Claim: Obama's "birth certificate" forged with sister Maya's original - Page 2

CaptainCourtesy · 08-10-08, 04:42 PM

Moderator's Warning:

I'm convinced. Off to Conspiracy Theories.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-10-08, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan

To be honest, I think "partisan attack" is a bit cliche, and also not accurate in this case.

This isn't even about political philosophy, where the Democrats are arguing that the Republicans want to starve children by denying them free breakfast at school, or the Republicans are arguing that the Democrats are soft on crime because, or however you want to frame how they behave towards one another.

This is about a campaign of smears and whispers. The people repeating them don't admit to believing them, but they repeat them as often as possible so that maybe someone somewhere will start to take it even a little bit seriously and maybe pass it on themselves.

In other words, it's an assault on Barack Obama's candidacy not based on his policies or ideas but based on lies, obfuscation, defamation of character, and cowardly behavior.

We shouldn't refer to cowardice as "partisan."

To me, it's both partisan and cowardly. It's partisan because it is only purpose is to attempt to sway others away from the opposite candidate and/or to the candidate of the smearers supporters. When you said, "The people repeating them don't admit to believing them, but they repeat them as often as possible so that maybe someone somewhere will start to take it even a little bit seriously and maybe pass it on themselves", all you need to add is purpose, which is to impact the listener's political support, and you have a partisan attack. The source is from the opposing political ideology.

Perhaps the best way to describe it is "partisan cowardice".

independent_thinker2002 · 08-10-08, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

To me, it's both partisan and cowardly. It's partisan because it is only purpose is to attempt to sway others away from the opposite candidate and/or to the candidate of the smearers supporters. When you said, "The people repeating them don't admit to believing them, but they repeat them as often as possible so that maybe someone somewhere will start to take it even a little bit seriously and maybe pass it on themselves", all you need to add is purpose, which is to impact the listener's political support, and you have a partisan attack. The source is from the opposing political ideology.

Perhaps the best way to describe it is "partisan cowardice".

So I should keep my "Paper wasn't even invented yet when McCain was born." comments to myself?

TacticalEvilDan · 08-10-08, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

To me, it's both partisan and cowardly. It's partisan because it is only purpose is to attempt to sway others away from the opposite candidate and/or to the candidate of the smearers supporters.

I guess when I think "partisan," I think, "particular to a certain political viewpoint." Someone who goes off on a rant about a particular political subject and is all slanted to one side and refusing to even acknowledge the other side's view is partisan.

This isn't a political subject. This is one guy being smeared for something supposed about his past for which there has been no certified proof I'm aware of. It's not about any of his ideas or an evaluation of the man based on a slanted view of his ideas, it's about the man, and that to me drops the partisan descriptor entirely.

Maybe it's less a matter of what this actually is and more a matter of how I define a term used to describe it.

We're at least 50% in agreement, pending agreement on the definition of "partisan."

jallman · 08-10-08, 05:08 PM

I hardly think little baby Barack had a hand in the forgery if it is a forgery. I don't see any reason this should be relevant now.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-10-08, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

So I should keep my "Paper wasn't even invented yet when McCain was born." comments to myself?

That would be advisable.

The silenced majority · 08-10-08, 05:42 PM

This will continue to be a conspiracy until the Barack Obama For PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA campaign is actually willing to produce an original copy of the Senators birth certificate.

Is that too much to ask of someone who is seeking the most powerful position in the world?

Who's the real coward? Is it the guy who's running to be president yet is unwilling to produce an original copy of his birth certificate?

Noooooooooooooooo, never.

Not Lord Barack!

Stop trying to portray yourselves as being fair minded while you're at it; every single person to contribute to this thread is a partisan.

Some of us are not so cowardly to admit it.

jallman · 08-10-08, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

This will continue to be a conspiracy until the Barack Obama For PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA campaign is actually willing to produce an original copy of the Senators birth certificate.

Is that too much to ask of someone who is seeking the most powerful position in the world?

Who's the real coward? Is it the guy who's running to be president yet is unwilling to produce an original copy of his birth certificate?

Noooooooooooooooo, never.

Not Lord Barack!

Stop trying to portray yourselves as being fair minded while you're at it; every single person to contribute to this thread is a partisan.

Some of us are not so cowardly to admit it.

Do you really think it's an issue if there is a forgery of Barack Obama's birth certificate floating around?

This is just something I don't care about. I do agree that Barack's failure to produce the original is not out of inability, but more out of his flippant approach to brooking any question of his candidacy, but that's an issue in and of itself.

In other words, I think the importance being stressed on the issues is reversed. Rather than Obama's flippant and arrogant demeanor being a highlight in evidence of this birth certificate issue, I think it would be more important to stress his attitude and air of entitlement to the office and use his failure to comply with a reasonable request like producing a birth certificate to highlight THAT.

One of the biggest mistakes being made in taking him out in this race is that the cart is often coming before the horse. Focus on the big issues and use the little examples to prove them.

If any of us went to the DMV without our birth certificate to get ID, I wonder how far we would get? So much more important is the office of the President.

bhkad · 08-10-08, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

And the pattern continues.

There was the madrassa smear
There was/is the Hussien smear
Then there was the "he a muslim" smear
Then there was the "he is a communist, Marxist or socialist" smear (bearing in mind the 3 are very different)
And now there is the "he not an American smear"? Or is that he is hiding something smear?

Seems the right have no traction on the issues, so they have to go negative to even stand a chance in beating him. So they are rallying the homophobes, racists, islamophobes and xenophobes to fight off Obama.... sad how low the republican party has fallen.

How can something that is perfectly acceptable such as denying being schooled in a madrassa if he really was, denying being a Muslim if he really is/was, being a Commie, Marxist and/or Socialist if he really is, be a smear?

And being a natural born citizen is a requirement to be POTUS.

Otherwise, Ahhhhnold would run and win and govern pretty well, I think.

As for your thinking that we Republicans are 'going negative' in order to try to eliminate someone who is otherwise suitable for the job, let me ask you this.

Would you bring home a hooker for your son to marry? If your well-to-do widowed Mom was lonely would you search the police files for good looking gigolos for her to meet?

If your son was looking for a mate certainly the flashiest available and popular genuine female should be suitable for him, right?

If you brought home this gigolo and your mom went to dinner with him and afterwards began pointing out his character flaws and shortcomings would that be a case of her going negative and smearing him or is it, in reality, an example of your standards being a bit too low or not being perceptive enough to recognize her needs or to know what constitutes a suitable candidate?

Your Eurocentric judgment will be called upon if/when Mr. Obama chooses to submit himself for consideration as your leader.

In the meantime, just take my word for it, once the American people find out about all of the many other things that are not matters of speculation about the junior Senator they will realize he is ill suited to be the President of these United States.

You can have him then.

Hey, when he comes knocking on your door with flowers and candy just overlook his shortcomings, ok?

1069 · 08-10-08, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Would you bring home a hooker for your son to marry? If your well-to-do widowed Mom was lonely would you search the police files for good looking gigolos for her to meet?

If your son was looking for a mate certainly the flashiest available and popular genuine female should be suitable for him, right?

If you brought home this gigolo and your mom went to dinner with him and afterwards began pointing out his character flaws and shortcomings would that be a case of her going negative and smearing him or is it, in reality, an example of your standards being a bit too low or not being perceptive enough to recognize her needs or to know what constitutes a suitable candidate?

What are you on about?