Claim: Obama's "birth certificate" forged with sister Maya's original - Page 3

jallman · 08-10-08, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

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?

While I agree that Obama falls way short of the mark when it comes to being a suitable president, you and I have core ideological differences when it comes to how we perceive the democratic aspects of our republic.

Obama may fall short for me, but it is obvious that he exceeds the expectations of a significant portion of the voters. That makes him a viable candidate by itself. And no, I don't think that the average American voter is retarded and votes without some measure of informed intelligence. That type of citizen just doesn't vote.

Even if Barack is elected, his performance has to be evaluated again in 4 years and his continued employment as President is not guaranteed. Much as I think it would be a detriment to the Republic for that 4 years, I still have faith that the Republic will go on and that America will continue to prosper and advance once he goes, be it in 4 or 8 years.

All this talk of hookers and gigolos is just silly.

bhkad · 08-10-08, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsixing

...and another "Enquirer" mentality thread. Good job bhkad...

I report, you decide.

I forget, were you one of those premature evaluators in that thread? Didn't you decide incorrectly before?

If that's the case, then it would seem you aren't a very good decider, are you?

Nor a very good keeper-upper on the news.

The National Enquirer was proven right. When will you be so?

independent_thinker2002 · 08-10-08, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

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?

Seriously, you are trying real hard, but you are failing.

"Just take my word for it."

bhkad · 08-10-08, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

While I agree that Obama falls way short of the mark when it comes to being a suitable president, you and I have core ideological differences when it comes to how we perceive the democratic aspects of our republic.

Obama may fall short for me, but it is obvious that he exceeds the expectations of a significant portion of the voters. That makes him a viable candidate by itself. And no, I don't think that the average American voter is retarded and votes without some measure of informed intelligence. That type of citizen just doesn't vote.

Even if Barack is elected, his performance has to be evaluated again in 4 years and his continued employment as President is not guaranteed. Much as I think it would be a detriment to the Republic for that 4 years, I still have faith that the Republic will go on and that America will continue to prosper and advance once he goes, be it in 4 or 8 years.

All this talk of hookers and gigolos is just silly.

I was plumbing the depths to find ANYTHING to try to convey to the entranced among us just how unsuitable he is, because the truth of his lack of suitability seems to elude them or not matter to them. Or, cynically, they want the United States to choose someone who will push the 'fast forward button' on this drama that's being played out in human history, called the U.S. of A so that it might end and real change will be able to slither in amongst the resulting chaos and take over.

Barack Obama is a leftist. A far leftist. Someone who has admired and followed radical leftist revolutionaries his entire life. He has taken the advice of the infamous Saul Alinsky. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. And he is prepared to lead America down a far more radically CHANGED path than they know. All I am doing is helping to make it known.

In his learning, applying and teaching Alinsky's methods, euphemistically labeled "community organizing," Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere.

Quote:

Saul Alinsky helped to establish the confrontational political tactics that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. Obama never met Alinsky personally; the latter died when Obama was a young boy. But Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method.

In the Alinsky model, "organizing" is a euphemism for "revolution" -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo's complete collapse -- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal "changes" are needed.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/A...lalinsky2.html

He has essentially manipulated (duped) a good many of the American people into voluntarily giving up the ideals that have helped make us what we are today in order to adopt radical leftist, Marxist ideals.

How?

Quote:

“Nearly everyone is familiar with the fables of Aesop…. Often the point of the story is not directly stated but must be inferred by the reader. This is a ‘roundabout’ presentation. Lenin and his associates before 1917, while living in exile, made frequent use of ‘Aesopianism.’ Much of their propaganda was written in a ‘roundabout’ and elusive style to pass severe Czarist censorship. They desired revolution but could not say so. They had to resort to hints, theoretical discussions, even substituting words, which, through fooling the censor, were understood by the ‘initiated,’ that is, individuals trained in [Communist] Party terminology….

“The word ‘democracy’ is one of the communists’ favorite Aesopian terms. They say they favor democracy, that communism will bring the fullest democracy in the history of mankind. But, to the communists, democracy does not mean free speech, free elections, or the right of minorities to exist. Democracy means the domination of the communist state, the complete supremacy of the Party. The greater the communist control, the more ‘democracy.’ ‘Full democracy,’ to the communist, will come only when all noncommunist opposition is liquidated.

“Such expressions as ‘democracy,’ ‘equality,’ ‘freedom,’ and ‘justice’ are merely the Party’s Aesopian devices to impress noncommunists. Communists … clothe themselves with everything good, noble, and inspiring to exploit those ideals to their own advantage.”[69]

But Alinsky understood that there was a flip side to his strategy of speaking the palatable language of the middle class and the reassuring parlance of morality. Specifically, he said that organizers must be entirely unpredictable and unmistakably willing -- for the sake of the moral principles in whose name they claim to act -- to watch society descend into utter chaos and anarchy. He stated that they must be prepared, if necessary, to “go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion.”[70]

FrontPage Magazine

One of the things that helps define any individual, except for those who are intentionally pursuing a goal or an agenda which would preclude or override their normal social patterns, is that they hang out with those who they share something in common.

What does Barack Obama have in common with these people and organizations?

Quote:

Radical and Socialist Influences:

Saul Alinsky
Bill Ayers
Carl Davidson
Frank Marshall Davis
Democratic Socialists of America
Bernardine Dohrn
Gamaliel Foundation
New Party
Socialist Scholars Conference

Political Allies and Advisors:

Ali Abunimah
Mohamed Salim Al-Churbaji
David Axelrod
Gregg Craig
Jim Johnson
Marilyn Katz
Anthony Lake
Robert Malley
Alice Palmer
Eli Pariser
George Soros
Cass Sunstein
Dorothy Tillman
Joyce Wheeler
Tim Wheeler

Religious Affiliations:

Louis Farrakan
Rev. Joseph Lowery
James Meeks
Rev. Otis Moss
Rev. Michael Pfleger
Rev. Al Sharpton
Jim Wallis
Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Organizational Affiliations:

ACORN
Arab American Action Network
Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.
International Crisis Group
MoveOn
National Council of La Raza
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Project Vote
Sojourners

Academic Affiliations:

Rashid Khalidi
Edward Said
Cornel West

Foundations:

Joyce Foundation
Woods Fund of Chicago

Money Scandals:

Nadhmi Auchi
Robert Blackwell, Jr.
Tony Rezko

Family:

Michelle Obama
Raila Odinga

What does it say about him?

What does it mean about the kind of President he might be or what kind of leadership he might provide or the people who would gain respectability in his Administration and the ideas that might be foisted on us or where he would take us as a nation and what chaos he'd be willing to have befall us?

Birds of a feather flock together. And these bird's droppings will fall on US unless the American people come to recognize the writings on the wall.

And as for the idea that anyone the American people chooses is automatically and by definition, transformed into a viable candidate for President, I can only point out the difference between theory and real life. Consider the failure of Communism to ever realize its theoretical promise. Consider the 1991 Algerian presidential election where the voters, who loved Democracy, imprudently elected Islamists who were going to abolish Democracy until the military interceded. Their civil war lasted about 10 years and resulted in 200,000+ deaths.

Remember this:

Quote:

Revolutionaries must be willing "to watch society descend into utter chaos and anarchy."

bhkad · 08-10-08, 10:20 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".

Have you ever been in a city facing a disaster or an attack where sirens are sounded throughout the city?

How loud are they?

How long do they sound?

And what is the purpose of those sirens?

Partisan cowardice?

Do you have dogs?

Have you ever wondered why it is they continue barking at the sound outside even after you tell them they can stop barking?

Are they demonstrating partisan attack? Well, maybe they are. But even they know that anything that might threaten their well being should be investigated and all of the members of the pack mobilized to join in a defense should the need arise. And when so many of us seem unable or unwilling to pay attention to the warnings about Obama the only thing the more perceptive and observant members of the pack can do is to keep barking the alarm.

I believe in humans as well as in animals there is a practical as well as an innate, instinctual need to continue sounding a warning to our fellow pack members until the threat is known to all or it is no longer a threat.

To even the most objective observer Obama's ominous and amorphous promised CHANGES appear to be a potential threat to our way of life and our government. If those who criticize we who sound the warnings had as much sense as dogs they would join us in sounding the alarm until we knew for sure that he was NOT a threat or until he was no longer in a position to assume the presidency.

Do you really believe this is an example of partisan ideological smearing or patriotism?

1069 · 08-10-08, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Have you ever been in a city facing a disaster or an attack where sirens are sounded throughout the city?

How loud are they?

How long do they sound?

And what is the purpose of those sirens?

Partisan cowardice?

Do you have dogs?

...

bhkad · 08-10-08, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

...

What about that text confuses you or makes you 'crazy?'

rsixing · 08-11-08, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

I report, you decide.

I forget, were you one of those premature evaluators in that thread? Didn't you decide incorrectly before?

If that's the case, then it would seem you aren't a very good decider, are you?

Nor a very good keeper-upper on the news.

The National Enquirer was proven right. When will you be so?

So the "Enquirer" is right for once and then you grab credit? Good job and a hardy self back-slap.

But really it's not about the "Enquirer" at all but about the quality of your threads which are much like the "Enquirer". Great birdcage liner but not much else.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-11-08, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Have you ever been in a city facing a disaster or an attack where sirens are sounded throughout the city?

How loud are they?

How long do they sound?

And what is the purpose of those sirens?

Partisan cowardice?

Do you have dogs?

Have you ever wondered why it is they continue barking at the sound outside even after you tell them they can stop barking?

Are they demonstrating partisan attack? Well, maybe they are. But even they know that anything that might threaten their well being should be investigated and all of the members of the pack mobilized to join in a defense should the need arise. And when so many of us seem unable or unwilling to pay attention to the warnings about Obama the only thing the more perceptive and observant members of the pack can do is to keep barking the alarm.

I believe in humans as well as in animals there is a practical as well as an innate, instinctual need to continue sounding a warning to our fellow pack members until the threat is known to all or it is no longer a threat.

To even the most objective observer Obama's ominous and amorphous promised CHANGES appear to be a potential threat to our way of life and our government. If those who criticize we who sound the warnings had as much sense as dogs they would join us in sounding the alarm until we knew for sure that he was NOT a threat or until he was no longer in a position to assume the presidency.

Do you really believe this is an example of partisan ideological smearing or patriotism?

Easy. Partisan ideological smearing. You are being an out of sync extreme alarmist, bhkad. Nothing you are saying is analogous to the situation being discussed.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-11-08, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan

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."

I use the term partisanship in the extreme position. Everyone is a partisan to some extent, so the term itself has little purpose. Partisanship, to me, is a pattern of behavior where either one will support a position or person, blindly, because it fits with their political ideology, regardless of any time invested in researching, or a pattern of behavior where one will smear, be dishonest, misrepresent, or focus on minutae or irrelevancies in regards to one who is opposed to one's political ideology, again without consult or accepting facts.

I take an extreme view of partisanship. With this definition, can we agree that my statement was accurate?