Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

[garbon]

Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.

On the whole, though, I'd rather live in San Francisco than the locales that republicans reign supreme.

Fair.

[Valmy]

It isn't so much the opinions but the demands.

Our opinions are backed by cultural privilege!

[CountDeMoney]

Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.

On the whole, though, I'd rather live in San Francisco than the locales that republicans reign supreme.

Hmmm...San Francisco, or Lawrence, Kansas? Go fig.

[Valmy]

On the whole, though, I'd rather live in San Francisco than the locales that republicans reign supreme.

It ain't so bad.  Though I guess I am in a city where Dems reign supreme inside a state where Republicans reign supreme.

[garbon]

Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.

On the whole, though, I'd rather live in San Francisco than the locales that republicans reign supreme.

Hmmm...San Francisco, or Lawrence, Kansas? Go fig.

Careful now, by reaching back like that in history, you're beginning to hop to the same rules as victimized Quebecois.

[DGuller]

Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.

I'm with you, having lived in New York and Jersey City.  The Democratic Party's monopoly of power hasn't done good things for these places.  I'm much more of a Republican than a Democrat when it comes to local politics.  However, that doesn't mean that I have to be support Republicans from anywhere in US, even if they're much more insane than any Republican at home.

[garbon]

Besides, Seedster, it is about balance. I've seen the crazy powerful Dems in SF and that imbalance of power (with no moderating influence) hasn't bred a utopia.

I'm with you, having lived in New York and Jersey City.  The Democratic Party's monopoly of power hasn't done good things for these places.  I'm much more of a Republican than a Democrat when it comes to local politics.  However, that doesn't mean that I have to be support Republicans from anywhere in US, even if they're much more insane than any Republican at home.

Agreed on all fronts.

Scary.

[PDH]

According to PDH's post that was full of hedging - if you are anti-Obama you have some racism.

You are showing a new and a wonderful way of being an idiot.

[garbon]

According to PDH's post that was full of hedging - if you are anti-Obama you have some racism.

You are showing a new and a wonderful way of being an idiot.

Let's look shall we.

Given that there is an undercurrent of racism to some of the anti Obama folks ("Don't Re-Nig", Federal Judges sending racist anti-Obama emails to name two), it is hard to say that the birthers do not have, at least in part, this as a background.

Looks like you hedged just about everywhere you could in that sentence. It looks like you were headed towards the unsupported conclusion that because some members of a group are racist than the group must be somehow racist but then backed up as that can't really be said.

[DGuller]

The extension and over-generalization of everything I said is, as usual, yours, not mine.

I think you have to be pretty delusional to not sense a strong racial undercurrent in the Republican flip-out.

The flipout is Republican, not just Tea Party.  To say Tea Party and not Republican would be an overly disingenous attempt at moderation.  That doesn't mean that my statement claims that all Republican flip out directed at Obama is race-based, it's just stating that it's a strong factor.

[DGuller]

But it DOES matter, that is the point.

If this was just about birthers, I really would not care.

But it isn't - just look at DGullers posts. This is a tactic of using race as a political bludgeon. And that is about as low as it gets in politics, and typical of the lengths that people are willing to go to score a cheap point. The birthers do it, and the race baiters like Seedy and DG do it.

The only difference is that I know most birthers are just stupid and  poorly informed by those who use them. DG and Seedy know exactly what they are doing.

I'm just curious, what events in life made you so paranoid, and always make you assume some nefarious plots behind other people's opinions that you disagree with?  I can understand being paranoid in EU3 when my Sweden attacks your Russia after you think that my Sweden is your ally, but why the paranoia here?

When I say that I believe that race plays a significant part in the ferocious Republican backlash, why is your first thought that it must be some propaganda plot by me trying to set the agenda ?  Why can't I simply be holding a mistaken belief?  Why isn't that your default assumption?  Do I really have such an enormous track record of dishonesty, and saying things with ulterior motive, that the possibility of me simply being wrong should be dismissed out of hand?  Or, maybe you yourself are trying to score a cheap point, by postulating that we say things you disagree with out of malice, and not out of stupidity.

These kinds of posts are the reason why I dread getting involved in debates with you.  You're a good and strand-up guy normally, but sometimes your brain chemistry gets a little too unpredictable and out of control when these debates start going.  It's not fun to debate when your honesty and motivation gets constantly questioned, and that goes way out of bounds of even rough and tumble debates.

[dps]

Question:  suppose Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President.  Now, there's no doubt that he isn't a natural born American.  Are you saying that you'd be OK with him becoming President despite the fact that he's not legally eligible to do so?

Where was I saying anything about this?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your response to Berkut here:

Caring about where Obama was born makes you an idiot - it doesn't make you a racist.

Common sense suggests otherwise.  I see no other reason to care about that unless you think, for some reason, he is not American enough.  Basically you are a xenophobic asshole.  I mean how blatant does it have to be?

The rest of that stuff I agree with you.

I as read it, Berkut says that caring about where President Obama was born makes you an idiot.  You agreed with him, and further said that it makes you a xenophobic asshole.  (Where the 2 of you disagree is on whether caring about the issue makes you a racist.)  So my question is, if caring about where someone seeking the office of President was born makes you a moronic, xenophobic asshole, should we amend the Constitution so as to eliminate the issue, or just ignore the Constitutional requirements for the office?

[frunk]

I think Valmy is referring to this specific instance, where plenty of evidence of Obama's 'native-bornness' has been provided, certainly more than any other presidential candidate in recent memory.

[Valmy]

I think Valmy is referring to this specific instance, where plenty of evidence of Obama's 'native-bornness' has been provided, certainly more than any other presidential candidate in recent memory.

Yeah.  For any reasonable person the fact his mother was an American citizen at the time at his birth should have satisfied the Constitutional requirement.  Is to the reasonableness of the requirement to begin with...I would not be opposed to changing it but that debate is not really on the table.  Especially as Arnold did not exactly rock the universe as Governor unforunately.  It would take a real political super star to really even get the issue talked about seriously.

[DGuller]

Yeah.  For any reasonable person the fact his mother was an American citizen at the time at his birth should have satisfied the Constitutional requirement.  Is to the reasonableness of the requirement to begin with...I would not be opposed to changing it but that debate is not really on the table.  Especially as Arnold did not exactly rock the universe as Governor unforunately.  It would take a real political super star to really even get the issue talked about seriously.

That's the problem.  If you've got no foreign-born politicians, then the issue appears moot.  If you have a foreign-born politician who is being held back by the requirement, then the issue is not moot, but it is going to be opposed by the party that doesn't have that politician.  Unfortunately, I do not have enough faith even in Democrat politicians and voters to ignore the practical outcome of the repeal of the requirement, and vote according to moral values, in the numbers sufficient to satisfy the super-duper majority requirement for the amendment to pass.