Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

[PDH]

Let's look shall we.


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.

I hedged because, as has been shown here, there are plenty of great ways to be anti-Obama without being a racist.  Still, as should be apparent, there is an undercurrent of racism in some of the attacks.  So, how does one indicate that some and not of a group might be in this group (and hedging of the words is because whenever confronted those doing these attacks proclaim they are not racist)?  Why, one can use a word or phrase that shows this group is not the entire group! 

In this wonderful day of all or nothing, I suppose such parenthetical use of words to indicate one does not believe an entire group should be painted in such a way is indicative of my sneakily attacking the group.  Your quickness to jump to this shows that the discourse might well have changed and use of hedging words or not using Raz/Hans broad strokes might be the perceived norm.

By they way, the "wonderfully idiotic" was how you seem to be highlighting this new discourse (fostered and helped by both sides of the political debate).  You, while nasty and prickly at times are rarely idiotic.

[garbon]

Let's look shall we.


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.

I hedged because, as has been shown here, there are plenty of great ways to be anti-Obama without being a racist.  Still, as should be apparent, there is an undercurrent of racism in some of the attacks.  So, how does one indicate that some and not of a group might be in this group (and hedging of the words is because whenever confronted those doing these attacks proclaim they are not racist)?  Why, one can use a word or phrase that shows this group is not the entire group! 

In this wonderful day of all or nothing, I suppose such parenthetical use of words to indicate one does not believe an entire group should be painted in such a way is indicative of my sneakily attacking the group.  Your quickness to jump to this shows that the discourse might well have changed and use of hedging words or not using Raz/Hans broad strokes might be the perceived norm.

By they way, the "wonderfully idiotic" was how you seem to be highlighting this new discourse (fostered and helped by both sides of the political debate).  You, while nasty and prickly at times are rarely idiotic.

I don't think there is much use in pointing out that some members of the group are racists given that Berkut already agreed to that rather early on.  I think your hedged statement can only really serve to suggest that the entire group is infected by such racism...especially as it was proffered after statements from several that the birthers can hardly be seen as anything but racially motivated.  Given the inflammatory and unsubstantiated nature of such a claim, I felt free to make my own in the same vein when stating that you think that everyone who is anti-Obama is steeped somewhat in a background of racism.

[PDH]

While Berk states that there is obviously some racism evident, he (at least in this thread) downplays it as well.  Thus, pointing out that it is a part of the fringe (oh no, "a part!") should be valid.

Infected by racism is in and of itself a loaded phrase - I seriously do not think that there is a racism disease, but I do believe there is an undercurrant of race in much of the broader US society, history makes this clear.  Racism, however, in its open and obvious way, does seem to rear its head among an element of the anti-obama group.  I would suspect that an element of the people opposing the black woman running for congress will have expressions of racism too.  However, again that will be a part.

You did seem quick to associate "a part" with some sort of slippery slope argument.  If I say some, then that is what I mean.  When I say all, then that is what I mean.  On this forum, Valmy is saying that their seems to be a racist element in birther attacks, and yet he is anti-Obama.  So he is (from what you say I am intimating) racist attacking others from being racist?

[dps]

Heck, I'm sure that there are racists Democrats out there that don't really want a black guy in the White House, but are OK with it as long as he's a Democrat.  It's like the old joke:

There was a fire and brimstone type preacher who was also an old-fashioned, dye-in-the-wool, Southern Democrat.  On day, a member of his congregation remarked to him, "Preacher, I think you'd vote for Satan himself as long as he ran on the Democratic ticket, wouldn't you?".  The preacher replied, "Well, not in the primary I wouldn't!". 

[CountDeMoney]

I'm much more of a Republican than a Democrat when it comes to local politics. 

Right. Like school boards?

[Berkut]

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?

I love the blatant poisoning of the well in your question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

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 ?

Because I know you are too smart to really think that making unsupported accusations and engaging in pretty transparent attempts to apply the "racist" label to Republicans in general (as I very clearly evidenced with the nice little move from "birthers are racists" to "Republicans are racists") to think that you are doing so accidently.

Why can't I simply be holding a mistaken belief?

For the same reason I don't buy into the idea that people like Rush can really believe that Obama is not a US citizen. You are too smart to hold such an obviously silly 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?

Not at all - it is pretty trivial to simply judge based on your posts in this very thread. Your attempt to apply the lable of "racist" to the Republican party is rather transparent, and all stemming from the demand that it be applied to birthers on the basis of "common sense" or "it is obvious".

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.

Why would I do that - who would I be scoring this cheap point with?

No - I think race baiting is an incredibly offensive political tactic.

Youa re slightly more subtle than Seedy is at it, in that you at least try to claim it isn't what you are doing when you connect the dots, but it is pretty obvious.

If in fact that is not the case, then I notice you haven't bothered to challenge Seedy on it when he is not even trying to hide it. Instead you jump right into the fight agreeing with the stance that birthers are racist, and then merrily insert "Republicans" for birthers so you can conclude that Republicans are racists as well.

These kinds of posts are the reason why I dread getting involved in debates with you.

You should dread getting involved in debates with people who are willing to call you our when engage in such transparent smears of those who have the audacity to be the hated "Republicans".

When you do stuff like this, it makes you look like a fanatic to those who are not drinking the same kool-aid. If you want to NOT be challenged, then just only engage with people who already agree with you, like Seedy and Raz. You can all sit around telling each other how racist Republicans are, and how awesome you are for recognizing it.

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.

This coming from someone who just labeled an entire party as being racists.

It's funny - you hate it when I call you out for being completely unwilling to see anything from a perspective other than your own, and you don't see it at all. You hate having YOUR motivations and honesty questioned while at the same time you insist that it is perfectly reasonable to question the motives and honesty of entire groups of people!

YOU are offended that I question your stated motives, at the exact same time you blithely state that tens of thousands of people are motivated by racism - your evidence for which is simply your "common sense".

I am continually amazed that someone as smart as you consistently does not see the basic incongruity in your own positions.

[Berkut]

While Berk states that there is obviously some racism evident, he (at least in this thread) downplays it as well.  Thus, pointing out that it is a part of the fringe (oh no, "a part!") should be valid.

The issue however is whether or not the racism is meaningful or relevant.

Saying that there are racists in the birther group means nothing  - there are racists in every group.

Following that up with the claim that it is in fact racism which drives the group identity such that it is meaningful to bring up "RACISTS!" literally every single time the group is brought up is a different thing entirely. And that happens every single time the birther issue comes up.

Then, DG comes along and makes that next connection by substituting "Republican" for birthers - and we see the basic intent of the cry.

I could say that there are racists in the MoveOn crowd, and it would be factually true.

Then everytime someone brought up MoveOn, I could say "Yeah, a lot of the are racists, that is why they think that way!"

And when someone challenges me, I could fall back on "Well, you are crazy if you don't think there are at least some racists in that group!" and "It is simply common sense".

But if everytime it comes up, people start talking about racism, then it is pretty clear that there is an intent to cast the debate in only those terms.

Which, in this case, I think is entirely false.

And the next step of then subtly switching "MoveOn" to "Democrats" make it pretty obvious what the intent of the entire thing becomes.

[DGuller]

I'm much more of a Republican than a Democrat when it comes to local politics. 

Right. Like school boards?

No, mayoral elections, and even to some extent gubernatorial elections.  I'm willing to take the chance of a Senate appointment and vote for a Republican candidate for governor, if he seems like a sensible fellow.  Above that level, I really do not have an option.  Even if a Republican candidate for Congress or Senate is sensible, if elected, he will be part of a party that would be more cohesive than the Communist Party of the USSR in 1938.

[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?

I love the blatant poisoning of the well in your question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

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 ?

Because I know you are too smart to really think that making unsupported accusations and engaging in pretty transparent attempts to apply the "racist" label to Republicans in general (as I very clearly evidenced with the nice little move from "birthers are racists" to "Republicans are racists") to think that you are doing so accidently.

Why can't I simply be holding a mistaken belief?

For the same reason I don't buy into the idea that people like Rush can really believe that Obama is not a US citizen. You are too smart to hold such an obviously silly 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?

Not at all - it is pretty trivial to simply judge based on your posts in this very thread. Your attempt to apply the lable of "racist" to the Republican party is rather transparent, and all stemming from the demand that it be applied to birthers on the basis of "common sense" or "it is obvious".

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.

Why would I do that - who would I be scoring this cheap point with?

No - I think race baiting is an incredibly offensive political tactic.

Youa re slightly more subtle than Seedy is at it, in that you at least try to claim it isn't what you are doing when you connect the dots, but it is pretty obvious.

If in fact that is not the case, then I notice you haven't bothered to challenge Seedy on it when he is not even trying to hide it. Instead you jump right into the fight agreeing with the stance that birthers are racist, and then merrily insert "Republicans" for birthers so you can conclude that Republicans are racists as well.

These kinds of posts are the reason why I dread getting involved in debates with you.

You should dread getting involved in debates with people who are willing to call you our when engage in such transparent smears of those who have the audacity to be the hated "Republicans".

When you do stuff like this, it makes you look like a fanatic to those who are not drinking the same kool-aid. If you want to NOT be challenged, then just only engage with people who already agree with you, like Seedy and Raz. You can all sit around telling each other how racist Republicans are, and how awesome you are for recognizing it.

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.

This coming from someone who just labeled an entire party as being racists.

It's funny - you hate it when I call you out for being completely unwilling to see anything from a perspective other than your own, and you don't see it at all. You hate having YOUR motivations and honesty questioned while at the same time you insist that it is perfectly reasonable to question the motives and honesty of entire groups of people!

YOU are offended that I question your stated motives, at the exact same time you blithely state that tens of thousands of people are motivated by racism - your evidence for which is simply your "common sense".

I am continually amazed that someone as smart as you consistently does not see the basic incongruity in your own positions.

Yeah, it can be all that elaborate blah blah, in a subtle and devious plot to convert Languish, all 50 of its members, to my party, or it can be a simple fact that I as a person perceive a strong racial element in the backlash Obama's election caused.  It has to be the elaborate blah blah. 

[garbon]

While Berk states that there is obviously some racism evident, he (at least in this thread) downplays it as well.  Thus, pointing out that it is a part of the fringe (oh no, "a part!") should be valid.

Infected by racism is in and of itself a loaded phrase - I seriously do not think that there is a racism disease, but I do believe there is an undercurrant of race in much of the broader US society, history makes this clear.  Racism, however, in its open and obvious way, does seem to rear its head among an element of the anti-obama group.  I would suspect that an element of the people opposing the black woman running for congress will have expressions of racism too.  However, again that will be a part.

You did seem quick to associate "a part" with some sort of slippery slope argument.  If I say some, then that is what I mean.  When I say all, then that is what I mean.  On this forum, Valmy is saying that their seems to be a racist element in birther attacks, and yet he is anti-Obama.  So he is (from what you say I am intimating) racist attacking others from being racist?

I think Berk got to my thoughts in his most recent post.  I don't really see it useful to point out that there is an undercurrent of racism as that's inherent in a lot of things.  I only think it is notable to say if you are suggesting then that the group's identity has racism as inherent to its core.  I don't think that's what you're saying but I think that's what the language you used supports.

Oh and yes, I already said that - Valmy is racist!

[DGuller]

I think Berk got to my thoughts in his most recent post.  I don't really see it useful to point out that there is an undercurrent of racism as that's inherent in a lot of things.  I only think it is notable to say if you are suggesting then that the group's identity has racism as inherent to its core.  I don't think that's what you're saying but I think that's what the language you used supports.

Oh and yes, I already said that - Valmy is racist!

Why does everything that you say have to be useful?  I agree that pointing out the racist component in the ODS is not that useful, because I can't see how you can act on that information even if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  You can't change the weather when you comment about it either, and yet most of us still do it regularly in conversations with other people.

[garbon]

I think Berk got to my thoughts in his most recent post.  I don't really see it useful to point out that there is an undercurrent of racism as that's inherent in a lot of things.  I only think it is notable to say if you are suggesting then that the group's identity has racism as inherent to its core.  I don't think that's what you're saying but I think that's what the language you used supports.

Oh and yes, I already said that - Valmy is racist!

Why does everything that you say have to be useful?  I agree that pointing out the racist component in the ODS is not that useful, because I can't see how you can act on that information even if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  You can't change the weather when you comment about it either, and yet most of us still do it regularly in conversations with other people.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? I think that trivial statement can easily be used maliciously as it wouldn't hard to construe as the overblown rhetoric of they are all racists.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, it can be all that elaborate blah blah, in a subtle and devious plot to convert Languish, all 50 of its members, to my party, or it can be a simple fact that I as a person perceive a strong racial element in the backlash Obama's election caused.  It has to be the elaborate blah blah. 

Heh, you missed the point here.  Berkut is projecting.  You and CdM and me and millions of other Americans aren't sitting around congratulating ourselves telling ourselves how bright we are to see the racism, but Berkut is congratulating himself on being one of the few rational, level headed persons in American that isn't confused with tribalist thinking and sees this is just the same thing as when those evil Moveon.org (I guess that being a mass movement rather then just a website) saying mean things about Bush.  Years of going to mental hospitals has taught me that if everyone sees something (or doesn't see something), the problem naturally lies with everyone else.

[PDH]

The issue however is whether or not the racism is meaningful or relevant.

Saying that there are racists in the birther group means nothing  - there are racists in every group.

Following that up with the claim that it is in fact racism which drives the group identity such that it is meaningful to bring up "RACISTS!" literally every single time the group is brought up is a different thing entirely. And that happens every single time the birther issue comes up.

Then, DG comes along and makes that next connection by substituting "Republican" for birthers - and we see the basic intent of the cry.

I could say that there are racists in the MoveOn crowd, and it would be factually true.

Then everytime someone brought up MoveOn, I could say "Yeah, a lot of the are racists, that is why they think that way!"

And when someone challenges me, I could fall back on "Well, you are crazy if you don't think there are at least some racists in that group!" and "It is simply common sense".

But if everytime it comes up, people start talking about racism, then it is pretty clear that there is an intent to cast the debate in only those terms.

Which, in this case, I think is entirely false.

And the next step of then subtly switching "MoveOn" to "Democrats" make it pretty obvious what the intent of the entire thing becomes.

In part I think that race has an underlying importance in this, simply because race is one of the key social concepts in American identity.  Who is what race, what races exist, how they interact, who should marry whom, all of these things were so vitally important for so long that they just haven't gone away.

I do not think for a moment that all the vitriol for Obama is race based, the political system is far too dysfunctional these days to chalk up even a large minority to that aspect.  I do think that race is and will be significant with the US social system for a while at least.  They can be a minority and still have a significance.

Now, if they SHOULD be important is another question.   I do think that the "people hate Obama because he is black" misses the far larger issues driving the political system these days.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Just a clarification: There is no truly formal definition of "natural born citizen" but the Congressional Research Office did a report on it and said that the general consensus basically means someone who was born into citizenship, meaning they never had to go through any form of naturalization process.

A child born in Kenya right now who has one American parent is generally born an American citizen under the "jus sanguinus" doctrine. This assumes:

1) The child's parents are married
2) The American citizen parent has, in their lifetimes spent a cumulative period of 5 years in the United States, with at least two of those years having occurred after their 14th birthday.

If both parents are citizens, then as long as either parent has ever resided in the United States for any period of time in their lives, their child is born a citizen.

The law doesn't treat children born out of wedlock equally. Out of wedlock born to an American mother (and after the year 1952),  as long as the American citizen mother has spent at least one year of her life in the United States the child is born an American citizen. Born out of wedlock with an American father but not mother, the father has to take several specific actions to get his child birthright citizenship. (Meaning arrange it so his child is considered a citizen from birth and avoiding the child having to go through naturalization.)

So yes, Barack Obama at his time of birth when the law was different, would not have been a birthright American citizen if born in Kenya. Thus he would have had to go through naturalization and most likely would not be considered natural born. This is because his mother was just shy of her 19th birthday, and the law at the time said that American citizen mothers giving birth outside the United States only pass on birthright citizenship to their children if the mother has resided in the United States for a total of five years after reaching their 14th birthday. Given his mother's age at the time if she had given birth in Kenya she could not have satisfied the 5 year residency after age 14 requirement.

DGuller being born abroad to an American citizen parent may have been natural born and thus eligible for the Presidency, depending on when he was born and the specifics of his birth.