Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

[Sheilbh]

Well that is a pretty bad gaff.  If Bush had done that you would have had a field day.

It would have been more of a gaffe for Bush.  There are very few universal gaffes that would be a problem for all politicians - I think Brown and the 'bigoted woman' is one - whether something's a gaffe or not depends on how the politician is perceived.

[Sheilbh]

The "bitter clingers" thing was not a gaffe as I understand the definition of the term-- he meant to say what he said.

I thought that was the definition of a gaffe, a politician accidentally saying something they believe to be true.  I think that's a good example though.  57 states would've been a gaffe for Bush, but not Obama.  While clingers is a gaffe for Obama but I don't think would've caused Bush real problems.

[garbon]

While clingers is a gaffe for Obama but I don't think would've caused Bush real problems.

Because he never would have said it?

[Jacob]

What's up with all the cheerleading?

Awh poor diddums. People are talking about someone, and it's not you

[garbon]

What's up with all the cheerleading?

Awh poor diddums. People are talking about someone, and it's not you

[DGuller]

I disagree, that's not really a bad gaffe at all.

Oh come on.  Howard Dean's entire political career was ruined when he screamed once and he only named the states, he didn't say something stupid.

And oh for godsake.  I have Berkut telling me I am brainwashed by the Demoncrats and then I have DG insisting I am more stupid than I think Obama is.  For the record I could never get into Harvard no matter how much affirmative action demanded more Texans.

Do you believe that Obama at any point in the last 5 years thought there were at least 57 states in US?

[Valmy]

Do you believe that Obama at any point in the last 5 years thought there were at least 57 states in US?

My understanding was a gaffe was saying something silly be accident (like GWB trying to say 'fool me twice shame on me').  It seems you and Shielbh, and maybe the rest of the world, believe it is saying something you think is true by accident.

So then I think it was a bad MISTAKE and he will be made fun of for it.

[Admiral Yi]

Do you believe that Obama at any point in the last 5 years thought there were at least 57 states in US?

Maybe he studied US geography in that Indonesian jihadist school.

[DGuller]

Looked pretty clear to me.  He was shocked because you said what someone on the right would say.  I don't see where in the world you got the implication that you were a racist, or that people skeptical of racist connection to birtherism are racists.

Fair enough, but this is just a variation on the same theme: the only people who don't think birther = racist are those with an ulterior motive.

It is a variation on the same theme, if you're Berkut and see ulterior motives lurking behind every tree. 

Saying something because you're biased does not imply having an ulterior motive.  It merely implies lack of impartiality.  There are many reasons why someone may not be completely impartial, but few of them carry any sort of malice that could amount to "ulterior motive".

[Admiral Yi]

It is a variation on the same theme, if you're Berkut and see ulterior motives lurking behind every tree. 

Saying something because you're biased does not imply having an ulterior motive.  It merely implies lack of impartiality.  There are many reasons why someone may not be completely impartial, but few of them carry any sort of malice that could amount to "ulterior motive".

Another variation on the theme.  Nothing that has been said far is an actual argument or proof that birtherism = racism.  It's tautological.  "Birtherism is so self-evidently an aspect of racism that people who don't see it have something wrong with them."

[DGuller]

I disagree, that's not really a bad gaffe at all.  A bad gaffe is the kind that is even remotely plausible, and that reinforces stereotypes.  The comment about clinging to guns and religion was a pretty bad gaffe. 

Bad gaffes are just gaffes that are harmful or embarrassing, and it's up for debate as to whether the "57 states" gaffe is particularly bad or not (I don't think it's the end of the world, but still pretty amusing).  The "bitter clingers" thing was not a gaffe as I understand the definition of the term-- he meant to say what he said.

The way I think of it, bad gaffes are when you say something that is revealing, and/or to an unintended audience.  "Bitter clingers" was definitely a gaffe, because even if he did mean to say it to a small circle of people, he definitely didn't mean to say it to the public at large.  When the word got out to the public at large, it revealed Obama's disdain for certain kinds of people that he was feigning respect for, which is obviously a PR mistake. 

What did 57 states thing reveal?  Only that Obama can get tired as well, and misspeak.  Only in the minds of idiots could such a gaffe "reveal" his lack of knowledge of basic civic facts.  There is nothing really damaging in that gaffe, unless he makes such kinds of gaffes all the time.

[Berkut]

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.

Ok first: why?  Why does my opinion require evidence?  This is not a court of law I am not trying to convict anybody of anything.  They are taking actions that seem to be obviously racist to me.  And so what?

Your opinion certainly does not require evidence.

You can believe whatever you like, for whatever ridiculous reasons you like. Just like birthers believe whatever they like despite no real evidence that their beliefs are anything but idiocy.

I don't think I understand your point though. This is a discussion board where we discuss things. You have every right to believe in things you have no valid reason to believe in, and I have every right to speak my opinion about that as well.

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.

But it is impossible for it to be a subtext?  It must be explicitly stated or it is impossible for racism to exist?

Of course not. My entire motivation for engaging in this debate could be based on my belief that if I do not, the Black Panthers will come and kill me.

That is entirely possible.

Should YOU believe that to be the case, despite me never once saying anything about Black Panthers? Probably not.

Something being possible in theory is not a good reason to believe it is true.

And something being possible in theory is certainly not a good reason to run around accusing millions of people of racism.

You CAN do it of course.

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.

Yes...and so?  Sometimes the stupid reasons are racist or appeal to some other base quality in humanity.

Again...so?

  This is one of those cases IMO.

One of those cases where you are choosing to believe something is true despite the complete and total lack of evidence that it is true just because it is possible, therefore it is true?

OK. Noted.

And of course they are attacking him because he is a Democrat I am talking about using this particular strategy.

This particular strategy is being used because there is some question, no matter how silly, of where he was born. Every conpiracy theory hsa some little shred of basis to hang itself on. Why would you just assume that race has something to do with it?

Do you really think that if Obama was an identical person, except white, there would not be "birthers" out there claiming he is not American? Of course there would, just like there were people claiming ridiculous things about Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and every other not black politician.

See, this is the ONLY actual evidence given. Obama is black, therefore attacks against him are racist.

Bullshit.  There are tons of attacks on Obama that are not racist.

Of course - and one could claim that those attacks are racist with the exact same level of actual evidence you've provided that THESE attacks against him are racist: None at all, beyond "gut feeling".

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.

I don't think you are an asshole.  I just think the Birther stuff is racist.  If I thought you were an asshole I would not be writing this post.

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?

Nope.  Nowhere did I claim that every single attack on somebody that they are different is racism.  Just that this one appears to be.

Right - but the only evidence given that this one appears to be is that Obama is different, that he is black. WHY does this appear to be racism, but the same types of attacks against Romnery is NOT racism?

Answer: Because Obama is black.

So what does that leave us with: The reason these attacks appear racist is because Obama is black.

Note that there is nothing in that statement that has any relevance to the attacks themselves - and hence the claim is just as logically valid (not at all) when leveled against any other attack on Obama.

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.

Yes because I said that it is illogical and therefore it is racist.

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....

Ok then why call me out specifically?  And I have never been involved in the constant refrain of racism except in this specific case.

I was not calling you out specifically, just using you as an example of how this works. You and Tamas have both bought into the "birthers are racists!" dogma, and based on no evidence or logical argument beyond what amounts to "Birthers are dumbasses, Obama is black, so they are probably fucking racists!" Which is emotionally appealing, granted, but devoid of reason or logic.

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!

Not DG and I rarely even engage DG in debate so why call me out?  And I do not think Birthers are racists because it has been repeated over and over again...it is because it looks like racism to me.

Hey, look at that....

No, I don't think YOU are doing this, but I think you are the intended victim.

Yes but exactly did it achieve?  It is hardly some surprise to me that there are racists in the US and they can be politically mobilized by the right ploy.

I don't know what it achieves other than the basic and ongoiing attempt to polarize political discourse in the US into the "Us vs. Them" the extremists in each camp are so fond of.

More generally though, I just find race baiting contemptible, so comment on it when I see it.

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.

There is no need to craft any racist nonsense.  There is plenty of it already existing in this country.  I guess I fail to see why you can accuse these people of being amazingly unpleasant and idiots and every other negative thing but oh dear do not think anything they are doing is racist!

Because there is good evidence they are idiots - anyone who can look at the evidence in regards to Obama's elgibility to be President and still conclude that there is any issue there at all is not operating with reason and rationality. They probalby aren't literally idiots, so much as they just don't care about the truth, and are willing to just ignore evidence that doesn't fit what they want to be true. "Idiot" is as useful a shorthand as any for those types, on both sides of the political spectrum.

There is a difference between being stupid and being racist though, and it is the history of racsim in this country that makes the distinction important and meaningful.

[Valmy]

Nothing that has been said far is an actual argument or proof that birtherism = racism.  It's tautological.  "Birtherism is so self-evidently an aspect of racism that people who don't see it have something wrong with them."

It would be impossible to prove that.  I am NOT saying that little quote BTW, I just look at it and think it is racist because it seems obvious to me.  But everybody seems to agree it is so self-evidently bad that all sorts of other bad things can be laid at their feet.  Not sure why that is obvious but this requires this huge burden of proof or I have been brainwashed by DG and company....granted only Berkut has said that not you.

[Admiral Yi]

It would be impossible to prove that.

Something that is not susceptible to proofs or arguments is by definition an article of faith, not reason.

[Berkut]

Looked pretty clear to me.  He was shocked because you said what someone on the right would say.  I don't see where in the world you got the implication that you were a racist, or that people skeptical of racist connection to birtherism are racists.

Fair enough, but this is just a variation on the same theme: the only people who don't think birther = racist are those with an ulterior motive.

It is a variation on the same theme, if you're Berkut and see ulterior motives lurking behind every tree. 

This entire debate is predicated on your claim that birthers are in fact motivated by a double secret racist motive.

Again, the irony that you get your panties so bunched up over me calling you out for doing EXACTLY the same thing really is high layer e us.

Saying something because you're biased does not imply having an ulterior motive.  It merely implies lack of impartiality.  There are many reasons why someone may not be completely impartial, but few of them carry any sort of malice that could amount to "ulterior motive".

Unless they are birthers, of course. Then their ulterior motive is plainly obvious, and rather handily malicious.

And Republicans as well. They have a significant ulterior motive of racism. There are many reason why Republicans may not be completely impartial, but it is still perfectly reasonable to assume that they are significantly motivated my racism anyway.

Right?