Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 09:04 am
Quote:
Posted at 10:57 AM ET, 04/27/2011
An embarrassment to the country
By Adam Serwer

This Tuesday morning become one of the most surreal and ridiculous moments in the history of American politics when the White House decided to release copies of President Barack Obama’s “long form birth certificate,” in an attempt to quiet conspiracy theorists who believe the president was born elsewhere. The president had already released a version of certified by the state of Hawaii, but because of the “volume of requests” for the birth certificate, the president asked the state to make an exception and release the original document.

It’s tempting to make this simply about reality television personality Donald Trump, who rocketed to the top of the Republican presidential field by promoting the slander that the president wasn’t born in the United States. But there are a number of other factors that created the current situation. Chief among them is that Trump’s lunacy emboldened conservative media sources to fully embrace birtherism. According to Media Matters, Fox News has spent over two hours promoting false claims about Obama’s birthplace across 54 segments, and only ten did Fox News hosts challenge the falsehood that the president wasn’t born in America. This isn’t just about Trump. All he did was encourage the communications wing of the conservative movement to go into overdrive in an attempt to make birtherism mainstream.

Aside from being one of the most idiotic moments in American political history, this marks a level of personal humiliation no previous president has ever been asked to endure. Other presidents have been the target of crazy conspiracy theories, sure, but few have been as self-evidently absurd as birtherism. None has been so clearly rooted in anxieties about the president’s racial identity, because no previous American president has been black.

This whole situation is an embarrassment to the country. Yesterday Jesse Jackson described birtherism as racial “code,” but there’s nothing “coded” about it. It’s just racism. I don’t mean that everyone who has doubts about the president’s birthplace is racist. Rather, the vast majority have been deliberately misled by an unscrupulous conservative media and by conservative elites who have failed or refused to challenge these doubts.

And birtherism is only one of a number of racially charged conspiracy theories that have bubbled out of the right-wing swamp and have been allowed to fester by conservative elites. Those who have spent the last two years clinging to the notion that the president wasn’t born in the United States, who have alleged that the president wasn’t intelligent enough to write his own autobiography or somehow coasted to magna cum laude at Harvard law, are carrying on new varieties of an old, dying tradition of American racism. Similar accusations dogged early black writers like Frederick Douglass and Phyllis Wheatley, whose brilliance provoked an existential crisis among people incapable of abandoning myths of black intellectual inferiority.

Whether this farce ends or continues is entirely dependent on those who nurtured the rumors in the first place. This is an opportunity for conservative elites, who have finally come around to the possibility that the outsize hatred of the president they’ve cultivated as an asset for the past two years might actually hurt them politically, to purge birtherism from mainstream conservative discourse.

Sadly, those who fostered doubts about the president’s citizenship are unlikely to relent in the face of factual proof, because birtherism was never about the facts. For its most ardent proponents, it was and is about the inability to accept the legitimacy of a black man in the White House. Nothing about the decision to release the president’s birth certificate can change that.

By Adam Serwer | 10:57 AM ET, 04/27/2011 | Permalink | Comments ( 1)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/an-embarrassment-to-the-country/2011/03/04/AFQk22xE_blog.html

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 09:07 am
How long before the crazies here question the veracity of the long form?

I think I can hold my breath that long.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 09:25 am
@snood,
Yeap, our side has to put up with the idiot birthers, your side has the idiot truthers. Just goes to show there are idiots of all political persuasions. Of course, I think most of us here have always known that.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 09:25 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

The devil is in the details, rjb. I think unfortunately that the term "subsidy" is highly misunderstood and mis-identified much of the time. For example, if I have heard many refer to something called the depletion allowance as a huge subsidy and undeserved, but in my opinion it is deserved. It is a logical part of doing business, just as depreciation or reduction of inventories are in countless other businesses. Here is the situation. An oil company spends big bucks on exploration and development to find and prove new oil and gas reserves in the ground, which perhaps can be likened to Walmart spending big bucks to stock up their warehouse with merchandise. That inventory, whether it be oil and gas in the ground or merchandise in the warehouse, it cost a bundle of money to put there. Just as Walmart can figure their taxes based upon what investment of merchandise is left in their warehouse after it has been drawn down, the oil company should be able to do the same. If I understand it right, the oil company gets a depletion allowance for drawing down their reserves in the ground. In my view, this is not a subsidy, but a fully deserved factor as part of doing the business that they are doing.

The above is but one example of many that probably exist within this subject of subsidies.


This is highly misleading. The percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas can enable a producer to claim total depreciation in excess of the cost of their investment. This is because the depreciation is calculated as a fix percentage of annual gross revenue.

Oil and gas companies exploit this to get billions of dollars back, in far excess of the cost of exploration and exploitation of the fields. It is 100% correct to call this a subsidy and it should be cut immediately.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 09:26 am



I really don't care about his birth certificate, but I would
like the White House to release Obama's college transcripts.
parados
 
  2  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 09:30 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:




I really don't care about his birth certificate, but I would
like the White House to release Obama's college transcripts.

Can you prove you graduated from Kindergarten?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 09:43 am
@parados,

I want the world to see Obama's college transcripts
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 10:07 am
@H2O MAN,
http://i55.tinypic.com/10r381f.jpg
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 10:08 am


Let everyone see the courses taken and the grades earned by Barry Obama during his college years.
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  4  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 10:39 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:


I want the world to see Obama's college transcripts


What about the crazy Polaroids from your one-and-a-half years at the Emmet Culligan Institute of Water Technology, where you double-majored in Redneck and Dumb? I think the world would prefer those.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 10:48 am
@Gargamel,
Good question, Mr G. Most people with "brains" already know Obama's collegiate record; his accomplishments at Harvard Law are legend today, but many dispute it even with all the attendant evidence to the contrary. He was Harvard Law Reviews first black president.


Quote:
Barack Obama, Harvard Law Review editor, March 19, 1990

September 4, 2008 | 3:01 pm

Harvard Law Review's first black president plans a life of public service. His multicultural background gives him unique perspective.

By Tammerlin Drummond
Times Staff Writer
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 11:12 am
@cicerone imposter,
How did BO do on his SAT?
JTT
 
  0  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 11:15 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
You mean the MPAT.
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 11:16 am
http://rethinkit.typepad.com/madashell/2009/08/how-smart-is-obama-the-american-thinker-quotes-historian-michael-beschloss-on-obamas-iqwhosays-it-is-off-the-charts-while-a.html

We do not know Obama's SAT, LSAT, or GPA scores because he won't release them. His Columbia GPA was estimated by the WSJ to be between 1.8 and 3.0 (C- to B) because he did not graduate with honors. He was at the bottom 15% in Occidental. He was in the top 10% at Harvard Law because he graduated "magna cum laude". So we assume he is smart, but how he got into Harvard with that record is peculiar. In any event, he will not release his records. But Beschloss calls him the smartest president ever. That just tells me that Beschloss is the dumbest historian ever. Does this matter? Not his scores. But what does not releasing his academic records tell you about his personality?

cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 11:21 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
RD, You're so smart, how about sharing your scores?

Obama was the first black president of Harvard Law. What were your accomplishments?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 11:35 am


Obama's college transcripts are a great unknown.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 12:04 pm
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

Yeap, our side has to put up with the idiot birthers, your side has the idiot truthers. Just goes to show there are idiots of all political persuasions. Of course, I think most of us here have always known that.

At least "my side'" can claim that "truthers" constitute a fringe. "Your side" shows more than half of the whole damn party claiming to have doubts about whether the president is American.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 12:32 pm
@CoastalRat,
By 'truthers', I guess you mean those that don't agree with some/many of the positions that the government has advanced and been unable to prove, or in cases where a government advanced story is flatly contradicted by the facts.

Is this what you are referring to Coastal Rat, Snood?
snood
 
  2  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 12:40 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

By 'truthers', I guess you mean those that don't agree with some/many of the positions that the government has advanced and been unable to prove, or in cases where a government advanced story is flatly contradicted by the facts.

Is this what you are referring to Coastal Rat, Snood?


I can't believe someone doesn't know this, but the term "Truthers" was given to those who tried to advance the notion that George Bush Jr was complicit in the September 11th atrocities.
Or...upon reading your post again, maybe you are fully aware of what the term means and are trying to use this as another excuse for a tirade against the government...
JTT
 
  1  
Wed 27 Apr, 2011 12:48 pm
@snood,
You don't have that definition quite right, Snood, but that's the one that has served those who use it well. Actually the term was and is used to pejoratively collect everyone, even those who simply questioned the government's stories and positions, into one easy to dismiss group.

Do you think it wrong to question government stories that have holes big enough to drive a tractor trailer thru? I kinda always thought that that was what thinking people did, you know, see something that is not believable and ask Why?.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2026
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 08:43:43