Presidential Debate(s)

[Pandemonium]

Actually, when the birth issue first came about, there were legitimate questions raised about it... which were answered.

But those same questions never went away and are now considered retarded questions.

Exactly.

As for Romeo's comment about McCain, he was born on a US military installation in Panama which under a Congressional law is considered US territory. The issue with Obama's eligibility to be President was a significantly different set of circumstances. It also bears mentioning that the claims originated from Hillary Clinton's supporters during the early Democratic primaries... who I guess are racists.

"legitimate questions".

You might wanna sit this one out while the adults are expressing their objective opinions.

[Hype]

See, that's the problem. You're not. I'm far more qualified to be discussing legitimate questions in political discourse than probably anyone here except Lokus. My dept. is specifically known as a political philosophy dept. We have guys here who did their MAs at the LSE (Hayek's school), and profs who were students of G.A. Cohen at Oxford. I have conversations like this every day with people who know more about it than I do.

You can pretend to be grown-ups discussing "opinions" all you like, but I will call out bullshit when I see it. Feel free to evade defending your "opinion", if you like.

What my eye-roll was really asking for was some sort of justification for the claim that any question asked about Barack Obama with respect to his citizenship was "legitimate". This is especially germane given my earlier pressing on the out-of-the-ordinary questioning of the legitimacy of this president on grounds having nothing whatsoever to do with facts.

[Pandemonium]

See, that's the problem. You're not. I'm far more qualified to be discussing legitimate questions in political discourse than probably anyone here except Lokus. My dept. is specifically known as a political philosophy dept. We have guys here who did their MAs at the LSE (Hayek's school), and profs who were students of G.A. Cohen at Oxford. I have conversations like this every day with people who know more about it than I do.

You can pretend to be grown-ups discussing "opinions" all you like, but I will call out bullshit when I see it. Feel free to evade defending your "opinion", if you like.

What my eye-roll was really asking for was some sort of justification for the claim that any question asked about Barack Obama with respect to his citizenship was "legitimate". This is especially germane given my earlier pressing on the out-of-the-ordinary questioning of the legitimacy of this president on grounds having nothing whatsoever to do with facts.

Wahh. Wahh. Wahh. Spare me the resume.

I guess throwing a few Smilies in lieu of an intelligent reply is something they teach you in your political philosophy dept?

As for "evading...." It's as simple as this - the questions about his citizenship clearly had no merit all said and done, but the fact that he was running for the highest office in the country dictated that he should have squashed them with solid proof on day one. The fact he took so long to address them and in an oddly circumspect way only added to some people's questions about the perceived matter. Silly or not, it was a legitimate issue due to the possible impact on his run for the White House at the time.

[Hype]

You changed the topic.

[tvrec]

Here's the problem with the notion of legitimate questions concerning citizenship and the US Presidency. Given the constitutional requirement that the President be a US Citizen by birth, it is certainly legitimate that ALL candidates verifiably meet that requirement through the established means. I don't know exactly what that is (though I should, I should), but I would assume somewhere in the process of filing for candidacy the appropriate vetting takes place. Obama met those requirements. What de-legitimated the entire question of citizenship as it concerns Obama is that he was the ONLY candidate and President who was asked to provide that verification to the public at large so it could be assuaged of his "legitimate" claim to run for or claim the office. In other words, the problem is not with the legitimacy of the citizenship requirement but in its use as means to question the legitimacy of one specific individual, who happens to be black, who happens to have a foreign-sounding name, etc.

The issue has parallels, I think, in Arizona's SB 1070 (that the "illegals" law, right?). The law that people residing in the state have legal standing in the country is not the matter of contention. Rather, it is the selective use of that law to target people who are perceived not to have legal status, i.e., Hispanics, and asking them to prove their status. Why does an American of Guatemalan or Mexican descent have to prove his citizenship immediately upon request, when one of German or Finnish descent will never be asked to do the same? That's not to say that just as many illegal aliens from Germany and Finland are living/working in Arizona as from the Americas but that the law targets specific "illegals" who, by the by, happen to look just like many Americans.

What's more, responding to the Birther nonsense only dignifies the not very covert racism that informs it. In other words, responding gives the question the appearance of legitimacy that it doesn't really have.

[Romeo]

Here's the problem with the notion of legitimate questions concerning citizenship and the US Presidency. Given the constitutional requirement that the President be a US Citizen by birth, it is certainly legitimate that ALL candidates verifiably meet that requirement through the established means. I don't know exactly what that is (though I should, I should), but I would assume somewhere in the process of filing for candidacy the appropriate vetting takes place. Obama met those requirements. What de-legitimated the entire question of citizenship as it concerns Obama is that he was the ONLY candidate and President who was asked to provide that verification to the public at large so it could be assuaged of his "legitimate" claim to run for or claim the office. In other words, the problem is not with the legitimacy of the citizenship requirement but in its use as means to question the legitimacy of one specific individual, who happens to be black, who happens to have a foreign-sounding name, etc.

This



As much as we would like to deny the fact we still have a majority of racists in this country, we do. More than we would like to admit. If it's not against African Americans it's hispanics or muslims. Post 9/11 anyone wearing a turban was a target. Forget that majority of the people wearing turbans for religious reasons were Hindu.
Those so called "patriotic" americans are only patriotic for those who are white.

[MYXYLPLYX]

Here ya go:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/art ... 986183.php

AP poll: Majority harbor prejudice against blacks

[Juana]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... s-concern/

[Hype]

Forget that majority of the people wearing turbans for religious reasons were Hindu.

I think you mean Sikh.

[Romeo]

well they aren't muslim or arab or whatever people thought they were...

[Hype]

well they aren't muslim or arab or whatever people thought they were...

Indeed. Sikhs are a very small minority population in India. The religion was originally founded as a kind of liberalized Hinduism by Guru Nanak. Sikh men and women take the last names Singh and Kaur to avoid being identified as members of a particular caste -- which is still a problem in India these days in spite of the caste system officially being abolished decades ago.

[farrellgirl99]

well they aren't muslim or arab or whatever people thought they were...

Indeed. Sikhs are a very small minority population in India. The religion was originally founded as a kind of liberalized Hinduism by Guru Nanak. Sikh men and women take the last names Singh and Kaur to avoid being identified as members of a particular caste -- which is still a problem in India these days in spite of the caste system officially being abolished decades ago.

one of my closest friends is sikh. such an interesting religion/culture. she's never cut her hair because its against her religion, for example. hence why men wear turbans.

[Hype]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... 27721.html

Colin Powell's former chief of staff condemned the Republican Party on Friday night, telling MSNBC's Ed Schultz, "My party is full of racists."

Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson made the comment in response to Mitt Romney campaign surrogate John Sununu's suggestion on Thursday that Powell's endorsement of President Barack Obama's re-election was motivated by race. Wilkerson, who served as Powell's chief of staff when the general was secretary of state during the first George W. Bush term, told Schultz that he respected Sununu "as a Republican, as a member of my party," but did not "have any respect for the integrity of the position that [Sununu] seemed to codify."

When asked by Schultz what, if anything, the remark said about the attitudes of the Republican Party, Wilkerson said:

My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people -- not all of them, but most of them -- who are still basing their positions on race. Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable.

The retired colonel also said that "to say that Colin Powell would endorse President Obama because of his skin color is like saying Mother Theresa worked for profit."

Powell, a Republican, endorsed Obama for the second time on Thursday morning -- he also backed the president in 2008 -- saying on CBS' "This Morning" that he was "more comfortable with President Obama and his administration" than with Romney on a host of issues.

Sununu, no stranger to incendiary rhetoric this election cycle, reacted to the endorsement on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," saying that "when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama."

Obama himself dismissed Sununu's suggestion on Friday, telling radio host Michael Smerconish:

Any suggestion that Gen. Powell would make such a profound statement in such an important election based on anything but what he thought was what's going to be best for America doesn't make much sense.

Sununu backed off his remarks shortly after his CNN appearance, issuing a statement that said Powell is a friend and, “I respect the endorsement decision he made, and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the President’s policies."

[Hype]

Here ya go:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/art ... 986183.php

AP poll: Majority harbor prejudice against blacks

51% explicit.

[ellis]

See, that's the problem. You're not. I'm far more qualified to be discussing legitimate questions in political discourse than probably anyone here except Lokus. My dept. is specifically known as a political philosophy dept. We have guys here who did their MAs at the LSE (Hayek's school), and profs who were students of G.A. Cohen at Oxford. I have conversations like this every day with people who know more about it than I do.

You can pretend to be grown-ups discussing "opinions" all you like, but I will call out bullshit when I see it. Feel free to evade defending your "opinion", if you like.

What my eye-roll was really asking for was some sort of justification for the claim that any question asked about Barack Obama with respect to his citizenship was "legitimate". This is especially germane given my earlier pressing on the out-of-the-ordinary questioning of the legitimacy of this president on grounds having nothing whatsoever to do with facts.

Well then it's settled.


Everyone get the fuck out of this thread!!
You're unworthy of hype's presence and you'll only make him twitchy.

[Hype]

See, that's the problem. You're not. I'm far more qualified to be discussing legitimate questions in political discourse than probably anyone here except Lokus. My dept. is specifically known as a political philosophy dept. We have guys here who did their MAs at the LSE (Hayek's school), and profs who were students of G.A. Cohen at Oxford. I have conversations like this every day with people who know more about it than I do.

You can pretend to be grown-ups discussing "opinions" all you like, but I will call out bullshit when I see it. Feel free to evade defending your "opinion", if you like.

What my eye-roll was really asking for was some sort of justification for the claim that any question asked about Barack Obama with respect to his citizenship was "legitimate". This is especially germane given my earlier pressing on the out-of-the-ordinary questioning of the legitimacy of this president on grounds having nothing whatsoever to do with facts.

Well then it's settled.


Everyone get the fuck out of this thread!!
You're unworthy of hype's presence and you'll only make him twitchy.

I didn't say anything like that until I was told that "grown-ups" were talking, because I used an eye-rolling smiley toward undefended nonsense. I'm perfectly fine with discussing anything with anyone, but I won't be unjustly belittled by someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[Juana]

its the innerwebs Hype, have fun! get you some wine buddy and relax... American politics is a laughing matter anyway.

BTW I did vote for Jill, fuck it its a CA vote and Obama is going to win CA so might as well get some 3rd party love out there!

[Hype]

its the innerwebs Hype, have fun! get you some wine buddy and relax... American politics is a laughing matter anyway.

BTW I did vote for Jill, fuck it its a CA vote and Obama is going to win CA so might as well get some 3rd party love out there!

What makes you think I have no wine in me.

[Juana]

its the innerwebs Hype, have fun! get you some wine buddy and relax... American politics is a laughing matter anyway.

BTW I did vote for Jill, fuck it its a CA vote and Obama is going to win CA so might as well get some 3rd party love out there!

What makes you think I have no wine in me.

You have not called me a sociopath yet, duh!

[Hype]

its the innerwebs Hype, have fun! get you some wine buddy and relax... American politics is a laughing matter anyway.

BTW I did vote for Jill, fuck it its a CA vote and Obama is going to win CA so might as well get some 3rd party love out there!

What makes you think I have no wine in me.

You have not called me a sociopath yet, duh!

Well, I can't now. You voted left.

[ellis]

I didn't say anything like that until I was told that "grown-ups" were talking, because I used an eye-rolling smiley toward undefended nonsense. I'm perfectly fine with discussing anything with anyone, but I won't be unjustly belittled by someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

That sounds eerily similar to what everyone has said about conversing with you on any topic.

[ellis]

BTW I did vote for Jill,

Thank you!!!

[Hype]

I didn't say anything like that until I was told that "grown-ups" were talking, because I used an eye-rolling smiley toward undefended nonsense. I'm perfectly fine with discussing anything with anyone, but I won't be unjustly belittled by someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

That sounds eerily similar to what everyone has said about conversing with you on any topic.

Well, frankly, I probably wouldn't have this kind of discussion with most people in person. But when something is written, it's easy enough to quote it and basically say "What the fuck?!" After all, you and Pandemonium did decide to take a particular side on the issue of questioning the President's birth certificate. Trying to claim that this is about "objective opinions" (which is a contradiction in terms anyway) is idiotic, since either you meant something trivial or you meant something controversial. If what you meant was the trivial claim that it's not illegitimate for someone to simply ask any random question of any other person, then yeah... obviously. But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether racism motivated the question in the first place, and lay behind its being sustained for as long as it was after the President condescended to provide the information Trump and those other idiots were asking for.

If you just want to say random shit and not have to back it up, fine, but you should say that to me so I know not to talk to you anymore.

[ellis]

I only pointed out that in the beginning, legitimate questions were asked... and then answered. Even Democrats asked about it.

After that, everything was done with and the Obama campaign continued (4+ years ago).

Everything that happened after that regarding the birth certificate was retarded and still is.

[SR]

Asked and answered every time......it lingers with Obama because of his name and half his color.....

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.