Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I agree with with gadzuux in post 63.> Of course. You always agree with the other liberals when they make strawman arguments against conservatives. Why is this worth pointing out? <Doug has gone back on his word yet again and come back to be obtuse and generally wreak havoc with a thread.> How have I gone back on my word?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's a lie right there. You have absolutely no honest intentions by re-inserting yourself in threads here.> As usual, I'm not the one being dishonest here. But it's much easier to attack me than refute my points. How about reading the McCarthy article I linked to, SPP, and pointing out how it's "patently absurd"?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "As usual, I'm not the one being dishonest here. But it's much easier to attack me than refute my points. How about reading the McCarthy article I linked to, SPP, and pointing out how it's "patently absurd"?" Because I quit giving a sh!t about what you had to say years ago. You have no point. You're pointless. You're a cypher. And guess what? I think the latent S+M side of you makes you come back just to hear that now and again. And need I remind you, anyone who calls my marriage a waste of time and worthless to society because it's childless, such as you did years ago, gets nothin but what you're getting right now. Leave.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox How about telling me how six years of Republican control under Bush could not undo the damage that the Dems supposedly caused our economy before 1995? You claim you've already explained it. Therefore... if you had explained it before, you should be able to summarize your previous explanation in one or two brief sentences. But for some reason, you're unwilling to do that. Since you're unwilling to do that, but are willing to waste time and energy harping on the Mr. McCarthy article question, over and over ad nauseum, it's logical to conclude that you're deliberately dodging my question for a specific reason. And the only reason I can come up with as to why you're dodging my question, is because you didn't actually have an answer previously, and don't have one now.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "So far, no posts here have refuted the "patently absurd" arguments raised in the article I linked to. " Okay, I'll play. 1. The whole first two paragraphs about Obama being wishy-washy on whether he had muslim ties My arguments to that would be that a) the author of this article has a LOT of words and short phrases in quotation marks but does not actually cite the sources b) that Obama never claimed that he did not have ties to Islam, merely that he is not Muslim, and that his father was agnostic 2. "This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.” Again, see the fact check article I showed you earlier; if they can answer this then McCarthy should have been able to do the same when writing this article 3. "Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided." Bummer for them. At most, all Obama is required to do is have proof that he is a natural born American Citizen. He is under no constitutional obligation to provide his private information to the entire country. Hawaiian state officials have verified that he was born there. The End. 4. Obama did not work at “a consulting house to multinational corporations”; it was, a then-colleague of his has related, “a small company that published newsletters on international business.” He wasn’t the only black man in the company, and he didn’t have an office, have a secretary, wear a suit and tie on the job, or conduct “interviews” with “Japanese financiers or German bond traders” — he was a junior copyeditor. Actually, look up any biography of him; this one is from Wikipedia but it is accurate and can be verified against other sources :"Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College.[25] After two years he transferred in 1981 to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations and graduated with a B.A. in 1983. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation, then at the New York Public Interest Research Group." 6. "It’s now apparent, however, not only that he was raised as a Muslim while living for four years in the world’s most populous Islamic country, but that he very likely became a naturalized citizen of Indonesia. Shortly after divorcing Barack Obama Sr., Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, whom she met — just as she had met Barack Sr. — when both were students at the University of Hawaii. At some point, Soetoro almost certainly adopted the youngster, who became known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama’s lengthy, deeply introspective autobiographies do not address whether he was adopted by the stepfather whose surname he shared for many years, but in all likelihood that did happen in Hawaii, before the family moved to Jakarta. Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship." Okay, if the adoption records were filed in Hawaii, why is McCarthy the ONLY person to have figured that out and where is the proof. He goes on to say "That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said “the parties” (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child". Having recently gone through a divorce I can tell you that you actually have to list all children of both parties, not only children produced by the couple together. 6. All of the concluding drivel about Obama being a muslim, Obama's link to Odinga in Kenya in 2006, etc. are debunked by Factcheck.org. Here is the link. <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/corsis_dull_hatchet.html" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/elect...het.html</a> Oh and in the second to last paragraph, where the author states that the reason Obama does not want his full birth records exposed is because of his adoption...Birth records to not adoption information when the adoption takes place years after birth. Oh, and here is the fact check debunking the adoption theory <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/obamas-citizenship-and-the-survival-of-the-fittest/" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...fittest/</a> In short, there are a lot of misrepresentations in your article that are fairly easy to disprove with minimal research. Your turn.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 That should be "birth records do not include adoption information..."
Originally Posted By mawnck >>In short, there are a lot of misrepresentations in your article that are fairly easy to disprove with minimal research.<< You didn't disprove anything. You just slung mud and regurgitated liberal media talking points. You have no facts to back up your insinuations. Typical liberal tactics. Try again. (Sorry, just thought I'd get a headstart on him.) >>But it's much easier to attack me than refute my points.<< More fun too.
Originally Posted By Mr X Appreciate the effort PJ, although it's sure to fall on deaf ears. I suggest bringing it up every time he posts though. That's what made him go away the last time, when he couldn't refute SuperDry.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I just find it interesting how he's largely stayed away from threads recently, mostly dealing with topics of some policy substance, but somehow feels compelled to reappear when the birther movement comes under attack. Of all the wingnut ideas to defend, he chooses the birthers. I think that says everything.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Because I quit giving a sh!t about what you had to say years ago.> And yet here you are, again, railing against me and not advancing any intelligent argument. Seriously, is your personal and professional life so inadequate that you need to go on the internet and make up lies and try to bully people? Get help, man.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Okay, I'll play.> Thanks for trying. It's refreshing to see someone who actually wants to discuss an issue with a conservative, rather than just distort and denigrate (or even just invent things whole cloth, as a few posters here just did). That said, your attempt to refute the article was not successful. <1. The whole first two paragraphs about Obama being wishy-washy on whether he had muslim ties My arguments to that would be that a) the author of this article has a LOT of words and short phrases in quotation marks but does not actually cite the sources b) that Obama never claimed that he did not have ties to Islam, merely that he is not Muslim, and that his father was agnostic.> The author does cite sources. The underlined words are links to other articles that back up what he is claiming. As to part b, the President, at one point, claimed he only had one connection to Islam. But that's not so. <2. "This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.” Again, see the fact check article I showed you earlier; if they can answer this then McCarthy should have been able to do the same when writing this article.> I did see the fact check article you linked to. It supports McCarthy. The article states, "The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details." <3. "Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided." Bummer for them. At most, all Obama is required to do is have proof that he is a natural born American Citizen. He is under no constitutional obligation to provide his private information to the entire country. Hawaiian state officials have verified that he was born there. The End.> Since McCarthy isn't claiming that the President is required to provide any information, or that the President wasn't born in Hawaii, your argument doesn't refute anything he said. <4. Obama did not work at “a consulting house to multinational corporations”; it was, a then-colleague of his has related, “a small company that published newsletters on international business.” He wasn’t the only black man in the company, and he didn’t have an office, have a secretary, wear a suit and tie on the job, or conduct “interviews” with “Japanese financiers or German bond traders” — he was a junior copyeditor. Actually, look up any biography of him; this one is from Wikipedia but it is accurate and can be verified against other sources :"Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College.[25] After two years he transferred in 1981 to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations and graduated with a B.A. in 1983. He worked for a year at the Business International Corporation, then at the New York Public Interest Research Group."> That doesn't refute the idea that what the President claimed and what his colleague said don't match. <5. Okay, if the adoption records were filed in Hawaii, why is McCarthy the ONLY person to have figured that out and where is the proof. He goes on to say "That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said “the parties” (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child". Having recently gone through a divorce I can tell you that you actually have to list all children of both parties, not only children produced by the couple together.> One, McCarthy isn't claiming that the adoption records were definitely filed in Hawaii, only that it's likely. Two, McCarthy is a lawyer who once served as an Assistant US Attorney. In matters of law, his opinion carries more weight than yours. <6. All of the concluding drivel about Obama being a muslim, Obama's link to Odinga in Kenya in 2006, etc. are debunked by Factcheck.org. Here is the link. <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elect...het.html>" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/elect...html></a> McCarthy never claimed that President Obama was a Muslim, so any debunking of that notion is irrelevant. As far as his link to Odinga, that link doesn't debunk it. All it does is say that Jerome Corsi's book didn't prove it. <Oh and in the second to last paragraph, where the author states that the reason Obama does not want his full birth records exposed is because of his adoption...Birth records to not adoption information when the adoption takes place years after birth. Oh, and here is the fact check debunking the adoption theory <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...fittest/>" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...est/></a> One, the author merely reports what others are speculating, and admits he doesn't know the truth. Two, your factcheck link doesn't debunk the idea that President Obama was adopted, or might not want to admit it, it merely states that the adoption wouldn't have caused the President to lose his US citizenship. Again, since neither Mr McCarthy nor I am asserting that the President isn't a US citizen, it's irrelevant. So you're 0 for 7 in pointing out misrepresentations. But I appreciate that you were respectful and didn't insult me or claim I've said things I haven't or think things I don't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I just find it interesting how he's largely stayed away from threads recently, mostly dealing with topics of some policy substance, but somehow feels compelled to reappear when the birther movement comes under attack.> Of course, I posted on this topic because I'm a crazy birther. Not because I had a few minutes to kill earlier and this topic was near the top of the "Combined" page and I thought it was reasonable to point out there's a middle ground in the birther debate. No, the latter explanation, while more logical, doesn't fit the liberal template, so Sport Goofy rejects it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You have claimed in the past that you don't denigrate and distort.> <No, I haven't. What I've said is that you and other liberals here constantly do it.> No, you have said in the past that you don't do it yourself. Then you get caught doing it, and you claim you only do it if others do it first. Lather, rinse, repeat. <<But at least you admit it was crap. I suppose that's progress.>> <How is that progress?> Because it admits that your claim that Obama and others are "fellow travelers" IS crap. <I've always been honest. It's you who won't ever admit to flinging crap, even though you constantly do it. > Actually, no. In fact, I've periodically taken people to task here for painting with too broad a brush and saying things like "conservatives just want blah blah blah" because my parents and other people I love ARE conservatives (of the Main Street, not wingnut variety) and I think conservatism is a long and honorable American political tradition (as is liberalism) and I've said so many, many times. I've certainly criticized Bush and others for specific actions, sure.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'll admit, I'm clueless on the "fellow travelers" comment. Is that some sort of snub, or jibe at liberals or something? Anyway, the "I've always been honest" comment is a load of crap in and of itself. Does that count being disingenuous? Does it count ignoring comments that are compellingly refuting your position (time and again)? Even disappearing for a while rather than face up to them and answer them?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>So you're 0 for 7 in pointing out misrepresentations.<< My version was funnier. And formatted better too. >>I'll admit, I'm clueless on the "fellow travelers" comment. Is that some sort of snub, or jibe at liberals or something?<< "The English-language phrase came into vogue in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s as a pejorative term for a sympathizer of Communism or particular Communist states, who was nonetheless not a "card-carrying member" of a Communist party." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveler" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...traveler</a> In other words, he's now exposed himself as being a Senator Joe McCarthyite as well as a birther. I 'spect he'll be along to defend David Duke, the Alabama White Citizens Council and the John Birch Society any second now. He's slowly closing in on that section of the crazy scale. Is it OK to start calling him DouglasDubh Crazy Person now, or is that admin-able?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>In other words, he's now exposed himself as being a Senator Joe McCarthyite<< Oh, he did that a loooooooong time ago on here.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Thanks for trying. It's refreshing to see someone who actually wants to discuss an issue with a conservative, rather than just distort and denigrate (or even just invent things whole cloth, as a few posters here just did).<< This is disingenuous at best. Several of us, including Dabob2 and myself, have taken the time in the past to respond point by point to you, taking care to avoid personal attacks and your three D's. You've responded in typical fashion, by being dismissive yourself. Aside from the irony that you're the most guilty of what you accuse everyone else of, it's just plain rude. People have made sincere efforts to engage you, taken significant time to develop points and arguments, and you've just dismissed them. Then, when asked to be polite and give us the same courtesy, we always get "Google it" or "I already responded to that and don't need to again," when you've done no such thing. The MO is clear. You accuse everyone of distorting and denigrating, but you almost never reply with anything of substance yourself. You've created the kind of responses you get through your rudeness and own dismissiveness and bizarre focus on semantics and personalities. Then you want to accuse everyone else of not engaging or responding. No wonder you're such a fan of Bush - you create a fiasco and then wonder why everyone is responding to you how they do. It's tired and it's terribly impolite. I took the time to respond to your query about Obama's thesis. You offer nothing in return but more goalpost moving and Whack-A-Mole tactics. I see no reason for anyone to take you seriously and to take the time to respond to you when they literally have years of your behavior to inform them that you won't respond in good faith.
Originally Posted By DAR >>>In other words, he's now exposed himself as being a Senator Joe McCarthyite<<< <<Oh, he did that a loooooooong time ago on here.>> Sen McCarthy from......Wisconsin, respresent.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <In other words, he's now exposed himself as being a Senator Joe McCarthyite as well as a birther.> To be fair, the former may be correct, but the latter is not. DD is not a "birther" in the way the term is generally understood (i.e. one who does not believe Obama was born in the US). He has stated explicitly (as did his source) that he accepts Obama's US birth. What DD and his source are doing is a little more subtle - trying to say Obama's "failure" to come up with birth records that may not even be available is indicative of some pattern of mendacity. It's a bogus charge; the birth record we've seen is probably all there is (and it's all that's required), as ecdc pointed in out in #74, calling for his thesis is likewise an attempt to make something non-sinister appear to be sinister (or at least an "unanswered question" - cue ominous music), etc. <I 'spect he'll be along to defend David Duke, the Alabama White Citizens Council and the John Birch Society any second now. He's slowly closing in on that section of the crazy scale.> Let's not suggest racism, okay? I've never seen it in DD. And this plays into his self-persecution "you guys just like to denigrate conservatives" complex. (And he'd be right actually, if I thought you were serious.)
