Well, looks like the president caved into pressure and released his long form birth certificate.
Good for him. I don't know why he waited this long, but I'm glad he finally released it. I had a gut feeling he would when the poll came out earlier this week that showed only 38% of Americans were positive he was born in the US. It would have become a big campaign issue that would have detracted from what should be debated and discussed. Hopefully this will get most of the birthers to lay off the subject and discuss what is really important.
Trump is taking all of the credit for it, and now wants him to release his college records.
Ooooooh boy.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:It would have become a big campaign issue that would have detracted from what should be debated and discussed.
The debate should have been closed years ago, seeing as all the evidence was in his favor - do you think it won't be an issue now?
--j_k
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Ugh. Why are Americans so stupid?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*twitches*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Geraine: I'm betting it was the hospital that caved into pressure as they have indicated they don't release long form certificates or copies of those certificates. Not nobody not no how.
But whatever, I'm so sick of this even being an issue much less news.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Personally, I think Obama should have waited until the general. This was making the Republican base look ridiculous and may have been the issue on which they nominate a wingnut that can't win the general. Not that it's a good thing to have a crappy Republican candidate, but if I were a cynical, calculating politico (as every presidential election committee surely has at its head), that would be my move.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Geraine: I'm betting it was the hospital that caved into pressure as they have indicated they don't release long form certificates or copies of those certificates. Not nobody not no how.
But whatever, I'm so sick of this even being an issue much less news.
The President hired a lawyer last week to grab a copy from Hawaii - there's a PDF floating around of the letter. The writer notes that the hosptial doesn't release long form certificates, but asks that the Department of Health be willing to make an exception in this case.
Here's the letter on CNN.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Anyone want to take bets on the numbers for the next poll for "don't believe that Obama is a natural born citizen". I'm taking 30% general populace.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Personally, I think Obama should have waited until the general. This was making the Republican base look ridiculous and may have been the issue on which they nominate a wingnut that can't win the general. Not that it's a good thing to have a crappy Republican candidate, but if I were a cynical, calculating politico (as every presidential election committee surely has at its head), that would be my move.
Well, as Geraine mentioned: Trump is already taking credit for "forcing" Obama's hand. But think about it: if this pushes Trump up in the polls, exactly how has the President lost?
--j_k
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well, as Geraine mentioned: Trump is already taking credit for "forcing" Obama's hand. But think about it: if this pushes Trump up in the polls, exactly how has the President lost?
It's a really really strange world where someone can spin being proven wrong as a win.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
What I wouldn't touch Trump with just changed from a 10-foot pole to a redwood.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Trump is taking all of the credit for it, and now wants him to release his college records.
If you give a mouse a cookie...
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Question is, will this actually satisfy the birthers or will they insist there is something wrong with this one too?
I bet there will still be a bunch of people out there demanding some other form of "proof" on this one.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Trump is taking all of the credit for it, and now wants him to release his college records.
If you give a mouse a cookie...
Hah!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well, you should always show up with 2 forms of ID.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Geraine: I'm betting it was the hospital that caved into pressure as they have indicated they don't release long form certificates or copies of those certificates. Not nobody not no how.
But whatever, I'm so sick of this even being an issue much less news.
The President hired a lawyer last week to grab a copy from Hawaii - there's a PDF floating around of the letter. The writer notes that the hosptial doesn't release long form certificates, but asks that the Department of Health be willing to make an exception in this case.
The birth certificate is issued by the state of Hawaii... the hospital has nothing to do with it other than supplying the information to the DOH within a few days/weeks of birth.
As an employee of the Hawaii State Department of Health, I'd find all of this amusing if it wasn't so pathetic. I agree that this will not satisfy the crazies... they'll be complaining about something else just as silly before too much longer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Question is, will this actually satisfy the birthers or will they insist there is something wrong with this one too?
I bet there will still be a bunch of people out there demanding some other form of "proof" on this one.
Yup!! Birthers aren't exactly the kind of people who are noted for their ability to assimilate facts and alter their opinions accordingly.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Question is, will this actually satisfy the birthers or will they insist there is something wrong with this one too?
I bet there will still be a bunch of people out there demanding some other form of "proof" on this one.
I am sure they will just move on from this to the whole Indonesian adoption / public school thing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I haven't followed politics closely in a long time, as I find it a painful topic...
Is this really still an issue? I mean, he's been president for over two years now...if this was going to be a real issue it would have had any impact it would have had before he was sworn in.
With everything that is wrong with the world, I think it reflects very poorly on the human race that this is still even spoken of.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Well, as Geraine mentioned: Trump is already taking credit for "forcing" Obama's hand. But think about it: if this pushes Trump up in the polls, exactly how has the President lost?
It's a really really strange world where someone can spin being proven wrong as a win.
The Republican National Committee Chairman has also taken the opportunity to criticize Obama for wasting time on this distraction rather than fixing the economy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Well, as Geraine mentioned: Trump is already taking credit for "forcing" Obama's hand. But think about it: if this pushes Trump up in the polls, exactly how has the President lost?
It's a really really strange world where someone can spin being proven wrong as a win.
The Republican National Committee Chairman has also taken the opportunity to criticize Obama for wasting time on this distraction rather than fixing the economy.
How long do you think it took the President to ask someone to hire a lawyer to write a letter an pick up the birth certificates -- 5 minutes? Maybe 30 at the outside if you include the discussion with an advisor as well?
Does the GOP really believe that 30 minutes of the Presidents time would make a huge difference in the state of the economy?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Of course they do not...they are simply playing both ends to the middle.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I can hear the voices screaming "Its a FAKE!!!!!!!" already.
Normally they are just the voices in my head, but I look forward with dread for them to be joined by the "He can't be born in America--he don't look like us" crowd to chime in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It won't make any difference. President Obama is "other", "not like us" and that won't change. People will just have to find something else to hang that on.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The voices in my head speak German...and I don't.
Maybe it's Klingon...don't speak that either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I can hear the voices screaming "Its a FAKE!!!!!!!" already.
Normally they are just the voices in my head, but I look forward with dread for them to be joined by the "He can't be born in America--he don't look like us" crowd to chime in.
I ALMOST posted the video, but, I figured we all had it playing in our heads anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: The Republican National Committee Chairman has also taken the opportunity to criticize Obama for wasting time on this distraction rather than fixing the economy.
america the beautiful
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It didn't really jump into my mind because the Senator was actually right, but now it is Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Now, on to the long-standing controversy over whether Obama is a cactus. Why is he waiting so long to release his full genome? If he already has, I apologize, and replace my post with "Why is he wasting time and energy on this distraction when he could be fixing the economy?"
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Question is, will this actually satisfy the birthers or will they insist there is something wrong with this one too?
I bet there will still be a bunch of people out there demanding some other form of "proof" on this one.
There are some insisting that there's something wrong with it. Forgery, photoshop, whatever. It's pathetic really.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There are some insisting that there's something wrong with it. Forgery, photoshop, whatever. It's pathetic really
And really predictable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Happy Camper: There are some insisting that there's something wrong with it. Forgery, photoshop, whatever. It's pathetic really.
Most common at this point: A conspiracy between Obama's parents and a complicit Hawaiian hospital, or something along those lines.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You don't think it's a little convenient that the doctor has been dead for eight years? And what with Obama being involved with the Chicago political machine. First the Clintons with Vince Foster, now Obama with his own fake birth doctor!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Yes that's very convenient --- for the birthers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Since when has Beck been a birther hater?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Wow, talk about a 180.
Since when has Beck been a birther hater?
i just googled it. It seems Beck has been anti-birther for at least 2 years. Which just goes to prove that no one can be wrong all the time.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Since it became a chance to build a new conspiracy.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
quote:Originally posted by Happy Camper: There are some insisting that there's something wrong with it. Forgery, photoshop, whatever. It's pathetic really.
I think Obama looks photoshopped.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Oh, and lets see.... President has to be over 35 years old. Doctors range in age from mid 20's to mid 60's-- Meaning any doctor who presides at a birth will be between 60 and 100 years old by the time the child they birth gets to be president.
That means the odds of any doctor being alive and of sound mind by the time the baby becomes president are....not over 50%.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Well, as Geraine mentioned: Trump is already taking credit for "forcing" Obama's hand. But think about it: if this pushes Trump up in the polls, exactly how has the President lost?
It's a really really strange world where someone can spin being proven wrong as a win.
He was just asking questions.
--j_k, facetious
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Doctors range in age from mid 20's to mid 60's-
Too generous. In the US, to become an OB/Gyn requires 4 years of undergraduate studies, 4 years of medical school and 4 years of residency. So if a person enters college at age 18, they couldn't be licensed as an OB/Gyn until age 30 at the earliest.
The average age of Presidents at election is ~ 55. The youngest person ever elected President (JFK) was 43+. If he had been delivered by a freshly minted OB/Gyn, the doctor would have been around 73 at the time of his election.
Obama is younger than the average President. He will be 50 in August. So the youngest we might reasonably expected the doctor who delivered him to be would be 80. That's the low end, so chances that the doctor who delivered him (or any President) would alive are way lower than 50%.
Even if the doctor was alive, what do you think the chances are that an OB/GYN would remember delivering a specific baby 5 decades ago unless there were something highly unusual about the birth? Do you think the doctor who delivered you, remembers it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Well, yeah. I had him fake an American birth certificate for me just in case I wanted to be President.)
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
That didn't take long. Look at the comments... Amazing.
One person typed a comment saying that apparently the hospital listed on the certificate wasn't around until 1978, they went under a different name at that time.
Sigh....Here we go again.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
quote:Even if the doctor was alive, what do you think the chances are that an OB/GYN would remember delivering a specific baby 5 decades ago unless there were something highly unusual about the birth? Do you think the doctor who delivered you, remembers it? [/QB]
I like to think so. I'm simply that awesome. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
One person typed a comment saying that apparently the hospital listed on the certificate wasn't around until 1978, they went under a different name at that time.
Sigh....Here we go again.
It's almost as if things like 'evidence' don't matter to them.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Happy Camper:
quote:Even if the doctor was alive, what do you think the chances are that an OB/GYN would remember delivering a specific baby 5 decades ago unless there were something highly unusual about the birth? Do you think the doctor who delivered you, remembers it?
I like to think so. I'm simply that awesome. [/QB]
"I remember giving birth to the president, because I did so IN COMMUNIST MUSLIM KENYA and the father was WILLIAM AYERS".
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I'm a miracle baby so my dr might remember me. Maybe not by name, but the details should be like, oh yeah, I remember that one.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
He still sucks. He sucked before the birther thing, he still refuses to release any of his transcripts, and... oh, yeah, he sucks.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: He still sucks. He sucked before the birther thing, he still refuses to release any of his transcripts, and... oh, yeah, he sucks.
So what? If he released his transcripts and they showed straight As, would you decide he didn't suck? Would anyone?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't trust people with straight As...only crooked As.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: He still sucks. He sucked before the birther thing, he still refuses to release any of his transcripts, and... oh, yeah, he sucks.
- A person whose fixative dislike of Obama wouldn't be swayed an iota by the content of said transcripts Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I tried to watch that link, but repeated fire effect was a bit nauseating.
Good to see some intelligent and rational arguments from Lisa about Obama.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I work as a college registrar. If anyone should think that college transcripts are relevant, I'd think I would.
But why on earth would someone's transcripts from decades prior be remotely relevant? I question Bush Jr.'s intelligence because of things he did during his political career, not especially because he was a lousy student.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I've been to college twice. The first time around my grades were abysmal. The second time they are straight As. This had everything to do with my organizational skills and level of maturity at the time and precious little to do with intelligence.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Donald Trump already brought this one up, but the new frontier in questioning the president's legitimacy is asking about his college years. Because, in their minds, there is simply no way a black man gets into a good school without receiving special favors or somehow cheating, the Schoolers are developing weird, complex theories about how Barack Obama transfered from Occidental to Columbia (and then got accepted into Harvard Law). The new rallying cry will be "release the transcripts."
This will probably be the most popular of the new avenues of birtherism, though may not bleed into the mainstream discourse with as much ease as the birth certificate stuff, because it has no bearing whatsoever on the president's qualifications to be president. Schoolerism is simply about proving that the president's a phony who duped the world with his hoodoo, "the biggest affirmative action baby in history" in the detestable words of Mickey Kaus.
In the imaginings of the crowd desperately searching for evidence that Barack Obama is who they wish he was, the president was obviously, transparently unqualified to go to an elite university, because just look at him.
So birtherism will survive. It will mutate and adapt. There's no satisfying some people.
I can't wait! Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
You know, if it turned out that he got into college because of affirmative action and was then able to use that as a foundation to go on to be President of the Harvard Law Review then have a successful career in politics culminating with the presidency of the United states, then I'd say that's a win for affirmative action.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no, no it's not. because, um
- socialism bad - something about bootstraps? - them furriners taking all our president jobs
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
How can someone who only gets into law school because of affirmative action graduate magna cum laude?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
FYI, Oxy is no Columbia, but they're pretty picky about who they admit too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Affirmative Action, from how I most often have heard it described, has been less about underqualified minorities than it has been about equally qualified minorities simply getting preference. I've never really researched AA, and from what I can tell, implementation varies by institution anyway, so there's no one policy, but it doesn't automatically mean "Less qualified."
Interesting how plainly this morphed into a race thing. Before they at least had the guile to use code words.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: How can someone who only gets into law school because of affirmative action graduate magna cum laude?
I'm sure it's because of something patently unfair; let's just work on that as we make more and more insistent calls like "why hasn't he shown his transcripts yet? what is he hiding!"
Oh god i'm already watching it happen, too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Wow, talk about a 180.
Since when has Beck been a birther hater?
As soon as it stopped making him money?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No. But he's spent an inordinate amount of money to resist their release.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I work as a college registrar. If anyone should think that college transcripts are relevant, I'd think I would.
But why on earth would someone's transcripts from decades prior be remotely relevant? I question Bush Jr.'s intelligence because of things he did during his political career, not especially because he was a lousy student.
I think the issue is more what classes he took and who taught them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. But he's spent an inordinate amount of money to resist their release.
Um, no. The birthers have noted the entire legal bill for his campaign (~$1.7M) and made the unsubstantiated claim that this was the cost of addressing birther-related legal matters because they can't conceive of a presidential campaign having any other legal costs.
It doesn't cost very much to have a lawyer write a motion to dismiss and for the judge to say "OK".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Please note that Lisa isn't saying much about the much greater sums Obama's detractors have spent criticizing him about it, or tying up the courts in attacking him over it. No. He sucks because he hasn't (supposedly) done more to pander to debunking conspiracy theories.
This has nothing to do with Lisa's very substantial grudge against the Obama Administration in general, and I'm sure we'll hear a, "Whoops, my bad," on the 'he's spent so much money on this' talk from her in short order.
Yeah. I used to respect that you came at discussing politics with at least good intentions, Lisa. I mean I frequently, and I mean frequently disagreed with you but I didn't think it came from a really personally nasty place or anything. You came at things from a very different perspective than I did, one that I thought bore thinking about-an 'in the trenches' attitude. I just can't say that anymore. You're sticking up for birthers here. I mean, it's not as though this crap wasn't put to bed ages ago anyway - and it was, for people who weren't just looking for a serious axe to grind - but what do you say when it's killed like a stake through the heart of a vampire?
"Well, he still sucks. And he spent a whole lot of money on this anyway." I've frequently disagreed with you, but I don't know when over the years your approach to politics turned so chicken@#$t. That's very coarse and harsh, and it might be edited by JB-but it really feels accurate to me and I mean it as an attack on your method of approaching this issue.
People who've been attacking Obama on this have been wrong on this issue. They've been wrong for years. Ridiculously, xenophobically wrong-and what's more we didn't just know that now, when this was released. It's been known since newspapers, lawyers, judges, and hostile politicians investigated this and the only people who gave this stuff any credence are the ones who we'd likely cross the street to avoid in many circumstances. Who would quite often cross the street to avoid you, in fact.
It's only because I like the word, not to instruct you in Yiddish, but the mensch thing to do would be to say, if you were gonna say anything at all, "Yeah, that whole business was dumb." But to say, "He still sucks, and all that money he spends on it, man! He sucks!"
Chicken@#$t. That's just cowardly politics, and it's really pretty silly because it demeans you and the politics you endorse and elevates him by making him look better. He's supposed to, what, help his conspiracy-mongering opposition?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think the issue is more what classes he took and who taught them.
??? and that would be relevant WHY?!?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Presumably he took a bunch of classes on Marxism, banning guns, socialized medicine, appeasing terrorists, etc.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
With a name like Barak Hussein Obama, that sort of thing is likely inborn. He probably taught those classes, not took `em.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Presumably he took a bunch of classes on Marxism, banning guns, socialized medicine, appeasing terrorists, etc.
I guess I should have gone to Columbia after all! I didn't get to take any of those at UCLA. *pout*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think the issue is more what classes he took and who taught them.
??? and that would be relevant WHY?!?
Don't you know? When you take a class with someone, you automatically subscribe to all of their beliefs, forever.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Aw, crap. The TA who taught my freshman comp class was SUCH a jerk.
Bummer!
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Presumably he took a bunch of classes on Marxism, banning guns, socialized medicine, appeasing terrorists, etc.
Of course he did. We don't need the transcripts to prove that. I mean, that's all they teach at college these days right?
And yes, I don't like the guy but even I can see that many of the attacks on him are pretty ridiculous.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. But he's spent an inordinate amount of money to resist their release.
I think I have you figured out now.
Between assuring us that the mavi marmara totally had missiles on it, obama surrendered land to mexican criminals, and ron paul is totally coming up from behind to win, maybe you need to wake up and discover that you are so gullible and easy to string along on hopelessly biased, totally BS information that you need to fix that or it is impossible to take you seriously
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
This is sounding more like the sub-plot of Empire and less like a political inquiry.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: With a name like Barak Hussein Obama, that sort of thing is likely inborn. He probably taught those classes, not took `em.
Well, he was tutored in those subjects by William Ayers, first. THEN he taught them - to an entire generation of innocent grade schoolers! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Fox headline: "White House Releases What it Says is President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate"
quote:Not really, I wasn't really sure what to believe before and still don't Nothing the president can do will make me believe he's eligible to be president No, I already thought he was American-born so this doesn't change my mind Yes, I didn't believe it before, but I'm now convinced he's American-born
And apparently "nothing the president can do will make me believe he's eligible" is the winner. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
link?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Look, I hate to admit it, but sometimes you just have to give credit where credit is due.
quote:Looks Like Trump's Right: How the Hell Did This President Get Into Those Ivy League Schools?
- "The dean looked over Barack's transcript and college boards and then suggested in a kindly way that he apply to some less competitive colleges in addition to Columbia." - "There were no class rankings at his high school, but Barack never made honor roll even one term, unlike 110 boys in his class." - "His SAT scores were 566 for the verbal part and 640 for math. Those were far below the median scores for students admitted to his class at Columbia: 668 verbal and 718 math." - "At Columbia, Barack Obama distinguished himself primarily as a hard partier, and he managed to be detained by police twice during his university years: once for stealing a Christmas wreath as a fraternity prank and once for trying to tear down the goalposts during a football game at Princeton." - "Obama's transcript at Columbia shows that he was a solid C student. Although a history major, he sampled widely in the social sciences and did poorly in political science and economics while achieving some of his best grades (the equivalent of a B+) in philosophy and anthropology. The transcript indicates that in Obama's freshman year, the only year for which rankings were available, he was in the twenty-first percentile of his class—meaning that four-fifths of the students were above him. Yet at the same time that he was earning Cs at Columbia, Obama displayed a formidable intelligence in another way. At his induction into the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity, he and others were asked to name all fifty-four pledges in the room. Most were were able to name only five or six. When it was Obama's turn, he named every single one. Later he rose to become president of DKE, and he was also tapped into Skull and Bones, an elite secret society to which his father had also belonged." And then he somehow got into Harvard for graduate school.
Oh, wait. My bad. I made a mistake. Please replace the reference to "high school" with "Andover." Please replace "Columbia" with "Yale." Please replace "Barack Obama" with "George W. Bush." Thanks.
As funny as the above is, I guarantee that pieces of it will soon be quoted out of context and used in a serious manner.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
It's at the bottom and doesn't have its own page.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Look, I hate to admit it, but sometimes you just have to give credit where credit is due.
quote:Looks Like Trump's Right: How the Hell Did This President Get Into Those Ivy League Schools?
- "The dean looked over Barack's transcript and college boards and then suggested in a kindly way that he apply to some less competitive colleges in addition to Columbia." - "There were no class rankings at his high school, but Barack never made honor roll even one term, unlike 110 boys in his class." - "His SAT scores were 566 for the verbal part and 640 for math. Those were far below the median scores for students admitted to his class at Columbia: 668 verbal and 718 math." - "At Columbia, Barack Obama distinguished himself primarily as a hard partier, and he managed to be detained by police twice during his university years: once for stealing a Christmas wreath as a fraternity prank and once for trying to tear down the goalposts during a football game at Princeton." - "Obama's transcript at Columbia shows that he was a solid C student. Although a history major, he sampled widely in the social sciences and did poorly in political science and economics while achieving some of his best grades (the equivalent of a B+) in philosophy and anthropology. The transcript indicates that in Obama's freshman year, the only year for which rankings were available, he was in the twenty-first percentile of his class—meaning that four-fifths of the students were above him. Yet at the same time that he was earning Cs at Columbia, Obama displayed a formidable intelligence in another way. At his induction into the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity, he and others were asked to name all fifty-four pledges in the room. Most were were able to name only five or six. When it was Obama's turn, he named every single one. Later he rose to become president of DKE, and he was also tapped into Skull and Bones, an elite secret society to which his father had also belonged." And then he somehow got into Harvard for graduate school.
Oh, wait. My bad. I made a mistake. Please replace the reference to "high school" with "Andover." Please replace "Columbia" with "Yale." Please replace "Barack Obama" with "George W. Bush." Thanks.
This was pretty funny. About 2 bullet points down I thought to myself, "This sounds more like Bush, not Obama."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:People who've been attacking Obama on this have been wrong on this issue. They've been wrong for years. Ridiculously, xenophobically wrong-and what's more we didn't just know that now, when this was released. It's been known since newspapers, lawyers, judges, and hostile politicians investigated this and the only people who gave this stuff any credence are the ones who we'd likely cross the street to avoid in many circumstances.
What's disappointing is how seemingly impossible it is for some of these politicians to simply admit "I was wrong".
I wish there was a Republican candidate who could simply say "Obama is an intelligent, respectable, patriotic non-Communist, non-fundamentalist, natural-born American who has done a reasonably good job at running the country... but I can do it better... and here's how I will...."
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:People who've been attacking Obama on this have been wrong on this issue. They've been wrong for years. Ridiculously, xenophobically wrong-and what's more we didn't just know that now, when this was released. It's been known since newspapers, lawyers, judges, and hostile politicians investigated this and the only people who gave this stuff any credence are the ones who we'd likely cross the street to avoid in many circumstances.
What's disappointing is how seemingly impossible it is for some of these politicians to simply admit "I was wrong".
I wish there was a Republican candidate who could simply say "Obama is an intelligent, respectable, patriotic non-Communist, non-fundamentalist, natural-born American who has done a reasonably good job at running the country... but I can do it better... and here's how I will...."
I'm very liberal, but I really wish this was the way our dialog would work.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Such a candidate would never win an election. He or she would get the tiny sliver of folks who are (a) Republican or independent conservatives, (b) sane non-idealogues, and (c) not swayed by platitudes and attack advertising. That's like... 20 people nationwide, half of whom are posters on Hatrack.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
That's so funny that Bush was a Deke. Totally fits.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
If Harvard Law somehow accepted Elle Woods as a student, why is Obama so far fetched?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What's disappointing is how seemingly impossible it is for some of these politicians to simply admit "I was wrong".
One of my biggest disappointments with GW Bush was his pronouncement, on leaving the office, that he had no regrets. In his memoirs, he reports that the low point of his Presidency was when people called him racist for failing to respond adequately to hurricane Katrina. What?? Even with years to reflect on the subject he still was more upset about being called a racist than that thousands of people were left for days suffering without aid in New Orleans under his watch. It makes me want to scream.
quote:I wish there was a Republican candidate who could simply say "Obama is an intelligent, respectable, patriotic non-Communist, non-fundamentalist, natural-born American who has done a reasonably good job at running the country... but I can do it better... and here's how I will...."
Absolutely!! Elections in the US focus way to much on personality and too little on substantive policy issues. I want to see a candidates who will say.
quote:My opponent is a capable, honorable person but we disagree in fundamental ways about the best course for this country. Here are the issues I think are important, how I would approach them and why?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: What?? Even with years to reflect on the subject he still was more upset about being called a racist than that thousands of people were left for days suffering without aid in New Orleans under his watch.
Yeah, that was weird. I wouldn't expect him to say that invading Afghanistan or Iraq was a mistake, but no regrets at all about the decisions during those wars, and the consequences involving hundreds of thousands of people dying? Or even a, maybe I should have managed Abu Ghraib or Guantanimo differently? Not even a, I would have fought this with a different strategy?
The regret was I got called a name by some entertainer. Bah.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
To be fair, I don't think that he really considered the question in that context.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The issue about Barack Obama's college records is that most thoughtful people would like to be able to read his master's thesis, where he sets forth his basic philosophical views. This is surely highly relevant to a person's desirability to hold the office of president. Did he espouse Muslim beliefs? Did he make blatantly racist statements? What is he trying to conceal? Most people would want their masters' theses to be as widely read as possible.
The claim one person made that all the evidence was on Obama's side is plainly not true. Obama's own grandmother who lives in Kenya said he was born in her village, and she was present in the room when he was born. Video recordings of an interview where she said "Barack nate dhalani" (Barack born [in] this village) has long been available on the Internet for anyone to listen to and watch for themselves.
For those who actually have sufficient quality of mind to go by the evidence rather than by majority opinion, here is one link where this video may be viewed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bloHSojeLAw
Now, this may not constitute conclusive proof. But it is largely on the basis of this that many people have had serious questions about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or in Kenya. Why would his grandmother lie about where he was born? Surely anyone with even the least bit of intellectual honestly must admit that the testimony of Obama's grandmother does raise a legitimate question that deserves to be considered.
Obama's long-standing refusal to release his long-form certificate of live birth has and could only add fuel to the fire, especially considering all the other things it has been proven that he has lied about.
For example, he told the American people in a nationwide broadcast during the campaign that William Ayres (former Weather Underground terrorist who planted bombs that killed people) was "just a guy who lives down the street." In fact, eyewitnesses have stated that Obama launched his campaign for Illinois Congressman in William Ayer's living room. Literary analysis strongly suggests that Obama's books were ghost-written by William Ayers. Then of course there is the outlandish claim that Obama was not really aware of nor influenced by the preaching of Jeremiah Wright, when he was a member of Wright's church for 20 years, and never objected to or disagreed with Wright's outlandish claims that AIDS was created by the CIA to wipe out the black race, and that the US deserved the attack on 911, and multiple cursings of the USA from Wright's lips--all of which were preserved on recorded sermon tapes, on sale in the church lobby. Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel got hold of some of these tapes, and played them on air.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can flatly reject evidence, turn away from even fairly considering it, and prefer apparently to just go by the emotional feelings of the majority.
Obama has been proven to be a deliberate, knowing liar about so many substantive issues, it is incredible that anyone could believe anything he says about anything. And yet the mainstream majority media believes what he says worshipfully, and most of the time does not even report the contrary evidence. And the majority of Obama's supporters just blindly continue to go along with the idea that he is in any way a good man worthy of anyone's trust.
Let me be the first to ask, how hard would it really be for the long-form birth certificate to have been faked? They had plenty of time to make one that looked convincing. If you think that doctors and hospital administrators cannot ever lie or be a part of a criminal conspiracy to deceive, then tell me how you think that Obama's own grandmother lied about where he was born?
Anyone who claims there is not still an issue is being dishonest.
Then, going beyond where Obama was born, there is the question of school records in Indonesia, where Obama attended school, that list his citizenship as Indonesian, and his religion as Muslim. Shrugging one's shoulders at these things, and presuming to ignore them as if they had no weight and did not matter, is inexcusable.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I thought it was illegal for him to act without first being asked for help by the governor?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: If you think that doctors and hospital administrators cannot ever lie or be a part of a criminal conspiracy to deceive, then tell me how you think that Obama's own grandmother lied about where he was born?
As I understand it, you're appealing to an inaccurate translation of that video.
But even if that weren't the case, recall that BHO's father had the same name. How do you know she wasn't talking about Barack Senior?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Shrugging one's shoulders at these things, and presuming to ignore them as if they had no weight and did not matter, is inexcusable.
Almost as inexcusable as pretending you don't know that, far from "shrugging one's shoulders" every single point you bring up has already been addressed time and time again.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Surely anyone with even the least bit of intellectual honestly must admit that the testimony of Obama's grandmother does raise a legitimate question that deserves to be considered.
Was she testifying under oath? Because I don't know about you, but my grandmother gets things wrong sometimes, and that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to cover things up, just cause she's old and gets confused now and again.
Is that all this is based on?
quote:Obama has been proven to be a deliberate, knowing liar about so many substantive issues, it is incredible that anyone could believe anything he says about anything.
That sounds like a very big accusation to make without substantive evidence, which I would like you to produce please.
quote:Let me be the first to ask, how hard would it really be for the long-form birth certificate to have been faked? They had plenty of time to make one that looked convincing. If you think that doctors and hospital administrators cannot ever lie or be a part of a criminal conspiracy to deceive, then tell me how you think that Obama's own grandmother lied about where he was born?
Anyone who claims there is not still an issue is being dishonest.
You're saying that because it is possible, it must be? Almost anything is possible, it doesn't mean it's true. Sure it can be a challenge to come up with evidence of a conspiracy, as if it is truly a conspiracy then steps would be made to hide that fact, but to say, "It could have happened, there for it did" just sounds silly to me.
And as for anyone who claims this is not still an issue being dishonest, how about this...we don't care. You can care. We don't. We think it's silly and been dealt with. Honestly. This is what we think.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Addressed? No. They were dismissed irrationally, with the primary arguments being insult and ridicule, that only showed an unwillingness to deal with the issues responsibly. The evidence is still there, and no one has convincingly refuted any of it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Stone_Wolf_, I already gave examples. How many things has Obama said about anything important that you can show were true?
You failure to care about things you should care about only idicts your own capacity as a responsible elector. My only comfort is that people who think the way you do generally are too apathetic to vote.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Edit: You know what, I'd rather not get into another argument with Hatrack's resident lunatic fringe.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Stone_Wolf_, I already gave examples. How many things has Obama said about anything important that you can show were true?
You are claiming him to be a proven liar about "substantive issues"...I'm not claiming anything.
So you're saying that his relationship with William Ayres and his preacher are the "substantive issues" which he has been "proven" to have lied about?
Please address my other points.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, mine too.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:[Trump] claims the president’s grandmother says Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, the recording to which he refers shows Sarah Obama repeatedly saying through a translator: "He was born in America."
quote:The issue about Barack Obama's college records is that most thoughtful people would like to be able to read his master's thesis, where he sets forth his basic philosophical views. This is surely highly relevant to a person's desirability to hold the office of president. Did he espouse Muslim beliefs? Did he make blatantly racist statements? What is he trying to conceal? Most people would want their masters' theses to be as widely read as possible.
Many would like to read his master's thesis, but you get the motives wrong. Few except the fringe are concerned that he espouses Muslim beliefs, or racist beliefs. You can see a sign of that (since apparently we're just admitting individual opinion as relevant here, such as what his grandma says) by the fact that almost the only people who are actually worried that he might've said something Muslim or racist are themselves race-baiting Islamophobes.
quote:
The claim one person made that all the evidence was on Obama's side is plainly not true. Obama's own grandmother who lives in Kenya said he was born in her village, and she was present in the room when he was born. Video recordings of an interview where she said "Barack nate dhalani" (Barack born [in] this village) has long been available on the Internet for anyone to listen to and watch for themselves.
I'm curious: who said 'all the evidence was on Obama's side'? It's interesting that you choose to characterize it that way, since that's about the level of rigor and honesty we can expect from the birther side of this discussion. 'one person said'. If one person said it, and you saw them say it, it ought to be pretty straightforward to say who said it, Ron. You being a man who can read and this discussion not being very old.
quote:
Now, this may not constitute conclusive proof. But it is largely on the basis of this that many people have had serious questions about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or in Kenya. Why would his grandmother lie about where he was born? Surely anyone with even the least bit of intellectual honestly must admit that the testimony of Obama's grandmother does raise a legitimate question that deserves to be considered.
It's a country of hundreds of millions of people. Many people believe in astrology, Ron. Many people believe in fortune cookies. Many people believe in lucky numbers. And it does not at all serve as conclusive proof. What it does do is serve as a reason to ask the question. "OK, Obama's grandmother says he wasn't born in the USA. In fact she's specific. Let's dig deeper."
Well, people did dig deeper. A lot deeper. Over and over and over again. Y'know what they found? They found out that, hey-he was born in the USA. Hawaii in fact. Produced documents to that effect, in fact. As much as is required of anyone else. But because the man didn't have a time machine with attached DNA sampler and 3D video camera, that ain't enough. We don't know, because his grandmomma say, and that 'may be not be conclusive proof, but...'
quote: For example, he told the American people in a nationwide broadcast during the campaign that William Ayres (former Weather Underground terrorist who planted bombs that killed people)
Really? I'm looking at Ayers right now, and while there's no denyin' that he was in the Weather Underground, I'm not finding any deaths on Ayers's name specifically as you say. There's plenty for Ayers - and Obama himself, in fact - to live down because hey, guy belonged to a terrorist organization. But hey, you don't need to stick to proven facts, do ya?
(Let's not also examine other presidential associations. Non-liberal presidential associations, Presidents who don't have scary Arabic sounding names for example.)
quote:It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can flatly reject evidence, turn away from even fairly considering it, and prefer apparently to just go by the emotional feelings of the majority.
You've been deceptive and duplicitous throughout this post and as a matter of course in your political and religious discussion on this forum for years, Ron. For example, going on to discuss Obama's Indonesian citizenship and what an Indonesian school said about his religion decades ago. Hell, those certainly aren't issues that have been done to death in the whole birther lunatic fringe conspiracy bid. No.
And the fact that birthers have long claimed, "We haven't seen the real birth certificate is evidence!" has been heard long and loud...but now you (and others) say, "Pft, that doesn't really show anything," that's not dishonest and cowardly. No. No, as usual you're the voice in the wilderness, heroically preachin' to the heathens.
ETA: Man Destineer, it becomes a lot less fun hanging Ron out to dry if you just show him up right off like that.
[ April 28, 2011, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, I was referring to James Tiberious Kirk, where he said: "The debate should have been closed years ago, seeing as all the evidence was in his favor."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can flatly reject evidence, turn away from even fairly considering it, and prefer apparently to just go by the emotional feelings of the majority.
Imagine how the rest of us feel. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:ETA: Man Destineer, it becomes a lot less fun hanging Ron out to dry if you just show him up right off like that.
Google's a real bitch. (I knew I remembered reading about that grandma thing somewhere.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I was referring to James Tiberious Kirk, where he said: "The debate should have been closed years ago, seeing as all the evidence was in his favor."
Well, since Destineer went and spoiled my fun: the grandmother thing ain't evidence. What else ya got?
Because you were flat-out 100% wrong about what you said was 'evidence'. And that was the only thing you actually presented as evidence. So it would seem that, yeah, JTK is right: all the evidence is/i] in his favor. Or, wait, are we gonna be talking about what Indonesia said about his citizenship back when he was in school? Is [i]that the new evidence?
I just wanna be clear here. Y'know, for fun. (Not that I expect you to be a decent, honest human being when it comes to discussing politics and admit you were wrong in a straightforward way about the Obama grandmomma thing. No, you'll weasel and connive like most other conspiracy theorists.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, you said: "You've been deceptive and duplicitous throughout this post and as a matter of course in your political and religious discussion on this forum for years, Ron."
This is not true and has never been true. This is just the way you deal with my arguments and cited evidences when you can answer them in no other way but to engage in character assassination. May God be the witness between us of who is telling the truth and who is a liar and being deceptive and duplicitous. I confidently await God's judgment.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Good thing your salvation doesn't hinge on being right about the grandma thing.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Destineer, my salvation does depend upon my being honest. There can be no hope for anyone who is not honest, for then how much would his profession of faith mean?
My point is that there has always been and does remain a serious question, and none of the efforts anyone here has ever made to dismiss it have been valid. It is inexcusable that anyone would refuse to admit there is a resonable question that has been raised. Taking your position on answering the question is one thing. But denying that the question is real is intellectually dishonest.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
So Ron, you stand by the grandma thing? You believe the original translator was correct about what she was saying and that subsequent translators have been incorrect?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:My point is that there has always been and does remain a serious question, and none of the efforts anyone here has ever made to dismiss it have been valid.
There is no serious question. A full transcript of the interview with Obama's grandmother shows that she very clearly said repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii, not Kenya. His certified birth certificate (both the original and the short form) verify that he was born in Hawaii. The newspaper in Hawaii reported his birth. The state of Hawii has verified that this report came from the government. I can not believe that any honest human being could conclude there remains any serious question about where Obama was born.
[ April 28, 2011, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lookit how much we're suddenly not talking about Obama's grandmomma. Ron, I'm not sure if you think we're this stupid to not notice, or if you actually believe in what you just did there.
A little while ago, you were raising some ruckus about how there was a point, some evidence, about how maybe Obama isn't a citizen because of what his grandmother said about where he was or wasn't born. You suggested honest, serious people wanted to take a real close look at the question on account of what she said and you suggested it was weak-minded not to want to do so.
Well now it's been demonstrated that, no, she didn't say that at all. In fact, Obama's grandmomma said he was born in the United States. But you're still saying, "There's a real question." Apparently there's just a real question because you say there's a real question.
Because when you say there's a real question and give reasons, and those reasons get knocked down, well then there's still a real question somehow. Someway. Not only that, but people who refuse to admit there's a question are behaving inexcusably.
It's interesting, though-I'm not sure if you pivoted to God and righteousness because I mentioned religious discussion, or if it's because that's your go-to in these situations. But it's not character assassination. You 'presented evidence'. It was answered. It's right up there on the forum for God and everybody to see. You're not fooling everyone, no matter how fast you type and how hard you pray.
But keep tryin'! Wear out those kneepads and fingertips!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ron, you keep talking about honesty, and yet, when people try and discuss this issue with you, you do not engage. You ignore questions and then call people names.
You should be ashamed of the manner in which you have treated people here.
I believe in freedom, and would fight so that you keep the right to believe whatever you wish, to question authority and say whatever you like, but if you want to be treated seriously, you should start acting in a fashion which treats the people you are trying to convince with the honest decency and respect that they deserve.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, I already gave examples. How many things has Obama said about anything important that you can show were true?
You failure to care about things you should care about only idicts your own capacity as a responsible elector. My only comfort is that people who think the way you do generally are too apathetic to vote.
*slow clap*
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
BB...I'm confused by your slow clapping...what is it supposed to mean?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Stone_Wolfe_: I believe Blayne is golf clapping. ----
In other news, we have a new Defence Secretary, and head of the CIA, is anybody talking about them?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Also, I think BlackBlade is our official BB.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I thought it was Bella Bee. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'm making a formal request that no more BB handles be allowed to register. I don't think Hatrack can handle the consequences.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I once made a play on getting exclusive rights to "BB", enough posters protested that it didn't take. It confuses the heck out me sometimes, until I find a Blayne post above it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My brain/fingers finds it way easier to type BlackBlade then Blayne Bradley...plus I don't have to scroll up two or three times to see how BlackBlade is spelled...
Whats the story behind your name, the real BB? Why not GreyEdge?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Ron's normal stomping ground of people just like him is down so he is slumming here.
msquared
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My brain/fingers finds it way easier to type BlackBlade then Blayne Bradley...plus I don't have to scroll up two or three times to see how BlackBlade is spelled...
Whats the story behind your name, the real BB? Why not GreyEdge?
Why not GreyEdge? Because BlackBlade is far superior in every way.
Also, Link. We'll call it my birth certificate.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Streachy squirrel card?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: For example, he told the American people in a nationwide broadcast during the campaign that William Ayres (former Weather Underground terrorist who planted bombs that killed people) was "just a guy who lives down the street."
Source? In particular, the full quote that I've seen is: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." See http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html. The insertion of the "just" I've found preface people quoting Obama sarcastically. In most cases they get the quotation marks right (i.e. they don't include the 'just' in the quoted text).
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Also, I think BlackBlade is our official BB.
What if he signs up?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: BB...I'm confused by your slow clapping...what is it supposed to mean?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm sure it's because of something patently unfair; let's just work on that as we make more and more insistent calls like "why hasn't he shown his transcripts yet? what is he hiding!"
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Did he espouse Muslim beliefs? Did he make blatantly racist statements? What is he trying to conceal?
Wolf Blitzer, stunned and as if in a trance, repeats "Amazing, amazing."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Destineer, my salvation does depend upon my being honest. There can be no hope for anyone who is not honest, for then how much would his profession of faith mean?
Then apologize and admit you were wrong about the grandmother thing, don't just weasel around it. Jesus.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The issue about Barack Obama's college records is that most thoughtful people would like to be able to read his master's thesis, where he sets forth his basic philosophical views.
One's thesis is not part of one's transcript -- not at any college I have ever received transcripts from.
Also, his master's was in economics. His thesis was probably not all that philosophical -- his personal religious views were almost certainly not mentioned.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
lol...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm pretty sure that his thesis was actually probably just an alternate form of the Koran where William Ayers is Mohammad (Socialism Be Upon Him)
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The issue about Barack Obama's college records is that most thoughtful people would like to be able to read his master's thesis, where he sets forth his basic philosophical views. This is surely highly relevant to a person's desirability to hold the office of president. Did he espouse Muslim beliefs? Did he make blatantly racist statements? What is he trying to conceal? Most people would want their masters' theses to be as widely read as possible.
I would like to read it, but there is one thing I would keep in mind while doing so:
Many times I wrote papers not about my own beliefs, but what I felt the one reading it wanted to hear in order to get a good grade. Sometimes, these were two VASTLY different things.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm pretty sure that his thesis was actually probably just an alternate form of the Koran where William Ayers is Mohammad (Socialism Be Upon Him)
That sounds like a good idea for an alternate history / science fiction novel.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Are you guys sure that Obama actually has a masters in economics? I can't find any reference to it on Wikipedia. It only mentions his BA and JD. His father, however, did have an MA in economics from Harvard.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
RRR, good catch. In that case, the president's master's thesis is even less likely to have revelations about his religious beliefs. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Unlike transcripts, master's theses are almost always publicly available at the University library. But since Obama didn't write masters thesis, you are going to have great difficulty reading it.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
We need to keep digging. How do we know Obama isn't an agent, and we're in the Matrix?
Interesting take, though pretty cynical.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unlike transcripts, master's theses are almost always publicly available at the University library.
Actually, from what I was reading yesterday, this is less true of master's theses than PhD theses -- the former are not always formally published in the same way, it seems. Depends on both specific school and specific era.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, have you viewed the video of the interview with Obama's grandmother? I have. She said what she said. "Barack nate dhalani." I heard it for myself.
Now, if you can show that she later corrected herself and said that Barack was born in Hawaii or America, then I would concede the point. But so far as I can tell, she said what she said. I have heard no retraction. Can you provide a link to that portion of the interview you allege exists? I will not believe it exists unless I hear it for myself.
Natural Mystic, Obama referred to William Ayers more than once in his public statements. I did hear him myself refer to Ayers as "just a guy who lives down the street," using those exact words. So did the rest of America. Why do you feel a need to pretend he did not say it? Do you understand that he was trying to distance himself from Ayers? Do you understand why he felt the need to distance himself from Ayers? Do you deny that it has been proven that he did launch his campaign for Illinois congressman in William Ayers' living room? Have you read the evidence given by those who claim literary analysis indicates that it was most likely that William Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's books, that they use terms (such as sailing terms) that Obama never uses and would know nothing about? (Ayers is familiar with sailing.) Do you understand this issue at all? This Ayers issue alone, by itself, was sufficient reason for me not to vote for him, and to recommend to others that they should not vote for him. Both because of the extreme seriousness of a relation with such a person as Ayers (who only escaped going to prison with his wife, Bernadette, because the FBI botched its case, compromised the evidence, and they could not be tried again for the same crimes), and because of the fact that Obama directly and knowingly lied about his relationship with Ayers to everyone in America.
Again, the real problem I have with what so many people say about the various controversies involving Obama is that they do not really deal with the evidence, they merely try to pretend that no substantive questions have been raised, when clearly they have. Regardless of what ultimately is proven to be the truth--the fact remains that valid questions have been raised, and it is not honest to try to deal with them by pretending they are not and were never serious questions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Natural Mystic, Obama referred to William Ayers more than once in his public statements. I did hear him myself refer to Ayers as "just a guy who lives down the street," using those exact words.
Your memory is incorrect. He did not use the word just. Check the videos.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The translator is unambiguous, stating at one point "she was here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America. That is, that’s obvious."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Anyone who claims there is not still an issue is being dishonest.
quote:May God be the witness between us of who is telling the truth and who is a liar and being deceptive and duplicitous. I confidently await God's judgment.
quote:But denying that the question is real is intellectually dishonest.
quote:Why do you feel a need to pretend he did not say it?
Agree with me or you are a liar.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, I heard what I heard. You are mistaken.
MattP, both the transcript and the tape recording concern a phone conversation, and focus on the claim that Obama's grandmother said she was present when he was born. The testimony I provided a link to is from a video recording, inwhich you can see as well as hear Obama's grandmother say, "Barack nate dhalani." That means "Barack was born (in) this village." You have not refuted this evidence.
Furthermore, the video is the evidence that was current during the last presidential campaign. All the attempts at debunking, the phone call, etc., came later. The fact remains that there was a serious question raised at the time of the election, and no voter in American has any excuse for not treating it as a serious question.
A similar issue was raised by some people about John McCain, since he was born in the Canal Zone. He did not in any way try to hide this. Both his parents were American citizens, and he was born at the U.S. military base in the Canal Zone, which under treaty with Panama at that time, meant it was a U.S.-administered territory. A law was passed several decades ago which resolved this issue (since it had come up before), that a person born of American parents in a U.S. military facility should be considered to be a "natural born citizen," as the constitution requires.
Obama's refusal for three years to release his long-form certificate of live birth, was a serious error in judgment that added fuel to the fire, and contrasts directly with McCain's openness.
[ April 29, 2011, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Destineer did, and you ignored him...twice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's be clear: Sarah Obama saying Obama was born in America, unequivocally ISN'T a refutation of the claim that she claims he was born in Kenya?
Ron, what WOULD refute this evidence of yours? I mean it's clear to everyone that the true answer is 'nothing', but I'm curious what you'll claim would refute it. What would it look like?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Stone_Wolf_, Destineer referred to the same phone conversation that MattP did. I am not trying to defend what Donald Trump has been saying lately. My contention is that the original issue during the last presidential campaign was raised by the video recording where Obama's grandmother says "Barack nate dhalani"--"Barack was born (in) this village."
No one has yet refuted this. It is fundamentally dishonest for anyone to claim that this did not raise a serious question during the campaign, that deserved to be dealt with more directly than merely being shrugged off by the majority of voters.
It is one thing to argue against a position or an interpretation of the evidence. It is quite another thing to refuse to consider the evidence at all, and recognize where serious questions have been raised.
[ April 29, 2011, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: But even if that weren't the case, recall that BHO's father had the same name. How do you know she wasn't talking about Barack Senior?
You have yet to address many other points, both I and other posters have brought up.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That transcript sickens me. McRae's dishonest is really putrid. It's bad enough that he's pretending to be a fan of Obama's while trying to trick his grandmother into revealing information that would disqualify him from the Presidential race, but then when it fails and she repeats over and over again that Obama was born in America, he edits out that part so he can perpetrate fraud. And if that's weren't bad enought, he tops it all off by interspersing his attempted fraud with talking about prayer and Jesus love.
It really makes me want to vomit.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Stone_Wolf_, the context of the conversations had nothing to do with Barack Hussein Obama Senior. Who cares where he was born?
And you have still not addressed my actual point, that there were substantive questions raised about Obama during the campaign, and there is no excuse for them to have been ignored as if they were not serious questions.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Rabbit, if the account is accurate, then it seems that McRae was dishonest. But remember, this account is an effort by an opponent to discredit him. All such interpretations after the fact have less weight than actually watching the video and seeing and hearing for yourself what Obama's grandmother said.
Did she immediately correct herself in the video? Prove it. The phone call was separate, and took place later. Perhaps after someone had told her that if she maintained her testimony that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, it could prevent Obama from being president.
And remember too that it was not Obama's grandmother who spoke on the phone, but the translator, who supposedly was speaking for her.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
As someone who is furious with the Obama camp for continuing the expansion of executive power that Bush II started, you'd think I would be the audience of choice for these allegations of conspiracy and fraud.
Alas. I am not. To be honest, these claims strike me as pathetic and ridiculous. Those who perpetuate them seem manipulative, uncivil and overall untrustworthy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's one for many...keep addressing.
I did address it...remember...we don't care? You may not like or agree with the answer, but there ya go...did you really expect to like or agree with any answer I was going to give you?
How about this...[sarcasm]we really should care, but the money the conspiracy to elect Obama campaign sent us was way too much, so we abandoned our Godliness and moral responsibility and elected a foreigner just to piss you off. [/sarcasm]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
We may very well have a constitutional amendment before long where the "natural born citizen" requirement for president is dropped, in favor of simply requiring that a person be a U.S. citizen. Democrats may resist this, since it would allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president.
Thus going forward from here, this whole issue of whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii is not a critical determinate of whether he should be president--except as it may be indicative of his general pattern of deceitful convering up of nearly everything in his past. But it was still a serious question during the last presidential campaign.
Far more weighty are his associations with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and others, and with the extreme positions he has espoused in the past.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Ron, your video is just not very compelling. None of us, including you, know the language well enough to judge the veracity of the translation and multiple additional statements from the grandmother contradict what the video claims she says in this statement.
Even if this video is 100% accurate about what she says, including the connotations and denotations of those words, it seems more likely that she's confused or mistaken than that Obama was actually born in that village. A round trip from Hawaii to Kenya using early 1960s-era air travel would be an expensive and arduous ordeal, even for someone who wasn't a pregnant teenager.
The documentary evidence and a practical evaluation of the circumstances necessary for the birther position to be correct overwhelmingly supports a Hawaiian birth.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I want to be clear about a few things with you.
I am a Libertarian, and a middle of the road extremist. I dislike the way Obama has acted, moving the country closer to socialist, but truly appreciate that he is well spoken and a dynamic leader.
But the truth of the matter is that he has been our president for over two years, and no matter what you think people should care about or not, you are beating a dead and rotting horse.
Pick current, relevant reasons not to like/trust him and just accept that your current jihad has already been settled, right, wrong or indifferent it is over.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MattP, the airlines did use jet planes in the 1960's. That is when most of the jet airliners were still new. Did you ever hear the Peter, Paul, and Mary Vietnam era war protest song, "Leaving on a Jet Plane"?
But your point about the arduous round trip from Hawaii to Kenya is interesting. Do you deny that Barack's mother did fly to Kenya shortly before his birth? Then you have two problems: The question whether she was able to get back to Hawaii in time for Barack's birth, and whether Barack's grandmother could have flown to Hawaii. The latter should probably be discounted. If Obama's grandmother was present in the delivery room when Obama was born, it could not have been in Hawaii, since it is unlikely she could have afforded the trip.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Natural Mystic, Obama referred to William Ayers more than once in his public statements. I did hear him myself refer to Ayers as "just a guy who lives down the street," using those exact words. So did the rest of America. Why do you feel a need to pretend he did not say it? Do you understand that he was trying to distance himself from Ayers? Do you understand why he felt the need to distance himself from Ayers? Do you deny that it has been proven that he did launch his campaign for Illinois congressman in William Ayers' living room? Have you read the evidence given by those who claim literary analysis indicates that it was most likely that William Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's books, that they use terms (such as sailing terms) that Obama never uses and would know nothing about? (Ayers is familiar with sailing.) Do you understand this issue at all? This Ayers issue alone, by itself, was sufficient reason for me not to vote for him, and to recommend to others that they should not vote for him. Both because of the extreme seriousness of a relation with such a person as Ayers (who only escaped going to prison with his wife, Bernadette, because the FBI botched its case, compromised the evidence, and they could not be tried again for the same crimes), and because of the fact that Obama directly and knowingly lied about his relationship with Ayers to everyone in America.
Do you understand that I did not hear Obama say that? Do you understand that in good faith I tried to find out whether he in fact did say that? Do you understand that I could not find the quote you ascribed to him, despite the fact that this was a big issue before the election? Do you understand why I might regard factcheck a far more creditable source than the hazy memory of a Palin-fanatic such as yourself? Do you understand that even though I ask you to source your quote, you are either unwilling or unable to do so?
To answer your questions: "Do you understand that he was trying to distance himself from Ayers?" "Do you understand why he felt the need to distance himself from Ayers?" Clearly. He must be the devil-incarnate to not want his candidacy torpedoed because he's had some interaction with someone who committed a crime when he was 8.
"Do you deny that it has been proven that he did launch his campaign for Illinois congressman in William Ayers' living room?" I have heard it described as a 'meet-and-greet.' I have not heard Obama deny this, and I'm not sure that having a meet-and-greet at the house of someone influential in local politics constitutes an endorsement of all their prior actions, including those done when you are 8.
"Have you read the evidence given by those who claim literary analysis indicates that it was most likely that William Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's books, that they use terms (such as sailing terms) that Obama never uses and would know nothing about? (Ayers is familiar with sailing.)" I have read an article by Cashill. Two points: 1. I'm not sure this matters, other than one might not regard Obama as quite as good a writer. It certainly does not put him setting bombs when he was 8, or supporting the setting of those bombs. 2. I did not find the analysis particularly persuasive. I can elaborate later.
Unless you can substantiate your quote, you have yet to show that Obama lied.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Stoney,
quote:I dislike the way Obama has acted, moving the country closer to socialist
In what ways, besides the health care reform, has he in your opinion done this? Obviously, the socialist label gets thrown around a lot, but I'm curious about the details behind the label.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Stone_Wolf_, I still maintain that Obama would not have been elected if more voters had been more responsible in their choice.
Sure there are plenty of current reasons to distrust Obama, as you noted. These do have their roots in his past, and could have been predicted by those who cared to inform themselves about his past. But this thread is about the long-delayed publication of Obama's long-form birth certificate.
I am aware of the great "buyer's remorse" many of the people who voted for Obama are now experiencing. It is just too bad that they could not have had better foresight.
I am thankful that in some respects Obama has tended to gravitate a little more toward the moderate middle. He did not cut and run in Iraq or Afghanistan, and he has been willing (though largely forced) into making some concessions with Republicans.
Besides the things you mentioned, I am concerned about the hints of his favorable attitude toward Islam, and his hostility toward Israel. While I do think that Moammar Khaddafy is a very bad despot who deserves to be removed from power, I am nonetheless concerned that Obama has us fighting (or presently has our predator drones fighting) on the same side with Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the like. He also was pretty much consenting to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarik, who was one of America's true friends in the Arab world, even though that has left the country open to a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dang it MrS...you are going to make me do research!
I'll get back to you forthwith.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Stone_Wolf_, I still maintain that Obama would not have been elected if more voters had been more responsible in their choice.
Well sure, but everyone who didn't vote for the guy (whoever the guy happens to be) is of that opinion. It's like saying "if people who disagree with me weren't wrong they'd be right." It's what everyone believes.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MrSquicky, Obama's creation of "Government Motors" (a.k.a. GM) seems socialistic--though perhaps it would technically be more accurate to characterize it as fascist. (Fascism does not mean anything right-wing--it means government being in bed with industry. This is how it was practiced under Hitler. And Hitler was a member of the National Socialist Party.)
As a resident of one of the northern suburbs of Detroit, I am glad that GM and Chrysler were saved from bankruptcy, so that more jobs in this disaster-struck region were not lost. But still I have reservations about the propriety of saying that any business is "too big to be allowed to fail." And I am proud of Ford Motor Company that they did not have to go through bankruptcy or accept any government bailout. There clearly is something superior in their management policies and practices.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You would not believe the results of a google search of "obama socialist"...
I was referring to the socialization of medical insurance...and I overstated my opinion.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Natural_Mystic, the problems with William Ayers are many, that go beyond the fact that he and Bernadette Devlin (now his wife) engaged in acts of terrorism including planting bombs that killed people. What remains of primary concern is his belief system that allowed him to do such things (of which he has never repented, and has recently said he only wished they had done more). He appears to have had some mentorship influence over Obama. (So did Jeremiah Wright, his extremist pastor for 20 years.) This is a real concern to me. The idea that anything goes, as long as he can get away with it, including telling any lies that are convenient, to defuse any inconvenient truths, etc. That is what I see in Obama, and I am sure Ayers did nothing to help him develop more of a conscience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Fascism does not mean anything right-wing--it means government being in bed with industry
If you don't think "government being in bed with industry" is right-wing, you don't know what "right-wing" means. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, you might want to straighten out your Bernadette "terrorists".
Rev. Wright wasn't an "extremist" pastor to anyone who knows more about him than the 3 or 4 sentences extracted from over 30 years worth of sermons. He was, in fact, someone who loved this country enough to serve in its military.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I am aware of the great "buyer's remorse" many of the people who voted for Obama are now experiencing. It is just too bad that they could not have had better foresight.
I am thankful that in some respects Obama has tended to gravitate a little more toward the moderate middle. He did not cut and run in Iraq or Afghanistan, and he has been willing (though largely forced) into making some concessions with Republicans.
Whatever "buyer's remorse" you note in the first quoted paragraph stems largely from the actions noted in the second paragraph quoted. We aren't bothered because the President is too far left.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If you don't think "government being in bed with industry" is right-wing, you don't know what "right-wing" means
Um, I think the left wing is in a very similar bed, just different vendors... although a lot of them are the same
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Which major corporate entities primarily support the left wing?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
There is a difference between industry buying politicians and politicians buying industry.
I'm not saying one is good and one is bad, there are major problems with both. Just that there is a difference.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
This is a link, or should be a link, to which industries contribute to which party more
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, the context of the conversations had nothing to do with Barack Hussein Obama Senior. Who cares where he was born?
Just watched your video. There's no indication in the video where the one-sentence sound clip you're referring to came from. They just play it without providing any context. Given that, it's entirely possible she was talking about BHO Sr. Who was interviewing her? Where is the entire unedited recording of the interview?
Obama's grandmother isn't on screen while they're playing the clip, so it's not even clear that she's actually the one speaking. I tried looking this up and couldn't find any printed record of any conversation where Sarah Obama is reported to have said anything about Barack being born in Kenya, besides the discredited phone conversation.
This leads me to believe that the video is very possibly fabricated.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (Fascism does not mean anything right-wing--it means government being in bed with industry. This is how it was practiced under Hitler. And Hitler was a member of the National Socialist Party.)
You don't know what fascism means, and I bet you're still correlating fascism with modern-day socialism because it's called "national socialism"
Even though we've already had the Ron Lambert Clarification Hour on this very subject, five times by my estimation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, have you viewed the video of the interview with Obama's grandmother? I have. She said what she said. "Barack nate dhalani." I heard it for myself.
Now, if you can show that she later corrected herself and said that Barack was born in Hawaii or America, then I would concede the point. But so far as I can tell, she said what she said. I have heard no retraction. Can you provide a link to that portion of the interview you allege exists? I will not believe it exists unless I hear it for myself.
quote:No, Obama's grandmother didn't say he was born in Kenya
Another one of the birther myths hits the mainstream, courtesy of G. Gordon Liddy's appearance on MSNBC
Among those on television who've been covering the sudden public resurgence of the Birther movement -- but in a much more responsible way than Lou Dobbs -- is MSNBC's Chris Matthews. The other day, he beat up pretty badly on Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., who's a co-sponsor of the "Birther bill" that would require future presidential candidates to provide proof of their natural-born citizenship. Thursday, he hosted Watergate burglar turned radio host G. Gordon Liddy, who's fallen under the Birthers' sway.
Liddy himself looked decidedly unwell, and sounded out of sorts -- even Matthews seemed to realize that making him into a piñata would be unsporting. I'm not going to do it either, but you can watch the video below.
I'm posting on the appearance, though, because of something Liddy said during it: "You've got a deposition, which is a sworn statement, from the step-grandmother, who says, 'I was present and saw him born in Mombasa, Kenya.'"
Liddy got this particular myth a little garbled, but it's a favorite of the Birthers'. I've covered it before, but it's worth posting on now, I think, because cable news is just getting back to this story (there was some coverage late last year, when the Supreme Court declined to hear one of the Birther lawsuits) and hosts like Matthews don't know all the crazy twists of the conspiracy theory well enough to knock them down.
What Liddy was referring to is actually an affidavit filed by a street preacher named Ron McRae, who conducted an interview with Sarah Obama, the second wife of President Obama's grandfather, through a translator. (Sarah Obama is not the president's biological grandmother, but he calls her "Granny Sarah.")
In that interview, Sarah Obama does in fact say at one point that she was there for her grandson's birth. But that was a mistake, a confusion in translation. As soon as a jubilant McRae began to press her for further details about her grandson being born in Kenya, the family realized the mistake and corrected him. And corrected him. And corrected him. (The audio is available for download here.)
No matter, though, because people who believe in a conspiracy theory simply hear what they want to hear.So some Birther sites have posted transcripts and YouTube clips that end abruptly with the mistranslation and don't include the corrections.
Here's the conversation:
quote:MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?
OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.
MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?
OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.
MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.
OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.
MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.
OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.
President Obama's grandmother caught on tape saying she witnessed his birth in Kenya: FALSE
People who actually speak the language have done an overview of the transcript, and there's no 'interpreter cover-up' — McRae was just trying to lead his elderly witness, and she just kept correcting it.
Now, which are you going to do? Admit your evidence isn't what you assured us it was, or are you going to go full-on bluster and fall in like with the idea that it must all just be part of the conspiracy and/or due to some assured language issues you don't have to concede anything?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Samp, Ron seems to agree that the McRae interview was faked, but maintain there was another earlier interview in which she said he was born in Kenya. I haven't been able to find any material on this "other interview," so I'm not quite sure what he's talking about, but the interview is supposed to be quoted in the video he linked to in his first post of the thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At this point I'm just gonna go ahead and ask for moderation openly, in public: should Ron, y'know, not back off of this - or even just quietly slink away as usual on it - is there anything that can be done? Are there provisions for posting things that are known to be false, or is the 'She could be faking it, and he could be faking it, and we can't be sure that all of these organizations aren't faking it," to be considered a defense against charges of a patter of dishonesty?
Ron's pretty transparently setting himself up for a 'we can't be sure this isn't an elaborate White House conspiracy' defense, which would be one thing (if mildly irritating and slightly loony for this particularly issue) if it hadn't be preceded by 'these are serious, legitimate issues and you guys are dim-witted sheep for not recognizing it'. While somehow actually invoking God into the bargain.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I watched the video and double-checked to make sure that all the stated claims in the video — "was present for Obama's birth [in kenya]," and so forth — are derivative from the McRae interview's parsing.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
So Ron is mistaken in claiming that there was another interview. Not surprising.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Samp, Ron seems to agree that the McRae interview was faked,
Do you mean from this?
quote:The Rabbit, if the account is accurate, then it seems that McRae was dishonest. But remember, this account is an effort by an opponent to discredit him. All such interpretations after the fact have less weight than actually watching the video and seeing and hearing for yourself what Obama's grandmother said.
Did she immediately correct herself in the video? Prove it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?
Man, talk about leading questions. Any lawyer worth a dime would have screamed "objection" before she ever had a chance to answer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I guess I was thinking of this
quote:Stone_Wolf_, Destineer referred to the same phone conversation that MattP did. I am not trying to defend what Donald Trump has been saying lately. My contention is that the original issue during the last presidential campaign was raised by the video recording where Obama's grandmother says "Barack nate dhalani"--"Barack was born (in) this village."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I watched the video and double-checked to make sure that all the stated claims in the video — "was present for Obama's birth [in kenya]," and so forth — are derivative from the McRae interview's parsing.
Could you discern any information about where the one-sentence clip in Kenyan language that Ron is harping on comes from?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:I watched the video and double-checked to make sure that all the stated claims in the video — "was present for Obama's birth [in kenya]," and so forth — are derivative from the McRae interview's parsing.
Could you discern any information about where the one-sentence clip in Kenyan language that Ron is harping on comes from?
quote:From:bishopmcrae To:Lisa Cc:philjberg@gmail.com Subject:Bogus video Date:Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:17:55 -0700
Phil & Lisa,
I have viewed the Youtube video claiming to translate what Obama’s grandmother is saying and I believe it is bogus. The on screen script showing “nate dhalani” is not a recognized swahili phrase, and neither word is recognized as a swahlili word. I tried watching her mouth, and what is in the audio does not match anything.
For her to say “Barack was born here”, she would say “Barack zaliwa hapa”. For her to say, “he was born in this village”, she would say “zaliwa za kijiji hi”. I would put something out distancing ourselves from this video. I think it is an Obama attempt to get Phil’s name connected to a bogus translation.
Bishop McRae Anabaptists Churches of North America
It's so bad even McRae is desperate not to associate with it, apparently.
But hey. Anything will fool someone, I guess.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally, this is pretty close to what I expect to be Ron's eventual cop-out: "You can't PROVE this isn't some Obama provocateur! That means it's still an issue! It's not a non-issue until it's proven to me (who views even evidence that is flatly contradictory to my initial point) that it's not a non-issue! Meanwhile, how 'bout those Weathermen!"
Y'know it occurs to me: it can't be proven that Weathermen bombings weren't staged by law enforcement for political gain. So we can't be sure that the Weathermen were really violent, can we?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Because we are actually interested in seeing how far Ron Lambert's cop-outs actually go we are literally going to talk to a native speaker transfer student.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Incidentally, this is pretty close to what I expect to be Ron's eventual cop-out: "You can't PROVE this isn't some Obama provocateur! That means it's still an issue!
Yeah, well. Who knows. This tiny, tiny microcosm of a fractional seized-upon justification, miles beneath the compelling argument to the contrary of birther conspiracy, might still hold water in and of itself. As in, she might have actually said something that you can sort of construe linguistically to be in terms of direct language composition, 'obama was born here,' and you may be unable to prove conclusively that that she had not meant it literally with no confusion on her part or bad translation.
Like, it's conceivably possible. And even though she could be utterly convinced Obama was born there the stand-alone testimony would not really make a lot of inroads on the case for him having been born in Hawaii, but I'm sure the very credulous and easily strung along birthers just desperate to hold onto the belief that this still resembles a credible controversy will go ahead and hide in whatever crannies of unprovable negatives are left to them and never, ever, ever, ever, ever be convinced no matter the evidence to the contrary.
But still, for the purposes of my own amusement, WHY NOT. Let's go ask someone who actually speaks obamuslimese.
[ April 30, 2011, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I remember very little Swahili from my days working for a travel company but I still have my Swahili dictionary from when I would go to Kenya. The word for "born" is "kuzaliwa" and "village" is "kijiji". "Nate" and "dhalani" aren't found in this dictionary. So we can rule out Swahili.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: At this point I'm just gonna go ahead and ask for moderation openly, in public: should Ron, y'know, not back off of this - or even just quietly slink away as usual on it - is there anything that can be done? Are there provisions for posting things that are known to be false, or is the 'She could be faking it, and he could be faking it, and we can't be sure that all of these organizations aren't faking it," to be considered a defense against charges of a patter of dishonesty?
Ron's pretty transparently setting himself up for a 'we can't be sure this isn't an elaborate White House conspiracy' defense, which would be one thing (if mildly irritating and slightly loony for this particularly issue) if it hadn't be preceded by 'these are serious, legitimate issues and you guys are dim-witted sheep for not recognizing it'. While somehow actually invoking God into the bargain.
But you forget Rakeesh! This forum is slipping into degenerate liberalism! Ron is really just the vanguard against the evol liberals!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Thanks, Samp. I guess I was right to speculate that the video had to be a complete fake.
quote:Yeah, well. Who knows. This tiny, tiny microcosm of a fractional seized-upon justification, miles beneath the compelling argument to the contrary of birther conspiracy, might still hold water in and of itself. As in, she might have actually said something that you can sort of construe linguistically to be in terms of direct language composition, 'obama was born here,' and you may be unable to prove conclusively that that she had not meant it literally with no confusion on her part or bad translation.
Yeah, maybe granny Obama just doesn't know grammar!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The thing is Samprimary, it's not a matter of being credulous. At least I don't think so. If I set up a 'Jeff's Insurance Stand' on the street corner, these guys wouldn't fall for it just because I tried to sell 'em. I don't believe they are particularly credulous-this is just in most cases an unwillingness to look for the whole picture, and in Ron's case straight up dishonesty.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think 'dishonesty' is the right word for describing ron's apparent state of mind in these discussions. I think he absolutely believes what he says, even when what he is saying shows painfully transparent deflection of difficult points, abnormally consistent repetition of claims over time no matter the counterpoints made, regular assertion of the universally and interchangably moral/religious/mental/logically flawed weakness of people who disagree with him, and outright and regular appropriation of God and the spiritual corruption, weakness, and devilry of people who challenge him.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think dishonesty is exactly the term. Dishonest encompasses a lot more than just lying. In particular, it includes lack of fairness and lack of adherence to the facts (note: these are all straight from the dictionary definition "lack of honesty" and the definition of honesty), and Ron has been acting in that way in spades.
He has been acting in this thread with the most shallow kind of honesty (being honest, which is about being truthful and straightforward), but in a way absolutely lacking in the rest of the concept.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think dishonesty is exactly the term.
He has been acting in this thread with the most shallow kind of honesty (being honest, which is about being truthful and straightforward}
Okay, so he's .. being honest but because he's only being honest he's being dishonest.
Samp: "being honest" has been pretty much reduced in meaning in English to not telling lies, but honesty (and the negation, dishonesty) has a larger meaning (like "being honest" used to have) that encompasses things like not ignoring facts.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ron Lambert said:
quote:Did you ever hear the Peter, Paul, and Mary Vietnam era war protest song, "Leaving on a Jet Plane"?
Yes, it's a John Denver song apologizing to his wife for leaving her at home while he goes on a concert tour, and for his sexual dalliances in the past. In the PPM version they changed the line "I'll bring your wedding ring" to "I'll wear your wedding ring," because Mary's voice was the lead, and she's clearly the one "leaving."
Had nothing to do with Vietnam.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Samprimary, I might credit that 'believes what he says' interpretation if not for one very consistent pattern of Ron's posting style. He'll breeze through with some nonsense, such as this, and at first he'll believe it and post about it passionately, though to his credit not overtly aggressively or belligerently.
And then, eventually, as happened here, the points he brings up in support of it - and he'll be posting eagerly, coming out against all challengers - will just be killed stone-cold dead. Like what happened here with Obama's Grandmomma. In the ground, stake through its heart, both barrels emptied into its skull dead. And then, suddenly...the topic changes. Ron's passionate intensity just dries up and floats away. Gone like a fart in the wind.
It's happened before, and it'll happen again. If it were occasional I would credit that he believes what he says, but when he just stops every damn time he's had one of his props knocked down and smashed out from under him and doesn't acknowledge it, doesn't even acknowledge it happened? That's dishonesty. That's a pattern of dishonesty. And now that we've got actual, active moderation around here I personally think it'd be nice if we didn't have to deal with that anymore, and I wonder if that's the kind of decision that can be reached within the rules.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
That's a tough line to draw, Rakeesh. Seems like the standards you suggest would end up banning too much. I could certainly see them applying to intelligent design, or something like steven's claims about Dr. Price and raw food.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* I'm talking about people who go for patterns, like Ron. People who do things like say, "She said this, and that's why it's a serious issue," and talk about it at great length, and insinuate that people who don't agree are lazy, ineffective Americans and that's why we've got a terrorist sympathizing President who might be a Mooslim on our hands.
And then, when it gets pointed out, "No, she didn't say that, not at all," and it gets pointed out over and over again, he's just gone. Steven doesn't do that like Ron does. Where is he? I haven't seen him around. Where's the talk about Intelligent Design that crops up around Hatrack with regularity?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:or something like steven's claims about Dr. Price and raw food.
Actually since steven has admitted that this was all an elaborate attempt to troll hatrack, that's not actually a good example of something we wouldn't want banned.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, really??
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
By the way, she wasn't speaking Swahili, it is Luo.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Wow, really??
Well, I think that steven actually believed the Dr. Price stuff, but he has said that his purpose in joining the community and the aim of his posts on it was to destroy it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Well, I think that steven actually believed the Dr. Price stuff...
Really? That wasn't my impression at all. I'm not feeling ambitious enough to find the relevant posts though.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ron may be frustrating, but he is entertaining. It's not like we are having any real problem with countering his claims...I personally do not feel he should be banned.
Rakeesh...if you feel so strongly about Ron, maybe a more moderate solution is to not engage him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Well, I think that steven actually believed the Dr. Price stuff...
Really? That wasn't my impression at all.
It was mine.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh...if you feel so strongly about Ron, maybe a more moderate solution is to not engage him.
Agreed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I feel strongly about him now, I'll admit. Well, in Internet terms at least. And not responding to him would be more moderate, it's true. Wouldn't get him gone from here, though.* Hence my wondering aloud if the repeated insulting liar might be shooed off.
*Yes, yes, if everyone did it, that'd work. Wishes were fishes we'd never go hungry.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I strongly disagree with you that Ron's behavior -- annoying though it is -- is a bannable offense.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Although I doubt it, it is possible that we are helping Ron accept something he would rather not accept.
Of all the discussion boards on the net, this one is one of the more civilized and well rounded I've run into. Which is why I always come back to it.
If he didn't get some value out of trying (and failing) to prove something to us, he wouldn't come back.
Ban people who spam or constantly swear or...I don't know, something less entertaining. Ron's not that bad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I really am not sure if this behavior, if it were to continue once it was warned - if it merits a warning - would be a bannable offense. I think it should be, obviously, at this point, but I'm not sure if it is. I really am asking for the question to be considered, not by us the posters but by active moderation, something we didn't always have `round here.
Yeah, Ron's not as bad as constant profanity. I'm not saying Ron's the worst. But it's not just the dishonesty that is offensive, it's the dishonesty when it comes coupled to the 'and if you disagree, you're a lazy American who is abusing your franchise-and by the way, Jesus loves me'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is this about banning and moderation now? Yes, we regularly ban people for being cretinous idiots in discussion, otherwise your forum becomes a hive of hilarious nonsense that drives the serious posters away to talk about it disdainfully in other forums ('god, Hatrack, I'm so glad I haven't looked at that place in years') and your forum becomes ridiculous ('god, Hatrack.'). It works out fantastically. Bans are a good thing. It's nothing big. It's just telling a person to take a break for a week or so, shutting off their posting when they've obviously taken it too far or if they're not going to follow instructions. Hardly the end of the world. Most of the time, you don't have to ban at all, you just stand up and tell someone that "you need to stop doing this." and "you need to no longer involve yourself in discussions about this topic, because you derail it hopelessly every time."
Or, in Ron's case, let me give you a paraphrased and custom-fit example: Dear Ron. Your attempts at argumentation are absolute literary wreckage, and it often takes the thread weeks to find the way out. Every time you do this, you stumble around, make amply disprovable repeat claims, then end up modifying the particulars of your original argument so that the most egregious lies and mistruths are smoothed away. You retreat at full speed from the items that can't be supported, while simultaneously claiming that your argument hasn't changed. And then, apparently to fill the space left by the original falsehoods, you suggest that the game is actually worse than you originally claimed, and blame any other disagreeing poster for simply being unable to take you, God, and/or your argument 'realistically' or with a truly 'open mind.' This is Calvinball of the worst sort, and we need not play.
You don't need to be stabbed with the hanging Sword of Moderatorclese just yet, but here's what you absolutely need to do: quit explaining to the forum writ large or other individuals or nebulous hazy conceptualizations in your head like 'liberals' or 'atheists' how their disagreement with you — no matter how well articulated — is the result of their fallow, shameful inability to be reasonable at all, and explaining at length how other people would see the obvious truth of your statements if they weren't ignorant gullible closed-minded sheep (with more and more regularly, insisting on making the issue of disagreement with you religious; sometimes even going so far as to state that your detractors are harming the work of God and being tempted by devilish influences.).
I mean stuff like this:
quote:Anyone who claims there is not still an issue is being dishonest.
quote:They were dismissed irrationally, with the primary arguments being insult and ridicule, that only showed an unwillingness to deal with the issues responsibly. The evidence is still there, and no one has convincingly refuted any of it.
quote:This is just the way you deal with my arguments and cited evidences when you can answer them in no other way but to engage in character assassination. May God be the witness between us of who is telling the truth and who is a liar and being deceptive and duplicitous. I confidently await God's judgment.
Stop it. You shouldn't need a moderator to tell you not to pull this crap. Even if Hatrack has humorously let you get away with it, to its own peril, for years.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, your pretended cleverness is pretense only. Your judgmental attempts to mischaracterize my position only display what is in your own heart. It should be obvious to any objective reader that I care a lot more about truth and honesty and fairness than you do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not hearing anything from you addressing the ENTIRE conversation of bout obama's birthplace, Ron. Yknow, that thing we've been talking about and linking to?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, as I have made it clear before, it extremely offends me for anyone to dare to call me dishonest.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Rakeesh, as I have made it clear before, it extremely offends me for anyone to dare to call me dishonest.
That's pretty telling, isn't it? Insults only actually bother us if we already believe that might be accurate. What if I started saying you were prone to running Bernie Madoff style scams? You'd stare blankly at me, because you know the idea is silly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You have repeatedly spread lies that are easily correctable by a brief amount of research. Ceasing that activity would probably help.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What's more, the lies you've been spreading have been researched *here* and shown to be lies. Recently in response to direct challenges from you when you suggested it hadnt been done.
You've earned being called dishonest, Ron. It's a reputation you've worked hard to build up over years. You're still building it now by not addressing the thing you were lying about-what was actually said by Ms. Obama regarding the President's birthplace. She didn't say what you claim she did-we've shown you she didn't. But *still* you persist in claiming integrity, and even more strangely outrage that someone would 'dare' impugn it.
Your credibility is almost nil. The daring thing to do would be to suggest you were being thorough and honest. It would be daring because it's so obviously absurd.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, your pretended cleverness is pretense only. Your judgmental attempts to mischaracterize my position only display what is in your own heart. It should be obvious to any objective reader that I care a lot more about truth and honesty and fairness than you do.
quote:quit explaining to the forum writ large or other individuals or nebulous hazy conceptualizations in your head like 'liberals' or 'atheists' how their disagreement with you — no matter how well articulated — is the result of their fallow, shameful inability to be reasonable at all, and explaining at length how other people would see the obvious truth of your statements if they weren't ignorant gullible closed-minded sheep.
A helpful hint: if you want to insist that my cleverness is pretense only and a mischaracterization of your position only, don't respond to it with a perfect, validating example of that characterization. Like, for instance, retreating at full speed and blaming my disagreement for simply being unable to think 'objectively.' Hey, remember this?
quote: You retreat at full speed from the items that can't be supported, while simultaneously claiming that your argument hasn't changed. And then, apparently to fill the space left by the original falsehoods, you suggest that the game is actually worse than you originally claimed, and blame any other disagreeing poster for simply being unable to take you, God, and/or your argument 'realistically' or with a truly 'open mind.'
It's like I just put my fist out and held it in place, and you rammed your face full-speed into it repeatedly while telling me I've never landed a punch.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, I did back up what I said by providing a link to a video you could watch and hear for yourself when Obama's grandmother said "Barack nate dhalani." Maybe she changed her story later, after someone told her what the issues were. But she did say what she said on that video. How can you deny it and claim to be honest?
I always back up what I say, and merely claiming you have refuted me or disproven what I said in the past does not make it so. In truth, people who continually prove themselves to be dishonest should not matter if they call me dishonest.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Ron,
Since providing the link there have been multiple criticisms of the video, suggesting that it doesn't in fact show her saying what you say she's saying. You hear a voice attributed to her, but you don't actually see her speak the words. Other parts of the video (about being "present" at the birth) refer to the tape-recorded interviews which have already been explained. No one has been able to find any other sources corroborating the claim that she said what the video claims she is saying, suggesting that the video may be a fabrication.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, I did back up what I said by providing a link to a video you could watch and hear for yourself when Obama's grandmother said "Barack nate dhalani."
No, you can't. You can hear a voice saying it. There's no actual point at which you can 'watch and hear' her saying that for yourself. As you've had pointed out to you already.
I would even bet you don't actually have a video where you can watch her saying that.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Perhaps there is a 'long form' version of the video that Ron could link to.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Perhaps there is a 'long form' version of the video that Ron could link to.
*snort*
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Your "point" is silly, Sam. That is the primary reason I seldom bother to answer you. Almost everything you say is unutterably silly. And you are also wrong (as usual, too). There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ron, you hold everyone to standards you A) make up on the fly, B) do not even come remotely close to meeting yourself and C) are ridiculous.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Stone_Wolf_, your points A, B, and C are false. But you know you are making false charges anyway, don't you?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would like to point out that our discussions regarding China never turn into this and haven't for years.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Ron, as I rarely involve myself in most anything you do here but most certainly lurk more than post, please actually consider what I am about to iterate.
If you were to view your last one hundred or so posts, what do you think the ratio would be of posts meant to insult others versus posts without discouraging statements?
If my guess as to what the answer would be is correct, how do you see this as a positive use of your time?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your "point" is silly, Sam. That is the primary reason I seldom bother to answer you. Almost everything you say is unutterably silly. And you are also wrong (as usual, too). There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
That's not true, you can't. There is no point in the video where those words are synced with footage of her speaking.
Your fellow birther, McRae, noted this in the email Samp quoted -- along with the face that "Barack nate dhalani" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Furthermore, there's no evidence in the video of who was interviewing her, what questions they asked, or where the full, unedited record of the interview might be found. This means, as I pointed out earlier, that she very well could've been responding to a question about her son, Barack Sr.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:But you know you are making false charges anyway, don't you?
To what end Ron? What would be the point if true? What would I gain?
Seriously, how can you maintain your perfect sanctity and honesty in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, brought to you by so many different people with varied ideologies?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your "point" is silly, Sam. That is the primary reason I seldom bother to answer you.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I always back up what I say
Keep digging, Ron.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
No, there's not. Link me a video where you see and hear Obama's grandmother say that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
The video is 1:59 long.
At 0:35 you hear this phrase (or something like it) with a family photo displayed on the screen and the subtitle "Barack is a son of this village."
At 0:43 that clip is repeated, again with the photo and subtitle.
At 1:00 the clip is repeated a third time. Again with the photo and subtitle, but also with the text "Barack was born in this village" overlayed on it.
There are no further sound clips after this halfway point in the video.
All three clips are repeats of an isolated snippet from what was apparently a TV broadcast. You never actually see her say the words nor is any context provided for those remarks to determine whether she was speaking about the President or his father or if any other statements that she made at the time clarified her meaning. Finally this video seems to be the only source which claims that these words describe a literal birth event.
Ron, as a sign of good faith here, would you acknowledge that we do not in fact 'see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."' in this video?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Yeah, seriously, there is no point in the video where you both see and hear her say it. It is also a clip without context so you have no assurance whatsoever that she is talking about the Obama who is president.
It also makes some legally untrue claims at the end, so there is no reason to trust the video as evidence!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For the record, I advanced the question of moderation not because Ron believes in this binds or skirts belief, but because he routinely calls people liars when they challenge him on it.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Any other forum I take part in would moderate Ron Lambert frequently for being so detrimental to debate. I guess that is part of why I think this place is so perversely captivating, but it is at the expense of your forum being a train wreck whenever people like him come by. Did nobody really get their fill with Malanthrop?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For the record, I advanced the question of moderation not because Ron believes in this binds or skirts belief, but because he routinely calls people liars when they challenge him on it.
A fair distinction.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I personnally find them entertaining in thier varied attempts to inflame others, and am confused by those who get caught up in it.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I personnally find them entertaining in thier varied attempts to inflame others, and am confused by those who get caught up in it.
I don't understand. What's confusing? Who is?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Not right now, but other instances over my time here when the trolls get fed by the indignation of usually calm and controlled people. Wether they have the moniker of Clive Candy, Malanthrop or Ron Lambert I find thier useless intent a bit funny.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Did nobody really get their fill with Malanthrop?
nor with Reshpeckobiggle, Bean Counter, or any of the other slags before them. Neutrally I can say this place is habituated Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Not right now, but other instances over my time here when the trolls get fed by the indignation of usually calm and controlled people. Wether they have the moniker of Clive Candy, Malanthrop or Ron Lambert I find thier useless intent a bit funny.
What?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A fair distinction.
Thank you. To be more clear, I meant to say (I was on my mobile), "...Ron believes in this birther business or skirts belief..." and to go on to say that even when it's proven to be lies, discounting the possibility of completely unprovable arch conspiracy, will continue to outright state people who challenge him on it are themselves dishonest, lying, and lazy.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Not right now, but other instances over my time here when the trolls get fed by the indignation of usually calm and controlled people. Wether they have the moniker of Clive Candy, Malanthrop or Ron Lambert I find thier useless intent a bit funny.
What?
They are trolls, useless and trying so hard to be controversial but pointless all the same.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
OK, Rakeesh, I'm convinced.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:A fair distinction.
Thank you. To be more clear, I meant to say (I was on my mobile), "...Ron believes in this birther business or skirts belief..." and to go on to say that even when it's proven to be lies, discounting the possibility of completely unprovable arch conspiracy, will continue to outright state people who challenge him on it are themselves dishonest, lying, and lazy.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: OK Sam, I shouldn't have resorted to use of a blatant insult. This is not typical of the way that I debate people, but you have long passed the point where I respect you at all as an intelligent debater.
As you can see, I was making a pun on your insulting remark that something was over capaxinfiniti's head. In all honesty, your intellect is very limited, and your self-discipline is almost non-existant. It is obvious that you compensate for your intellectual shortcomings with insult and derision. This is what you ALWAYS do. This is a true and accurate description of your attempts at debate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean what a surprise, right
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Me to Ron, yet again:
quote:quit explaining to the forum writ large or other individuals or nebulous hazy conceptualizations in your head like 'liberals' or 'atheists' how their disagreement with you — no matter how well articulated — is the result of their fallow, shameful inability to be reasonable at all, and explaining at length how other people would see the obvious truth of your statements if they weren't ignorant gullible closed-minded sheep
Ron to Rakeesh, today:
quote:Not true Rakeesh. It is only in your own mind that you think you or anyone else has "proven" that anything I said was "a bunch of bunk." I answered you; you just refuse to let my answers register fairly. That is why I do not respect you as a debater.
The hits keep coming!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sorry, even more:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (with more and more regularly, insisting on making the issue of disagreement with you religious; sometimes even going so far as to state that your detractors are harming the work of God and being tempted by devilish influences.)
and today:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, I would prefer that there be a sharp divide between the people with sense who listen to me and appreciate what I have to say, and those who resist wisdom and try to mislead others. In the Judgment, I am not the one who will have to apologize to God. My conscience is clear.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Precisely. Truth is the ultimate religious issue. It may have escaped your notice, because you like to play with truth and falsehood so much. But truth and falsehood are moral issues.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Oh good, you're back. Let me quote myself now, since you seemed to have missed this:
quote:The video is 1:59 long.
At 0:35 you hear this phrase (or something like it) with a family photo displayed on the screen and the subtitle "Barack is a son of this village."
At 0:43 that clip is repeated, again with the photo and subtitle.
At 1:00 the clip is repeated a third time. Again with the photo and subtitle, but also with the text "Barack was born in this village" overlayed on it.
There are no further sound clips after this halfway point in the video.
All three clips are repeats of an isolated snippet from what was apparently a TV broadcast. You never actually see her say the words nor is any context provided for those remarks to determine whether she was speaking about the President or his father or if any other statements that she made at the time clarified her meaning. Finally this video seems to be the only source which claims that these words describe a literal birth event.
Ron, as a sign of good faith here, would you acknowledge that we do not in fact 'see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."' in this video?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Precisely. Truth is the ultimate religious issue. It may have escaped your notice, because you like to play with truth and falsehood so much. But truth and falsehood are moral issues.
No, in fact, they're as much issues of reality sometimes. As in this case. Either she said it or she did not. That's not a moral issue. We're asking you where in the video she said it. What specific number of seconds she said it. Go to the video, pause it at the time in which she is speaking her damning testimony, and read the count of second, and come tell us so we can see for ourselves-as well as all the people who take you seriously and are wise.
Whether or not she said it isn't a moral issue. Once we've answered that question, then there are moral issues involved.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Precisely. Truth is the ultimate religious issue.
So if I believe hard enough, I can make the video whatever I have faith it is?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I do think that Ron ties his political beliefs into his religious beliefs in a way that I believe a psychologist would find fascinating.
He doesn't need logic, or evidence, or facts. He has faith in them, much like people have faith in God.
-------------------------------
Sorry for talking about you in third person, Ron, but the post was very awkwardly worded when I tried to avoid that.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
OK, Ron still seems to want to say no to the evidence of his own eyes.
As a recap, on the strangely derailed Smallville thread, he wrote:
quote:As for the hissy fit some of you threw over Obama's grandmother saying he was born in her village, I did provide you with a link to a video of her saying that.
to which I replied,
quote:Just to be clear, Ron, your contention at that time was that in this video you see Sarah Obama on the screen speaking at the same time you hear the sound clip "Barack nate dhalani."
Do you stand by that? Can you point out how many minutes and seconds into the video you see that happen?
to which he then replied,
quote:Destineer: Yes. Did you not view the video for yourself?
Now, as anyone (except Ron, apparently) who watches the video will agree, they only play the sound clip "Barack nate dhalani" at points when Sarah Obama is not shown speaking on the screen. This means it's possible they faked the sound clip (which is what Ron was originally denying).
I really just can't understand why anyone would act this way, except in an attempt at a bad joke. It would be like if I said, "Ron, you yourself agreed that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's written right there in your last post. Don't you see what you wrote?"
Ron, if you could just do what I asked and say exactly how far (minutes and seconds) into the video you actually see Sarah Obama say those words...?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have another question, should Ron be willing to answer. Presuming that you were correct and Obama's maternal grandmother has in fact claimed, on at least on occasion, that she witnessed Obama's birth in a small rural village in Kenya. Which of the following do you think is a more likely explanation.
1. Barack's mother, a young pregnant American girl, traveled to Kenya in 1961 to give birth in a small rural village devoid of modern medical care. Her parents, recognizing instantly that this could present a problem should their grandson someday run for President, conspired with the state of Hawaii and the local papers to create legal documents verifying that he was born in Hawaii rather than Kenya. All records of the Kenya trip were destroyed and the family buried this secret until his maternal grandmother in Kenya (perhaps becoming old and forgetful) slipped up and told a pastor the truth. She has since been pressured to retract the statement.
2. Barack was born in the US as reported in the contemporary newspapers and official records. Sarah Obama, hoping to inflate her own importance, lied to a pastor about being present at her grandson's birth.
3. Barack was born in the US as reported in the contemporary newspapers and official records. Due to a confusion in the translation of questions, Sarah Obama said Barack was born in her village. Although she corrected this misunderstanding in further questioning, the Pastor has edited that part out of the tape in order to support his political opposition to President Obama.
Which story seems most probable? Explain your reasoning.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Ron really derailed the smallville thread to show he's still completely ignorant of the holes in his description of the video?
Poor guy. He can't help himself.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not really. Rakeesh brought it up, and Ron responded.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Ron really derailed the smallville thread to show he's still completely ignorant of the holes in his description of the video?
Poor guy. He can't help himself.
By the time the subject came up, the thread had been derailed for sometime and it was more my fault than Ron's.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Ron really derailed the smallville thread to show he's still completely ignorant of the holes in his description of the video?
He's not ignorant. He can't be. I mean, he's not blind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Not really. Rakeesh brought it up, and Ron responded.
Well, sort of. At first I was just laughing at the silliness if bragging about how smart one is rather than just *showing* it, pointing out why it was silly by giving the example of Ron's habitual dishonesty when it comes to discussing politics. This thread is an example of it-it's as close to a point of fact as this sort of thing can be.
"Video says this." "No, it doesn't, show us where exactly." "Have you watched the video? It says it. Don't be a lazy liberal." "We've watched where you said to watch, and it simply doesn't say that. Could you respond by saying where *exactly*, minutes and seconds, it says what you say?" "..."
That's actually a pretty accurate recap of what happened, and in all likelihood what'll happen again. And on *that* basis, Ron casts insults on citizenship, lays claim to great diligence, intelligence, even holiness and honesty. So if he's gonna claim some sort of virtue of brains or honesty or both...he can either tolerate this being brought up, or address it. So I brought it up, because Ron was again lauding one of his virtues, and he's called me (and others) liars, lazy Americans, and implies we'll see damnation for questioning him before.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Best to be fair: Ron doesn't say you risk damnation for questioning him, but rather for ignoring what he believes are important truths that he is merely relating. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Best to be fair: Rin *says* that, but the sort of humility that ought I'm not mistaken accompany that sort of rhetoric according to its own standards is, well, almost totally lacking. They long with talk like 'you dare question my integrity' makes me pretty comfortable with my choice of words, even if not accurate according to his literal posts. In any event...our questions so far haven't yielded up answers, actual answers.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Precisely. Truth is the ultimate religious issue. It may have escaped your notice, because you like to play with truth and falsehood so much. But truth and falsehood are moral issues.
They are scientific and ethical issues. Because ultimately which religion is right?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Blayne, that is a question I certainly feel is worth answering (as opposed to rehashing old caviling over and over again). I have a fundamentally different view of what religion is, than many other people seem to have. I do not regard religion as something that one believes in blindly, for no good reason. Nor do I believe that it is subjective.
I believe that religion is the ultimate truth of the universe. It is no less than a factual description of what reality is, as true as any of the laws of physics. Religion encompasses our knowledge of the ultimate reality of the universe, and what our response to it should be.
If there is God the Creator--which by far seems the most logical thing to infer from the manifest existence of an ordered universe from the macrocosmic to the submicroscopic--then that means that any attempt to understand the truth of the universe, must include this basic assumption.
Then since the Creator God exists, He is independent of our understanding of Him, independent of anything we think or say about Him, and if we really want to know anything at all about Him, we should first of all see if He has made an attempt at communicating with us. The Bible is verified as that attempt by the presence throughout it of prophecies of the future history of the world that have proven exactly accurate even thousands of years in advance. It is therefore foolish to try to devise any philosophy or religion that does not encompass this.
Religion is not the traditional ways of conducting worship, or the liturgy of churches, or the way you were raised to be a Catholic, a Protestant, a Mormon, or Moslem, or Hindu. There can be only one truth, because there is only one reality. True religion is true science. Both seek to know the truth by any reasonable means, and does not arbitrarily choose to ignore the Bible as a proven reliable source of information in any field of knowledge that it addresses.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Literary interpretation isn't true science. It's not even soft science. It's *valuable*, certainly. It can lead to insight. But it's not science as one without an agenda would use the word. I point that out because the only way you get to admit the Bible's prophetic accuracy is, by your own admission, through repeated use of 'common sense' and standards of literary interpretation. Not science-that word carries a weight of trial and error and, ultimately, exact credibility you wish to impart to your religious beliefs they don't merit. You'll dispute this, of course, but you won't even go to an elementary school science fair and find terms such as 'literary interpretation' on a piece of posterboard, but that is the only way your religion's prophetic accuracy is as accurate as you say.
While I personally believe it's more likely that there is a creator, it's not some logical imperative the flows from the existence of an ordered universe, and of course in any event does nothing to address the problem of that solution setting that problem back a stage...if you're approaching the thing in these terms. ------
I note without surprise your lack of willingness to revisit 'old caviling'. Despite direct challenges, despite direct demonstrations they your claims are mistaken based on your own evidence, despite repeatedly impugning the citizenship and honesty of those who did so...well. Not despite, because of those things. It's not going to go away anymore than the other times you've reacted this way to direct challenges.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:There can be only one truth, because there is only one reality.
There are so many truths and so many realities that for humans to try and encompass "God", to say "This is what God thinks, and wants, and loves, and will not tolerate" is beyond ridiculous.
The one small world in a galaxy which is nearly endless has so much diversity and different forms of life and ways of doing things and beauty and we have barely scratched the surface of our understanding of it that to think that one religion has all the answers to the extent of being a science is insane.
The reality of a deep sea fish, that is, crushing pressure and nearly light-less existence and put a human there, and they would die. Bring that same fish up to our world and it would explode. Two realities, two truths. And if I understand it right, your creator God made both us humans and those fish.
For me, that is the beauty of it all...endless truths, endless realities. It's all God, and it's all good and you can pick the parts that have meaning for you personally.
ETA: I look at the wonderful diversity, the beautiful differences in every detail of every little piece of every little bit of this world and it doesn't not lead me to believe in the "God" that created it having only one true answer, only one correct doctrine, only one set of rules to be in his good grace, and all other ways of thinking leading to endless torture and moral depravity. What I see is acceptance of many ways, love of life and understanding that it takes flexibility and open mindedness to achieve your goals.
The Nazi party believed that only one way was the right way, and all others were an abomination, and worthy of destruction.
If God didn't want diversity then why did he make us different? I'm not talking about eye/skin/hair color, but in the way we think, in the way we live, in the way we are.
How can your understanding of a loving God call for the eternal damnation of good and loving people around the world who happen to practice a different religion then your own Ron?
[ May 29, 2011, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The reality of a deep sea fish, that is, crushing pressure and nearly light-less existence and put a human there, and they would die. Bring that same fish up to our world and it would explode. Two realities, two truths.
I fail to see how this is not one reality and one truth.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey ron, instead of trying yet again to make the same argument you've had refuted a million times about the verified truth and unerring accuracy of the bible, how about we go back to the more topical issue of you making the same argument you've had refuted a million times about how the video you gave us doesn't show ms. obama saying "Barack nate dhalani" even though you have insisted voraciously that it does?
C'mon Ron. You can do it. BE A BEACON OF TRUTH.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I knew it. I knew he was waiting for a bunch of other posts to reply to so he could avoid the question about the video.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp...the truth/reality for the fish is untrue for humans, and vice versa.
I say the sky is blue, and it is true, except at sunset, when it is red and orange which is also true. So which is it? Is the sky blue or orange and red? Both completely contradictory statements are true.
Marriage is good and helps makes people happy. True for many people, myself included, not true for my father. Both completely contradictory statements are true.
As far as I can figure, there is only one universal truth: Things change.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Samp...the truth/reality for the fish is untrue for humans, and vice versa.
Uh, no. The fish and humans are existing in the same reality, and the same thing is true for both of them: that they have different physiology to the extent that their range of survivable habitat has no overlap, and thus would die pretty quickly if they for whatever reason ended up in each other's habitat exposed.
It really has nothing to do with 'different truths' or 'different realities,' it's different circumstances for two different organisms of the same reality, in the same reality, experiencing the same reality. This does not make a case at all for 'two realities, two truths.'
quote:Marriage is good and helps makes people happy. True for many people, myself included, not true for my father. Both completely contradictory statements are true.
Even if we take the statement "Marriage is good and helps make people happy" as a given, marriage not being good for a particular individual for a myriad of reasons does not become completely contradictory to that statement. The statement can be read as an overall statement, that having marriage in society/culture creates a net overall benefit.
It would be contradictory to the statement "Marriage is good for EVERYONE and makes EVERYONE happy" but that wouldn't create a contradiction, just evidence that the statement is false.
It's the same as noting that the statement "Cars are good and useful technology" is not contradicted by my uncle dying in a horrid car accident because he was a crappy driver. He is not existing in his own separate reality where cars aren't good and useful. He's just not a person who dealt well with cars or had a good individual outcome from cars existing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The issue is one of completeness, SW, not subjectivity. The sky is not always blue, so the statement "the sky is CURRENTLY blue" has a more complete truth than "the sky is blue."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I understand where you are coming from I believe, that is, you want arguments which are persuasive in and of themselves, but I'd bet against tall odds we stand on the same side of the "there is only one truth about God (and Ron has it)".
What is your personal definition of truth? I have found this word in particular to be a tricky one, as it has several valid ideas behind it.
Truth = not false. Simple, yet again, tricky.
Truth = universal, undeniable, always true, never false.
Truth = relative to the topic at hand reality. Something that is true for one set of circumstances which is not under other circumstances. The sky color example.
Truth = honest, non-deceiving.
quote:It really has nothing to do with 'different truths' or 'different realities,' it's different circumstances for two different organisms of the same reality, in the same reality, experiencing the same reality. This does not make a case at all for 'two realities, two truths.'
The point of my example is that there are no universal truths (except the aforementioned change) and that the evidence we are presented with about which we can use to discover the aspects of "God" are varied and worlds different from each organism to each individual to each atom.
Why would a creator make everything as varied as possible and then demand uniformity?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Stone_Wolf_, you said: "There are so many truths and so many realities...."
This is the very definition of insanity. Schizophrenia, to be precise. You would probably be particularly fond of the science fiction of Philip K. Dick. He liked giving people the equivalent of an epistemological hotfoot.
Samprimary, you said: "The fish and humans are existing in the same reality...."
For once you said something I agree with.
Later, Stone_Wolf_, you said: "...there is only one truth about God (and Ron has it)."
No, I only affirm the first part. There is only one truth about God. I do not maintain as a basic axiom that I have it. I SEEK it. There is a big difference. No one is born right. Anyone who wants to be right has to become it by learning it. I believe I am making progress toward it. I was raised a Free Will Baptist. I became a Seventh-day Adventist as a result of my own seeking for truth. But I do not even contend that Seventh-day Adventists have all the truth, or even that every last detail of their published beliefs are entirely accurate.
I believe I should worship the Creator, not the creature. Going blindly by the teachings of any denomination or other religious body (or community of scientists, for that matter) would amount to putting my trust in the creature.
Stone_Wolf_ you also said: "The point of my example is that there are no universal truths...."
If that were true then the universe could not exist.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ah but Tom, while the sky is currently blue here, it also currently setting and therefore red and orange at the same time. I'm sure it is also black (night) and grey (stormy) also at this exact moment.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But Stone_Wolf_, one does not preclude the other. They are all a part of the same reality, obeying the same true physical laws.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You miss my point Ron, there is room for more then one truth. The sky is blue, and red, and orange and black and grey and etc etc.
I honor you for seeking, and all others who look for a higher meaning. Where I oppose you is that there is only one answer to find.
You say God made everything, just exactly as He wanted it to be, right? And things are wildly divergent, varied and chock full of minute and astronomical differences, and then believe that He wants uniformity.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but you believe that if a person does not believe that Jesus is the one and only son of God and ask Him for forgiveness that they will be tormented for eternity, even if that person was a kind and good seeker of deeper truth who was a positive influence on their family and community, who sought to do no harm and further sought to right any wrongs they had done, who sought to help all the people they met as best they could, to in other words, be the embodiment of ever human virtue?
Again, I honor you for seeking truth, but oppose you that your truth is the only truth worth having and all others are meaningless without yours.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So Ron, I can't help but notice you've gone mysteriously silent on the video issue.
Remember?
The video you gave us?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I knew it. I knew he was waiting for a bunch of other posts to reply to so he could avoid the question about the video.
Are you so ruefully predictable, right down to a psychological level?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
it's okay Samp, the doctor probably put a breathing tube in his throat so he couldn't talk anymore.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: it's okay Samp, the doctor probably put a breathing tube in his throat so he couldn't talk anymore.
How would a breathing tube prevent him from typing?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Maybe he's in a drug-induced coma as well.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think it's a shame that someone who would clearly like to convince the world of his ability to carefully analyse and interpret information is so unwilling to admit it when he makes a blatant mistake.
It undermines his argument on many other points, religious or otherwise.
There's no harm in saying that you got something wrong. It just shows that you're honest and decent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: it's okay Samp, the doctor probably put a breathing tube in his throat so he couldn't talk anymore.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: it's okay Samp, the doctor probably put a breathing tube in his throat so he couldn't talk anymore.
How would a breathing tube prevent him from typing?
Clearly you are too lazy, dishonest, and un-American to get my point here. Nobody has presented any evidence to me that a breathing tube would not prevent him from typing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne, that is a question I certainly feel is worth answering (as opposed to rehashing old caviling over and over again). I have a fundamentally different view of what religion is, than many other people seem to have. I do not regard religion as something that one believes in blindly, for no good reason. Nor do I believe that it is subjective.
I believe that religion is the ultimate truth of the universe. It is no less than a factual description of what reality is, as true as any of the laws of physics. Religion encompasses our knowledge of the ultimate reality of the universe, and what our response to it should be.
If there is God the Creator--which by far seems the most logical thing to infer from the manifest existence of an ordered universe from the macrocosmic to the submicroscopic--then that means that any attempt to understand the truth of the universe, must include this basic assumption.
Then since the Creator God exists, He is independent of our understanding of Him, independent of anything we think or say about Him, and if we really want to know anything at all about Him, we should first of all see if He has made an attempt at communicating with us. The Bible is verified as that attempt by the presence throughout it of prophecies of the future history of the world that have proven exactly accurate even thousands of years in advance. It is therefore foolish to try to devise any philosophy or religion that does not encompass this.
Religion is not the traditional ways of conducting worship, or the liturgy of churches, or the way you were raised to be a Catholic, a Protestant, a Mormon, or Moslem, or Hindu. There can be only one truth, because there is only one reality. True religion is true science. Both seek to know the truth by any reasonable means, and does not arbitrarily choose to ignore the Bible as a proven reliable source of information in any field of knowledge that it addresses.
Unless its Hastur or Azazhoth.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: it's okay Samp, the doctor probably put a breathing tube in his throat so he couldn't talk anymore.
How would a breathing tube prevent him from typing?
They're making a reference to something Ron said about Rep. Gifford's (who was shot in the head) doctor putting a tube in her throat so that she wouldn't be able to talk to anybody and thus experience undue emotional trauma. A few folks her jumped all over him about it.
[ May 29, 2011, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I thought Rabbit was in on the joke, and making fun of the fact that in this case the breathing tube was really pretty useless.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I think it's a shame that someone who would clearly like to convince the world of his ability to carefully analyse and interpret information is so unwilling to admit it when he makes a blatant mistake.
It undermines his argument on many other points, religious or otherwise.
There's no harm in saying that you got something wrong. It just shows that you're honest and decent.
Yes. It is a shame. And it wouldn't have been a big deal if he had just said, "Oops, I mis-remembered what was in the video" in the first place. It would have undermined his case for birtherism, of course, but that ended up happening anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The sad thing is that even if the woman was literaly trying to say, "He was born in *this* village, here in Kenya!" The amount of evidence to the contrary, would lead me to believe she is just mistaken, or senile, not that Obama is hiding something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The sad thing is that even if the woman was literaly trying to say, "He was born in *this* village, here in Kenya!" The amount of evidence to the contrary, would lead me to believe she is just mistaken, or senile, not that Obama is hiding something.
You're forgetting the part where he's got a scary Arabic-sounding name, he's black, and he's supposed to be some kind of socialist. That gives people license to be dishonest.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is there anyone else on this board who is saying this stuff, or is it all Ron?
If it's just Ron, I'd say just chalk it up to "Ron is dishonest/crazy" and move on.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Is there anyone else on this board who is saying this stuff, or is it all Ron?
If it's just Ron, I'd say just chalk it up to "Ron is dishonest/crazy" and move on.
On this board Ron perhaps stands alone, but there are not a few Americans who still think this issue is unresolved.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One of the reasons they feel that way, mind, is that when proponents or "it's a legitimate question" folks such as Ron are pressed directly on the matter, they behave in a consistently dishonest way without addressing the challenge, pivoting towards some sort of talk about liberals or Muslims or the left-or in this case, somehow *God* comes up.
Anything, anything, anything except for the love of God don't actually respond to direct questions, just insist they've been answered already.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The sad thing is that even if the woman was literaly trying to say, "He was born in *this* village, here in Kenya!" The amount of evidence to the contrary, would lead me to believe she is just mistaken, or senile, not that Obama is hiding something.
That's what I was getting at with my "Which story is more probable" question above. In Obama was in fact born in Kenya, the only explanation for the evidence is that his family, the Hawaiian government and newspapers entered into a conspiracy 50 years ago to falsify the location of his birth. And the only reason it would ever have mattered is if they knew Obama would run for President and his mother would move to Indonesia before he turned 5.
That story is just so much more unlikely than one old woman lying that its no contest.
And that doesn't even factor in the part about a young pregnant American girl traveling to Kenya in 1961 (when international travel was far far more difficult) to give birth in a tiny African village devoid of modern medical care.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bella, I do not believe I made any mistake. I stand by what I said. Your ridicule and scorn have no weight. They are not arguments. You are merely shouting your opinions, and not really listening.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What *does* carry weight? Multiple people demonstrating repeatedly that the video you claim poses a 'reasonable question' does not, in fact, say what you claim it does? And pointing out that since your false statement about what the video actually contained was the basis for claiming an earlier reasonable concern, the earlier concern wasn't, in fact, reasonable at all?
None of that carries weight...for some reason. You said the video said one thing, and you've been shown *repeatedly* that it doesn't. You've been given at least half a dozen opportunities to demonstrate that the video says what you claim, and have totally failed to do so-this isn't a claim, it's in black and white.
That you *still* persist in claiming correctness makes you at best, on this particular issue, completely untrustworthy as someone capable of evaluating actual events and at worst an outright repeated liar. That should be deeply troubling to someone who claims to connect God and integrity so closely.
The bare hypocrisy that it doesn't takes weight from other issues you might care about quite a lot more than this one.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
In that case, where in the video does it show Obama's grandmother on the screen, saying "Barack nate dhalani"?
It's easy, just re-watch the video and tell me how many minutes and seconds in.
If you can't do that, it means you were wrong about the video. If you still refuse to do it, you're basically acknowledging your mistake. So why not just admit it the honest, straightforward way?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, what you say is not true. Destineer, I gave you the link to the video. If you deny what it contains, that is your problem.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
WTF?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, are you seriously going to continue to argue this? Because that forces me to try to decide whether you're fundamentally dishonest or actually insane.
The video does not show what you claimed it shows. That's fine. Own up to it and let it go.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, what you say is not true. Destineer, I gave you the link to the video. If you deny what it contains, that is your problem.
Yes it is true, and your ongoing refusal to respond to challenges to your claim-aside from referring to past, already knocked-down replies-is evidence of it.
Show us where in the video the things you claim can be seen.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, what you say is not true. Destineer, I gave you the link to the video. If you deny what it contains, that is your problem.
Yes Ron. The contention is not that there is no video. We concede that the video exists - you sure got us there! Now, if you'd be so kind as to point out where in the video we see Obama's grandmother say the words you say she is shown to be saying, that would be peachy. YouTube helpfully displays the current position in minutes and seconds. Just read off the number and give it to us. Please.
Imagine that you've spotted a celebrity in a large crowd and we're all tugging on your shirtsleeve shouting "where?, where?". Isn't a bit rude to just say "Find them yourself" when you could quite easily say something along the lines of "About 20 feet away, by the guy with the red umbrella."
Not that my analogy is particularly good. In the case of this video, it's more like we're looking through a window into an empty 10' x 10' room you claim to be occupied by Robin Williams in a chair. A dozen people have walked by the window and no one sees him. Would you at least do us the courtesy of pointing out in which part of the room you are perceiving a chair?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Robin Williams is in that chair, I've told you which window to look in and if you don't believe me it's your fault for lying! God believes me, you dishonest heathens!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron can't tell you the time in the video where you 'see' her saying that, because that point in time literally doesn't exist in the video.
Watch. Watch how hard it is to get a timestamp out of him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
God is my timestamp. He knows the truth.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Ron really derailed the smallville thread to show he's still completely ignorant of the holes in his description of the video?
Poor guy. He can't help himself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, not really. He didn't derail that thread, or at least definitely not initially.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I'm sorry, that got reposted when I went back through my cache. For all the insane things Ron is doing to himself, derailment on this issue is not one of them.
Though he should still be told to cool it on taking any opportunity to quote scripture whenever he can because that's getting old.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, if you think *that* is *Ron* quoting scripture as much as he can, I'll bet you're mistaken. Anyway, I wouldn't mind if not for the part where he's a dishonest hypocrite but regularly uses scripture in an attempt to appear righteous. *That* gets old.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
God will be there on judgment day and then we'll see who is the dishonest hypocrite. Robin Williams is sitting in the chair. I saw it, and if you were honest you would see Mork too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Every time Ron resurfaces it's .. yeah, punctuated by Let's Make This About Bible Talk With Ron, whether or not it really has much anything to do with what it's being shoehorned into. I mean, like, even for tv show discussions that weren't at all religious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't follow that whole thread, but it's a strange read of what I did see in the page or so before it derailed to lay that on his shoulders. His integrity-godliness stuff was reactive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It seems patterned to me, at least as long as I've been here.
At least recently, he's been a Clippy of bizarre theological tangents. "I see you're talking about X, would you like to hear about how God uses angels to keep meteors from striking us?"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I would!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I see you're talking about Smallville, would you like to hear about which idolizing terminology is Biblically appropriate to use when discussing comic book characters?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I see you're talking about biology, would you like to smerurfhaderpahurfdurfbllffff
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
IOs that what happened? I didn't follow the thread religiously (no pun intended), but it seemed to divert after Ron was called out by Lisa in a pretty rude, unnecessary way and then things snowballed from there. I mean, I remember that because Ron wasn't talking about religion at the time I started getting at him.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Honestly, this is why I don't post here much any more. A subject is posted, doesn't always matter what it is. One of the current members posts an outrageous claim, and then the thread turns into a "You're wrong and here's why" vs "I'm right because I know I'm right" dogpiling bickerfest.
This is not discussion. It's the forum equivalent of Monty Python's Argument Clinic, without being funny. I kinda liked it when we talked.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's the Argument Room, not the Argument Clinic! Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
According to the official Monty Python YouTube channel, it's clinic.
The different rooms were for different types of arguments.
See? Backing up your claims is easy and fun!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke! You vacuous toffy nosed malodorous pervert.
Yes, but the word "room" is used in the sketch, while the word clinic never appears. And anyway, do the people who label the video's for youtube really count as an "official representative" of Monty Python?
ETA: Also the other rooms were for abuse, complaints and...getting hit in the head with hammer I guess.
[ June 08, 2011, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This isn't the argument clinic, it's the "gawk at the people so strange I bet you didn't want to realize they existed" clown gallery.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
On the "Live at City Center" album it's "Argument Clinic," and it's called that on the various compilation albums since.
And, most telling, in the second edition of the scriptbook "Monty Python's Flying Circus: All the Words," it's listed under chapter 29 as "argument clinic." Thanks to Amazon you can "look inside the book!" at the table of contents to verify.
I submit that the official albums and the official scriptbook are about as official as you're likely to get.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No they aren't.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Yes they are!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No they aren't.
+1
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
can you show me exactly the timestamp in the video you provided me that you hear AND see them refer to it as an argument clinic
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Honestly, this is why I don't post here much any more. A subject is posted, doesn't always matter what it is. One of the current members posts an outrageous claim, and then the thread turns into a "You're wrong and here's why" vs "I'm right because I know I'm right" dogpiling bickerfest.
I agree that this is an oft-repeated pattern, but you have to admit that Ron's insistence that a video we could all see contained footage it doesn't actually contain is a unique, unprecedented event. I've never seen anything similar happen here before.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...Ron's insistence that a video we could all see contained footage it doesn't actually contain is a unique, unprecedented event. I've never seen anything similar happen here before.
Yes you have!
[ June 09, 2011, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Regardless of its uniqueness or lack there of, I think this particular horse was beaten to death long ago.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just ask Samp...beating a dead horse can be fun.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Regardless of its uniqueness or lack there of, I think this particular horse was beaten to death long ago.
It's certainly a dead horse in some sense, but to me it's still quite remarkable. I've really never encountered an adult who you can't reason with about something so simple.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Just ask Samp...beating a dead horse can be fun.
The analogy kind of breaks down because this is a long, long series of dead horses which a person is trying to throw at us and insists that not only are these horses not dead, but some are guaranteed to win the next election. Other horses are rotted out husks or bleached bones but you can get into the same argument every day about how there is 'still some question' about whether or not the horse is deceased.
This is all entertaining for the same reason the dead parrot sketch is funny.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
God knows the parrot is alive, and if you were honest you would admit that you can see Robin Williams sitting in a chair, with a -living- parrot.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The different rooms were for different types of arguments.
Abuse and getting hit on the head lessons are not forms of arguments.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Abuse and getting hit on the head lessons are not forms of arguments.
For someone with over 3000 posts here you certainly sound like a newbie.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Remember when we said that releasing the long form certificate wouldn't make any difference to the birthers?
quote: “This is not a birther issue, not a consideration of where Mr. Obama was born,” Rappaport said. “Our concern is only if he is a natural born citizen.”
These people hold office.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To be fair this could be three stupid representatives trying to get attention in the news. This doesn't speak to whether those who have associated with the birther movement have been swayed by this evidence.
*waits for somebody to link recent studies which will end with me in tears*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My brain/fingers finds it way easier to type BlackBlade then Blayne Bradley...plus I don't have to scroll up two or three times to see how BlackBlade is spelled...
Whats the story behind your name, the real BB? Why not GreyEdge?
Why not GreyEdge? Because BlackBlade is far superior in every way.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Streachy squirrel card?
I never noticed this, and I'm sorry it took this long but,
Fixed Link.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: To be fair this could be three stupid representatives trying to get attention in the news. This doesn't speak to whether those who have associated with the birther movement have been swayed by this evidence.
*waits for somebody to link recent studies which will end with me in tears*
People voted for these people. They make laws!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, great memories. Barack nate dhalani, everyone. Klaatu barada nikto.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Destineer: Klatu! Barada! Mrhmmphm!!
Kate: These people may have been voted for having never even weighed in on the birther issue until now.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:“This is not a birther issue, not a consideration of where Mr. Obama was born,” Rappaport said. “Our concern is only if he is a natural born citizen.”
*Facepalm.*
I wonder if any of them realize that the law is pretty ambiguous on whether or not, say, John McCain, is a "natural born citizen."
Seriously. I'm not even close to a fan of Obama, but the ship is sailed. It sailed on election day. He won, and clinging to ridiculous conspiracy theories as some magic bullet that will remove him from office (uh oh, I used a gun metaphor, nobody tell the media[oh wait it's 2012 now I don't think anyone is pretending to care about that anymore anyway]) is just pathetic.
Stupidest. Issue. Ever.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Like the DOD isn't going to run a background check on presidential candidates before they run. . . .
Uh-huh. Are we still waiting for an announcement on Roswell?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is this the slow-motion retrospective on our beloved and missed Ron Lambert, voice of the silent majority?
Play the music, reginald, I give you Lambert on Free Speech in America:
quote:Mucus, I would consider that all the negative, treasonous things Jeremiah Wright said about America were indeed sins in the sight of God. Here is the Bible definition of sin: "Sin is the transgression of the Law." (1 John 3:4) He took God's name in vain--and daring to do it in the pulpit--when he said "God d--n America", violating the third commandment (Ex. 20:7), he spoke lies about America and Americans, thus also violating the ninth commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Ex. 20:16)
He also spoke evil and utterly false things against dignitaries, which the Apostle Peter warned against in 2 Peter 2:10.
Anyone who speaks as Jeremiah did, and anyone who agrees with and would defend him, deserve to be stripped of their U.S. citizen and sentenced to permanent exile. They are not worthy of enjoying any of the privileges of being an American. By denouncing America, they have renounced the rights of Americans, because they show they do not appreciate them or deserve them.
::salute::
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Why did or do I spend so much time on arguing with people like Ron. I baffle myself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You greatly desire lurkerdom but when a thread goes full inane you are rustled as readily as if someone stood in front of the tv and danced badly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm dreading/looking forward to what I think is likely: Ron's return to regular posting as November nears, especially should a seriously conservative candidate end up on the ticket. I wonder if the gutless fanatic will have abandoned the birther element entirely, or merely have switched to natural-borner?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This is a serious issue. I mean, what if someone was born by C-section -- how could we call that "natural born"? What if a presidential candidate was conceived in-vitro? What if the candidate was conceived in-vitro using anonymous egg and sperm donors?
I mean what if Prince William conspired with the Bush family to have Jenna act as surrogate mother for his and Kates baby in order to make the proper heir to British Monarchy eligible for the US Presidency. This is serious stuff people.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Come on Rabbit, Kate could just give birth on US soil. Terrorist Anchor baby!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Come on Rabbit, Kate could just give birth on US soil. Terrorist Anchor baby!
Good heavens! For about 2 seconds, I thought you meant me! Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Next we're going to find out he's not qualified because he's not of woman born!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm dreading/looking forward to what I think is likely: Ron's return to regular posting as November nears, especially should a seriously conservative candidate end up on the ticket. I wonder if the gutless fanatic will have abandoned the birther element entirely, or merely have switched to natural-borner?
Perhaps the doctor is just leaving his breathing tube in so that he doesn't ask painful questions.
(if ron is having actual medical difficulties that make this statement unfunny, nuke from orbit)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)