To Birther or Not To Birther, That is the Question


Recommended Posts

> Name one "credible person" who has devoted as much as 30 seconds to thinking about this ridiculous non-issue.

Argument from intimidation as usual, Jeff.

So Phil jumps into another thread, the subject he has no interest in, to make an erroneous characterization of Jeff's statement and complains about all the contretemps that follows, but one must wonder if it's just another case of Phil getting what he wants. If he doesn't want that he didn't need to gratuitously insert himself into this thread to begin with. If he really wants posters to conform to his standards of civility--stated, but contradicted in practice--being more than intelligent enough, he'd have figured out his approach doesn't work and would have tried something else a long time ago.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Camille Paglia is, of course, an ignorant fool.

JR

JR has resorted to the Argument from Of Course. Typical.

Notice how Jeff inserts "of course," as if the truth of his assertion is, or should be, obvious to every rational person. If you disagree with Jeff then you are, of course, an ignorant fool.

I am tired of being bullied and intimidated by JR. He has terrorized OL long enough with his sleazy "of course" tactics. I am not in a position to lead this particular Peasants' Revolt, so I was hoping that Phil could take on the challenge. It is certainly worthy of his talents.

:lol:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camille Paglia is, of course, an ignorant fool.

JR

JR has resorted to the Argument from Of Course. Typical.

Notice how Jeff inserts "of course," as if the truth of his assertion is, or should be, obvious to every rational person. If you disagree with Jeff then you are, of course, an ignorant fool.

I am tired of being bullied and intimidated by JR. He has terrorized OL long enough with his sleazy "of course" tactics. I am not in a position to lead this particular Peasants' Revolt, so I was hoping that Phil could take on the challenge. It is certainly worthy of his talents.

:lol:

Ghs

You're right, of course.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Personal Vilification

[George H. Smith, posts #44-45]

> You are an intellectual clown.

> that's all you will ever be.

> "You have elevated self-righteous imbecility to an art form. "

> "your schoolmarm routine..."

> "if you actually made a legitimate point once in a while, but that hasn't happened yet"

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Personal Vilification

Three steps in George's sleazy debating tactics of personal vilification:

1. Escalating to Making it Personal rather than Just About the Ideas: On thread after thread where I have criticized or strongly disagreed with you, you have responded by (1) questioning my motives, (2) calling me dishonest, (3) calling me an evader, (4) using ridicule rather than answering factual challenges, (5) psychologizing about my motives (Phil just wants attention, etc.). [if anyone wants an example of how you escalate to the personal from within the last couple months, he can reread my first polite post on the "Psychologizing" thread and George's abusive, sarcastic, insulting response.]

What you do is really sleazy, disgusting, and contemptible. And, no, I won't stop rubbing your nose in it. It's a serious issue (as some of your followers here don't seem to get).

2. Deny, deny, deny: "if you actually made a legitimate point once in a while, but that hasn't happened yet". Distort, distort, distort: "You don't like Jeff's tone or style of writing". [GHS, post #46] Sidetrack, sidetrack, sidetrack (in the hopes that no one has been following too closely and the claim seems arbitrary): "Prove to me that I ever attacked you." [multiple times]

3. Try to Reverse or Turn the Tables regarding what has actually happened: Wait for an angry response by your victim after you have repeatedly been attacking, insulting, psychologizing about him. Then pretend "Aha! Look he's the name caller! He's the -worst- on OL!"

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike subjects that require a Ph.D. or advanced training in medicine, technology, some of the sciences, etc., each of us can read books of history or literature and come to our own conclusions . . . .

Yes, of course. And I'll raise no objections as long as those conclusions are clearly labeled as personal opinions: "I found X powerfully moving." "It seemed to me to be masterfully accomplished."

But make sweeping statements - "It is one of the masterpieces of American fiction." - and I may begin to raise an objection or two. Either it is one of the masterpieces of American fiction, or it isn't. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. There are standards for judging such matters, and they can be and have been spelled out. Has the maker of the sweeping statements read this material (the material that spells these standards out)? If not, has s/he analyzed the work in question so thoroughly on his or her own that s/he has ended up considering all the aspects discussed in the material in question? Or does s/he give evidence, by the naivete of many of her or his comments, that s/he is actually just inflating a personal opinion so that it sounds like an informed critical judgment? An uninformed personal opinion remains an uninformed personal opinion, no matter how puffed up with its own supposed importance it might become.

The actual reason Phil insists so on this issue of exertise in literature is that he wants to deny that there is any such thing. If he acknowledged that there is such a thing as literary expertise, he might have to admit that his puffed up personal opinions are exactly that and nothing more. He might have to admit that he can't claim to be an expert on literary questions, just by virtue of his supposed "wide reading."

Of course, to be "widely read" with regard to literature means a bit more than just having read a bunch of books. To be widely read in American literature, for example, one must have read all the major writers and most of the minor writers within that area of specialty, plus a representative sampling of the books and articles that identify and discuss the critical issues relevant to analyzing and evaluating the particular works of imaginative literature in that area of study. Before one makes sweeping public statements that imply expertise in this field, it also helps if one knows who the major and minor writers in American literature are and where one ought to look to find discussion of the relevant critical issues.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Something else about the circumstances of his birth would be embarrassing if revealed;

(2) Those asking for it are political enemies of his, and he wants to spite them;

or

(3) People will keep talking about it with the effect, he and his handlers think, of discrediting his opposition and securing his re-election.

Here's a columnist in the Washington Post advancing interpretation (3) of Barack Obama's refusal to produce his full birth certificate.

http://www.washingto...ujoyD_blog.html

Can the so-called birthers help President Obama win reelection? In an interview with ABC News last week, Obama, who has generally avoided talking about the 2012 election, suggested that continued questions about his background from Republicans such as Donald Trump would hurt Republicans in next year's elections. Some conservatives have repeatedly questioned the president's birth in Hawaii, despite ample evidence showing he was born there.

It "creates, I think a problem for them when they want to actually run in a general election where most people feel pretty confident the president was born where he says he was, in Hawaii," Obama said. "He doesn't have horns. We may disagree with him on some issues and we may wish that you know, the unemployment rate was coming down faster and we want to know his plan on gas prices.

"But we're not really worrying about conspiracy theories or birth certificates," Obama said, "and so I think it presents a problem for them."

Obama seems eager to highlight the more extreme views of Republicans. In recent speeches, he has several times made jokes that referenced the birthers.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Personal Vilification

[George H. Smith, posts #44-45]

> You are an intellectual clown.

> that's all you will ever be.

> "You have elevated self-righteous imbecility to an art form. "

> "your schoolmarm routine..."

> "if you actually made a legitimate point once in a while, but that hasn't happened yet"

I meant these things in the nicest possible way, of course. :rolleyes:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike subjects that require a Ph.D. or advanced training in medicine, technology, some of the sciences, etc., each of us can read books of history or literature and come to our own conclusions . . . .

Yes, of course. And I'll raise no objections as long as those conclusions are clearly labeled as personal opinions: "I found X powerfully moving." "It seemed to me to be masterfully accomplished."

But make sweeping statements - "It is one of the masterpieces of American fiction." - and I may begin to raise an objection or two. Either it is one of the masterpieces of American fiction, or it isn't. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. There are standards for judging such matters, and they can be and have been spelled out. Has the maker of the sweeping statements read this material (the material that spells these standards out)? If not, has s/he analyzed the work in question so thoroughly on his or her own that s/he has ended up considering all the aspects discussed in the material in question? Or does s/he give evidence, by the naivete of many of her or his comments, that s/he is actually just inflating a personal opinion so that it sounds like an informed critical judgment? An uninformed personal opinion remains an uninformed personal opinion, no matter how puffed up with its own supposed importance it might become.

The actual reason Phil insists so on this issue of exertise in literature is that he wants to deny that there is any such thing. If he acknowledged that there is such a thing as literary expertise, he might have to admit that his puffed up personal opinions are exactly that and nothing more. He might have to admit that he can't claim to be an expert on literary questions, just by virtue of his supposed "wide reading."

Of course, to be "widely read" with regard to literature means a bit more than just having read a bunch of books. To be widely read in American literature, for example, one must have read all the major writers and most of the minor writers within that area of specialty, plus a representative sampling of the books and articles that identify and discuss the critical issues relevant to analyzing and evaluating the particular works of imaginative literature in that area of study. Before one makes sweeping public statements that imply expertise in this field, it also helps if one knows who the major and minor writers in American literature are and where one ought to look to find discussion of the relevant critical issues.

JR

My Mother's area of expertise was English Lit.--The Theatre of the English Pageant Wagons. (Gaede, Brandeis, 1970). For being an expert on English Lit., you might say she over-specialized. Unfortunately, because of vascular dementia her 150 IQ is now more like 50, so that's that. She once took 24 credit hours in English in one semester and aced every course. Now she turns the pages of her books not comprehending she's not comprehending. There's a large pile of them next to her chair. Reflectively a few months ago she told me her PhD turned out to be worthless to her. Now I think she doesn't even know she is one. It wasn't worthless, of course, she simply took much too long to get it. She did go to England for much of her research. Quality stuff.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Personal Vilification

Three steps in George's sleazy debating tactics of personal vilification:

1. Escalating to Making it Personal rather than Just About the Ideas: On thread after thread where I have criticized or strongly disagreed with you, you have responded by (1) questioning my motives, (2) calling me dishonest, (3) calling me an evader, (4) using ridicule rather than answering factual challenges, (5) psychologizing about my motives (Phil just wants attention, etc.). [if anyone wants an example of how you escalate to the personal from within the last couple months, he can reread my first polite post on the "Psychologizing" thread and George's abusive, sarcastic, insulting response.]

What you do is really sleazy, disgusting, and contemptible. And, no, I won't stop rubbing your nose in it. It's a serious issue (as some of your followers here don't seem to get).

2. Deny, deny, deny: "if you actually made a legitimate point once in a while, but that hasn't happened yet". Distort, distort, distort: "You don't like Jeff's tone or style of writing". [GHS, post #46] Sidetrack, sidetrack, sidetrack (in the hopes that no one has been following too closely and the claim seems arbitrary): "Prove to me that I ever attacked you." [multiple times]

3. Try to Reverse or Turn the Tables regarding what has actually happened: Wait for an angry response by your victim after you have repeatedly been attacking, insulting, psychologizing about him. Then pretend "Aha! Look he's the name caller! He's the -worst- on OL!"

After you complained on the "Psychologizing" thread, I said I would stop attacking you personally. And I did. I made a point of not saying anything that could even be remotely construed as an insult.

Then, on that thread I mentioned previously, you started up again with your attacks, while claiming as justification that I had attacked you earlier on that same thread. This is when I asked you -- repeatedly -- to point out the specific comment that you construed as a personal attack. You had lied, of course, so you couldn't point to anything -- and that's when you resorted to your generic excuse, i.e., that I had attacked at some point in the past. (If you had admitted that you made a mistake and apologized, that would have been that, but such honesty would have caused you to break out in hives.)

So here is the bottom line, scumbag. If I am going to do the time, regardless of what I say or don't say, then I will also do the crime. You think I have insulted you recently? You ain't seen nothing yet, you sorry-ass, pathetic liar.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Phil born in the USA?

Probably. Legend has it that a newborn Phil was abandoned by his parents in the wetlands of Louisiana, where he was adopted and raised by a family of kindly salamanders. A product of home schooling, Phil's remarkable S.A.T. scores have made him a hero to salamanders everywhere.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Phil born in the USA?

Probably. Legend has it that a newborn Phil was abandoned by his parents in the wetlands of Louisiana, where he was adopted and raised by a family of kindly salamanders. A product of home schooling, Phil's remarkable S.A.T. scores have made him a hero to salamanders everywhere.

Ghs

There is a legend that the salamanderson was adopted by the daughter of the royal house of reason, but rejected reason and pursued salamanderhood by swimming against the stream at every opportunity.

His SAT scores opened all doors and closed them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Personal Villification

> You ain't seen nothing yet, you sorry-ass, pathetic liar. [GHS, #60]

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Tactics of the smear artist -- to exaggerate, misstate, drop context

> on the "Psychologizing" thread...on that thread I mentioned previously, you started up again with your attacks [GHS]

George H. Smith, you are a goddam liar and smear artist!!!

What I did on the psychologizing thread is politely question. I didn't use personal insults, or dwell in personalities rather than ideas.

LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS:

Having a polite disagreement with your ideas is not an "attack" in the sense of getting personal, and you know that damn well!

Nor would a single incivility (if you comb through that thread and can find an unprovoked one) constitute "starting up attacks".

The only time I have insulted you (called you an 'asshole' or the equivalent)is in response to when you have used character attacks, personal slurs and ridicule, insults against me.

What you are trying to do is switch roles - to pretend that the aggressor - across thread after thread - is the innocent little victim. HOW DISGUSTING AND STOMACH-TURNING!

,,,,,

"Innocent Angelic Little George"....anyone have a cartoon for innocent GHS with a beatific smile and halo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Personal Villification

> You ain't seen nothing yet, you sorry-ass, pathetic liar. [GHS, #60]

Phil is now playing the role of a Retarded Recording Angel who seems to believe that no one will be able to identify my remarks as insults unless he catalogues them. Well, I suppose even simpletons need a hobby....

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution states that to be eligible to become president of the United States one must be a "natural born citizen." Since that is not a requirement for any other high office, one hoping to be a Senator or Congressman must merely be an American citizen, not a "natural born citizen," one must determine what did that concept mean to those who wrote it. Contrary to the widespread notion that it only meant that one was born on American soil, it was understood at the time that it meant that both of one's parents were American citizens. The Founders thought that it made sense that a future president would be more likely to be loyal to America if both his parents were citizens of America. If a child had a parent whose citizenship and loyalties were to another country it would have a profound influence on him.

GG,

How does this notion of "natural born citizen" square with the following?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Would an individual born in the United States, one of whose parents was a slave prior to 1865, have been disqualified from running for President after 1868—on account of not being a "natural born citizen"?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Tactics of the smear artist -- to exaggerate, misstate, drop context

> on the "Psychologizing" thread...on that thread I mentioned previously, you started up again with your attacks [GHS]

George H. Smith, you are a goddam liar and smear artist!!!

What I did on the psychologizing thread is politely question. I didn't use personal insults, or dwell in personalities rather than ideas.

I did not say you started up your attacks again on the "Psychologizing" thread, despite the snipping you did to give this distorted impression. You know very well which thread I am talking about.

Go ahead and lie some more. Then I will repost the message in which you explicitly say that you personally attacked me because I had attacked you earlier on the same thread. I already reposted this exchange several times (four in all, I think), along with my request that you identify the post in which I supposedly attacked you personally. You ignored all this, of course.

Have you lied so much that you are now incapable of telling the truth?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here ya go, Sleazebucket Phil. You've evaded this post at least four times before; now you can evade it again.

What's disruptive is when people decide they enormously resent my criticisms and then launch post after post trying to "bring me down". Consider this thread as proof. Go back and read it. It's short enough. I didn't start off by attacking individuals but by critiquing a pattern and what consequences follow, I took the high road and talked about civility, etc. It was George, Shayne, Jeff, etc. who decided to attack me personally. And so then, I responded to them personally.

(Emphasis added.)

You should follow your own advice. Go back through this short thread, and then quote even one instance where I attacked you personally. I want to see the remark. I want to see what you regard as a personal attack.

Talk about a pattern. You often complain about personal attacks when there haven't been any. Consider this thread as proof.

Ghs

A little later on the same thread in regard to the above exchange, I prophesied:

It is only a matter of time until the dialogue on this thread repeats itself in a somewhat different form. And when Phil resorts, as he inevitably will, to the "He hit me first!" excuse for why he personally attacked me or someone else, I want to be able to cite a clear-cut case that exemplifies his sleazy tactics. Phil is now in the process of providing exactly this kind of paradigmatic precedent.

I will let the matter drop after Phil entertains us with another round or two of his Slip 'n' Slide routine. Then I will tuck the incident away for later use.

To quote a great American philosopher, "Ain't I a stinker?" :rolleyes:

Ghs

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are trying to do is switch roles - to pretend that the aggressor - across thread after thread - is the innocent little victim. HOW DISGUSTING AND STOMACH-TURNING!

,,,,,

"Innocent Angelic Little George"....anyone have a cartoon for innocent GHS with a beatific smile and halo?

Oh, I'm not innocent. I've never claimed to be innocent. I take pride in my personal attacks on you -- even if you do present an absurdly easy target. (I concede that my recent insults have been rather pedestrian. I'm out of practice, but this won't take long to correct.)

If you similarly launched insults openly and took responsibility for them, I would have virtually no problem with you. Your insults don't bother me (except that you have no talent for polemics). Rather I cannot stand your sanctimonious hypocrisy. This attitude is typically displayed by posters who cannot hold their own in the rough and tumble world of internet debates.

Your basic problem is that few people take you seriously on an intellectual level, and you are painfully aware of this fact. Thus your only chance of getting attention is to pose as a pious gatekeeper of internet virtue. The irony is that you are as vituperative as anyone else on OL -- in fact, more than most -- so you are unable to pass through your own gate.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following just hit Drudge:

Obama-Corsi-BirthCertificate.jpg

The following text is from here (a special page on Drudge), but I'm not sure this page will remain, so I am reproducing it:

BOOK TO REVEAL OBAMA'S 'TRUE' IDENTITY?

Wed Apr 20 2011 10:35:52 ET

**Exclusive**

This year's high stakes publishing project quietly went to press this week, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

After years of research and digging by the nation's top private investigators, here it comes:

"WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President."

MORE

The street date is a LONG month away, and author Jerome Corsi, the man who torpedoed John Kerry's presidential dreams with SWIFT BOAT, has gone underground and is holding his new findings thisclose.

"It's utterly devastating," reveals a source close to the publisher. "Obama may learn things he didn't even know about himself!"

MORE

Does Corsi definitively declare the location of Obama's birth?

Will the president's attorneys attempt to interfere with the book's distribution? [The publisher vows to vigorously fight any legal action that may be taken.]

Will the book finally -- once and for all -- put an end to the growing controversy?

Or will it just ignite new ones!?

"When Donald Trump said he sent PIs to Hawaii to get to the bottom of all this, he meant this book," declares an insider.

[THE CASE ranked #1,341 on AMAZON's hitparade late Wednesday morning.]

Developing...

The doody looks like it is going to hit the fan big-time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corsi is a crank. The birth-certificate story was crank material from the start. Bush had the 9/11 conspiracy and Michael Moore's stories. Kennedy had his secret marriage, Nixon his psychiatric treatment and Roosevelt his harem of black girls in Warm Springs. These are just the ones that made the news; we've all heard plenty more. That very fact is what makes this story interesting. Most of them never got off the ground or, if they did, the news media took them up, refuted them and handed them back to the cranks. That was, in the other cases, the end of that. Obama, however, is so lacking in credibility that he can't shake this one.

A thought that strikes me is that this is the long-term cost of sticking with Clinton when his crimes and his cohort's were exposed. A lot of people got gratifying frissons of class superiority, and it was politically successfully in the short run, but now that the Democrats need people's trust, it isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The birth-certificate story was crank material from the start.

Pete,

I'm glad you said that about Corsi. I didn't know about the controversy surrounding his facts in some of his previous books. I'll make sure to verify anything coming from him.

I do want to say something about your statement above, though. How do you know the material is crank when the only document that can put the issue to rest has not been produced to the public? I say you don't know for sure, but that you are simply presuming.

There's a reason I say this, too--and it's not because I don't trust you or think your judgment is suspect. Far from it.

In my last few years in Brazil, I got to know some pretty powerful politicians and people in the financial world. I also got to know a humongous number of deluded people who dreamed of riches through government bonds and things like that. I saw how they all acted close-up.

Normal everyday folks have no idea how much the game of feigning indignation at being requested to produce a simple validation document is played by those in high places. If you ask for a document from a powerful person, there is always an air that you are questioning the person's honesty, thus you are not fit to be an insider.

I certainly don't discard the possibility of this happening here in the USA in high places. Bernie Madoff's operation was based on nothing but that. In fact, the whole economic meltdown derivatives thing happened that way.

I have learned through observation--and some pretty hard knocks--that when a simple issue like producing common documents becomes complicated, there is an awfully good chance the person complicating everything is bluffing. I've just seen it too often to call the person requesting the document a "crank," even if he is a crank.

(I have a collection of stories that I lived through on this that you wouldn't believe. At least I learned about one of the lowest forms of life on earth--financial intermediaries on the secondary bond market. I've seen these fools pound on meeting tables in front of very powerful people and say that 5 million dollars commission was not money, then after the meeting was over, secretly ask someone they knew for a loan to buy a metro pass. I've even got a few stories I will have to take to my grave with me if I ever want to go back to Brazil. But there are plenty more--some quite hilarious. Some day I might write about that time of my life.)

The point is that simple stuff is simple when it's right. And it's usually wrong when it gets complicated. In my view, that goes for birth certificates, too.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my last few years in Brazil, I got to know some pretty powerful politicians and people in the financial world. I also got to know a humongous number of deluded people who dreamed of riches through government bonds and things like that. I saw how they all acted close-up.

Over the last few years in the United States, I've gotten to know some extremely deluded people who believe:

(1) that Barack Obama is significantly different from any other recent president;

(2) that his policies and purposes are significantly different from those of any other recent president;

(3) that he must be removed from office at all costs, to be replaced by someone preferable;

(4) that this is possible (i.e., that there will be anyone significantly different running as a major party candidate in 2012);

(5) that any hare-brained fantasy harbored by anyone else who opposes Barack Obama is reason for hope and will likely topple the evil Obama so that he may be replaced by someone significantly less evil (see points 3 and 4, above).

It's rather like living in an open-air mental institution, in which, instead of every patient having a bed, every patient has a car and a computer.

JR

Edited by Jeff Riggenbach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now