Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

[derspiess]

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. 

The textbook definition of gaffe is: An unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder: "an unforgivable social gaffe".

I think you're thinking of a Freudian slip.

57 states would've been a gaffe for Bush,

Har!

but not Obama.

Obama is smart enough to know there are only 50 states, but I don't think he's as smart as you guys think he is.

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

It certainly would've caused Bush some problems with his base.

[derspiess]

The way I think of it, bad gaffes are when you say something that is revealing, and/or to an unintended audience.

Then we disagree on the definition.

[Admiral Yi]

Obama is smart enough to know there are only 50 states, but I don't think he's as smart as you guys think he is.

I'm coming around to the conclusion that he's not a rocket scientist as well.  His speeches and interviews have a very formulaic quality to them.  Yes we live in a soundbyte age, but I don't think it's too much to hope for that a president engages my intellect as well.

Bubba, on the other hand, I think truly has a massive fucking brain.

[Valmy]

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

Bullshit.  Some things are subjective.

[Admiral Yi]

Bullshit.  Some things are subjective.

You're saying this argument is a difference of taste???

[Valmy]

You're saying this argument is a difference of taste???

No.  It is a difference of judgement.  There exists no universal standard for racism that I am aware of.  Your standard maybe different than mine.  Besides, as I asked before, what exactly would an argument or proof that somebody is a racist or that something is a racist action look like?  I am not playing a game where nobody defines the rules.

[garbon]

You're saying this argument is a difference of taste???

No.  It is a difference of judgement.  There exists no universal standard for racism that I am aware of.  Your standard maybe different than mine.  Besides, as I asked before, what exactly would an argument or proof that somebody is a racist or that something is a racist action look like?

Why would you level a charge of racism if you are unsure?

[Valmy]

Why would you level a charge of racism if you are unsure?

Where did I say I am unsure?

[DGuller]

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

That's not my claim, that's your interpretation of my claim.  I made no claims about how explicit the racism is, as opposed to semi-conscious application of double standard.

[garbon]

Why would you level a charge of racism if you are unsure?

Where did I say I am unsure?

Well you've said that you have judged to be racist but it is a subjective judgment.  Sounds pretty much like you don't actually know.

[Razgovory]

I get the rest of that but where did the 57 state thing come from? 

Republican "evidence" that Obama is an idiot.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

That link does not disprove what you think it does.  He did say 57 states.

I never said he didn't.

[Admiral Yi]

No.  It is a difference of judgement.  There exists no universal standard for racism that I am aware of.  Your standard maybe different than mine.  Besides, as I asked before, what exactly would an argument or proof that somebody is a racist or that something is a racist action look like?  I am not playing a game where nobody defines the rules.

The part of racism that is relevant to our discussion is a dislike of Obama based solely on his skin color.  The question under consideration is whether the birther conspiracy is an effort to channel the socially unacceptable dislike of blacks into a more socially accetable skepticism about his place of birth.

[Razgovory]

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."

And that's the beauty of dog whistle politics.  When you get called on it, you can say "Oh, you are merely reading something into it I didn't mean".  Plausible deniability.  Short of some republican strategist saying, "Yeah, we use the Birther thing gin up white racists", you can't prove it.

Now, can you show that birtherism is more likely amongst racists?  Yeah, you can do that.  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/04/social-scientists-look-at-racisms-role-in-birther-viewpoint/1#.T8ZiS1LCFOI Can I show that the GOP has pandered to racists voters in the past?  Yeah.  I've done that.  I actually had quotes from Republican strategists who said as much.  I've posted them before.

[Jacob]

The part of racism that is relevant to our discussion is a dislike of Obama based solely on his skin color.  The question under consideration is whether the birther conspiracy is an effort to channel the socially unacceptable dislike of blacks into a more socially accetable skepticism about his place of birth.

What sort of evidence would you consider compelling enough to accept that it's the case? What sort of evidence would you accept to not immediately discard the hypothesis?

[derspiess]

I never said he didn't.

Then why did you post the snopes link?