Trump Mania
Most intelligent political analysts' reaction (right, left, and center) to the news that Donald Trump may be considering a run for the presidency could be summed up as some version of: "You have got to be kidding me." Followed quickly by: "This is going to be so much fun!" But the real punchline to this joke of a candidacy was actually on the punditocracy, when Trump's poll numbers took off and soon put him either in the lead or very close to it for the Republican nomination. Republican voters, it seems, aren't following the punditocracy's lead on "The Donald."
What it all means, from my perspective, is not very much. There are two basic trends at play here. The first is the fact that the political chattering class reads far too much into polls taken way too early. The second, which stems from the first, is that at this point "name recognition" is one of the biggest factors in whose name winds up on top of the list. Donald Trump's celebrity value is showing up loud and clear on the straw polls taken in the past few weeks. But this doesn't mean he is even going to run -- and if he does, it's likely not going to get him very far.
If you're reading this column, it's a good bet that you already know names such as Haley Barbour and Tim Pawlenty. But not many average American voters have. The politically-aware crowd is already vetting the Republican candidates (and possible candidates) and weighing their chances of success (hence the reference to "this column") -- but most Americans are simply not that interested at this point in time. Meaning Trump may be one of the only names in the list of possible candidates they've even heard of -- which can drive poll results like the ones we've seen in recent weeks.
But this doesn't mean that Trump can be written off entirely. Celebrities often do much better in American elections than anyone would have given them credit for beforehand. Name recognition can often push the unlikeliest candidates across the finish line. There are many examples of this in our history, and Republican celebrities are more often actually elected than Democratic celebrities. [Since I wrote about this imbalance back in 2006, Al Franken has evened the score a bit, I have to admit.]
The most spectacular of these in recent memory was the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger to the governor's office in California. This was an interesting "laboratory experiment" sort of an election, because due to it being a special election in conjunction with a recall of the sitting governor, the entire campaign was only two months long. Add to this the fact that there were dozens of people running, and the upshot was that Schwarzenegger waltzed into office -- beating other celebrity candidates such as Larry Flynt, a porn star, Arianna Huffington, the actor who played "Father Guido Sarducci" on Saturday Night Live, and Gary Coleman.
With only two months to campaign, and with an insanely-large slate of candidates, Schwarzenegger's name recognition was the overpowering factor behind his victory. If the Republican primaries were all held one month from today, Trump might actually have a shot at it, in other words. Name recognition is something that normal political candidates pay millions and millions of dollars to achieve in the general public, meaning that anyone who is already well known starts with an enormous advantage.
Sometimes this advantage diminishes with time, and sometimes it does not. Schwarzenegger not only won his special election, but he also won re-election in a normal campaign later on -- even though he hadn't fulfilled any of his initial campaign promises (he actually left the budget in worse shape than when he entered office, which was not only his signature issue but the reason the former governor was recalled in the first place). Voting for the Terminator was such fun for so many voters that his opponents didn't really have a chance.
Much to the embarrassment of the intelligent political analysts, I might add. Sometimes candidates who are widely considered to be "a joke" actually win.
Having said all of that, I don't think Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. Trump has something going for him -- his public persona. His shtick, if you will. How many other real estate magnates are as widely known to the public as Trump? None that I can think of, in the last 50 years or so. Trump has parlayed this schtick into not only a real estate empire, but also a "reality television" show that's been on the air for quite a few years now. Trump has a signature hairstyle, theme song, and even a catchphrase known to just about everyone in America ("You're fired!"). That may all sound silly, but Trump not only has built name recognition for himself his whole life, but he's actually built the Trump name into what can only be called "a brand." How many Republican politicians have that going for them, at this point in the race? None that I'm aware of (unless you count Ron Paul, which is pretty small potatoes next to the strength of Trump's brand).
As an actual Republican candidate, though, Donald Trump would be deeply flawed. This multitude of his flaws will only become more and more apparent to Republican voters as time goes by (assuming he does actually run). His propensity for trading in his wives for a younger model of arm candy is simply not going to sit very well with the deeply religious Republican voters. His past support of Democratic candidates is also going to be a big bone of contention. If Trump does run, he's going to have to open his books on his media empire -- which could dredge up all sorts of problems for him. His personality is fun to watch on television, but likely wouldn't be when he's on stage at a candidate debate (although I could very well be wrong about that one). And then there's always the gold mine of things Trump has said which will indeed be mined to the fullest extent by other Republicans running -- and this goldmine of quotes is far deeper and more extensive than just the things he's been saying in the past month or so. Looking at what he has said recently is just the tip of the iceberg, really, even if that tip does contain such gems as Trump's birtherism and his answer to the problems in the Middle East (which can be summed up as: "Just take their oil").
Trump may be fun for Republican voters to flirt with, a year and a half from the election (especially when a pollster phones up), but over time most voters will likely reconsider what it would be like to actually have Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Trump, if he does run, will have lots of money and will likely enjoy the heck out of the campaign trail. The last celebrity to run for the Republican nomination, Fred Thompson, entered the race with very high poll numbers, and then immediately plummeted -- but Fred Thompson was a horrible campaigner. Trump's campaign is not going to replay the Thompson model -- although his trajectory through the polls may turn out to be similar.
Of course, the whole Trump "candidacy" may very well be nothing more than self-promotion on Trump's part, to boost ratings for his now-running reality show (it's notable that NBC News seems to be pushing the concept of "Trump for President" in an enormous way). If this turns out to be true, than all of the speculation (including the digital ink spilled for this very article) will turn out to have been a gigantic waste of time on all our parts.
If I was to bet money, right now my bet would be that Trump doesn't even run. If he does run, he isn't going to place higher than third overall (in the Republican nomination contest). If by some miracle he secures the nomination, Obama will beat him in a landslide.
But there are lessons to be drawn from the current Trump mania in the mainstream media (and the polls). Politics is, at this point, indistinguishable from show business. The entire concept of "reality" television itself is that you can take something mundane, write a clever script with lots of twists and turns, and thereby hook yourself an audience. Which is pretty close to the goals of any political campaign, when you think about it. In fact, it would probably be a better idea to spend campaign dollars that normally would go to yet another professional political analyst on hiring a reality television show writer, to provide some scripted twists and turns to distract the media during the campaign.
This may sound like a radical concept, but really, how far are we from what I've just described? America loves watching television -- a lot more than we love watching politics. And we all -- mainstream media most definitely included -- love glitz and glamour. We love a spectacle; the bigger, the better.
If you doubt any of that, please consider the week we are about to go through -- where a large chunk of the American public (and the entirety of the mainstream media) is going to have an absolute orgasm over covering a wedding, across an ocean, in the house of royalty that we fought our first war to overthrow. It's only Monday, and already I'm sick of hearing about the royal wedding (although that may just be me, being crotchety).
Consider also the reaction to Donald Trump already in the media. Trump has gotten so much coverage in the past few weeks for a reason -- that he is so much more fun to cover than any of the other folks in the race, who are collectively about as exciting as watching paint dry. Trump's shininess in the media eye right now rivals that of Sarah Palin -- and that's saying something indeed. No matter what happens with Trump, the media is going to hang on his every word, every step of the way. And, like I said, other candidates would have to pay millions and millions of dollars to get half as much impact with the public than Trump is going to get for free. Which is certainly food for thought. Trump, if he runs, is "Going to be huge!" (as he might put it), one way or another.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I wonder if Trump will ever understand what a sad caricature he has become.
Everytime he opens his mouth he shrinks in stature. He may even end up becoming a verb ... to be Trumped, as opposed and perhaps in addition to, you know, trumped.
Please. If he gets the nomination[I don't think he will], he will surely be a gift to the Democratic party. But then too, so far every Republican contender is a gift to the Democratic party. Whoo-whoo, yeah baby!
Chris,
And, speaking of lots of fun ... where, or when should I ask, is your new piece at the Huffington Post??
"Name recognition is something that normal political candidates pay millions and millions of dollars to achieve"
Carl Sagan for president! I know, too late, he's been dead for fifteen years. But it had to be said.
Hey, it's not at Business Insider, either, as of this writing. :(
dsws,
Well, name recogniton isn't all it's cracked up to be, you know.
It all reminds of the Fiasco in Iowa, 2008 Ed. (Will I ever get over that? Probably, not.)
SIGH.
The vast majority of primary voters in Iowa that year either didn't know who Biden was or, if they did know who he was, they only thought they knew who he was.
It's rather ironic to see the Left decry Trump's "in your face" attitude.
Because it's THIS attitude that the Left likes to see in Obama when dealing with the GOP..
dsws,
I know, too late, he's been dead for fifteen years. But it had to be said.
With where Obama's poll numbers are heading, Sagan would actually have a shot at winning. :D
Michale.....
Michale,
Your are so funny. :)
It's not the "in your face" attitude of the Trumpster that we decry. No, not at all. Hey, that's one of his few remaining redeeming qualities, I'll have you know.
No irony here ... move along.
Oh, really ... you are soooooooooooooo funny! :)
Michale,
In fact, you're a real card and you really ought to be dealt with.
In a serious manner. :)
Damn.
Trump Mania is now up at HP and BI. :)
However, the HP link to here doesn't work. :(
What is going on at the Huffington Post?
Heheh.
The target advertisers are doing a good job. I like how Trump is coming up in the Banner ads and the top o' page ad :)
What's interesting is that everyone, other than Trump, seems to be downplaying the more radical elements of the party.
And the slack as been picked up by the 'Don'!
Will be interesting.
-David
On 17 May, Trump's candidacy will get a huge shot in the arm..
Or a good kick in the balls... :D
Michale......
I've got my money on the latter. :)
I've got my money on the latter. :)
I dunno... Not many publishing houses will spend millions of dollars and paint a huge Bulls-Eye on their arses for a book that just says, "Nothing to see here... Move along.."
An early test will be if the Obama administration actually allows it to be released...
Michale.....
On the PLUS side....
If Obama's election IS rendered null and void, at least we don't have a PELOSI presidency to look forward to... :D
Michale.....
Just remember..
Many things that the Left dismissed as bunk has come back to bite them on the arse... :D
Michale.....
On 17 May, Trump's candidacy will get a huge shot in the arm..
A book from the guy behind the Swift Boat crap?
Talk about absolutely no credibility! Just about every book the guy writes is trashed for numerous inaccuracies.
Daily show had a funny episode about Trump and presidential polls 18 month out. Basically if you are leading the polls now there is almost no chance of becoming president...
thesexyk9 -
First off, welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, but you will now be able to comment and have them appear immediately. Comments with two or more links are held for moderation (to cut down on comment spam), but all others you post should appear right away, just FYI.
Secondly, you've got a good point. It's like watching the clowns come out of a tiny circus car, isn't it? Heh.
Liz -
OK, the links here should work now. I have to change those links manually, and I have no control over when BI and HP post (sigh).
dsws -
No, no, that would be BILL-yuns and BILL-yuns of dollars. Heh.
David -
Trump ads? Really? That means Trump is paying ME now. Woo hoo! Heh heh.
-CW
Bashi,
Talk about absolutely no credibility! Just about every book the guy writes is trashed for numerous inaccuracies.
Yea, many MANY on the Left said the EXACT same thing when The Enquirer printed the John Edwards scandal..
Where is Edwards these days??
You have to ask yourself one simple question..
If there is nothing to hide, why is Mr Transparency spending millions of his own money to keep these papers hidden??
Further, ask yourself what the Left would do if some GOP politician went to such lengths to keep his/her past hidden.
The Left would scream to high heaven and you and I both know it...
Michale.....
On 17 May, Trump's candidacy will get a huge shot in the arm.
I had to look up the reference to Corsi's book, but this is great news!
Yunno who's birth certificate looks like a total fake ...
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/3d/3d7ec241-5491-4bd1-8d2b-6581aeb4e509.jpg
Hahahahah
If there is nothing to hide, why is Mr Transparency spending millions of his own money to keep these papers hidden??
Got a link? Everything I read about this says this figure is bunk. Bonus points for not linking to FOX news, Negative points for linking to the world net daily.
And again, who cares which side "screams to high heaven". All sides scream to high heaven on everything. It's rarely representative of anything other than pundits and blog respondents have too much time on their hands...
David,
Yer absolutely right.
Trump *AND* Obama should have to show their REAL Birth Certificate before the 2012 election..
Wouldn't you agree??
After all, at least ONE of them ran on a platform of transparency...
Can't recall which one, off the top of my head, but you get the idea... :D
Michale.....
Got a link? Everything I read about this says this figure is bunk. Bonus points for not linking to FOX news, Negative points for linking to the world net daily.
Gee, that's a tough one...
http://libertypundits.net/article/looking-over-our-shoulder-to-drive-libs-nuts-did-obama-spend-millions-to-keep-birth-cert-secret/
Start with that one. I have about a dozen more if you want to pursue it further...
And again, who cares which side "screams to high heaven". All sides scream to high heaven on everything. It's rarely representative of anything other than pundits and blog respondents have too much time on their hands...
The point is simple..
If it's a legitimate concern if it's a GOP'er, it's a legitimate concern when it's a Democrat...
But you fail to answer the main question..
Since Obama ran on a platform of transparency, why won't he release the requested records, to put all this controversy to rest??
Obama could show up the birthers for the lunatics that he alleges they are..
The fact that he REFUSES to do this, that he spends millions to PREVENT it from happening is completely and utterly suspect...
At least, to a political agnostic...
Michale.....
Trump *AND* Obama should have to show their REAL Birth Certificate before the 2012 election.
When have facts ever stood in the way of a good conspiracy theory? :)
He released a birth certificate and you called it a fake. Don't you think if he released anything else, you'd call it a fake too?
How do you explain the Hawaiian newspaper announcements on the day Obama was born stating his birth? Forgeries? An Obama time machine?
But seriously. From a political standpoint, I hope Trump and others keep it coming. Its gold.
-David
Start with that one. I have about a dozen more if you want to pursue it further...
That Obama hired a law firm for X amount of money is of public record. What that law firm did for Obama and how much of the total fees were used to fight the birther non-sense has not be shown. Even the article linked mentions a bunch of stuff that law firm did for the Obama campaign. The question is: is this much money standard for any major presidential candidate to deal with election related legal issues?
If it's a legitimate concern if it's a GOP'er, it's a legitimate concern when it's a Democrat...
Is it? I think this has long passed the "legitimate" point.
Since Obama ran on a platform of transparency, why won't he release the requested records, to put all this controversy to rest??
He did. And it was verified by the government of Hawaii as well as challenges tossed out by the Supreme court.
David,
He released a birth certificate and you called it a fake. Don't you think if he released anything else, you'd call it a fake too?
He released a computer generated copy of a birth record..
According to one of his books, he has the original birth certificate... Why won't he produce it?
Why won't he produce any school records? Student loan records? College transcripts??
You sensing a pattern?
This is a guy who ran on a platform of transparency..
Yet he refuses to release a LOT of his records...
The question is... Why??
The further question is, would the Left accept such stonewalling from a GOP'er?
The answer is, obviously, no...
"The only people who won't disclose the truth are people with something to hide"
You know who said that??
Barack Obama...
Bashi,
Is it? I think this has long passed the "legitimate" point.
That's because you are a Democrat.. If Obama was a Republican you would be asking the same questions I am...
The difference is, I would be asking these questions, regardless of whether GOP or Dem...
He did. And it was verified by the government of Hawaii as well as challenges tossed out by the Supreme court.
No, he disclosed a birth record.. Not a birth certificate..
The ONLY people who have verified Obama's birth are those who something to gain by the verification they gave.
I won't even bother going into Neil "I was there when Obama was born, I mean in the same state" Abercrombie.. THAT's the kind of "verification" that has been put forth...
Look, I don't really care if Obama was born in Hawaii or BumFuq, Kenya... No judge on the face of the planet is going to nullify Obama's election...
*MY* bitch is two fold..
1. The guy is a hypocrite for claiming to be all about "transparency" yet refusing to release the most basic of records and put this controversy to rest..
and
B. Ya'all would be all over a GOP candidate like stink on rice if they tried to stonewall the American people like Obama is...
That's my beef... Period...
Michale.....
David,
How do you explain the Hawaiian newspaper announcements on the day Obama was born stating his birth? Forgeries? An Obama time machine?
My wife's grandparents put a birth announcement in the Mesa AZ newspaper on the day she was born..
My wife was born in Rota, Spain...
If my wife was president, she could claim that she was born in Mesa, AZ and would have the birth announcement to prove it..
The problem is, it would be a lie...
But seriously. From a political standpoint, I hope Trump and others keep it coming. Its gold.
Exactly.. It's a political issue..
I am more concerned with the facts...
And the facts clearly show that Obama has something to hide...
And I thought the Left hated all the secrecy crap??
Turns out, the Left just hates all the Republican secrecy crap...
Michale.....
He released a computer generated copy of a birth record..
Which is legal to prove place of birth in the United States and verified by the state of Hawaii, you forgot that part.
That's because you are a Democrat.. If Obama was a Republican you would be asking the same questions I am...
Would I? At this late stage, I seriously doubt it...
But keep on with the tit for tat politics. Just proves you are no different than either the Republicans or the democrats.
Which is legal to prove place of birth in the United States and verified by the state of Hawaii, you forgot that part.
We're not discussing what's legal.
We're discussing what's transparent..
We're discussing putting your money where your mouth is..
We're discussing what the Left would do if some candidate from the GOP tried this crap..
THAT's what we're discussing.
Or, more accurately, that's what *I'M* discussing and ya'all are avoiding...
Would I? At this late stage, I seriously doubt it...
You and I both know that's not accurate..
Wanna peruse the Lefty Blogger archives during the Bush years and see how nit-picky ya'all were against Bush?? :D
You and I both know that the Left, as a whole would be just as aggressive in the pursuit of this as the Right is right now..
Obama could end it all right now today, just by releasing the requested records..
As he himself said, "The only people who won't disclose the truth are people with something to hide"...
Another one of those phrases that I am sure he wishes he could take back. :D
Regardless, this issue isn't going away. It's growing... The percentage of Americans who want to know the truth is growing..
These are the facts...
Michale.....
The guy is a hypocrite for claiming to be all about "transparency" yet refusing to release the most basic of records and put this controversy to rest.
But that's just it, Michale. No amount of evidence will ever put a conspiracy theory to rest. He releases his birth certificate - certified by the State of Hawaii, mind - and people just say its a fake.
They demand his "real" birth certificate.
What makes you think they'd accept that?
Why do you think they'd say anything different about any other type of document or proof?
In fact, what they'd say is something like this: If its not true, why is he fighting it so hard.
That's the beauty of conspiracy theories. No matter how ridiculous.
Any new evidence only feeds the theory - "It must be a forgery.", "The government had one made for him."
The conspiracy theorists would come up with something.
Let me ask you this. Have you seen any evidence Obama wasn't born in the U.S.? Any that isn't pure speculation?
No. Why not? Because they don't have any. Yet this doesn't stop the conspiracy theory.
Obama's doing the right thing. Call nonsense for what it is.
One more thing he might ask:
"Why are conservatives spending so much time worrying about where I was born? If they put as much time into our economy as they do wondering about where I was born, we'd be out of this recession by now."
Because honestly, that's the case. The conservative strategy is to make this personal - anti-Obama.
Not to talk about ideas. Because they are offering the same old: trickle down + deregulation + privatization.
So they need a distraction. Or many distractions.
-David
Yea, I know, I know.. Nothing will ever satisfy ALL the doubters...
I mean, there are STILL people out there who think Gore actually won the 2000 presidential election..
So, ya'all are correct. Nothing will satisfy everyone..
But President Obama could marginalize the group nearly to extinction by being the transparent President he claimed he would be...
Don't you wish he would do that so all this nonsense would all but disappear??? Don't you wish Obama would, once and for all, come clean and shut those yahoos up??
Don't you even wonder why he WON'T do this?
All partisanship aside, the logical and rational course of action would be complete disclosure.
Unless, of course, there is something to hide. Then the logical and rational course of action would be to do exactly what Obama is doing. Stonewalling and fighting disclosure tooth and nail.
As with any scandal, it's not the act that usually garners all the attention and usually leads to exposure..
It's the cover-up....
Michale.....
But that's just it, Michale. No amount of evidence will ever put a conspiracy theory to rest. He releases his birth certificate - certified by the State of Hawaii, mind - and people just say its a fake.
WOW!! I must have read your mind!! :D I am tele-pathetic!! :D
See my post above...
Let me ask you this. Have you seen any evidence Obama wasn't born in the U.S.? Any that isn't pure speculation?
The simple fact that Obama is fighting disclosure tooth and nail, despite claiming he would be the most transparent president ever, is sufficient evidence to indicate that SOMETHING is amiss...
The American People have a right to know these things about their president.
It's that simple...
Because honestly, that's the case. The conservative strategy is to make this personal - anti-Obama.
And the liberal strategy was to make things Anti-Bush.. The so-called war "protesters" is a perfect example of this...
That's just politics... Blaming the GOP for trying to make things Anti-Obama is like blaming the universe for the sun rising every day..
It is what it is, that's life......
"... be well and Krakto's an asshole!!!"
-Sylvester Stallone, DEMOLITION MAN
:D
I am not talking about politics.
I am talking about Obama doing what's right. I am talking about Obama being the president that he SAID he was going to be...
If there is nothing to hide, then there isn't ANY reason NOT to make full disclosure...
All politics and partisanship aside, THAT is what it all boils down to...
"If there is nothing to hide, then there isn't ANY reason NOT to make full disclosure..."
-Michale, 27 Apr 2011 0730hrs
:D
Michale.....
Now let me ask YOU something, David..
What about all those Lefties demanding to see Bush's school records...
And Bush released them....
The Left demanded ALL of Bush's records.. School, military, etc etc...
Bush was hounded about HIS records and he did the responsible thing and released them. Of course, CBS decided to release forgeries, but that's beside the point.. : D
Why should Obama get a free ride?? Why is it OK for Obama to conceal his records, but Bush had to release HIS (Bush's) records??
Why the double-standard??
Michale.....
Why doesn't Obama release something that looks like this?
http://getdclu.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/long-form-birth-cert-of-Susan-Nordyke-8-5-61.jpg
Wait a tic...
Drudge is reporting that Obama will show his long form birth certificate...
Looks like something is forcing his hand... :D
Michale.....
OK, there it is...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Well, right off the bat, my untrained eye notes two discrepancies...
The "1" in the serial number is discolored and looks like it was photo-shopped..
The '1961' in box 22 also looks strange and photo-shopped...
I don't know the significance of any of that.. Just noting it...
But all in all, I have to ask...
What was the big deal?? Why all the secrecy??
Michale....
I bet all the Hawai'i administrative people who have been claiming up and down that it is "impossible" to release the long form BC to ANYONE are feeling a tad embarrassed right now... :D
Michale....
The "1" in the serial number is discolored and looks like it was photo-shopped..
The '1961' in box 22 also looks strange and photo-shopped.
Ahem ... let me repeat:
Any new evidence only feeds the theory - "It must be a forgery.", "The government had one made for him."
Want to place a bet on whether or not the birthers stop or come up with some new theories?
What was the big deal?
The deal to me is that the onus of proof should be on the accusers. The people with the tin hats who have no evidence .
Why isn't anyone demanding that they produce some evidence?
And, why is the media so focused on this silliness?
I will also repeat: If conservatives have such good ideas, why do they spend so much time on personal attacks? (Obama wasn't born in the US, Obama is a Muslim, Obama smokes pot with the Reverend Wright, etc :)
-David
Words to live by...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/04/27/obama-releases-birth-certificate-gop-democrats-note-politician-run-truth/
David,
I simply pointed out facts...
I also note upon further inspection that the R in Barack is different than the rest of the name..
And in block 21, the 1 in the year 1961 looks different..
As I said, these are facts.. I make no assumptions based on these facts...
Why isn't anyone demanding that they produce some evidence?
The same reason why no one demanded "proof" of the Left when they fell all over themselves trying to get Bush's school and military records...
Because, as the President Of The United States, the onus of proof is on the President... Read the above link...
That's true whether it's a Democrat or a Republican president...
Unfortunately, those on the Left only want to remember it when it's a Republican who is POTUS.
If conservatives have such good ideas, why do they spend so much time on personal attacks?
For the same reason why Liberals make personal attacks when THEY don't have any good ideas..
It works...
Michale.....
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/barack-obama/birth-obama-certer-movement-098513
There ya go, David..
Happy?? :D hehehehehehehehe
Michale.....
Ya gotta admit, this is an exact replay of the Bush National Guard fiasco, except the roles are diametrically opposite.. :D
Ya simply HAVE to find that hilarious... :D
Michale....
Wow, get a little sleep and wake up to the mass hysteria from the anti-left! Hilarious.
First off, I've said it before I have no doubt I'll say it again but the millions of Americans who you define as the "left" do not think or act exactly the same. Almost a universal truth that when you try to put words in my mouth, you are wrong. At least you have been so far in the years on this blog...
The '1961' in box 22 also looks strange and photo-shopped...
This is why Obama has not released his papers to this point. Those who care will never be appeased. And many of them have a vested interest in not being appeased. Quick it must be Photoshop! It could not be a standard rubber date stamp common to that period. It must be Photoshop. Hilarious. As a graphic artist and Photoshop expert myself, why do an intentionally crappy job when perfection can be achieved so easily?
As to the FOX opinion piece, yes can't wait for ten years of Trump's tax records. Somehow I don't think that is going to happen. Palin either...
I think many on the left suspect that this cry of transparency in personal documents is just another fishing expedition by the right. They have not forgotten the Clinton years. Your quick reaction to the release of the long form pretty much proves it.
Now back to reality, what do you think of Leon Panetta replacing Gates?
First off, I've said it before I have no doubt I'll say it again but the millions of Americans who you define as the "left" do not think or act exactly the same. Almost a universal truth that when you try to put words in my mouth, you are wrong. At least you have been so far in the years on this blog..
Fair enough... I should have clarified that when I said "you" I meant the Left..
But I dispute the notion that the millions of Americans who define THEMSELVES as the "Left" do act in nearly the exact same manner.
As is evidenced by the Bush years with special emphasis on the National Guard Documents debacle..
As I mentioned above, this issue with Obama is exactly the same.. The Left refused to accept that the NG docs were, in fact, forgeries.. They came up with all sorts of reasons why those NG docs were the real thing...
The play is the same, only the actors are different...
As to the FOX opinion piece, yes can't wait for ten years of Trump's tax records.
If THAT is what you got from that piece, you completely missed the point...
It's about how complete disclosure is, simply the right thing to do when running for or being President..
I think many on the left suspect that this cry of transparency in personal documents is just another fishing expedition by the right.
So the Left's cry of transparency during the Bush years was equally just a fishing expedition, right??
:D
Now back to reality, what do you think of Leon Panetta replacing Gates?
Not sure.. I think Patreus would be a better choice of SecDef... Panetta's a political hack and I have little use for Political hacks...
Michale....
Your quick reaction to the release of the long form pretty much proves it.
I am just interested in the timing...
Why now??
Sure, it could be considered a distraction.. But it could be considered a distraction since 2008... Why now??
Further, why keep it secret at all?? Why spend so much money to keep something secret that is, apparently, nothing??
You can bet that, if Obama was a Republican, the Left would be asking these same questions..
They ARE rational questions, regardless of who asks them or why...
Michale.....
Well, iddn't THIS interesting.. :D
http://bryankeithnixon.com/?p=103
Oh, the guy is a "Nixon"... THAT explains a lot, eh?? :D
Oh, you just GOT to love Americans, eh?? :D
Michale......
Let me ask ya something, Bashi?
What's your criteria for discarding evidence in this matter??
Michale.....
You can bet that, if Obama was a Republican, the Left would be asking these same questions..
The opposition questions everything the other side does? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Panetta's a political hack and I have little use for Political hacks...
I think I'll call bullshit on this one. Got anything to back this up? Keep in mind I come from his district and am quite familiar with his career.
Well, iddn't THIS interesting.. :D
Yawn...
What's your criteria for discarding evidence in this matter??
I haven't opened the pdf in to illustrator yet, and haven't really decided if I will, but I grew up in a graphics house and am extremely familiar with the reproduction technology of this period. Nothing bothers me so far...
The opposition questions everything the other side does? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
And how much did you decry the Left during the Bush witch hunts???
I am willing to wager, not at all...
I think I'll call bullshit on this one. Got anything to back this up? Keep in mind I come from his district and am quite familiar with his career.
How familiar are you with his CIA career??
Here is a quick comparison. The current CIA chief is Michael Hayden. Prior to being tapped as CIA chief, Hayden was a career military official and ultimately a four star general. He also spent six years as head of the NSA from 1999-2005. That's an individual qualified to be the chief intelligence gatherer. The only intelligence that Panetta knows how to gather is on political opponents.
I'll say it again.. Panetta is a political animal who has his head so far up Obama's ass it's impossible to tell where one stops and the other starts...
Patreus would be a much better choice, but he might do better in the CIA..
I tend to trust soldiers more than I trust political hacks...
Yawn...
I'll ask again.. What's your criteria for discarding evidence??
Do you actually LOOK at the evidence and make a fair assessment??
Or do you immediately discard it if it's against a Democrat??
Just curious...
Michale.....
I haven't opened the pdf in to illustrator yet, and haven't really decided if I will, but I grew up in a graphics house and am extremely familiar with the reproduction technology of this period. Nothing bothers me so far...
Fair enough.. Since you mentioned you were an expert in Photo Shop, I figured you would have a good knowledge of ILLUSTRATOR...
I would be VERY interested in your assessment of the Nixon point...
I hope you make the effort...
Michale.....
Michale,
A quick notes on your comparison to the Bush National Guard situation.
In one situation, people were acting on seemingly valid evidence and were misled.
In another, people are actively ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Completely different situations. Or am I missing something?
-David
Completely different situations. Or am I missing something?
Yes... :D
The similarity is not in the result but rather in the reasons why the documents were sought after to begin with...
The Left felt that they had the right to know everything about Bush's past, since he was POTUS...
Now, the Right feels the same about Obama's past...
Both have valid points..
If one looks at the questions themselves, rather than who raises them or why, the questions ARE valid.
For example, do you think the question why Obama waited so long and spent so much before releasing today's document is a valid question??
Let me put it another way..
Let's say you and I are over at Panama Hatties having a beer or ten.... I tell you the story of my DirecTV days and how I spent a million and a half dollars to keep a document secret only to have it released and everyone finding out it had absolutely no bearing on anything..
Wouldn't you first question be, "Why the frak did you spend a million and a half to hide something that was utterly inconsequential!!??"
Of course it would be.. And it would be a valid question...
From my previous discussions with NYPoet, we know that Obama will ditch principle to get more money for his family. From that, we can deduce that spending a million to keep the Long Form BC secret is not about principle....
So, this begs the question..
WHY would Obama keep the controversy, the distraction going for this long if this is all there is to it???
If you take the politics out of it, it's a valid question....
Michale.....
Michale,
Where are you getting this "Obama spent a million and a half hiding his birth certificate" stuff?
This sounds pretty dubious. I call. Was he paying off the state of Hawaii to hide it? Where are you getting your "facts" from?
If he spent any money at all, my guess is that it was for lawyers to defend himself against some nutty birther lawsuit.
-David
I have already posted the link about how Obama has paid the attorney office of Perkins Coie to make sure any lawsuit that asked to see the original long form BC was defeated.. Another client of Perkins Coie is Osama Bin Laden's body guard currently residing at Gitmo....
As far as where my facts are from?? The Federal Election Commission...
But let's find some common ground here..
Do you think that LEGITIMATE questions regarding this issue should be addressed??
Michale.....
And, let's not forget...
It wasn't the GOP who brought up this issue to begin with...
It was Democrats.... :D
Michale.....
Basically, what we have here boils down to this.
We have our president saying, "I am not a crook" and ya'all are willing to take him at his word, no questions asked...
That's pretty much it in a nutshell...
Michale....
I have already posted the link about how Obama has paid the attorney office of Perkins Coie to make sure any lawsuit that asked to see the original long form BC was defeated.
Ah, my bad. After a quick bit of research, all that the FEC reveals is payments to the law firm. Any information that talks about what the payments were for looks like speculation as only the law firm itself seems to have that information.
No reputable news source seems willing to claim that the money was spent to "hide" his birth certificate. Only partisan sites like "Liberty Pundits". And if you read your article carefully, even they don't directly make this claim. They only insinuate it.
Do you think that LEGITIMATE questions regarding this issue should be addressed?
This is actually not a bad question.
I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser. This is the standard of our law. This was the standard in the Bush incident.
As long as we're talking about common ground, with today's release, do you now believe Obama is a U.S. citizen?
-David
Ah, my bad. After a quick bit of research, all that the FEC reveals is payments to the law firm. Any information that talks about what the payments were for looks like speculation as only the law firm itself seems to have that information.
Well, gee whiz...
Let's see..
Obama paid the law firm of Perkins Coie something in the neighborhood of 1.3 Million dollars.
The law firm of Perkins Coie is the law firm of record in many Birth Certificate related cases..
Hmmmmmm
What can we deduce from these facts???
This is actually not a bad question.
I have my moments.. :D
I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser. This is the standard of our law.
And, what happens when the POTUS uses his office and his vast financial resources to block legitimate questions?? What then??
Ya'all are always on about the rights of the "little guy"... Doesn't that apply when the "little guy" wants an answer to a question that the POTUS won't answer??
As long as we're talking about common ground, with today's release, do you now believe Obama is a U.S. citizen?
My personal belief is that Obama is a citizen of the US. That has always been my belief..
Regardless of that, there ARE valid questions that remain..
Why has the POTUS stonewalled this issue for so long??
Why release the long form BC now instead of last month or last year??
Why does the long form BC have layers with certain elements specific to certain layers??
Would you agree that these are legitimate questions?
As I said above, my questions aren't with the act. Even if Obama WAS born in BumFuq Egypt, it matters NOT to me one iota... He was elected and that's that...
My questions pertain to the cover up...
And, all partisan BS aside, they ARE legitimate questions...
Michale......
And, just to re-iterate...
The lie that Barack Obama was not born in the US has been fuelled by fringe Republicans — but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8478044/Birther-row-began-with-Hillary-Clinton.html
Can't hang that one on the ole GOP, now can ya?? :D
Michale.....
Can I ask a question?
Hopefully, TPTB will deem it a "legitimate" question.. :D
Why is Obama's mother's race listed as "Caucasian" but Obama's father's race is listed as "African"???
Caucasian is certainly a race, but "African" a nationality?
So, why does this birth certificate of Obama's list his mother's race, but his father's nationality??
Michale.....
Why is Obama's mother's race listed as "Caucasian" but Obama's father's race is listed as "African"?
"Good grief ..." - Charlie Brown :)
I am shocked, Shocked I tell you to find out that the opposing party takes up the dirt stirred up during the primary!
I took a look at the PDF. Looks like it was cleaned up and the back ground separated probably to reduce file size and make the text readable. Acrobat and other Adobe programs will make super bloated pdf files if you give them half a chance. But it looks like the whited out text matches the black text layer above it once you include the anti-aliasing that was probably in the original scan.
Not that it will stop a good conspiracy especially when they some much invested in continuing it...
Why is Obama's mother's race listed as "Caucasian" but Obama's father's race is listed as "African"???
I saw this nit pick on a story off Google news. My guess would be negro for an American born black and African for a foreign born black. His father was born in Kenya...
David,
"Good grief ..." - Charlie Brown :)
It's a legitimate question.. "African" is NOT a race. One would think a hospital would know that.
Maybe you can "guess" like Bashi does below...
Bashi,
I took a look at the PDF. Looks like it was cleaned up and the back ground separated probably to reduce file size and make the text readable. Acrobat and other Adobe programs will make super bloated pdf files if you give them half a chance. But it looks like the whited out text matches the black text layer above it once you include the anti-aliasing that was probably in the original scan.
What I don't understand is one some text is on one layer, but other text is on another layer..
Why layer it at all?? Scan it as a JPG and send it off...
My guess would be negro for an American born black and African for a foreign born black
Your "guess"???
Well, I guess those that pooh pooh legitimate questions are allowed "guesses", but those who ask legitimate questions are regulated to the "carnival barker" status...
I could "guess" that Obama is actually a Vulcan.. Is that sufficient???
Do you have anything to support your "guess"???
Michale.....
Probably for clean up. The text is actually spread across eight layers. Most on one layer but all the other layers are things like signatures and rubber stamp dates. Stuff that are likely a different shades of gray in the original and need adjustments that differ from the main solid black text.
Bashi,
Perhaps instead of "guessing" you could have pointed to this...
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/the-african-race/
That makes sense and, as such, I withdraw the question...
Maybe next time a little less condescending attitude and a little more facts might be in order.
Regardless, ya'alls minds are made up, regardless of the facts, so it appears that any discussion is moot...
Michale.....
Of course, the bottom line for this discussion is the following ...
Many Americans are finding it extremely difficult to come to terms with the first African-American president.
And, that, my friends, is the plain and simple truth of the matter.
Many Americans are finding it extremely difficult to come to terms with the first African-American president.
So, you buy into the myth that "many Americans" are racist..
That's complete and utter BS...
Ya'all show a quasi-religious devotion to Obama and it's never a good idea to mess with other people's religion, so this will be the last thing I say on this issue.
Obama is a candidate for President Of The United States.
Birth Certificate
School Records
College Transcripts
Student Loan Records
Tax Records
ALL of these records and so much more are perfectly acceptable requests to make of ANY candidate running for office..
If any candidate refuses to produce these records, then it is perfectly acceptable to speculate WHY a candidate won't release these records...
Obama is not a god.
Obama is not the second coming.
Obama is a candidate for the office of the President Of The United States.
As such, everything that has been requested, everything that WILL be requested are perfectly reasonable requests to make.
Se fini....
Michale.....
Michale,
The truth hurts and has sparked many a rant.
There has been nothing that is reasonable about the the agenda of the so-called birthers or about the nonsense that has been perpetuated about President Obama's birth certificate.
Michale,
Ya'all show a quasi-religious devotion to Obama and it's never a good idea to mess with other people's religion, so this will be the last thing I say on this issue.
You know that assertion is completely false. And, this will not be the last thing you say on this issue. :)
Michale,
As such, everything that has been requested, everything that WILL be requested are perfectly reasonable requests to make.
Okay, I'll bite ... what on earth are they going to request now?
Liz,
You know that assertion is completely false
Yer right, but it sure sometimes seems that way.. My frustrations overrode my common sense..
My apologies to all..
You know that assertion is completely false. And, this will not be the last thing you say on this issue. :)
OK ya got me there.. :D
Okay, I'll bite ... what on earth are they going to request now?
Everything that the Left would request from the likes of Trump and have requested from the likes of Palin..
Obama is a presidential candidate. He was not vetted at all by the MSM in 2008.
That will definitely change in 2012...
And if Obama refuses to produce requested documents, then the American people are free to speculate as to why Obama refuses to produce...
And they should be allowed to speculate without ANYONE questioning their motives...
Michale....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/27/birth-certificate-isnt-obamas-only-secret/
WOW!
It's as if I wrote that myself! :D
Michale.....
Okay, I'll bite ... what on earth are they going to request now?
Liz. This is a great idea. I was wondering this after the Shirley Sherrod incident, and then the NPR silliness, and also the WTC Mosque craziness.
Its always interesting to see what kind of nut-jobbery will be wheeled out next.
I wish we could submit suggestions.
My vote is to investigate the First Dog. There's something very suspicious about him. He is a Portuguese Water Dog.
And you know what that means - he's an un-American socialist!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/images/bo1_blog.jpg
Lookit him in that little rainbow outfit - which we also know what that means! (He's a homer-sexual!)
I bet he even craps on Air Force One - or should I say Air Force ... Two!
Where are your records Bo? I bet your not even a pure breed! Maybe you're a terrier-orist! Buahahahahah!
-David
Meh...that's not the transparency I care about. I am disappointed about Obama's promised transparency but am only really interested in what's happening in the now with what he is doing as President. All his past was so 2008. I was hoping he would bring transparency to the White House and it would become tradition in to following administrations.
Release all papers, as I have said before sounds like a huge fishing expedition coming in to an election year by a bunch of perspective candidates with half assed plans and no numbers to back them up.
On the other hand I enjoyed Rand Paul's rebuke:
“I’ve come to New Hampshire today because I’m very concerned,” Mr. Paul said. “I want to see the original long-form certificate of Donald Trump’s Republican registration.”
As a bit of laughter erupted in the room, he added: “Seriously, don’t you think we need to see that?” ...
“I’m going to believe it when I see his embossed seal to his Republican registration,” said Mr. Paul, a rising figure in the Republican Party who is visiting New Hampshire this week during the Congressional recess. He spoke with a smile, but his words marked one of the first times that a leading Republican has challenged Mr. Trump’s ties to the party.link
Trump might just have opened a can of worms that all the Republican candidate wish he hadn't, including Trump himself.
I think Obama has nothing to gain from releasing the papers he is being called to. Most that are calling for this release, including you, are not going to vote for him anyway, why should he try to appease them, and you? The flip side is the longer this stays in the media the better chance all republican candidates will be pressured to do so...
Trump might just have opened a can of worms that all the Republican candidate wish he hadn't, including Trump himself.
Bashi- Trump won't run. He's always been very secretive about his financial records (because he's usually worth far less than he tells people) and this is one of the requirements for running for office.
Its one of the reasons I think he's felt free to say any silliness that pops into his head :).
-David
It's a shame that ya'all didn't have this attitude during the Bush years.
All the witch hunts, all the ridiculous accusations..
It's amazing how short ya'alls memories are...
Michale.....
And it's amazing how quick you are to lump everyone in to a single group and make assumptions about them.
akadjian-
I agree. It seems like the guy can't go 10 minutes without putting his foot in his mouth. Just read an article off Google news that Trump is blaming china for all his Trump branded merchandise being made in china.
I have been reading some of the archives here at CW.COM of the Bush years... :D
It's a real eye-opener....
Bashi,
And it's amazing how quick you are to lump everyone in to a single group and make assumptions about them.
You saying you never bashed Bush for secrecy???
Michale....
You saying you never bashed Bush for secrecy???
Oh, I did all the time but mostly for what he did in office as part of his job...
I disagree with our administration. That is also one of my fundamental rights.
-akadjian, Saturday, June 14th, 2008 at 09:54 PDT
Just thought I would mention it.. :D
Michale.....
Bashi,
Ahhh I see.. So you never posted anything about Bush being secretive about his school records or his military records??
Regardless, you are saying that it's OK if a President is secretive about what he did BEFORE being president, but he should be transparent when he is IN office...
Well, apparently, Obama is giving us BOTH the finger when it comes to secrets, eh?? :D
Or is it more likely that you don't really care about secrecy, as long as it's Democrats who are being secretive...
Michale....
Look, my whole point in this is simple..
Ya'all castigate your fellow Americans (Liz and Kevin excepted) because they demand disclosure from Obama, yet you fail to recall how the Left raked Bush over the coals for his lack of disclosure over personal documents...
That's hypocrisy..
Just like ya'all had a conniption fit when Republicans in Wisconsin "attacked" the Unions to limit collective bargaining, yet ya'all are completely silent when Democrats do it in Massachusetts..
That's hypocrisy...
And that's my sole point..
There ARE legitimate questions regarding Obama.
Not everyone who questions Obama is a racist or has a nefarious motive...
It's really THAT simple...
Michale.....
I have been reading some of the archives here at CW.COM of the Bush years... :D
You really do have too much time on your hands :)
I disagree with our administration. That is also one of my fundamental rights.
OMG. That's horrible. I can't believe I said that!
Wait ... I have no idea why you think you've caught me on something with that.
Do you need me to post my birth certificate? :D
Or is it more likely that you don't really care about secrecy, as long as it's Democrats who are being secretive.
Ok. In all seriousness, Michale & Bashi, I think there's an important distinction. I disagreed with Bush because Bush did things like authorize illegal wire taps which was a Federal offense. Personally, I think he was probably a nice guy who I could have had a beer with at a barbeque. But what he was doing was illegal.
The difference is that what you see as "attacks" was people looking evidence and disagreeing with what he was doing.
But don't believe me, Michale. Look back. See if you can find a personal attack on Bush. You might. I might have lost it and gotten personal. But I think the vast majority of the time, you'll find that liberals argued against decisions Bush made and his philosophy.
Where people lose credit in my eyes is when they attack the man. And yeah, some from the Left did this. But not like how 30% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Not like how millions of Americans claim Obama isn't born in this country. Not like how millions repeat the silliness that he's a socialist.
In general, liberals believe things like "Bush lied us into the Iraq War" because there was evidence that he did this very thing (see Downing Street memo). Or, the Bush govt. authorized illegal wiretaps because they were caught authorizing illegal wiretaps.
Ok, ok. 'Ya got me. We did make fun of him as kinda dumb but we would never have done it if he hadn't given us so much material to work with :)
-David
David,
You funny... :D
OK, let's see if we can agree on one thing..
Would you agree that it's fair to hold Obama to the same standard that the Left held Bush to, with regards to disclosure of personal documents or records?
If you don't agree with this, why not?
In general, liberals believe things like "Bush lied us into the Iraq War" because there was evidence that he did this very thing
No, there was no credible evidence of any lying...
But you prove my point for me... You put up this Downing St memo and call it evidence..
I put up discrepancies with the long form Birth Certification and all you have is ridicule..
It's as if anything against Bush is evidence and anything against Obama is preposterous...
You see the inherent bias??
Ok, ok. 'Ya got me. We did make fun of him as kinda dumb but we would never have done it if he hadn't given us so much material to work with :)
And Obama hasn't??
"I remember being born."
-Barack Obama
If Bush had said something like that, ya'all would have a field day...
But with Obama, it's perfectly acceptable and doesn't merit a mention...
You see the inherent bias??
That's my whole point.. Ya'all are in the bag for Obama just as you point out that I am in the bag AGAINST Obama..
The only difference is, I admit my bias and ya'all claim to have none...
Michale.....
Ok, ok. 'Ya got me. We did make fun of him as kinda dumb but we would never have done it if he hadn't given us so much material to work with :)
Dumb Things Obama Has Said
"I am really glad to be back in Oregon. We have traveled to every corner of the country. We have been to 57 states."
"That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."
"Put the right amount of air in your tires and get tune-ups, and we will not have to drill for oil."
"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today..."
"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's...."
"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries."
"One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard."
"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system."
"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing."
"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed."
Want me to go on???
Michale.....
I put up discrepancies with the long form Birth Certification and all you have is ridicule..
I stand by my graphical analysis, but I view this issue as had been dealt with long ago and those still questioning having ulterior motive in doing so.
Ahhh I see.. So you never posted anything about Bush being secretive about his school records or his military records??
Did I? You are the one trolling the archives...
Now, I'll say the same thing about this issue as it pertains to Obama as I did as it pertained to Bush.
If our every utterance, our every action was recorded 24/7 for all to see, I am willing to wager that we would say or do some stuff that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE would think is pretty stoopid and ridiculous...
My point is, you give Obama a pass on it whereas with Bush, it's "We did make fun of him as kinda dumb but we would never have done it if he hadn't given us so much material to work with "
Do you see the inherent bias??
Michale.....
I stand by my graphical analysis, but I view this issue as had been dealt with long ago
To YOUR satisfaction..
Can you not allow that other people might not be satisfied??
and those still questioning having ulterior motive in doing so.
Would you say that those who hounded Bush for his National Guard papers also had an ulterior motive in doing so??
Can you not conceive of the possibility that people simply want the truth about the man who is President of the United States??
Did I? You are the one trolling the archives...
I am researching yes...
And I still have yet to come across any post from you that condemned those on the Left going after Bush as you have condemned those on the Right going after Obama...
Are you sure you don't have a bias???
Michale.....
Do you see the inherent bias??
Do you have a point beyond we are all human?
I don't see you criticizing the conservatives or even acknowledging the single most obstructionist minority party in the history of the senate. Does that show your bias?
Do you have a point beyond we are all human?
I thought I made my point crystal clear..
Ya'all are biased in favor of Obama...
even acknowledging the single most obstructionist minority party in the history of the senate.
It's only your opinion that the GOP is the most obstructionist Party in the history of the Senate..
That opinion is formed by your bias..
My opinion is that BOTH parties are equally at fault for being obstructionist..
The facts bear out my opinion..
Yours is colored by your Leftist leanings...
In short, you see the GOP as bad and the DP as good..
I see them both as bad..
So who is the biased one here??
What do you think about the Democrats in Mass who voted to deny Unions collective bargaining rights??
:D
Michale.....
You put up this Downing St memo and call it evidence.
Yes.
I put up discrepancies with the long form Birth Certification.
If the point is to prove Obama was not born in the U.S., you need some evidence as a basis for this belief.
The birthers put up nothing.
The birthers start with belief and then fit everything into this belief. Its very much like religion.
No, there was no credible evidence of any lying.
Now you're splitting hairs on definition. According to the memo:
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Bush believed the right thing to do was to go war. So he did this irregardless of what any of the facts or intelligence said. Yet what the White House sold the public was that Saddam had WMDs.
They never came out and said, we just want to remove Saddam. Not until later. Sounds a lot like lying to me.
Would you agree that it's fair to hold Obama to the same standard that the Left held Bush to, with regards to disclosure of personal documents or records?
I will give you that I'm not sure what the standard is here. I believe financial records are required to be released by law. But I'm not sure anything else is.
I would agree that everyone should be held accountable to the same standards as specified in the law.
If its not specified by law, I believe its up to the individual. Any help clarifying the law, Michale or anyone else, would be appreciated.
(BTW- I also believe if Obama were breaking any laws, you know it would be on FOX 24/7 so I'm thinking he's likely within his rights.)
-David
Evidence - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
You put up suspicion, hearsay, and conjecture. Yet still no evidence of something which you yourself don't believe in.
Yet you still do it. Because you say, it works.
Politically.
It's only your opinion that the GOP is the most obstructionist Party in the history of the Senate..
Ah...no. I was going by the total number of filibusters.
David,
Sounds a lot like lying to me.
Sounds a lot like what Obama said about Libya and Qadaffi to ME....
But, of course, you would dispute that, right??
Everything Obama = Good
Everything Bush = Bad
I would agree that everyone should be held accountable to the same standards as specified in the law.
Did you voice this when Bush was being hounded by the Left over his military records and his college transcripts??
Did you stand and defend Bush against the Left when forged military records came to light??
I don't think you did...
Therefore, why do you so aggressively defend Obama from the Right, but you throw Bush to the Leftist wolves??
You see the point??
Bashi,
Ah...no. I was going by the total number of filibusters.
Some might say that "filibusters" are a way to fight for what's right....
MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON
Ergo, some might say excessive filibusters might mean that it's the most ethical Party in the history of the Senate...
You see how your biases color your opinions??
When the Democrats are the majority, filibusters are bad...
When the Democrats are the minority, filibusters are good...
Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
I am really well and truly amazed that I have to point this out to you people...
We're all intelligent and articulate adults..
Why can't ya'all just admit that your biases are coloring your judgments and that you protect Obama from what you perceive are unfair attacks...
We should further agree that, despite our biases, we all STILL have valid points and they should not be ridiculed or dismissed out of hand...
Michale.....
Evidence - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
So why is the Downing Memo "evidence" and the points raised in the long form birth certificate preposterous??
Because one attacks Bush and the other attacks Obama..
THAT's what it all boils down to...
Michale....
Did you voice this when Bush was being hounded by the Left over his military records and his college transcripts??
Did you stand and defend Bush against the Left when forged military records came to light??
Well, considering this was during the 2004 election and Kerry was being swift boated, one has to ask, did you actively defend Kerry or come out and condemn the swift boaters?
I'm not buying this no action automatically means opposite bias (I'm trying to pin it on you purely for rhetorical reasons).
But as far as the birthers and Obama's birth certificate, it's just has gotten silly. It's like:
I want to see this form. [hands over form.]
I want to see this form signed. [hand over form signed]
I want to see this form in triplicate [hand over form in triplicate]
I want to see this form in triplicate, signed by an albino monkey smoking a havana cigar while in a ferrari [walks away from the crazy person]
It should have stopped once the State of Hawaii verified his birth. Period.
Yup, this is exactly why Obama should have never given this silliness the time of day.
Dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn't.
OK, what about this...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978
If this had been done by President Bush, ya'all would be screaming to the high heavens..
Where's the Left here???
Are you honestly trying to convince me that this is no big deal???
Michale.....
Bashi,
Well, considering this was during the 2004 election and Kerry was being swift boated, one has to ask, did you actively defend Kerry or come out and condemn the swift boaters?
And, once again, your bias is evident..
In your words, Kerry was "Swift Boated"...
What did you call it when CBS forged Bush's National Guard documents??
"Justified"??
With every response, you prove my point perfectly...
Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia..
Michale.....
It should have stopped once the State of Hawaii verified his birth. Period.
Then why didn't Obama stop it??
Why didn't Obama take these steps years ago??
Why wait til now??
Why don't YOU ask those questions??
Because you don't care. Obama said he is not a crook and that is good enough for you.
Ya'all questioned EVERYTHING Bush did...
Obama has done practically everything that Bush has done and ya'all don't say BOO....
Why is that???
Michale.....
Michale,
What are your criteria for a "fair" critique and an "unfair" attack?
How do you make the distinction?
-David
What are your criteria for a "fair" critique and an "unfair" attack?
How do you make the distinction?
I asked that question of Bashi first back up in message {45}...
But I'll be happy to show you the courtesy that I have been denied.. :D
anvari.org/db/fun/Political/Bush_Binoculars.jpg
That's an unfair attack...
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978
That's a fair critique
Your turn...
Michale.....
What did you call it when CBS forged Bush's National Guard documents??
Dan Rathered? CBS news'oted?
Actually I thought it was entertaining until it was proven to be false then I was disappointed in Dan Rather...
Are you honestly trying to convince me that this is no big deal???
From the article:
Posted By: Phil Bronstein (Email, Twitter) | April 28 2011 at 04:48 PM
Are you asking why the entire
Left has not come out against a story that came out two hours ago on an obscure website?
Actually I thought it was entertaining until it was proven to be false then I was disappointed in Dan Rather...
Ahh... So, when Bush is attacked and maligned, you find that "entertaining"...
Hmmmmmmmmm
Are you asking why the entire
Left has not come out against a story that came out two hours ago on an obscure website?
No, I am asking how you can justify your defense of Obama when, if this had been an action of the Bush Administration, you would have gone thru the roof...
David,
Above, I posted a link where you claimed that it was your right to disagree with the Bush Administration.
Do you also hold true that it is any American's right to disagree with the Obama Administration??
Michale.....
Are you asking why the entire
Left has not come out against a story that came out two hours ago on an obscure website?
But, OK.. Let's go with your way...
How many media articles from the Left against President Bush about Gitmo during the Bush years.... Hundreds, if not thousands...
How many media articles from the Left do you see today about Obama keeping Gitmo open... An announcement that was made about a month and a half
ago...
Can you show me any Leftist articles castigating Obama for Gitmo in the last week or so??
No??
How come???
Abu Ghraib vs Kill Team news stories..
Wanna run the numbers on that???
Since I know you are going to ask, here is my point..
Anyone who bashed Bush for Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, but yet still supports Obama is being hypocritical...
True or false?
Michale.....
I asked that question of Bashi first back up in message {45}...
But I'll be happy to show you the courtesy that I have been denied.. :D
Not really. You asked:
What's your criteria for discarding evidence in this matter??
Well, first off posts were flying fast and free. I didn't even see it until after I posted, also I did look at the evidence and found nothing out of the ordinary so I would say my criteria is a lot higher than you give credit. But yes, my mind was made up when the state of Hawaii officially confirmed his birth certificate a while ago.
No, I am asking how you can justify your defense of Obama when, if this had been an action of the Bush Administration, you would have gone thru the roof...
So, you are making assumptions again. I generally don't go "thru the roof" on anything. Or is this directed at the general "left"? And this is not a subject I would have gone "thru the roof" if I were inclined to do so.
But as this is now two and a half hours old, I think I'll wait to see the full story before I put a value judgement on it...
How many media articles from the Left do you see today about Obama keeping Gitmo open... An announcement that was made about a month and a half
ago...
Can you show me any Leftist articles castigating Obama for Gitmo in the last week or so??
You mean he signed the Defense Authorization Bill that contained provisions added by Congress that effectively keeps GITMO open but strongly opposed those provisions?
Careful, your bias is showing...
You mean he signed the Defense Authorization Bill that contained provisions added by Congress that effectively keeps GITMO open but strongly opposed those provisions?
So, he was against it, before he was for it, before he was against it... :D
He's the President. He said he would close it.
Now he says he is keeping it open...
And you still support him...
That tells any reasonable person that you really don't have a problem with Gitmo being open.. You just don't want a Gitmo open under a Republican...
But as this is now two and a half hours old, I think I'll wait to see the full story before I put a value judgement on it...
Oh what a load of crap... I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night..
You won't condemn Obama for anything... As far as you are concerned, Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..
How else do you explain not saying dick about what Democrats in MASS did to Union collective bargaining??
Here's the simple truth...
Ya'all have made it clear that you won't accept ANY evidence that goes against Obama, that disputes the validity of the long form birth certificate..
How is that any different than the "birthers" who, you claim, won't accept ANY evidence that Obama was born in the US??
Ya'all and the birthers are simply two sides of the same coin..
Neither of ya'all will accept ANY evidence that upsets or contradicts your respective world-views...
That about sums things up perfectly...
Michale....
That about sums things up perfectly...
Maybe in Bizarro-land.
Are saying that you would not have criticized him for not signing the Defense Authorization Bill and sending it back to congress in hopes to have the GITMO provisions stricken while we are in two wars? Everything I have read by you says otherwise...
So, he was against it, before he was for it, before he was against it... :D
...bla bla bla
Obama has a signing statement attached to the bill that says otherwise.
You do understand that Obama is neither dictator nor King? And we have this thing called the separation of powers, right?
You won't condemn Obama for anything... As far as you are concerned, Democrats are as pure as the driven snow..
Actually I did earlier in this very thread. I just won't condemn him for every hysterical charge you throw at him...
How else do you explain not saying dick about what Democrats in MASS did to Union collective bargaining??
Dude, it has passed the house on Tuesday, probably won't pass the senate. I read nothing about it until you mentioned it. Do I really have to hawk the news and root out every odd bill a lower house passes just to appease your twisted since of hypocrisy? It would be a full time job!
Ya'all have made it clear that you won't accept ANY evidence that goes against Obama, that disputes the validity of the long form birth certificate..
You mean we haven't fallen for all this birther nonsense? Guilty as charged. Though I am curious as to why the official confirmation of the State of Hawaii was not good enough for you? Maybe a little bias showing?
Obama has a signing statement attached to the bill that says otherwise.
Ahhh Yes... Signing Statements..
"I will not to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress"
-Barack Obama
Once again, Barack Obama is no different than Bush..
'nuff said about that.
Dude, it has passed the house on Tuesday, probably won't pass the senate.
The Left didn't have a problem with slamming the GOP before ANYTHING got passed in Wisconsin..
So, why is it OK for Democrats to do what you and the Left have castigated the Right for??
You mean we haven't fallen for all this birther nonsense? Guilty as charged. Though I am curious as to why the official confirmation of the State of Hawaii was not good enough for you? Maybe a little bias showing?
Regardless of how you try and make this about birther crap, that's not what it's about at all.
I have made it a point that this issue is NOT about where Obama was born.
For me, it's always been about how ya'all are so set and entrenched in your support for Obama that you will not even CONSIDER evidence that paints him and Democrats in a bad light..
Yet, ya'all had no problem mocking Bush for the slightest of things and criticizing Bush for every little nit-pick..
But when Obama does the exact same things that Bush has done for the exact same reasons, ya'all STILL support Obama with nary a word of protest..
How is this not hypocritical?
That tells me that your issues with Bush was never about Gitmo, Warrantless Surveillance, Rendition, Signing Statements and all the other "crimes" that ya'all blamed Bush for..
You simply wanted to bash Bush and Gitmo et al where just convenient excuses..
That's the only logical explanation for why you give Obama a hall pass for all the things that you bashed Bush about..
Michale.....
More info regarding Signing Statements...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/17/signing_statements
The more and more I research this the more and more it becomes apparent how Obama is a replica of Bush...
Which begs the question why ya'all support Obama but didn't support Bush. Is that "-D" after Obama's name so all encompassing important to the exclusion of all else, including your own stated principles??
On the other hand, it ALSO begs the question, that if Obama is so Bush-like, why I DON'T support Obama so much... :D
But that's a question that's easy to answer...
Michale.....
Hey Michale,
So I still don't get your criteria. Are you saying that an unfair attack makes fun of the person? And a valid political argument ...?
Ok ... let me take a stab.
Bush binoculars: This isn't a political argument so I'm going to put it in another category. Political humor or something. And yes, I'd agree with you that its intended more to make fun of the person. There's one of Clinton doing the same thing.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/binoculars.asp
p.s. Hahahahah! Did he really do that? That's kind of funny. Ok ... sorry, back to the post.
So let's talk about what makes a valid argument. Now "valid" in the logical sense simply means well-formed. It does not mean "true" or "false". In fact, it says nothing about being true or false, but it does tell you if you can use that argument to reason "true" or "false".
I believe a valid argument starts with facts. You can look at these facts to then come to a conclusion. Here's how it works in your SFGate argument:
- The fact is that the White House banished a new media reporter
- The White House, in particular, Obama has gone on record as being for social media
- The conclusion is that the author wonders what type of guidelines the Obama admin is using (NOTE: From the facts, you're not able to tell. There just seems to be an inconsistency. But this is good, the author doesn't SPECULATE much.
Looking at the components, I'd agree this is a valid argument. It starts with facts and leads towards a reasoned conclusion.
Now, I'm going to apply this same criteria to the birther movement.
- Birthers believe that Obama was not born in the U.S.
- They used his absence of a released birth certificate to fuel their suspicion
- When the short form birth certificate was released, they called it a forgery
- They asked for more proof, even though they don't have any proof themselves, only suspicion
- Now that the long form birth certificate is released, many are saying its fake as well
This does not fit the criteria of a valid argument. It starts with suspicion and then demands proof from the accused to alleviate this suspicion. When proof is produced, new suspicions arise. This fits my definition of a conspiracy theory in which you start with a crazy theory (Bush caused 9/11); information that is confirmational is accepted; that which is contradictory is denied.
One argument is well-formed, the other is not. You can use a well-formed argument to argue true/false (remember, well-formed does not say anything about true/false, it just says that they argument is an argument which meets the definition.
If an argument is not well-formed, then technically, its not even an argument. This is my claim about the birthers and 9/11 truthers. Using this definition, "Bush Binoculars" doesn't fit into the category of an argument either. I'd call it something else ... like political humor.
Thoughts?
-David
p.s. I apologize if at any point during this post, I've come off as a dick.
I think what happens is I implicitly see the birther argument as not well formed and wonder why the media spends so much dang time on it (Ok, I know why ... because it's entertainment and that's what they've become *sigh*).
Bush binoculars: This isn't a political argument so I'm going to put it in another category.
You're right. It's a juvenile and immature attack.. And the Left just ate it up... :D
So let's talk about what makes a valid argument. Now "valid" in the logical sense simply means well-formed. It does not mean "true" or "false". In fact, it says nothing about being true or false, but it does tell you if you can use that argument to reason "true" or "false".
Well-formed is not really a good criteria, IMNSHO. A lot of people have good ideas, but have trouble putting them into words, so the idea comes across as moronic..
I think the criteria I would like to settle on is "credible"...
That's a concept that can be established w/o regard to who is bringing it up or why..
I'll give you a perfect example..
The fact that the Long Form Birth Certificate is suspect because it lists a person's nationality when it should list race is a credible argument.
Further research showed us why this might have happened so that line of reasoning was discarded...
But, that credible argument was pooh-poohed away immediately simply because it was against Barack Obama.
A credible argument should stand on it's own, regardless of who puts forth the argument or why..
Now, I will be the first to admit that I am as guilty of that as the next person..
I say "Fox News" and ya'all go, "Oh well, it's Fox News. There ya go..."
Now ya'all will say, "Media Matters" and my first instinct is to say, "Oh well, it's Media Matters. There ya go."
So, I am as guilty of that as ya'all are..
But the difference between us is I admit my biases and try not to let them color my arguments.
Ya'all refuse to concede that you are biased in favor of Barack Obama and, therefore, ANY argument that is against Obama is immediately discarded even though they are credible arguments...
I know that we have been all over the map in this thread, what with Birth Certificates in Hawaii, Democrats in Massuchusetts and signing statements in the White House.
But there is a common denominator in all these credible arguments.
The integrity of Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and the Left in general...
I have provided fact after fact after fact that calls into question real and credible issues with the afore..
And it just chaps my hide that ya'all STILL won't admit it...
p.s. I apologize if at any point during this post, I've come off as a dick.
Wow, if THAT's yer idea of coming off as a dick, I can only imagine what ya think of MY posts!! :D
I think what happens is I implicitly see the birther argument as not well formed and wonder why the media spends so much dang time on it (Ok, I know why ... because it's entertainment and that's what they've become *sigh*).
Obama is as much, if not more to blame, than anyone else..
Don't you wonder why he didn't nip this in the bud years ago???
And the manner in which he went about it? My gods, Obama had the biggest story of the century!! OK, maybe not biggest, but he had a HUGE win.. He had a genuine American Hero coming over to Team Obama. By taking Patreus into Team Obama, he had a big, a HUGE political win...
He could have gotten a HUGE atta-boy from the vast majority of Independents and NPAs and, likely, even some grudging admiration from quite a few Republicans?
But, Obama threw that all away so he could get into a pissing contest with a "carnival barker" to see who had the (or is the) bigger dick..
And he did it RIGHT from the Presidential Podium!
And he wasn't even done... He jet-setted to Chicago so he could regale Oprah with the long and sordid tale of his birth certificate...
For someone who claimed that this birth certificate crap is "silly", Obama sure has been silly the last couple days...
Obama had a huge win.. But he threw it all away for a chance to having a pissing contest with The Donald....
OK, I think I have gotten that outta my system..
I am thru being a dick... :D
Michale.....
Ahhh Yes... Signing Statements..
"I will not to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress"?-Barack Obama
Once again, Barack Obama is no different than Bush..
Is this what Captain Louis Renault from Casablanca called a "tactical retreat"?
So you admit that Obama has always been against GITMO?
Nice try though. Bush used signing statements to do an end run around congress. Obama registered his strong opposition to it and said he would work with congress to seek it's repeal in his.
Do you see the difference or are you still blinded by bias?
Regardless of how you try and make this about birther crap, that's not what it's about at all.
I have made it a point that this issue is NOT about where Obama was born.
For me, it's always been about how ya'all are so set and entrenched in your support for Obama that you will not even CONSIDER evidence that paints him and Democrats in a bad light..
Really? Then why have you brought it up?
I opened the long form in illustrator. Did you? Or did you just go off what ever birther website painted the worst picture? You just don't like that my opinion of the evidence is not what you wanted. That is text book bias...
That tells me that your issues with Bush was never about Gitmo, Warrantless Surveillance, Rendition, Signing Statements and all the other "crimes" that ya'all blamed Bush for..
Make assumptions much? That is exactly why I did not like Bush. I don't worship politicians or look to follow leaders. I have my own agenda that is similar to but not an exact match with the democrats. All I really care about is what legislation will be put forward, how the leader will vote when it's time and a general feel of competence should the commander and chief roll comes in to play. So far, though not perfect, Obama has done a decent job.
The more and more I research this the more and more it becomes apparent how Obama is a replica of Bush...
Except where it matters: see above.
That's the only logical explanation for why you give Obama a hall pass for all the things that you bashed Bush about..
And that is your most basic logical flaw, you are stuck in binary opposition land. There is almost always more than two reasons for anything. You can't seem to get over the FACT that everyone on the "left" does not think exactly the same. Same goes for the right. There are as many motivations behind opinions as there are opinions. So when you try to boil it down in to the "left" does this, or "ya'all" does that, you are already logically slightly in the right and mostly in the wrong.
The fact that the Long Form Birth Certificate is suspect because it lists a person's nationality when it should list race is a credible argument.
Further research showed us why this might have happened so that line of reasoning was discarded...
But, that credible argument was pooh-poohed away immediately simply because it was against Barack Obama.
I did assume there was a reason for it and made a guess as to why (and labeled it as a guess). Because the state of Hawaii had already confirmed the form. Yes, I was biased, not because of Obama but because of the State of Hawaii. Do you see the difference?
But the difference between us is I admit my biases and try not to let them color my arguments.
Ya'all refuse to concede that you are biased in favor of Barack Obama and, therefore, ANY argument that is against Obama is immediately discarded even though they are credible arguments...
Sometimes but not always. You don't admit your bias against Obama and you don't admit the shear number filibusters by the republicans in the Senate and how they have affected Obama's campaign promises. You do the opposite, and blame Obama for any failures regardless of the realities of how the government works.
As to the rest of your last post: research what was required for him to actually have his long form released. Kind of kills most your argument...
Nice try though. Bush used signing statements to do an end run around congress
As did Obama..
Congress defunded Obama's Czars.. Obama said he was going to ignore that.
How is that NOT doing an end run around Congress???
You don't admit your bias against Obama
Really???
So, who said "That's my whole point.. Ya'all are in the bag for Obama just as you point out that I am in the bag AGAINST Obama..
The only difference is, I admit my bias and ya'all claim to have none..."
Coulda swore that was me...
As to the rest of your last post: research what was required for him to actually have his long form released.
Bull crap... It took 2 days...
Michale.....
But, that credible argument was pooh-poohed away immediately simply because it was against Barack Obama.
I can't speak for others, but that's not my issue with the argument.
I say "Fox News" and ya'all go, "Oh well, it's Fox News. There ya go..."
I disagree.
I didn't do that at all.
I do exactly what I said above and try to apply these same criteria to any argument. Here's a decent writeup on validity (well-formedness) which is similar (but probably better) than what I was trying to convey:
http://www.ling.rochester.edu/~feldman/philosophy105/03-validity.html
Here's how I would apply this to your argument.
Premise 1: The Long Form Birth Certificate lists Obama's nationality rather than his race
Ok. That looks good. I'd even agree that this premise is true.
Now, what can you conclude from this premise?
Can you conclude from this premise that the document is a fake and Obama wasn't born in America? That seems like a stretch.
It seems more likely to me that there were other reasons.
Now lets look at some of the other facts.
Premise 2 The state of Hawaii has certified the Long Form and Short form birth certificates
Premise 3 No evidence exists to show he wasn't born in America
Premise 4 His birth was announced in the Hawaii papers
Premise 5 The Short Form can be used for a drivers license or passport by anyone born in Hawaii
Now, as you yourself stated, it seemed like there was a more likely reason why his birth father was listed as African on the long form ... because it was based on how he himself described himself.
Can you ever know this for sure? No. But it seems like a highly probable explanation as you stated.
So no one is disputing your statement about Obama's fathers' race. But to draw any conclusions from this in the face of other evidence is a stretch. To your credit, you didn't.
That's why my dispute is not with you. Its with the birthers.
The birthers ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with their belief -- the majority of the premises listed above. And, they don't offer any evidence to support their claim.
Which is why I don't believe it and likely why you don't believe it either.
Now ...
None of this has anything to do with Right or Left. None of this has anything to do with Fox News or Media Matters. None of this even has anything to do with Barack Obama or George W. Bush. It has to do with what makes a valid argument.
The cool thing about these rules is that you can apply them to any argument.
QED :)
-David
Premise 1: The Long Form Birth Certificate lists Obama's nationality rather than his race
Whups ... it should read "Obama's fathers' nationality"
David,
Imminently logical.
Spock would be proud.. :D
Michale.....
So, who said "That's my whole point.. Ya'all are in the bag for Obama just as you point out that I am in the bag AGAINST Obama..
The only difference is, I admit my bias and ya'all claim to have none..."
Coulda swore that was me...
You did not directly admit your bias, you pointed out that others pointed out your bias to you. similarly I have alluded to but never directly stated my bias. To that we are even...
Bull crap... It took 2 days...
The time it took is not what I was alluding too.
Premise 1: The Long Form Birth Certificate lists Obama's nationality rather than his race
Whups ... it should read "Obama's fathers' nationality"
Freudian slip?? :D
Kinda like when Obama had said that McCain never question his (Obama's) Muslim faith... :D
Michale.....
Seriously?
121 comments? Wow. OK, I promise to read them all, but after the birth certificate release, most of this is moot anyways, so I probably won't comment on them... (sorry for being so tardy, it's been a busy week...)
-CW
Chris,
Maybe this will save you some time. When I saw the 122 comments, I thought great! Maybe some new people from Huffpo who checked out this site and have some interesting opinions. Turns out it is just Michale banging his tired drum for the majority of the posts; and sadly commenters I respect have tried to reason with him. To paraphrase Russell Baker, "Life is too short, and trying to reason with Michale is too long." I'll try to find a link for the old Baker column, it is hilarious and totally appropriate trying to read through Michale on the rampage.
Here's the link for that Baker column.
https://wwwx.cs.unc.edu/~hays/humor/crawling_up_everest.html
Great Russell Baker article, Kevin!
"Life is too short and Proust is too long."
Lol. I feel the same way about Joyce's Ulysses
-David