Where YOU can be a squeeky wheel!
Squeeky Wheels
June 02, 2023, 09:57:12 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to SMF For Free
 
  Home Help Search Staff List Login Register  

The Demonization of Birthers (Or, How the Obots Dull Occam’s Razor!)


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Demonization of Birthers (Or, How the Obots Dull Occam’s Razor!)  (Read 65 times)
SqueekyFromm
Administrator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 44


Squeeky


View Profile WWW
« on: January 01, 2011, 05:39:56 pm »

The Demonization of Birthers (Or, How the Obots Dull Occam’s Razor!)

If you believe in Yin and Yang, or maybe even Sir Isaac Newtons Laws of Science, then for every force, there is an equal opposing force. Nowhere is this more evident than in the current “Birther” questions. Birthers fall into two distinct schools of thought. One is the “common sense suspicious” Birthers (QUESTIONERS) like me, who don’t think Obama has ever truly resolved the question of where he was born. Because if he was born in Kenya, then he is probably not eligible to be president. Obama did release a alleged copy of his short form birth certificate to some group who put a PICTURE of it on the Internet, but he has never released his long form birth certificate or just given a certified copy over for public inspection. The second type of Birther is the “Legal” Birther who thinks that because of Obama’s NON-American Citizen father, he is not eligible to be president, no matter where he was born. I belong to the first school, and I am a lot more interested in WHY Obama has not resolved this very simple question, than I am WHERE he was born.

Anyway, you can see that both of these schools of Birther thought are questions where answers are possible. For us QUESTIONERS, a valid long form birth certificate would work. Or a certified copy of the short form in PUBLIC. The LEGAL Birthers probably need a court decision. In my opinion, the LEGAL question has already been answered by a court case in one sentence, and if Obama was born here in America, then he is a legal president no matter who his parents were. But it was a state case, and the LEGAL Birthers are not satisfied with it.

Soooo, what this boils down to are simple questions and simple answers. There is a thing called Occam’s Razor, which I looked up last night on wiki, and what it says is “Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.” (Actually, there is a whole lot more to it than this, and I must have read it like three times, but the above quote is how people usually mean it.)

Occam’s Razor would indicate the simple answer to the Birther questions are simple things like a document or two, or a court decision. This view has been given a lot of credibility recently by Chris Matthews and Gov. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii (two very avid NON-Birthers) who call for the release of Obama’s birth certificate. But instead of accepting this simple answer, the Obots (anti-Birther supporters of Obama) have just dulled Occam’s Razor to where it couldn’t cut butter by making up all kinds of scientifically unnecessary reasons to explain away the Birthers.

For example, a well known Obot website ran this quote, and a story about it to boot:

   
Quote
Quote of the Day

    "And I would say, anybody who’s promoting the birther issue has some kind of animosity towards Barack Obama’s lineage. There’s no other way you could accept it, because it’s kooky to be pushing this notion that the president is not an American and is lying about being born in Hawaii."

    Douglas Brinkley, professor of history and director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans

This is where the opposing force stuff comes in. Because the opposing force to the Demonization of the Birthers is The Canonization of the Obots. This is something I think is largely responsible for the 2 1/2 year life span so far of the Birther Question. Because rather than approach this as a simple question with simple answers, Obots have looked upon this as a chance to canonize themselves. Or make themselves look like saints.

Sooo, if a Birther wants to see a Long Form Birth Certificate, there is a preference for the response of “You’re a racist!” rather than the simple “OK, here is a long form.” Because the person calling us racists, gets to be a SAINT! An anti-racist. A tolerant good individual!

If a Birther is curious why Obama hasn’t released a long form yet, the answer isn’t “OK, here is a long form.” The answer will be “You Birthers are crazy! Nothing will ever satisfy you!” Because rather than resolve the issue, the Obots are seeking external validation of their status as smart, well-informed members of society who are just oh sooo reasonable in contrast to us drooling rabid crazy Birthers who think it is silly not to cough up a document.

That is one reason why there hasn’t been a good answer in over 2 1/2 years. The problem has gotten tangled up in the egos of the Obots. Resolving the questions means an end to the Obot self-aggrandizement. Maybe if we call somebody in Rome, and get the Obots an official Saint status, we can get the simple answers. In the meantime, don’t try to spread the butter with the Obot’s Occam’s Razor. It isn’t sharp enough. I wonder if there is a Occam’s Golfclub for the Obots???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 05:51:57 pm by SqueekyFromm » Report Spam   Logged

Squeeky Wheels Get Lubed First!!!

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Nick_A
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2011, 11:54:31 pm »

Squeeky, the problem is that we let the obots create a straw man and we continue to fight it.

And I would say, anybody who’s promoting the birther issue has some kind of animosity towards Barack Obama’s lineage. There’s no other way you could accept it, because it’s kooky to be pushing this notion that the president is not an American and is lying about being born in Hawaii."

    Douglas Brinkley, professor of history and director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans


This is just a straw man and has nothing to do with the basic question:

Do you believe the American people have the "standing" to know if a presidential candidate meets the constitutional requirements for the office?

If you say yes you re a birther. you believe that an American has the civic obligation to cast and educated vote.  If you agree with the courts and say no then you believe the American people are not entitled to the basic informtion beginning with constitutional eligibility to cast an eucated vote.

In other words, if you believe American citizens are worthy of the vote, you will agree that they have standing to know basic informtion.  If you believe American citizens are too stupid to cast an educated vote, then of course they don't have standing since what they know doesn't matter.
Report Spam   Logged
Ross
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2011, 01:08:45 am »

Nick,
That would be true if we Elected  the president by popular vote. But we do not. We Vote for Electors who Elect the President.
Also the Constitution clearly states the US House of Representatives is responsible for Certifying or determining eligibility.
Report Spam   Logged
Nick_A
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2011, 08:35:19 am »

Nick,
That would be true if we Elected  the president by popular vote. But we do not. We Vote for Electors who Elect the President.
Also the Constitution clearly states the US House of Representatives is responsible for Certifying or determining eligibility.

Even though people vote for electors, the people still have the right to know on what basis the electors have determined a candidate eligible.  The fact that we elect an elector is not to admit that we are too stupid to be worthy of the vote and to know on what basis a candidate is considered eligible.
Report Spam   Logged
Ross
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2011, 11:37:51 pm »

Nick,
Possibly I should have been more clear. I do not agree that Birthers and their opponents hold the positions you stated. I also believe there is the third [and in my opinion the correct one] position. That the Constitution clearly States the US House has responsibility to vet and either approve [certify] or disapproved President Elects.
No where in the Founding documents is the requirement that Candidates pass a "litmus test". And for good reason. If there was Candidates would be challenged by opponents on frivolous issues and it would destroy our Electoral system.
 The Founders wisely placed the veting of Presidential Elects in the "Peoples House", the Members of which we choose by direct Election every 2 years.
Birthers IMO were opposed to Obama from the start and chose the best issue to challenge him on after his Election. After all the Bush bashing including the charge that The SCOTUS "choose" Bush in 2000 I really do not blame them at all. And it is good Propaganda to help defeat Obama in 2012.
Opponents to birthers realize how potent the charge is and concentrate on attacking the messenger hoping to marginalize the Birthers and to make them look like fanatics in an effort to defeat the effective "propaganda.
I hope this makes it clear what i meant in my other comment.
Report Spam   Logged
Nick_A
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2011, 10:10:02 am »

Nick,
Possibly I should have been more clear. I do not agree that Birthers and their opponents hold the positions you stated. I also believe there is the third [and in my opinion the correct one] position. That the Constitution clearly States the US House has responsibility to vet and either approve [certify] or disapproved President Elects.
No where in the Founding documents is the requirement that Candidates pass a "litmus test". And for good reason. If there was Candidates would be challenged by opponents on frivolous issues and it would destroy our Electoral system.
 The Founders wisely placed the veting of Presidential Elects in the "Peoples House", the Members of which we choose by direct Election every 2 years.
Birthers IMO were opposed to Obama from the start and chose the best issue to challenge him on after his Election. After all the Bush bashing including the charge that The SCOTUS "choose" Bush in 2000 I really do not blame them at all. And it is good Propaganda to help defeat Obama in 2012.
Opponents to birthers realize how potent the charge is and concentrate on attacking the messenger hoping to marginalize the Birthers and to make them look like fanatics in an effort to defeat the effective "propaganda.
I hope this makes it clear what i meant in my other comment.

Quite true Ross.  But as it turns out the "Peoples House" didn't do their job.  It has been revealed that its leaders didn't sign their name to anything.  It is not a matter of a litmus test but simply determining constituional eligibility.

These "leaders" are ultimtely responsiblle to the people if it truly is the "People's House."  This means that if it is believed that the people are still respected as "We the People" and  worthy of the vote then they have the right to this basic information on what basis Obama is considered constituaionally eligible.  If they are now considered only as "We the Great Unwashed" then of course they are too stupid to have the standing of those worthy of the vote.

It is simply a question of if the government works for the people or if the people are slave to the government.  If the government works for the people, a voter is entitled to know on what basis a candidate has been declared eligible.  If the voter works for the government, it is none of their business.  I believe tht the government works for the people so consequently believe the voter has the right to know on what basis a candidate has been declared constitutionally eligible.  It should be a matter of public record.
Report Spam   Logged
Ross
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2011, 09:21:22 pm »

Nick,
The House of Representatives certified the Election of Obama by the Electors and so far no group of Congressmen have challenged that decision.
They are satisfied he is eligible. We Citizens do not have the Right to challenge that decision directly. The only decision The SCOTUS could make [if it took the case] is that it is Constitutionally the House's Responsibility and Duty to decide the issue.
The only way we can Challenge this is by Electing Congressmen who will pursue the issue.

WE Citizens do not Elect the President.. And the only body that is Constitutionally able to start removal proceedings is the House.. by Impeachment...
If the claim that you cannot Impeach someone not eligible for the Office was upheld, then is still is up to the House to declare Him ineligible...
ONLY the House has "standing" on this issue.. That is why the SCOTUS has never accepted any of the "Birther" cases..

Of course the Court cases and Birther activities does make for good Political Theater and propaganda..

You are using a logical argument that is outside the dictates of the Constitution.. it makes sense except it is not supported by Law or any historical precedent.
There is no Rule, Law or constitutional clause that requires any President Elect to prove to the Citizens that they are eligible to hold office.
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy