Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

[11B4V]

I think your arguments are both intelligent and sound, Berkut. I have never known you to be a man to shy away from admitting when you're wrong - it just doesn't happen very often since you don't tend to take up crazy positions.

[DGuller]

I wanted to stay out of it, because the only thing replying will accomplish is feed more of your insanity, but I need to set the record straight as well.  I won't go into arguments, because there is no need for that, but I'll just call bullshit.

When one takes the entirety of DGullers posts into account, he is rather clearly an extremely partisan left wing Democrat. Maybe you can debate whether or not he is REALLY extreme, or just kind of extreme, but he is on the record as stating that in his views moderate Democrats are not Democrats at all, but really Republicans. And not just one or two, but lots of them. If that isn't extreme, then there are no extremes at all.

Bullshit.  You're taking my theoretical comment about what it means to be in a party, and that it's about more than a letter after a name, and saying that I'm calling Blue Dogs Republicans.

His track record of creative editing of posts and stating things about me that he knows full well is simply not true is well established, sadly. That is a separate issue.

I do not creatively edit posts.  I simply quote what I am replying to, and nothing more, for clarity.  Your original post is still there, it's not like what you say disappears when I do not quote it.  When you say that you find Republicans repugnant, good, I don't have much to reply to you with on that, so why should I quote it?  You saying that does not put the other things that I am replying to out of context.

You must be talking about some other DG. He doesn't ever change his mind on political matters - they are a matter of great faith to him.

That's just pure idiocy on your part.  Note that I am not calling you a liar, because I am very much convinced that your memory is naturally selective on matters such as these, and that you remember only the things that reinforce your stereotypes.  I'm not going to list out positions that I changed, because frankly, that's a little demeaning.  I don't change my positions for the purpose of putting together a defense against idiotic charges of political extremism.

Someone who is mostly very honest who has been shown to be very much dishonest at times is both things. You can't just pretend the dishonesty didn't happen because most of the time he is honest, or a nice guy.

Just more of your careless accusations of lying.  I'm still curious why you are that paranoid about others.  I have a stereotype in my mind about people who are excessively distrustful, but I'll keep it to myself.

A) Republican opposition/"backlash" against Obama is significantly motivated by racism (rather than simply party politics, ideology, etc., etc), and
B) He is upset that people question his motives, and thinks that is not really very fair.

The irony that he is so concerned about anyone questioning a particular posters motives (for which we have ample actual evidence), while he is perfectly content to impunge the motives of millions based on their membership in the "other" party (with zero evidence at all, except his "common sense") appears to be completely lost on him. Which is rather perfectly normal...for extremists.

There is a difference between making an inference about a group of people, and about an individual.  When it comes to a group of people, you have to make an an assumption based on gut feel, because absent a very detailed survey, there is no way to know for sure.  Either you say something, and run the risk of almost never being able to prove in a court of law, or you say nothing at all.  Given that we're not debating live on CNN, I'm going to tip the balance towards saying what I think is true rather than saying what I can prove in court.

When it comes to individuals, though, you do have a lot more to go on, and there is an actual person you're attacking, so the standard of evidence is much higher.  When I imply that there are a lot of racists among the teabaggers, none of them have their reputation directly impugned.  When you imply that I'm a liar, that's not as much the case.

[PDH]

CNN

Proves he is a leftist

[DGuller]

CNN

Proves he is a leftist

  Damn it, I slipped up.

[garbon]

What's up with all the cheerleading?

[Valmy]

Go back and read this thread Meri. Lots of people jumping up and down and calling millions of other racists. And not one single shred of actual evidence provided except appeals to "it is obvious" and "common sense" or even you must be "pretty delusional" not to see this rampant racism.

Ok dude.  What evidence do you require?  What would prove racism?  I think constantly harping on demanding somebody prove they are American enough for no particular reason, and that person happens to be a half African dude, with the obvious intention of harping on the fact he is an "other" to be pretty racist.  There is not one shred of evidence that he is does not fulfill that constitutional requirement...so gosh why would birtherism be a good political strategy to go after him besides taking advantage of racism and xenophobia?  I have been trying to be respectful here to you and just agree to disagree but for some reason you keep slamming me and dreaming up fantastical and delusional nonsense about me having a political agenda and I am being dishonest.  What exactly is my agenda?

And I know you are attacking me personally here because "obvious" and "common sense" are what I said.

[PDH]

What exactly is my agenda?

  Revolution against the American Ancien Régime.

[Valmy]

  Revolution against the American Ancien Régime.

Well yeah

[Razgovory]

I think your arguments are both intelligent and sound, Berkut. I have never known you to be a man to shy away from admitting when you're wrong - it just doesn't happen very often since you don't tend to take up crazy positions.

Jaron often posts the opposite of what he really thinks.  It's called "trolling".

[Berkut]

Go back and read this thread Meri. Lots of people jumping up and down and calling millions of other racists. And not one single shred of actual evidence provided except appeals to "it is obvious" and "common sense" or even you must be "pretty delusional" not to see this rampant racism.

Ok dude.  What evidence do you require?

The onus is not on me to define what evidence WOULD be needed to prove that millions of people are racist, it is on those who are claiming they are racists.

What would prove racism?

Doesn't that depend on the racism in question?

There are lots of things that evidence racism. One of those things is bringing up race a lot, where it does not appear to be relevant to the discussion.

  I think constantly harping on demanding somebody prove they are American enough for no particular reason,

Of course there is a particular reason. He is a Democrat, and they are Republicans. That is the reason. It is a stupid reason, I grant you, but a reason nonetheless.

Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican. Dens claimed Clinton murdered his press secretary with zero evidence. The list of ridiculous claims made for political reasons without evidence or much sense is rather long, and goes back as long as there has been politics.

and that person happens to be a half African dude,

See, this is the ONLY actual evidence given. Obama is black, therefore attacks against him are racist. Birther attacks - RACIST! We see it over and over and over again. Everytime someone on Languish attacks Obama, the race card is promptly and consistently played by the usual suspects. I call them on it, and we have 20 pages about what an asshole Berkut is for not seeing the obvious...and yet we still have zero evidence that any of this is significantly motivated by racism.

with the obvious intention of harping on the fact he is an "other" to be pretty racist. 

So accusations that he is a Muslim - that is racism as well?

What about accusations that Romney is no Christian - is that racism, since it is clearly trying to accentuate that his not the same as the rest of us? Or is the attempt to cast a poltiical figure as "different" only racism if that figure is black, even though every single politician undergoes that same attack in one for or another, and some of them actually use their "he is just like us!" as a powerful political tool?

Is it racism then when Clinton is portrayed as "one of the guys"?

There is not one shred of evidence that he is does not fulfill that constitutional requirement. 

So? Since when do poltical parties need evidence or reason to justify political attacks on their opponents?

Just because the attacks don't have logical or legal sense to them does not make them racist.

I have been trying to be respectful here to you and just agree to disagree but for some reason you keep slamming me and dreaming up fantastical and delusional nonsense about me having a political agenda and I am being dishonest.  What exactly is my agenda?

Wow, that is quite the strawman. I don't think I've accused you of anything of the kind.

What I have said in regards to this in general is that I think the constant refrain of "RACISM!" in regards to criticism of Obama is race baiting. It is done by the political extreme of the Dems because it works - it gets even people like you or Tamas to just accept that birthers are racist because it "just makes sense" and after all, nobody likes those nutbars anyway, so it feels good to think the worst of them, validates how nutty they are, and of course how NOT nutty the rest of us are....

Then it is just a handy little fallacious leap for DG to come along and replace "birthers" with "Republicans" since, after all, they are all Republicans anyway, and they are a lot of Republicans, and here was this poll that says x percent of Republicans have some kind of doubt about Obama's birth...and now since we all know birthers are racists because we've repeated it over and over and over again...voila! Now Republicans are all racists!

Hey, look at that....

No, I don't think YOU are doing this, but I think you are the intended victim. This is nothing new or special in political tactics though - it is standard fair, to try to paint the opposing party as ridiculous and extreme as possible, and part of the effort to convince the middle that the extreme is the party is to make the extreme as onerous as possible.

What is funny about this is that the extreme in this case is already pretty amazingly unpleasant without any need to craft all this racism nonsense.

[Berkut]

And I know you are attacking me personally here because "obvious" and "common sense" are what I said.

Your "evidence" that attacks on Obama are motivated by racism being "obvious" and "common sense" are in fact comprised comlpetely of exactly on fact:

Obama is black.

That is it - that is the ONLY fact you have to support the "common sense" claim that some particular attack on him is motivated by racism.

The problem with that is this: Obama is ALWAYS black. He is not just black when the topic of discussion is where he is born. Therefore, if it is "common sense" that attacks on him about that are racism, then it is "common sense" that ANY attack on him is motivated by racism.

You can argue that attacks on him about other things don't make sense on a racist basis...but racism doesn't make sense to begin with (and certainly does not make the nonsense claim that he is not a natural citizen any more or less nonsense), so that doesn't refute it, once you assume that him being black is adequate evidence to level a charge of racism.

Funny, that is exactly what Seedy and friends do...

[11B4V]

I think your arguments are both intelligent and sound, Berkut. I have never known you to be a man to shy away from admitting when you're wrong - it just doesn't happen very often since you don't tend to take up crazy positions.

Jaron often posts the opposite of what he really thinks.  It's called "trolling".

Quite.

I'm just laughing my ass off at this whole thread.

[CountDeMoney]

You know, I think Berkut would've been a fantastic NKVD officer.

Much like Rubashov's 2nd interrogator in Darkness at Noon, he will simply out-will you, dueling you post-for-post, statement-for-statement, word-for-word, in a remarkably disciplined performance of endless stamina, endurance and minutiae, never wavering, never showing the slightest glimpse of fatigue;  like an intellectual blasthole drill, he will bore into you continuously until you finally capitulate.

[CountDeMoney]

Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.

I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.

[Berkut]

Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.

I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.

I knew I could count on you.