Obama and the Birthers

Professor S · 08-10-2009, 10:11 AM

Not only is this an awsome idea for a band name, but it's also a conspiracy theory that seems to be building steam (and much like steam, it strikes me as being mostly hot air).

What are your thoughts on this? Do you believe President Obama is not eligible to be president because he was born outside of the U.S.?

Was his birth certificate forged?

Is this all a bunch of paranoid nonsense? Is there a tint of racism about it?

Has this conspiracy been overblown? Is the Democratic party helping to foment it to make Republicans look extreme/fringe?

Even if Obama was born in Kenya, what does that even mean? Does that make him ineligible even though his mother was an American citizen?

Thoughts?

Angrist · 08-10-2009, 10:18 AM

Whatever can make Schwarzenegger president! A European ruling America, that will be fun times.

Dylflon · 08-10-2009, 05:43 PM

Certain types of people need things like this birth certificate nonsense.

It's the only way they can reconcile their own hypocrisy. Many spent the last 8 years crying "You have to support your president" Then a black democrat gets into office that they clearly don't support. So instead of going against their word, it's far easier to justify their lack of support for this new president by attacking his legitimacy.

Hence the Hawaii birth certificate argument.

manasecret · 08-10-2009, 05:54 PM

I think life is a scary thing at almost every turn. Life makes people fearful. Fear makes people irrational. And so you get Birthers. Fear, the cause of all problems.

What's the psychological reason that so many conspiracy theories of different strokes have so many followers of different strokes?

Bond · 08-10-2009, 06:59 PM

I don't know if "fear" is the most proper characterization as to why this issue is a prominent one, although it certainly is one of the causes. I would say it has more to do with: 1) the media, typically, over covering the issue and 2) politics. In my estimation, it would be a smart political strategy for the Democrats to not let this issue die, as it is fairly simple to stereotype one extreme element of the Republican party into the entire Republican party during a thirty-second commercial. Republicans, on the other hand, might have a difficult time trying to quell this extreme element of the party ($$$).

Regardless, I've only seen this issue covered by the twenty-four hour new channels, which were never the greatest source of quality news to begin with.

Typhoid · 08-10-2009, 07:18 PM

I think this is slathered in many hues of racism.

However, correct me if I'm wrong - which I may be - but don't you have to be born in the US in order to be president? So if he actually was born out of the US, I say no, he shouldn't be president.

But I don't much care for the mud slinging competition that this has turned into the passed few months.

Bond · 08-10-2009, 07:42 PM

You're right, Typhoid.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution:

Quote:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...articleii.html

Professor S · 08-10-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bond

You're right, Typhoid.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution:

Ah, but then the argument begins of what "natural born" means. All current legal precedent supports the notion that citizenship follows blood before boundaries. Meaning: Obama's mom was a citizen so he is a citizen, regardless of where he was born.

Bond · 08-10-2009, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

Ah, but then the argument begins of what "natural born" means. All current legal precedent supports the notion that citizenship follows blood before boundaries. Meaning: Obama's mom was a citizen so he is a citizen, regardless of where he was born.

True, but there are still limitations. For instance, whether or not the child was born overseas to one or two U.S. citizen parents, whether or not those parents were in wedlock, etc.

In any case, this makes the "Birthers" argument even more absurd.

Jason1 · 08-10-2009, 10:50 PM

This crap is so stupid, the Republicans need to just remember they had their 8 years of fun and look how they turned out they need to just shut their mouths and stop whining and let the Democrats do it their way and we will all see if we are better off or not after 4 years... we will be

TheGame · 08-11-2009, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason1

This crap is so stupid, the Republicans need to just remember they had their 8 years of fun and look how they turned out they need to just shut their mouths and stop whining and let the Democrats do it their way and we will all see if we are better off or not after 4 years... we will be

Sometimes I wonder if its possible for things to get worse then they were with Bush. He set the bar so low that it's hard to imagine Obama being any worse.

As for the birth certificate issue, I think anyone who really follows it and really belives that there is some type of conspiracy to it is a lunatic.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

People who deny that as evidence only belive in what they chose to belive in. (Though in the words of morpheus"How do you define real?")

And Bond, I'd agree with the second point you made about it being a smart political play on the part of the democrats to keep it running.. but I think the real problem is the republican party itself. The people who represent their party are hte ones who keep adding flames to the fire of this issue by not taking a stand and saying that Obama is a US citezen. Its like they're scared that they'll lose some support if they just squash it and say the truth.

I like how he makes him admit that this is stupid.

KillerGremlin · 08-11-2009, 02:36 PM

With a - what was it? 1200 pages? - health bill on the line, it seems like the appropriate time for the major news corporations to focus on non-issues like the insane and minority group, the "Birthers." Instead of talking to Congress about this new proposed bill and having intelligible discussion, the media has decided to fixate on another superfluous Obama-topic. Oh no, Obama uses mustard! Oh no, the Obama family is getting a new dog!

And even the semi-intellectuals get suckered into this. Oh, well the birthers are all republicans. Oh no the republicans are holding Obama down. Oh yeahhh.

SERIOUSLY?! Who gives a shit about these birthers. Why are major news outlets opening up a platform for the birthers to speak? Why are they important? Fuck the news corporations. You think Murdock doesn't know that you're sitting at home sipping on your Big Gulp and getting an erection when the pseudo-news discusses irrelevant topics like birthers. Fuck this. If I was having a conversation with someone about politics and they announced they were a Birhter I would just walk away on the pretense that this person is much less intelligent than me and anything they have to say is not worth hearing. I'm pretty stupid myself. SO IF I CAN COME TO THIS CONCLUSION HOW COME THE NEWS PEOPLE CANT.

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/do...-to-Death.html

Professor S · 08-11-2009, 02:46 PM

Huxley's version of the future was always far more frightening to me. Oppression from an outside source will always eventually be overthrown, because to rule you inevitably must have the will of the people. Even the Romans understood this and most of their conquered people's were willing participants in the end.

But a society that allows itself to be catered to and taken care of? There is no one to fight that kind of soft oppression when people will hand over their freedom in exchange for reduced personal responsibility. They are the willfully oppressed. The retarded children of the much derided "nanny state".

There is no freedom without responsibility.

But we are WAY off topic.

Personally, I think Birthers for the most part are people who are genuinely concerned about their county's direction under Obama, but they misplace their objections and concentrate on the meaningless and trivial, attacking President Obama as a person, rather than concentrating on countering his ideas and policies. These people are easily dismissed because there is no substance to the argument.

Think of the difference in affect of the two current news items:

The Birthers are overwhelmingly dismissed, even by most conservative talk show hosts, and their cause has gotten them nowhere because they are consumed with Obama Derangement Syndrome (not unlike Sean Hannity's infamous Bush Derangement Syndrome) and attack Pres. Obama the person.

Meanwhile the healthcare town halls are full of people who are passionately arguing policy going line by line through the healthcare plans and the left is reduced to trying to attack the people at the meetings and not their criticisms (Pelosi even claimed people were bringing Swastikas to events, which is utterly untrue and disgusting) and the critics are currently winning the argument.

Ideas will always win if you choose to argue them and not attack the messenger. When you attack the messenger, normally it's a sure sign you're position is weak or deceitful.

KillerGremlin · 08-11-2009, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

Personally, I think Birthers for the most part are people who are genuinely concerned about their county's direction under Obama, but they misplace their objections and concentrate on the meaningless and trivial, attacking President Obama as a person, rather than concentrating on countering his ideas and policies. These people are easily dismissed because there is no substance to the argument.

Think of the difference in affect of the two current news items:

The Birthers are overwhelmingly dismissed, even by most conservative talk show hosts, and their cause has gotten them nowhere because they are consumed with Obama Derangement Syndrome (not unlike Sean Hannity's infamous Bush Derangement Syndrome) and attack Pres. Obama the person.

Meanwhile the healthcare town halls are full of people who are passionately arguing policy going line by line through the healthcare plans and the left is reduced to trying to attack the people at the meetings and not their criticisms (Pelosi even claimed people were bringing Swastikas to events, which is utterly untrue and disgusting) and the critics are currently winning the argument.

Ideas will always win if you choose to argue them and not attack the messenger. When you attack the messenger, normally it's a sure sign you're position is weak or deceitful.

I think this is pretty accurate and sums everything up nicely.

You have to pardon my above post...I am a little bitter.

Bond · 08-11-2009, 03:52 PM

Huxley's vision is interesting, but haven't the masses always been uninformed? Hasn't a small minority always brought civilizations forward to progress, that, either directly or indirectly, benefited all? I'm not so sure if Huxley's vision of the world is the exception to the rule, but rather the rule.

Back on topic, it's hard for anyone to have a frank and honest discourse about health care reform when: a) hardly anyone understands the health care and insurance industry and b) no one has read the proposed bills. I don't think that most people realize that the majority of bills that are passed through the Senate are never read. The Stimulus Package? Passed in under twenty-four hours. The Patriot Act? Voted positively on by the keyword "Patriot."

The above, in my view, is what drives coverage of irrelevant issues, such as the "Birthers," such as Michael Jackson, etc.