Birthers Gearing Up for Obama's Re-Election?

Carcano said:
Donald Trump is now calling for the disclosure of Obama's college transcripts...which have apparently vanished from the face of the earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1Bb1CWnj8

Here are 10 reasons the electorate has every right to see Obama's records:

1. Liberal historians have crowned Obama "the smartest guy ever to become president." Prove it. We're not convinced. Neither are the millions of Americans who still can't find jobs, thanks to his failed policies. Let's see his course work. Did he get an F in Econ 101 while acing his Marxism classes? We wouldn't be surprised.

2. "We like to pretend IQ doesn't matter, but it really does with a lot of jobs — including the presidency," Smith College professor James Miller, who studies the effects of human intelligence on the economy, told the Washington Times. And running a country as big and complicated as America demands a very high IQ.
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

3. Obama was stoned half the time in high school, according to biographer David Maraniss. He even had a personal drug dealer who scored potent weed for him and his Choom Gang of stoners. He was known as a loafer in school. Yet somehow he got a full academic ride to Occidental College.

4. Obama's drug habits worsened at Oxy, where he toked on a three-foot bong and also snorted coke regularly. Professors say he took few notes in class and turned assignments in late. Yet somehow he managed to transfer to the more competitive, Ivy League Columbia. Did he benefit from affirmative action?

5. Appearing this week on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show," Michelle Obama maintained that the president decided to transfer to Columbia "when he lost his father." "He really buckled down," she said, "and thought about how to use his life to the fullest." But he transferred in 1981 — a year before his dad died. So here we have another story that doesn't add up.

6. The first lady also expects us to believe Obama got his act together at Columbia. Only, he roomed with a cokehead (and now-recovering drug addict) who was best pals with the druggies Obama had hung out with at Oxy. Before transferring to Columbia, Obama stayed for three weeks at his wealthy druggie pal's home in Karachi, Pakistan.

7. While Obama graduated from Columbia with a poli sci degree, his cumulative grade point average is unknown. There are indications it was not very high. Yet somehow Obama got into Harvard Law. Northwestern University professor John McKnight wrote Obama a letter of recommendation after he begged for one. McKnight was not one of his professors, but a radical Chicago leftist who mentored him. He says Obama told him he couldn't get Columbia professors to endorse him due to lackluster grades.

8. The same year Obama graduated from Harvard, he got a book contract. He told his publicist he was "born in Kenya." Did he also tell Harvard he was foreign-born?

9. Another Democrat stonewaller, John Kerry, refused to turn over his college records during his 2004 White House run. He finally relented the next year, revealing several D's and a GPA nearly identical to Bush's. Yet Kerry was portrayed by the media as the mental giant in the race.

10. The Obama camp has hypocritically demanded GOP rival Mitt Romney turn over 10 years of tax records, which arguably are more personal than academic records.

Romney ought to issue a challenge to Obama by turning over his grades from Brigham Young University, where he reportedly graduated with a 3.97 GPA and highest honors, and from Harvard, where he simultaneously earned an MBA and law degree.


http://news.investors.com/article/6...a-must-include-college-transcripts.htm?p=full
Click to expand...

The only thing missing from this is the FW: FW: FW:
 
joepistole said:
These Birthers are becoming mainstream Republicans.
Click to expand...

They are? How can you tell? So Birther = Republican? Thanks for simplifying that for me. You always make things simple for dumb-dumb doo-doo brains like meself.

Grumpy said:
The Esotericist

The people who keep beating on this dead horse have something to hide...racism.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...
That's a hefty accusation, I must say. Quite a leap, in a similar vein to this one gem from you a few days ago:
"As I have already said, Birtherism is a "prettier" substitute for the racism, overt or covert, within the Rethuglican Party. You just can't stand that a black man cleaned your clock and took the Oval Office away from your party. "
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2938860&postcount=59

I assume you can provide some good evidence that Birther = Racist, as well as that Sciforums member Esotericist is mad that "a black man cleaned" his clock, as you put it? And that he took the White House from "your party", aka Republicans?

You have even a shred of proof that The Esotericist identifies with ANY party, let alone Republicans?

Well, let's hear it. You make such statements quite boldly so I assume you have been inside every "birther's" mind. Or are we going to hear more opinions on the inherent racism of our current president's detractors?

Here, let me start you out..

Racism Is the Prime Cause for Debunked Obama Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theory

Among some the glittering jewels of race relation philosophizing and theorizing is this:
"A lot of white folks don't have much. They're struggling, they're hurting, but they've been able to content themselves with the idea that at least they're not black," Wise says. "So they get this psychological wage from their whiteness. The problem is, that's a wage which is diminishing in value. If you say to yourself, 'Well I may not have much, but at least I'm not black,' and then you look around and say, 'Shit, black is the new president!' -- now the value of your psychological wage is reduced in real dollar terms. Now you've got nothing."

..immediately followed by:

In Wise's view: "The people who latch on to the birther stuff (working-class and struggling middle-class whites) aren't any more racist than elite white folks, but their way of expressing it is so much more raw and visceral, because: a) they may not have the filter that you get when you're elite (you sort of know when to check yourself), but also because they're the ones who feel the most threat."

It's nice that self-appointed anti-racism spokesman for the Caucasian persuasion,Tim Wise, presumes to know what might be going on inside the minds of white people who either don't like Obama, or question his credentials, birthplace or otherwise. He is after all a white guy himself, so he should know, right?
He's the author of several books, including Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama

Most of the accusations in that particular article, as well as elsewhere on related topics, rely heavily on presumptive, unsubstantiated liberal racial rhetoric masquerading as a bonified, factual psychoanalysis of a certain group with certain ideologies. Many people these last few years have been crying "Racist!" left and right in defense of Obama, but it has seemed in most cases to be a baseless charge, devoid of any real rigor but with plenty of emotion and ad hominem angles.




btw is factual psychoanalysis something of an oxymoron?
 
Last edited:
Curious, I wonder what he means by this:
Tim Wise said:
a) they may not have the filter that you get when you're elite (you sort of know when to check yourself)
Click to expand...

Sort of know when to check yourself? Have a filter?
So "Elite Whites" have a filter? Like, a fancy reverse osmosis filter to take all the junk out of the water that the lesser folk (white trash?) are told is there for their good health? Are Elite Whites better people because of that?

Does this filter remove all the bad stuff and keep truth and fact, or does the "know when to check yourself" thing imply political correctness, not factual correctness? That is to say, I think such, but I know not to voice my opinion..

I suspect it is probably the latter. Even mainstream conservative talkshow hosts and pundits won't discuss the birth and legitimacy issues around Obama. I think their precious contracts are too lucrative for that.
It has been branded with the mark of KOOK and CONSPIRACY THEORIST, and both of those labels carry with them an automatic, a priori assumption and verdict of intellectual guilt or dishonesty. This is evidenced by the way they are both thrown around indiscriminately, and the reactions that are observed and expected*. The mere label of "conspiracy theory" or even just the word conspiracy is treated as if it were conclusive proof, case closed, of a totally shoddy and inept argument.

*Expected: Ever seen the reaction of many people even mentioning the word conspiracy, especially in larger media forums? there's a bit of giggling, rolling of eyes, a hush hush tone as if being reticent to say something in polite company. It smacks of a pre-programmed response, designed to elicit an aura of derision and distancing of oneself from the topic. It is expected of any sane person to treat it from the outset as unacceptable. How dare you stray from beaten path.
 
LOL Giambatista all this desperate, insecure trolling is just digging your grave deeper. Opposition to Obama generally has been some of the most consistent, oblivious, public racism I've ever seen in my life, for years now. And the Birther stuff is just the most overt, capricious example of that. So much so that you'd have to be some kind of fool or rube to miss it. You really think you're going to squirm out of that by losing your shit here and trying to browbeat people with what is obviously defensive, hollow bluster? What a joke.
 
a) they may not have the filter that you get when you're elite (you sort of know when to check yourself)
”
Sort of know when to check yourself? Have a filter?
So "Elite Whites" have a filter? Like, a fancy reverse osmosis filter to take all the junk out of the water that the lesser folk (white trash?) are told is there for their good health? Are Elite Whites better people because of that?
Click to expand...
Not better people, just better able to avoid parading their ugly bigotries in public.

They know better than to segue from accusations of Kenyan birth to assertions of mental deficiency in a well spoken man when claiming to be free of racial stereotypes, for example. They can see how that looks.

And when they are Republican, as most are, they go easy and oblique on the birth and residency requirements that mattered so little when registered Houston driver and voter, local businessman Dick Cheney, claimed to be a resident of Wyoming; they take it easy on the drug and party stuff that dogged so much of their erstwhile hero W's life until well into adulthood; and they don't bring up W when talking about affirmative action in college or the importance of intelligence and education in the White House, at all.
 
iceaura said:
And when they are Republican, as most are,
Click to expand...

It is kind of funny these days, we have all of these Republicans who are Republican all but in name only. For some reason, they prefer not to call themselves Republican while towing the party line hook line and sinker. Gee I wonder why? :)
 
iceaura said:
Not better people, just better able to avoid parading their ugly bigotries in public.
Click to expand...

I suspect there's something deeper than a simple mistake to be read into the elision in question.

I.e., there is a certain insistent strain of thought on the right in recent years that asserts that those who manage to refrain from publicly saying anything unequivocably racist, are thereby absolved of actually holding any racist views.

Anyway it would explain how Giambattista so readily leapt from "these guys have a better filter" to "these guys are better people."
 
Class customs, and other notes

Giambattista said:

Sort of know when to check yourself? Have a filter?
So "Elite Whites" have a filter? Like, a fancy reverse osmosis filter to take all the junk out of the water that the lesser folk (white trash?) are told is there for their good health? Are Elite Whites better people because of that?
Click to expand...

I'm dubious. That is, I don't think the tendency of rarified society behaving according to an increasingly complicated neurotic standard—attempting to distinguish themselves from common folk—is an extraordinary suggestion.

Class customs, especially in old wealth, include certain pretenses of dignity, so that one euphemizes instead of vulgarizes, and so on.

Long a fascination of our literary, dramatic, and poetic communities, as well as being a vital component of the atmosphere in which Sigmund Freud developed his theories of mind and psychoanalysis, and, furthermore, being thrust front and center by a Republican presidential candidate with an apparent silver foot to stick in his mouth—often, yes, little slips writ large on the national stage, but, still—it seems an odd pretense to question the general concept, widely acknowledged, that Mr. Wise is referring to.
 
quadraphonics said:
LOL Giambatista all this desperate, insecure trolling is just digging your grave deeper.
Click to expand...

LOL quadrophonics, since you know better, would you dig a grave? Show me how it's done?

quadraphonics said:
Opposition to Obama generally has been some of the most consistent, oblivious, public racism I've ever seen in my life, for years now. And the Birther stuff is just the most overt, capricious example of that.
Click to expand...
Sure. You and that one guy already said that. Grumpy was his name. So far he hasn't answered my questions.

iceaura said:
Not better people, just better able to avoid parading their ugly bigotries in public.

They know better than to segue from accusations of Kenyan birth to assertions of mental deficiency in a well spoken man when claiming to be free of racial stereotypes, for example. They can see how that looks.
Click to expand...

So if he was a Caucasian born in the United States, accusations of mental deficiency would be more natural and less insulting, is that it?
What do you mean by assertions of mental deficiency? That he's dumb? Doing a poor job? Racially inferior?

iceaura said:
And when they are Republican, as most are, they go easy and oblique on the birth and residency requirements that mattered so little when registered Houston driver and voter, local businessman Dick Cheney, claimed to be a resident of Wyoming; they take it easy on the drug and party stuff that dogged so much of their erstwhile hero W's life until well into adulthood; and they don't bring up W when talking about affirmative action in college or the importance of intelligence and education in the White House, at all.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about our current President, not the last administration. If you want to discuss Cheney and Bush over and over, be my guest. Seems you did that back in the thread about Libya. Tried to make it all about Bush again.
Start a new thread if you want. If that's all you know how to do when discussing our latest installment, that's your choice.
 
joepistole said:
It is kind of funny these days, we have all of these Republicans who are Republican all but in name only. For some reason, they prefer not to call themselves Republican while towing the party line hook line and sinker. Gee I wonder why? :)
Click to expand...

Does it make it easier for you to put people in one of two categories?
You're either on the Red Team, or you're on the Blue Team. YEAH!
 
Giambattista said:
Does it make it easier for you to put people in one of two categories?
You're either on the Red Team, or you're on the Blue Team. YEAH!
Click to expand...

Is a horse not a horse? Is a dog not a dog? Welcome to the real world. Does it make it easier for you to ignore reality?
 
joepistole said:
Is a horse not a horse? Is a dog not a dog? Welcome to the real world. Does it make it easier for you to ignore reality?
Click to expand...

Is a chihuaha a labrador? I mean, if they're both dogs, then they must look and act completely the same, according to your system of classification.
 
Giambattista said:
Is a chihuaha a labrador? I mean, if they're both dogs, then they must look and act completely the same, according to your system of classification.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back and read again. And just what is my classification system? Are you saying Republicans and Democrats are "completely" the same?
 
Heads or Tails ... It Ain't Pretty Either Way

Joepistole said:

I suggest you go back and read again. And just what is my classification system? Are you saying Republicans and Democrats are "completely" the same?
Click to expand...

Why would he bother? Or, that is to say, there are two points I know you're aware of:

• The whole false equivalence, when applied to the parties in general, is something people say to suggest their intellectual superiority as a veil to camouflage ignorance, intellectual sloth, or intellectual dishonesty.

• On this particular occasion, Giambattista's point willfully changes the subject. As you and Iceaura were discussing the Republican—i.e., "conservative", "red"—side of the equation, the "Red Team/Blue Team" argument doesn't even apply.​

One of the interesting things I've noticed about the advancing of generations is that there are many ideas common to both my generation and my parents', and to some degree even my grandparents'.

For instance, an associate and I recently had a brief moment with the idea of pigtails and inkwells. Nothing in and of itself, but I do know people only a few years younger than me who have no idea what that notion refers to.

And there are plenty of cultural references that seem to have reached their limit, perhaps in part because they have been beaten to death in creative media for decades, as well. White shoes after Labor Day? WASP elitism and gay fashion, at best. Tom Collins in winter? Blank stares, even though these same people will also tell you how much they hated Catcher in the Rye.

So perhaps a confluence of factors—new wealth, increasing cynical scrutiny of cultural ideas, and the general forward march of culture—influences emerging paradigms in a way that subcultural propriety cult doesn't register within the boundaries of elite filters as Giambattista invoked.

Or it could be that he's aware of all this, and just trying to distract the discussion with questions of "better people".

Was a time in my parents' day when "elite filters", such as they might be, were the difference between "colored" and "nigger". No, Thurston Howell III would never say "nigger" even if we could presume him racist.

Mitt Romney will never publicly utter the word "fuck" to describe copulation.

And so on.

Like I said, I'm dubious about the proposition.

But note also how our neighbor went from at least the pretense of failing to understand that the idea of subcultural propriety cult is not an extraordinary proposition but, rather, observable reality to completely blowing the context of the subsequent exchange 'twixt you and Iceaura.

While it may be that Giambattista simply isn't aware of how much Americans have noticed and needled propriety cult over the generations, the consistent changes of contexts he demands are also suggestive that he's just jerking people around in order to distract from the election-year round of cynical, right-wing xenophobia betting that race and ethnicity still matter in the United States.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top