C'mon guys, it's over
Barack Obama has been president now for more than three months, but the wing-dings at WorldNetDaily.com and other assorted loonies are still wasting their time sending out news release after news release about their efforts, wholly unsuccessful thus far, to get Obama tossed from office on the grounds that he wasn't born in America. Yes, the vast majority of us recognize the stupidity of this, but they don't. Either that, or they make a pretty good buck shoveling this idiocy to like-minded wingnuts. Obama already has produced a certificate of live birth from Hawaii (The ding-dongs want him to deliver a different kind of certificate). Hawaiian state officials have confirmed that Obama, without a doubt, was born in their state. Announcements of Obama's birth were published in both major Honolulu newspapers back in 1961. And every case brought by this collection of looneybins that has reached a conclusion has been soundly rejected, if not mocked, by the courts. But they don't give up. Who are they? Well, there's WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah, who is a crony of Rush Limbaugh, noted conspiracy theorist Dick Scaife and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. That should tell you all you need to know about him. Then there's Dr. Jerome Corsi. One of his claims to fame is the swift-boating of Sen. John Kerry. And let's not forget Pennsylvania's own Phil Berg who, among other zany pursuits, contended that President Bush was a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks. I would block their e-mails to me, but where else can one find such great humor writing – free of charge, no less. The sad thing is that some people still believe their asinine claims are the truth.
Labels: Government, Politics
posted by Brant at
2:08 PM
28 Comments:
Even if Obama dignified this claptrap by producing whatever birth certificate they're looking for, they'd say the birth certificate was fabricated, the same way that JFK assassination conspiracy theorists will always insist Oswald wasn't the lone gunman.
What motivation would Obama's parents have had to make up the location of his birth? And, it's kinda funny, but I don't remember these jokers dogging Ronald Reagan to see if he was really born in Illinois rather than Ireland.
--Brad Hundt
c'mon Brad, don't you know that Obama is the new JC on earth, so his future as president was sealed in the heavens before he was conceived, so Obama's parents were just doing what the good Lord and messenger angels asked them to do, and made up his birth location, newpaper clippings included!! LOL
I seriously don't get it, and they obviously never will either, so if this pursuit of untruths keeps them busy, so be it. Let them have their witch hunt, light the fires, and hopefully they'll spark themselves and be out of our hair!
For once I agree with Mr. Hundt, this is silly. As a conservative that is concerned with the issues that are facing this nation and angry at the policies of Obama, these individuals are doing nothing to further the real questions worthy of debate in this nation.
It has become another example of my party being held hostage by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. Limbaugh is doing more to destroy the party than to help it and I wish for a return to the day of serious discussion about the issues and our fundamental differences with the Democratic party and in particular Obama.
These nutjobs are becoming an asset to Obama! They're making mainstream Republicans look foolish with approval ratings at a 20 year low. The number of Americans who think the country is goin in the right direction is 64%, the highest since 2004. Keep it up birthers, you'll undoubtedly help him win his second term!
The last two posts pretty much hit the nail on the head. The scorched-earth approach to politics has worked in the past, but I think people grew tired of the negative, personal attacks. As I've said in the past, a socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republican Party could be very successful, but some of that constituency is slowly but surely being siphoned off by the Ron Pauls of the world.
I always suspected that W was hatched, not born ...
Obama's approval ratings are between 65-50 depending on the source. Gallup and AP have the highest (they were off by similar margins in election)
Rasmussen has about 54% (by last memory) with their daily tracking, which feels about right.
The right direction is overwhelming in the other direction. 65%+ believe that we are going in the wrong direction. Obama is not being blamed, but Congress is. If that stays at that number, Obama and his party will be in trouble by midterm elections next year. That is not unusual as only George W. in the wake of 911 was able to avoid the midterm drop. The Democrats will grow weaker, the real question is by how much.
The party hurts itself by this crap. The lipstick on a pig was when McCain's numbers suffered after the convention. He was off message and started to flounder. The recession sent him into a tailspin.
The fact that Obama did not win even bigger was a sign of election weakness for his positions in spite of her personal popularity. There was latent racism in some of the voters, but they were not Republicans (who were less likely to vote for him) but Democrats from areas like ours. That is one reason that many of us are so upset at Ellispes constant reference to racist in the Republican protest. Data from within the campaigns and from personal observation supports that it was racist Democrats, working class guys, that were keeping Obama down in areas like ours.
McCain's reaction to the financial crisis, and the perception, fueled somewhat by his own comments, that we wasn't an economic whiz, helped seal his loss, but the post-convention decline was also, in large part, a result of voters starting to hear Sarah Palin try to answer simple questions and sound like the pageant contestant she was.
Why do you get hung up on the racism part? I have very clearly said that racism was not the primary motivator... it is simply a characteristic that is overrepresented in the group... like pickup truck ownership, ratio of camo to denim, and mustaches...
In fact, the racism thing wasn't even my "idea"--- if I remember correctly, someone brought it up, someone else attacked it, and then I made a fairly solid case that racists were probably over-represented in the group.
But what the hell, let's just make it as clear as possible:
Racism was NOT a primary motivator. Ignorance was #1
Blind following of the "alternative" media was #2
Legitimate gripes was #3
Desire to be part of an event was #4
"Because my friend/neighbor/relative was doing it" is #5
Racism is #6
There is a bit of wiggle room in the top 3
Ignorance wow, you still like to inflame. They are ignorant because they disagree.
There are legitimate concerns about the spending. They are concerns about the raising of taxes in particular capital gains.
Won't disagree with the rest, but understand that unless you are willing to point out that their are more eco-terrorists in left wing protests or more islamic extermists in certain democratic circles than it really isn't a fair commentary. That is part of being balanced, both side have their crazies.
I have already agreed to that... because it is true.
Eco-terrorists are overwhelmingly more likely to be from the left... that is simply fact.
They are not ignorant because they disagree... a lot of them are ignorant because they disagree with something that doesn't exist. For example, there is a contingent of people who think that this Service program is a Hitler Youth camp. They are not ignorant because they are not in favor of Hitler Youth Camps... they are ignorant because they have bought some right wing conspiracy garbage.
I have no idea what the proportion of well-informed people to ill-informed people is at those rallies... but from what I have seen from people who are very vocal about such issues... and even what I have seen from some of the people who organized them... it seems to be a pretty safe bet that there were a pretty high density of people who would believe and rally against some of the "issues" that aren't really issues.
At the same time, I guarantee that there was a high percentage of "crusty" anarchists at a lot of the bush protests... but then again, it takes a certain type of person to take to the streets...
Have I satisfied your "spreading around the blame" yet?
Ellipses,
America doesn't want socialism and that was the driving force of the TEA parties. If Obama ran his campaign truthfully and said he would create an enormous defecit, raise taxes, embrace pork and pass legislation that allowed exec to walk with tax payer bonuses he would not have been elected.
We are nowhere near becoming a socialist nation. Never will be. And if people thought the threat of a total shift to socialism was the main reason for participating in the teabagging, then they're one stupid bunch. Sorry.
The first thing that came to mind just now was that we can go back and forth on the "yuh huh/ nuh uh" train of conversation until we are all dead...
What about going after core issues on this...
1st- is Socialism universally "bad" ?
2nd- what alternatives has your side of the political spectrum put forth?
Your supposition that Obama would never gotten elected had he detailed the bailouts and stimulus during the campaign is more than likely inaccurate. I don't think anyone thought that the transformation of our country on just about every level was going to come cheap. Most of us, I suspect, figured that if we could afford a couple trillion dollars on a BS war, we certainly could blow a few trillion on developing alternative energy sources, new infrastructure, health care, and... oh, just about anything else...
Which brings me to my first question above... what are the alternatives? I am with you on the fact that I don't want this country to only have one viable political ideology to follow... and right now, that is exactly what we have... not because that party is so powerful, per se... but because they are the only ones putting out actionable plans.
I assume you aren't a fan of the bailouts... are you against the bailouts altogether? Or are there just certain ones that you oppose? Do you oppose the AIG bailouts? If so, what would your alternative be?
When the hippies were out protesting the war and saying that we should bring our troops home tomorrow... they were presented with a very real consequence. If we leave tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis could die the day after that. Therefore, they did not have a viable plan and they didn't accumulate any political momentum.
Your side is standing up in opposition to the bailouts... are you willing to accept that if we didn't bail out these financial institutions, we ran a very likely risk of destroying the entire world's economy and causing despair and suffering for billions of people?
This is a venue where you can take all the time you need to spell out your position... go for it... present your gripe and your alternative plan... and hope that your representatives are paying attention.
small, minimal federal governmet. Follw the constitution. Its pretty simple. And yes. All socialism is bad. Give an example of socialism that thrives please.
And there was no need to bail out any financial institution. If the feds would leave lenders alone and let them loan to people who will pay them back we would have no problems. Government causes the financial crisis so you think more government intervention is the answer?
That answer is specifically why you are losing ground.
By your answer, I guess you would propose that we eliminate social security, disability insurance, medicare, medicaid, FEMA, the CDC, the post office, police departments, fire departments, and flight traffic control? They are all socialist entities... and therefore, they must all be bad.
An example of where socialism thrives? Canada, the European Union, and the United States of America.
You are dancing around the issue. The question is "What would you propose we did differently during THIS situation."
The answer cannot be to go back in time and prevent it from happening.
The exact examples above are drowning our country in debt. The federal government, aside from FAA, shouldn't be involved in any of it.
So is socialism thriving here in the USA or are we no where near a socialist nation. The two headed monster of infinite knowlegde and insight (Brant and Ellipses)can't have it both ways.
Socialism is thriving in the developed world... the socialism that you are "warning" us about is not going to happen here. There is a distinction there... Can you say that we are NOT a blend of socialism and capitalism? Those examples that I gave you are a mark of a civilized nation... and they are all social entities.
However, the socialism that you rail against... the grey skied lands of repressive dictatorships, soviet-style production, quashed individuality and no opportunity... THAT socialism has nowhere to take root in America...
If you are taking the position that my list of "socialism symptoms" should be eliminated... congrats on having the rocks... but don't be surprised when nobody votes for you or anyone who comes right out and says that they plan to eliminate social security, medicare, and all the rest.
If that's your platform, I'm sorry to say, but you are politically irrelevant.
Ellipses is right. What you’re describing is not socialism. Socialism is collective ownership of production and distribution, you know, industry. Canada and most European countries that are often branded as socialist are actually capitalist, just like the United States. With the exception of some government-owned energy resources in Canada and Norway and probably a handful of other countries, they are all home to huge international corporations that make profits, have share holders and are traded on their respective markets. The Scandinavian counties are probably closest to what is being described here as socialism, and they’re more accurately described as welfare states than they are as socialist. They have huge privately owned companies such as Sony Ericsson, Maersk, Volvo, and Lego. In addition, there are plenty of small, family-owned farms, stores, and restaurants just like in the U.S. In terms of economics, it really isn’t any different than it is here. Sure, they pay more taxes for social programs, but wages are higher, education and healthcare are free and high quality, the cities are clean and the roads are in great condition. Unemployment, for the most part, is low so you really can’t argue that the system breeds laziness among its citizens. Productivity levels are not that much lower than the U.S. and the average person works 35 hours a week and has four to six weeks of vacation each year while we work an average of 45 to 50 and might get two weeks of paid vacation. I’m not trying to say that it’s better, but if you are going to make comparisons, you should at least make an attempt to know what it is you are comparing. Anyway, China is a socialist country and considering that they own the majority of our national debt and have owned it for long time, you can safely say that socialism works for them.
On a side note, since so many of our “conservatives” have now re-branded themselves as “libertarians” and are so against government intrusion, I trust that the next election cycle will be free of mainstays such as abortion and gay marriage, since any law prohibiting these is government intervention.
FANNIE, FREDDIE, GM, AIG, A LARGE PORTION OF BIG BANKING...THAT ISN'T SOCIALISM?
Uhm, no. They aren't controlled by the government. They still make a profit, they still have shareholders, boards of directors, etc. Again, not socialism.
No offense Mr. Ostrich but you need your head pulled out of the sand or follow current events a little closer before commenting.
"On a side note, since so many of our “conservatives” have now re-branded themselves as “libertarians” and are so against government intrusion, I trust that the next election cycle will be free of mainstays such as abortion and gay marriage, since any law prohibiting these is government intervention."
Nomen, that was funny.
We can quibble about whether the government is controlling the automakers, etc. Certainly, it is exacting oversight, but as the president said last night, he wants this to be a temporary situation. He doesn't want the federal government running banks, insurance companies and carmakers for the long term. And any suggestion that we are headed toward full-scale socialism is puerile. Just keep reciting those talking points that Rush, Hannity and Glenn Beck are feeding you.
Meanwhile, GM is trading under 2 bucks a share... let's say things don't go completely to hell for GM and in a few years, it's back in the 10-15 range... which is entirely possible, really it would only take a couple of quarters of profitability to bring a whole ton of money in off the sidelines...
Are 1000% profits socialism?
Obama has a birth certificate and has already shown it! You right wing wackjobs need to get over your problems!!!!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home