence. But legal scholars consider 1790 (when the Constitution was ratified) to be the nations b-day.

Not sure which date to go with, but anyway:

It wasnt until our eighth president (Martin Van Buren) that we had a president born after the declaration of Independence. Born in 1784 he was not born a british subject. But he was born before the Constitution was nailed down. So lets put him in the gray zone- not born a Brit- but not exactly born an American either.

Then we went back to having a British born president. Number nine was born on these shores, but in 1773. So there is no way that William Henry Harrison could be considered 'born an American citizen'.

Number 10: John Tyler was born in 1790- after the D/I, and during the very year the constitution was being ratified (not sure whether that puts him in the gray or in the white).

Our eleventh president:Jame K. Polk (born in 1795) was the first US president to be born both after the D/I, and solidly after the R/C in 1790 making him the first President born in the solidly legally defined USA( the first one born solidly in the white zone of US citizenship).

But with number 12:Zachary Taylor (born in 1784) we reverted to a post D/I, but pre R/C president (gray zone again).

It wasnt until number 13: Milliard Fillmore (born 1800) that the modern unbroken chain of presidents born in the solidly legally defined (post R/C) USA began.

So we should posthumously, and retroactively, impeach atleast 9 (and really eleven) of the first 12 presidents because they were not born US citizens!



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jan 2014, 10:56 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
T-Word! :shameonyou:


Says the broken record.......


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,391
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Jan 2014, 12:15 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
I never had an issue with Obama being dark skinned. He has a multitude of character flaws that alone made him unfit to hold the office. That's before you confront his utter lack of real world experience to show his ability to perform the role he sought or that every thing that came from his lips was a lie to trick the masses into voting for him.

I had similar issues with G. W. Bush (military deserter....only never prosecuted because his daddy [who was former CIA] pulled some strings to clean that mess up so he could go into politics.

I had similar issues with Clinton (draft dodger, gloried his drug use, was renowned to be corrupt and lacking in any moral character or real leadership ability as governor of Arkansas).

Pretty much since Regan, we've had presidents who got into office by being the "lesser of the two evils."

H. W. Bush....rode in on the coat tails of Regan...and Dukakis ran a lame campaign at best.

Clinton....rode in on "it's the economy, stupid," "character isn't important," and H. Ross Perot who got the masses riled up on "reinventing Washington" and then dropped out of the race...leaving Clinton and Bush clamoring for his supporters...most of which found Clinton more believable when he picked up Perot's campaign slogans.

G. W. Bush....rode in on the anger of Americans (both conservatives and many liberals) over the scandal-riddled Clinton administration. As lackluster as Gore's campaign was, many do attribute the taint of Clinton's eight years as why Gore didn't easily win the presidency. Absent that taint, his eight years as VP would have overshadowed any lack in his personality.

Obama....rode in on a wave of resentment over what Bush/Cheney did for eight years. Didn't help that the RNC ran McCain...who conservatives found repugnant because he was a Bush "yes man" up until he needed to run for office. Of all the real leaders in the conservative ranks, McCain was GIVEN the nomination. It's still an oddity that Obama got the DNC nomination over Hillary Clinton...who clearly was more suited for it, but that's a topic for another day.

Frankly, even Regan never really wanted to be president. He was pressured to put his hat into the ring by his peer because "America needed him."

Our leaders are indeed selected for us. Again and again I've seen this pattern, and my uncle told me this was so back when I was a teenager. I thought he was crazy, but years of being involved in politics and working campaigns has convinced me that indeed we don't really pick our leaders in the USA...we are given the illusion of choice. No matter who wins, the one left standing will serve the will of those who drive the political machine more than the people who cast their ballots.


Reagan didn't want to be President? He had to be asked to run "because America needed him"? Zer0, your pessimism is slipping in the face of hero worship. :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

07 Jan 2014, 12:21 pm

Raptor wrote:
Oh really? Then I guess the liberal rejection of Herman Cain was likewise racist.

False equivallency. "Herman Cain is likely not even American" was never a thing with Democrats. Nor are there currently any Herman Cain birthers.

Really, that people in this very thread somehow still believe the birth certificate was fake. Really...


_________________
.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,391
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Jan 2014, 12:27 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I will doubtlessly attack his political ideals and his execution of office, but I will never tolerate any attack on his Cuban background - thus I swear!


What about his Canadian background?


DAMN CANADIANS! They are the Devil's spawn! :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jan 2014, 12:31 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Oh really? Then I guess the liberal rejection of Herman Cain was likewise racist.

False equivallency. "Herman Cain is likely not even American" was never a thing with Democrats. Nor are there currently any Herman Cain birthers.

It's an equivalency in that both were black (or considered black in Obama's case). If the sole reason of the birhters for "attacking" Obama can only be driven by race then the same rule must apply for the left's rationale for attacking Cain.

Quote:
Really, that people in this very thread somehow still believe the birth certificate was fake. Really...

Uh huh, like it would be overly difficult and unprecedented for a fake birth certificate to be fabricated to fulfill an unethical need.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,391
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Jan 2014, 2:37 pm

Raptor wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Oh really? Then I guess the liberal rejection of Herman Cain was likewise racist.

False equivallency. "Herman Cain is likely not even American" was never a thing with Democrats. Nor are there currently any Herman Cain birthers.

It's an equivalency in that both were black (or considered black in Obama's case). If the sole reason of the birhters for "attacking" Obama can only be driven by race then the same rule must apply for the left's rationale for attacking Cain.

Quote:
Really, that people in this very thread somehow still believe the birth certificate was fake. Really...

Uh huh, like it would be overly difficult and unprecedented for a fake birth certificate to be fabricated to fulfill an unethical need.


You also have to take into account the people making up the birthers - very hostile to civil rights legislation, resentful of changing demographics where whites will someday no longer be the majority, and who think minorities are coddled by the federal government. Compare that to Obama supporters, who have traditionally been supporters of civil rights, have no fear of a multi-ethnic society, and were enthusiastic for the chance at having a black President. So no, it just doesn't play out that Obama supporters are somehow racist in their opposition to Cain, while birthers are somehow fair, open minded people. If anything, that explains the real reason behind the birther movement.
And as far as faking a birth certificate - - there would have had to have been a conspiracy from the very beginning of the President's birth, with the planting of birth announcements in the local papers, and instructing individuals to lie fifty years later. That's much less realistic than the truther fantasies about 9/11 - and their conspiracy theories aren't realistic at all.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

07 Jan 2014, 5:17 pm

Okay, I'm going to break this down and try and explain why this kind of response annoys me so much.

Kraichgauer wrote:
I sincerely doubt anyone really believed Adams was a hermaphrodite.


First, you have no way of knowing that, but even if you did, it only strengthens my point by making it entirely about politics, and not about any actual bigotry. Remember, we were arguing over whether all birthers are racists, not about whether anyone believes them, so I read this kind of deflection as dishonesty.

Kraichgauer wrote:
And sure, the bullshit hurled at Clinton and Bush was just that - bullshit. But I don't recall a time when a President's ethnicity was held against him like it is with Obama.


Is Obama's ethnicity being held against him? You think it is, but you can't prove it, yet you still state it as a fact, which it is not. Birtherism is all about the belief that Obama is not eligible to be president due to the circumstances of his birth, not ineligible due to his race, and is equally applicable to a white president with a similar background, as it is inapplicable to a black president who did not have foreign parentage and a degree of murkiness around his young life.

I can't prove that birthers are not racists, as I can neither prove a negative nor peer into men's hearts, but neither can you prove that they are, but you persist in stating it anyway, which again, to me is a dishonesty and worse.

Kraichgauer wrote:
And yes, every President gets savaged by his critics (and I admit, I haven't been above that myself), but just because it's been done in the past doesn't mean that it's right, or that it should be ignored.


I never said it's right or it should be ignored, what I said is that making a sweeping generalization that you can't support and then covering your eyes and plugging your ears when someone challenges it is not the mark of intelligent thought, to put it mildly.

The admission also underlines the "this is unprecedented" narrative you've been pushing.

Kraichgauer wrote:
Attack a president's politics, but such ugly personal and ethnic attacks are something none of us should tolerate. If Ted Cruz ever gets to be President (God help us), I will doubtlessly attack his political ideals and his execution of office, but I will never tolerate any attack on his Cuban background - thus I swear!


Good for you, but in the meantime, try being less credulous every time someone says something nasty about a Republican, you're hard to take seriously when you're completely uncritical on one hand while demanding video evidence on the other (and act like R Kelly denying a sex tape when you get said video evidence).


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,391
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Jan 2014, 5:33 pm

It is a known fact that hate groups have jumped on the birther bandwagon. At tea party and birther rallies, invariably there are racist sign popping up. No, I can't prove that everyone associated with the birther movement are racists, but to say that there isn't a vocal element among them motivated by race is naive.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

07 Jan 2014, 7:11 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
It is a known fact that hate groups have jumped on the birther bandwagon. At tea party and birther rallies, invariably there are racist sign popping up. No, I can't prove that everyone associated with the birther movement are racists, but to say that there isn't a vocal element among them motivated by race is naive.


That's not what you said before, you said:

Kraichgauer wrote:
I can't believe birthers are motivated by anything other than racism. And yes, I will paint the whole bunch of them with that brush.


Followed by:

Kraichgauer wrote:
Really? Are you seriously suggesting that there are birthers who aren't motivated by - if not racism - then by blind hatred of the President?


Which sees you (slightly) backing off the "they're all racists, every one!" stand you'd previously taken, but is hypocritical coming from a partisan such as yourself.

Now, you're down to "well, there's racists among them, you can't deny that!", which no one, me especially, is denying, but is not the same thing as your original contention.

Perhaps you should take a page from Memento and tape Polaroids of your previous posts to your monitor, as you seem to forget what you actually said as soon as you hit the submit button.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

07 Jan 2014, 8:07 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I actually don't mind if you have a problem with Obama's politics - that's hardly racist. But the birthers bitching about his legitimacy to be President is, as they question his very Americanness.


If Obama was white, allegedly born in, say, Belarus, and had some foreign Soviet communism sounding name, along with a similarly shady and opaque past, do you really think the same "birthers" wouldn't be asking the same questions?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jan 2014, 8:08 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
It is a known fact that hate groups have jumped on the birther bandwagon. At tea party and birther rallies, invariably there are racist sign popping up. No, I can't prove that everyone associated with the birther movement are racists, but to say that there isn't a vocal element among them motivated by race is naive.


Did you go to this tea party rally to see this?
What exactly was on the signs?
Out of the entire rally, how many of these signs were displayed?
Do you think that the tea party can keep people from attending rallies?
Do you really think the the tea party wants those signs OR the people holding them in their rallies?


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 115
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,800

07 Jan 2014, 9:06 pm

Raptor wrote:

Do you really think the the tea party wants those signs OR the people holding them in their rallies?


Do the Teabaggers let you attend their parties? If so, then I can't imagine that they would turn anyone away.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jan 2014, 9:13 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:

Do you really think the the tea party wants those signs OR the people holding them in their rallies?


Do the Teabaggers let you attend their parties?

Never been to one.

Quote:
If so, then I can't imagine that they would turn anyone away.

Personal attack!
You're in for a spanking. :shameonyou:


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley