This and That Yes, believing that one particular accusation against President Bush might have more credence than another means I give "slightly more credence to the Bush theories". Would you care to explain the plural? • • • Review Hawai'i Revised Statute 338-18, with particular attention to section (g) and get back to me. ____________________ Notes: "§338-18 Disclosure of records". Hawai'i Revised Statutes. November, 2009. Capitol.Hawaii.gov. August 19, 2010. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
Why not react to all threads the way certain people react to anti-Obama threads? If criticizing Obama makes one a Stormfronter, then why not accuse critics of Israel of being anti-Semites, critics of white politicians of being Nation Of Islam/Black Panther members, critics of female politicians of being misogynists, etc.
The weird, non-American black man is attacking us! Git'im! See, the thing I find striking is the idea that you actually believe that ridiculously stupid proposition in the first place. Given the amount of criticism that doesn't get denounced as racist, I would think a person with even merely average rational skills would be able to understand that when you don't base the complaint on xenophobia, people don't worry about xenophobia. But, apparently, this is too complicated for some people to figure out.
No I would NOT care to explain! Okay, I just threw that in, assuming that there are multiple theories about Bush and his military service, among other things. Usually, one conspiracy theory (or fact) doesn't exist in a bubble by itself. Various parties or schools of thought have their own opinions. As far as his service record, I really don't know too much, other than concluding that he got recruited into the Air Guard because of political connections. My opinion. But probably close to the truth.
********** Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!(a storm front is censored, how classy) is funny. I've read some of their stuff. Other than the pigheaded racial ideals, some of their talk ain't half bad. The ADL does an admirable job on the anti-semite front. But, honestly, semitic races and languages are quite diverse. It's really funny how the word "semite" has come to mean Jew, and only Jew.
I had the same thought, Then I read the etymology of "anti-semitic". Anti-semitic meant anti-Jew and only anti-Jew from the very beginning of the word "anti-semitic" getting used. The word anti-semitic was created in German in the mid to late 1800s. The German nation was new having just been formed from older Germanic states. Some felt a need to create a German national identity where there had been none before. In sophisticated and intellectual circles religious bigotry had become unfashionable but racism was still considered sophisticated and acceptable. The fact that 3 to 11 million people had died in Germany 250 years earlier from a War between Catholics and Protestants may have increased German Intellectuals dislike for religious bigotry. Religious bigotry against Jews was very normal throughout Europe among the common men. But this new Germany needed to change the religious bigotry against Jews into racial bigotry against Jews so that Germans could have a counterpoint with which to recognize their newly formed Germanness. Nationalist German Intellectuals in the newly formed Germany created the term the term anti-Semite to proudly describe themselves as hating Jews not because they were religious bigots like the common men but rather because they were sophisticated scientific racists. It is Ironic that Jews embraced this word that was created to legitimize the hatred of them. Germany had no Semites other than Jews. The pretension that sophisticated Germans would also dislike Arabs was just pseudo-scientific nonsense designed to redefine religious bigotry against Jews as racial bigotry against Jews.
This response is prompted by PM. I did review that originally when I responded here. The only reason I would respond after all that was said and not done in that thread is because I was pushed into it by private message. Apparently someone felt something wasn't accomplished, or something? There were no direct evidences of racism, only implied. And all of that depends on what type of glasses one is wearing. How am I wrong?
Bingo. Politicians are singled out by people and organizations for ridicule and criticism all the time. But, since Obama is part black, we're REQUIRED to view this as a racial incident rather than "business as usual". Because you disagree with Tiassa's opinion. Duh! It's not that I'm not acknowledging what other people are saying. It's just that what some other people are saying is wrong, hypocritical and stupid. Maybe even racist, too. It's not that we're "running from the real issue". It's just that we disagree with you with regard to what the "real issue" is.
Really? That's it? That's what you came up with? After all that build-up? There are a couple of issues with that post; one is simply this: "Because it was much ado about a few points interspersed among 100+ posts about an "alien" and that the word alien = illegal alien = racism." From the outset in this thread, that point has been ignored, discounted, or mocked by those who would disagree with it. At no point has it been substantially addressed. A few points out of over a hundred posts? It didn't matter that six posts on the first page (30%) addressed that issue, or that the discussion of that point continued well into the second page? Stateofmind overlooked it at #67, and again at #98; WillNever ignored it at #79 amd #122; S.A.M. missed it at #94; and you, Giambattista, ignored it at #107, when you undertook S.A.M.'s question, and again in your discussion with her at #115. It's absent from your post at #116, and you came close to it at #123. Cowboy backed the Birthers at #128, which is pretty much the nearest thing to substantially address of the issue to that point, but ignores the annoying detail that the issue is answered already in the public arena. And when you intervened in my discussion of the point with Cowboy, you again skipped the core argument (#130. At #133, you avoided that issue yet again, and reiterated your argument about other effigies, at #136. Except it wasn't much of an argument, just a list of effigies with no acknowledgment of any particular details about them. I even asked you (#135, #137) what racist elements you could identify about those effigies; you ignored that question in #171, and even went so far as to assert about others in defiance of the facts on record: "The obviously Obama effigy was considered racist by default." Yet despite ignoring my question about racist elements in your example, you went on to claim, "This is a discussion about why one effigy is racist, the other not." So, really, that's what the discussion is about, but you won't make the point? Or was your point the counterfactual assertion of racism by default? You continued pushing that point in #172. Madanthonywayne checked in, missing the point entirely, at #178: "A review of the above quoted posts would suggest that you are referring to the antennae of the Obama effigy?" He also acknowledged that people had not been explicit enough in expressing the issue they were concerned with (#180). You reiterated your counterfactual assertion at #182, and piled on your effigy argument at #183. In #184, a number of examples were listed for Madanthonywayne's benefit, since he felt people weren't being explict enough about the problem they had; in that same post, the question about the racist elements of your list of effigies was again reiterated. Madanthonywayne finally figured out the issue (#185), but claimed first that he thought people were joking, and then (#194) that he didn't know what issues people were discussing. Meanwhile, we come to your response at #187: "... a few points interspersed among 100+ posts ...". It seems disingenuous. When there were only a few posts, and the issue came up in 30% of them, nobody answered it. One of the reasons there were over a hundred posts to consider is because people were avoiding it. Like you proceeded to do in that post: "Skin color? Criticize a president, all well and good. If it's a black president, however, suddenly previous criticisms are off the table because of skin color." Or, "Well, I would assume her gender is what makes it sexist." You would assume? Notice how you're just grasping after straws and guessing o other people's behalf. Sure, there are probably many in the world who would argue the point you set up as a straw man, but that wasn't the issue on the table. Rather, you ignored the issue on the table long enough to lament the fact that it was hard to find over the course of "100+ posts". If you feel so damn threatened by an olive branch— —I don't know what to tell you. But, beyond that, after all is said and done— —you still thought it was the antennae. Like I said then: "I don't understand why, after all that thread has been through, anyone still thinks it's about the antennae. Is there something I'm missing about that particular focus?" (PMID #253250) And, as you explained to me, "That's the crux as I see it." (PMID #253399) It's hard to accept that argument, since you've given so little attention to what people said, and much more effort to whatever you wish to project on their behalf. Knocking down straw men is easy, Giambattista. That's the whole point of such a fallacy. You're arguing your own damn invention in lieu of attending what people have said. You're making excuses for yourself ("... it was much ado about a few points interspersed among 100+ posts ...") according to some disingenuous pretense. Really, if you're helping drag the issue out, you probably shouldn't cite the fact that it's a complicated, dragged-out mess as your justification. That's how you're wrong.
Sorry, Tiassa, but I'm more concerned with 911 at this moment. Feel free to care about something more important than left right partisanship. And racism, real and imagined. No. Try it sometime.
You seem to be doing the only thing you know how to do, Tiassa: drown someone in words. In your most recent incarnation, you did it devoid of any decent format or punctuation. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2617529&postcount=211 Look at that first half of the post. What a disgusting disgrace. But then, I'm an alleged racist. So I have no room to complain. "Cowboy backed the birthers" with this statement. Tiassa. You not only suck, but you do it continuously.
Under common law, as our Constitution is written as a Common Law Document, it would be understood by the Common Man, that if you run for elected office, you must provide the public, (as these are public offices) proof of eligibility, and where does the Supreme Court come up with the idea that the Voting Public doesn't have standing to bring action against Obama to prove His eligibility to that same Voting Public? The IX Amendment applies to the Supreme Court, just as much as it does to any other branch of the Federal Government; The IX Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The X Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It is Our Constitutional right to question any Public Offical as to His right to Hold Office, and require Proof of such.
He did and he was deemed eligible to run for office. Just like McCain was and he was born overseas. Obama was born to an American mother and has an American birth certificate stating he was born in Hawaii. But apparently, that is not enough for some. Damn darky who's trying to pass himself as American.. So his birth certificate, which was deemed appropriate by all the relevant departments, is suddenly not relevant enough. He must have been born in Africa, they say, because you know, his father is African. We can just discount that his mother is American and that he was born on American soil. So please, can the BS about the people having the right to know. His American citizenship by birth has been proven again and again. It's just not good enough because to the retard right birthers, he's just not American enough due to his colour, name and ideology. There will come a time in the future when people are going to look back to this period in their history and feel ashamed and embarrassed at just how far some have gone to discount the first ever black President by saying that he is not American enough to be President. Yes. But when you keep discounting the proof he gives and keep saying that it's not enough, even though all relevant individuals, from officials in Hawaii and the mainland have stated it is an American birth certificate and that he is American born, then you are turning your right into a farce and a racist one at that. As for your right to demand proof:
This and That (chortle!) The lament of the desperate amuses me these days. Okay, okay. Look, I understand. Asking you to read and pay attention is just too cruel. Oh, dear Goddess! It's a long paragraph! He'p me! He'p me! Somebody, please save us from long paragraphs! Besides, there's plenty of punctuation in that paragraph. Anything to avoid the facts on record, eh? I would say your apathy toward the issue people raised leaves you no room to complain, not your pathetic defense of racism. Indeed. As I noted in my reply to that point: In and of itself, the question is not inherently racist. Persisting in the face of evidence to the other? That's just stupid. ... I also swallow. Jealous much? If only. I know, I'm such a whore. So, does all this mean you have no substantial response to the facts on the record? That's fine with me, but for someone who allegedly doesn't care, you're awfully insistent. • • • Oh, there must be a slip opinion somewhere. Find it, read through it, and tell us what you think is wrong with it. You know, like a real constitutional scholar and expert.
It is given me by the Constitution. Bells, who is bring up the "Dammed Darky" not I, it is you, I have not once ever mentioned Obama color or lack of color all I have done is questioned His legal eligibility. Now guess what, the left was ready and willing to attack McCain for being born overseas, and question His status as a natural born citizen, but there is one major difference, both of His Parents were natural born citizens, in government service, on a government assignment, and McCain released His long form Birth Certificate. And again, this is a National Public Office, and as such it doesn't matter what the State of Hawaii Recognizes, it is what the Constitution Recognizes, and the fact that the Constitution in written as a Common Law document ,to be understood as the Common Man would understand it, and as a requirement of holding the Office of the Presidency, you have to be a Legally Natural Born Citizen, and that the Common Man has the rights by Constitution to question the eligibility of anyone wishing to hold PUBLIC OFFICE, especially the Office of the President of the United States. And the overriding legal proof of natural born citizenship is the long form birth certificate, not the short form that a State may recognize for it's legal purpose. And again, Obama was the product of a legal marriage between a British Subject/Kenyan Citizen and a American Mother, which makes Him a dual citizen, and by the fact that it was a legal marriage, Obama is a subject of the Crown, because His Legal Father's citizenship is British/Kenyan. So from your post, you have no rebuttal to the facts of the Constitution, and your response is that anyone who questions (and again you are the one bringing race into the issue"he's just not American enough due to his color, name and ideology"), the legal facts as to (and again you are the one to bring race to the issue "first ever black President") wether Obama was factually born on American Soil. Yes, Bells only argument is that those who question are retard right birthers. Again Bells the ultimate proof of naturally born citizenship is the Long Form Birth Certificate, and as Obama is Holding National Public Office, that is what the Constitution Requires, and that is what the people have a right by Constitution, to have clearly proven legally, Obama absolute legal eligibility to hold the Office of the Presidency.
Yes.. And your constitution also deemed him acceptable to run for President with the documents he did have. I'm sorry, did you fail to read the title of this thread? Did you fail to notice the image of an alien on the first page of this thread, an image that bears an uncanny resemblance to your black president being used for target practice in a school fete? And guess what? Obama's mother is also a "natural born citizen" of the US. His birth certificate that he produced is what he was given when he requested it because Hawaii do not have "long form birth certificate", which they (officials and Governor (Republican mind you) of Hawaii) have stated repeatedly, all on deaf ears. So how exactly is he supposed to then obtain that long form birth certificate? Ask them to draw one up, just for him? Are you saying that Hawaii is unconstitutional because they do not provide the same form of birth certificates that some other States provide? His birth certificate passed muster Buffalo, under your Constitution and thus, he was allowed to run for President and guess what? He won. He was Constitutionally deemed to be a "Legally Natural Born Citizen" with the birth certificate he produced and that was upheld in court. So why are you bemoaning this? Why are you and others still carrying on about this? The form the State provided him is all they have and how they provide it. In other words, Hawaii does not hand out "long form birth certificates". So how do you expect him to get one? The birth certificates in Hawaii are acceptable and were deemed acceptable by your courts after reviewing whether it was constitutional or not. They found it was. So again, why are you still bitching about his legality Buffalo? No. He was born on US soil. His birth certificate is American. He is an American citizen and was born as an American. Are you saying that his mother's status as an American does not stand or is not enough? How delightfully sexist. So the problem for you is that his father is African Buffalo? Do you know what I thinK? I think that people like you would disregard any documents he would provide because you consider him to be the usurper. He will be the criminal alien.. What you are also saying is that anyone now born in Hawaii, who will never have access to the long form birth certificate, because they don't hand those out in Hawaii, will never have the right to run for President - especially if they are black and have an African born father. You can harp on and on about the Constitution in this, but it has been proven again and again that as per the Constitution, he was deemed American and legally born in the US to run for President. And again, your courts deemed the Certificate he was given by the Hawaiian authorities as being acceptable and those who went and looked at his original birth certificate, Republicans, all accepted that he was born in the US. He was given the certificate he was given. And again, Hawaii do not hand out long form birth certificates. The one they do give was deemed Constitutionally acceptable. The courts found him to be legally eligible. So while you may claim that his having an African father makes him not eligible, the courts felt that he was. So why are you discriminating against him based solely on a piece of paper Buffalo?
Sorry Bells at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the short form birth certificate didn't exist, so no under the Constitution Obama proffered proof...a Short Form Birth Certificate isn't acceptable. Did you? And guess what, it is our right to parody and caricature the politician of our country, just maybe you have failed to read our Constitution and...... Now where were you when the Liberals produced movies about assassinating President George Bush? and the lynching's in effigy,..........you had no problem when it was George Bush,.....Sarah Palin.....John McCain........ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Freedom of Speech....Political Speech.....even Incorrect Political Speech..... Obama's mothers birth is not the question, it isn't her citizenship that is at question, it is Obama's citizenship and circumstance of birth, and as you have just admitted Hawaii doesn't have Obama's original long form certificate, and guess what, at the time of Obama's Birth Hawaii did issue a Long form Birth Certificate......I have posted examples of long form certificates issued by Hawaii from that time period..... Now you wish to go on a read herring ride......no what I stated was that what Hawaii recognizes for it's legal purpose in state is not germane to what is Required by the Constitution to hold National Public Office, especially when it come to the office of the President, or Vice President, which requires being a Natural Born Citizen, and again as a Common Law Document, as understood by a common man, the only legal proof of Natural Birth is a Long Form Birth Certificate. Show me exactly where in the Constitution Obama was deemed to be a legally born citizen? The Constitution state that you must be a Legally Natural Born Citizen, and it is up to that Person to Provide Proof beyond reproof. Because, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and again to hold the Office of the Presidency, it is required that you be a Legally Natural Born Citizen beyond reproof, and the legally recognized proof of Natural Born Citizenship is the long form, as far as I know that has not been changed by Amendment to our Constitution. So they are recognized by the courts for normal legal actions, we are not talking about normal legal actions, or any other political office in America, Under the Constitution any Citizen "Natural Born" or by "naturalization" can serve in those political positions, but Under the Constitution, again the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States, to become President or Vice President, you are required by Constitution to be a Legally Natural Born Citizen of this Country, and as such are required to prove so. Then by the laws of the Constitution Obama is intelligible, again Hawaii does issue a long form certificate at birth, and they exist, and some where Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate exist, Now answer this question, why did Hawaii draft specific legislation to ignore FOI request for Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate, and that law to be legal doesn't apply to any other FOI request on anyone else's birth certificate. And Obama can prove that and end the whole debate in a hour........Release His Long Form Birth certificate.......simple. If Obama's mother was single, guess what, I would not have a leg to stand on, no legitimate argument, but under international law and the fact that Obama's Mother was in a legal marriage at the time of Obama's Birth and Obama's father is a foreign citizen yes there is legitimate legal questions. Exactly, "what you think", and that has nothing to do with our Supreme Law...The Constitution.....and the requirement that those who hold the highest political office in the land must be Natural Born Citizens. Bells a simple question are you American? Again Bells it is you bring color into the debate, and guess what, even yet today any individual born in Hawaii has access to their long form Birth Certificate, even Obama, it is only someone who request a FOI on Obama's Birth Certificate that is blocked from seeing the long form birth certificate....... Obama can get His long form. The Constitution, yes, your attitude is very clear, "harping"? The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Again, a short form is not proof of being Natural Born. Yes, I would like to see that case law.....what I can find is that the Courts have ruled that the Voters and Citizen don't have standing to question the facts of Obama's birth, that is a long way from finding him to be legally eligible. So again it is you Bells who is bring race into this....... Exactly what discrimination? How is asking for legal proof of eligibility to office discrimination? I am asking that under the Supreme Law of America...the Constitution....that the Eligibility to Hold a specific public office be proven. Piece of paper.....The Constitution is not a Piece of Paper.....No the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Heart and Soul of America.....the Greatest Document in History......and you Bells, wish for Me to put a piece of paper over the Constitutional Requirement of My Country. A computer generated piece of paper, with out proper notary, a shortened form of the legal long form certificate that is available to Obama at His request, and you want to put a piece of paper above My Constitution. Law, Bells, compliance with the Law, Constitutioal Law, absolute compliance with the Common Law of the Constitution of the United State, the supreme law of America.
