In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 16 2014 08:24 Introvert wrote: And the Democrat party is/was the home of the 9/11 Truthers. Did that have to do with race?
Birtherism was started by pro-Hilary Democrats, anyway. Birtherism and Truthers don't really sway anything. No use talking about them.
It's just a political reaction.
Pretty huge difference between the party lines on truthers vs birthers. Making them sound as if they are both equally partisan is beating the 'false equivalency' horse into mush.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of Democrats and 29% of those not affiliated with either major political party believe the government knew about 9/11, but only 17% of Republicans agree. Roughly one-in-five adults in all three groups are undecided.
Compared to
Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president's party share that doubt.
that's 5% more Dems for Trutherism and 30% more for the GOP on Birtherism. Practically the same right...?
No idea how you could come to the conclusion it 'doesn't sway anything'? Over half of the GOP isn't sure that Obama is an American... That would mean any cooperation with him in their mind is/may be akin to being an accomplice in one of the greatest crimes/frauds ever committed in the history of the nation.
It doesn't get talked about much but that's a pretty big problem... Hard to come to anything reasonable when one side represents a group who thinks the guy they are negotiating with should be in prison (or worse) because he tricked the whole national security apparatus into taking orders from a foreigner and nation at large (except for Donald Trump and the Birthers) into illegally electing him twice.
No, during the Bush presidency it was decidedly one-sided. It's just a reaction to current politics. I am a big fan of the arrogance though. "The only reason these people wouldn't agree to work with Obama on his agenda is that they are too stupid/racist/brain dead." They couldn't possibly oppose his policies, really. Every person who thinks fairly agrees with me!
Birthers don't influence politics, really. Almost all representatives or big names on the right denounce the birther movement, which like I said, was started by Democrats in the primary cycle. It's politics.
You once again extrapolate way too far from the data available to you. Those last two paragraphs simply don't follow, they seem to be born from your mind based on what already think is true.
I'll give you that there is a political element to the conspiracy support.
The rest is wrong.
Most of the big names did little more than say something to the effect of "I take him at his word" while spending the last 6 years saying they don't trust him (doublespeak anyone?) I'd love to see who you think 'denounced' the birther movement?
Whether the conspiracy is true or not, the conspiracies do influence results.
And on the last two, I don't see what you don't comprehend?
People who think the President isn't a citizen have to think that his being president is criminal and that therefore cooperation is akin to being an accomplice in that crime?
By extension they have to think that the whole national security apparatus is in on it or incompetent.
How else could they think if they think he isn't an American citizen?
What else were those others supposed to say? As soon as the certificate came out, then it changed to "we have proof." I'm not sure what you expect more than that. Republicans wanted it to go away entirely, not have a big fight about it.
Yeah, as for that last part- you just invented it. No one says this (can you find more than you can count on a hand?), so this just has to be another one of your "they don't say it but they think it" type explanations. There are so many leaps of logic involved, I really don't need to parse them out. Besides, were it true, then their argument would be a legalistic one, not one based on race or religion.
They were 'supposed' to say. "Obama is an American citizen, any suggestion otherwise is absurd." (especially after he was elected)
Show me any of the future presidential nominees from the right who called birtherism what it was?
You cant! Because the crazy helps them. If the crazy didn't influence results why wouldn't they just say "Obama is an American citizen, let's move on"?
I don't think you understood what I was saying. Yes there are birthers, including a few in Congress. But multiple party/ideological heads/ commentators have repeated again and again that they think birthers are wrong and damaging the cause. But it's not exactly their primary mission in life to stamp out the birthers. If you are just mad because there hasn't been some great purge or campaign then I really don't feel sorry for you.
If everyone in the world is in facebook except you, you have lost your privacy. Your life is reflected in theirs unless you are a hermit with no relationships. The libertarian conception of privacy in which you contract away your privacg for the convenience of google or facebook has brought about an ecological disaster that has almost extiguished privacy for everyone. When privacy is extinguished democracy is impossible. The NSA isn't the stasi because it has more advanced methods. But social control is still achieved. And don't act like the only people that shohld be worried about it are revolutionaries trying to bring liberal democracy to their respective countries. There are far less dramatic examples of ideas that threaten the status quo. Regardless of what you think about net neutrality activists, animals rights activists, socialists, environmental activists, feminists, whatever, they have been persistently targeted by the FBI and other federal agencies throughout the decades. Civil rights activists were targeted in the 60s. Environmental groups are considered the number 1 domestic terrorist threat. Just stop bejng stupid. This stuff is regularly used already to target such groups and squelch free soeech. When privacy in society is being eroded, democracy dies. To pretend like knowing that the NSA can watch everything everywhere does not chill free speech is simply idiotic. And it's not because one person has a right to his "privacy" like he has a right to his person. It's far more expansive.
why did they do away with keyboards on phones? buttons are much more accurate than silly touch screens
Rights of individuals are actually not up for negotiation just because the majority or some institution would like to have it that way, especially in the US.
Oh, the americans understand that very well. There's the one or other "right" that is absolutely inalienable, and hell breaks lose if you try to touch it. Very selective from americans, but meh.
why did they do away with keyboards on phones? buttons are much more accurate than silly touch screens
They are, i'm still faster on my old 3210 than i am on my samsung. Not a fan.
On November 16 2014 08:24 Introvert wrote: And the Democrat party is/was the home of the 9/11 Truthers. Did that have to do with race?
Birtherism was started by pro-Hilary Democrats, anyway. Birtherism and Truthers don't really sway anything. No use talking about them.
It's just a political reaction.
Pretty huge difference between the party lines on truthers vs birthers. Making them sound as if they are both equally partisan is beating the 'false equivalency' horse into mush.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of Democrats and 29% of those not affiliated with either major political party believe the government knew about 9/11, but only 17% of Republicans agree. Roughly one-in-five adults in all three groups are undecided.
Compared to
Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president's party share that doubt.
that's 5% more Dems for Trutherism and 30% more for the GOP on Birtherism. Practically the same right...?
No idea how you could come to the conclusion it 'doesn't sway anything'? Over half of the GOP isn't sure that Obama is an American... That would mean any cooperation with him in their mind is/may be akin to being an accomplice in one of the greatest crimes/frauds ever committed in the history of the nation.
It doesn't get talked about much but that's a pretty big problem... Hard to come to anything reasonable when one side represents a group who thinks the guy they are negotiating with should be in prison (or worse) because he tricked the whole national security apparatus into taking orders from a foreigner and nation at large (except for Donald Trump and the Birthers) into illegally electing him twice.
No, during the Bush presidency it was decidedly one-sided. It's just a reaction to current politics. I am a big fan of the arrogance though. "The only reason these people wouldn't agree to work with Obama on his agenda is that they are too stupid/racist/brain dead." They couldn't possibly oppose his policies, really. Every person who thinks fairly agrees with me!
Birthers don't influence politics, really. Almost all representatives or big names on the right denounce the birther movement, which like I said, was started by Democrats in the primary cycle. It's politics.
You once again extrapolate way too far from the data available to you. Those last two paragraphs simply don't follow, they seem to be born from your mind based on what already think is true.
I'll give you that there is a political element to the conspiracy support.
The rest is wrong.
Most of the big names did little more than say something to the effect of "I take him at his word" while spending the last 6 years saying they don't trust him (doublespeak anyone?) I'd love to see who you think 'denounced' the birther movement?
Whether the conspiracy is true or not, the conspiracies do influence results.
And on the last two, I don't see what you don't comprehend?
People who think the President isn't a citizen have to think that his being president is criminal and that therefore cooperation is akin to being an accomplice in that crime?
By extension they have to think that the whole national security apparatus is in on it or incompetent.
How else could they think if they think he isn't an American citizen?
What else were those others supposed to say? As soon as the certificate came out, then it changed to "we have proof." I'm not sure what you expect more than that. Republicans wanted it to go away entirely, not have a big fight about it.
Yeah, as for that last part- you just invented it. No one says this (can you find more than you can count on a hand?), so this just has to be another one of your "they don't say it but they think it" type explanations. There are so many leaps of logic involved, I really don't need to parse them out. Besides, were it true, then their argument would be a legalistic one, not one based on race or religion.
They were 'supposed' to say. "Obama is an American citizen, any suggestion otherwise is absurd." (especially after he was elected)
Show me any of the future presidential nominees from the right who called birtherism what it was?
You cant! Because the crazy helps them. If the crazy didn't influence results why wouldn't they just say "Obama is an American citizen, let's move on"?
I don't think you understood what I was saying. Yes there are birthers, including a few in Congress. But multiple party/ideological heads/ commentators have repeated again and again that they think birthers are wrong and damaging the cause. But it's not exactly their primary mission in life to stamp out the birthers. If you are just mad because there hasn't been some great purge or campaign then I really don't feel sorry for you.
If everyone in the world is in facebook except you, you have lost your privacy. Your life is reflected in theirs unless you are a hermit with no relationships. The libertarian conception of privacy in which you contract away your privacg for the convenience of google or facebook has brought about an ecological disaster that has almost extiguished privacy for everyone. When privacy is extinguished democracy is impossible. The NSA isn't the stasi because it has more advanced methods. But social control is still achieved. And don't act like the only people that shohld be worried about it are revolutionaries trying to bring liberal democracy to their respective countries. There are far less dramatic examples of ideas that threaten the status quo. Regardless of what you think about net neutrality activists, animals rights activists, socialists, environmental activists, feminists, whatever, they have been persistently targeted by the FBI and other federal agencies throughout the decades. Civil rights activists were targeted in the 60s. Environmental groups are considered the number 1 domestic terrorist threat. Just stop bejng stupid. This stuff is regularly used already to target such groups and squelch free soeech. When privacy in society is being eroded, democracy dies. To pretend like knowing that the NSA can watch everything everywhere does not chill free speech is simply idiotic. And it's not because one person has a right to his "privacy" like he has a right to his person. It's far more expansive.
why did they do away with keyboards on phones? buttons are much more accurate than silly touch screens
I hate touchscreens so much.
Which future presidential candidates from the right (especially conservatives) have said that birthers were 'wrong'? Not that they 'were damaging the brand' but actually wrong?
On November 16 2014 08:24 Introvert wrote: And the Democrat party is/was the home of the 9/11 Truthers. Did that have to do with race?
Birtherism was started by pro-Hilary Democrats, anyway. Birtherism and Truthers don't really sway anything. No use talking about them.
It's just a political reaction.
Pretty huge difference between the party lines on truthers vs birthers. Making them sound as if they are both equally partisan is beating the 'false equivalency' horse into mush.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of Democrats and 29% of those not affiliated with either major political party believe the government knew about 9/11, but only 17% of Republicans agree. Roughly one-in-five adults in all three groups are undecided.
Compared to
Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president's party share that doubt.
that's 5% more Dems for Trutherism and 30% more for the GOP on Birtherism. Practically the same right...?
No idea how you could come to the conclusion it 'doesn't sway anything'? Over half of the GOP isn't sure that Obama is an American... That would mean any cooperation with him in their mind is/may be akin to being an accomplice in one of the greatest crimes/frauds ever committed in the history of the nation.
It doesn't get talked about much but that's a pretty big problem... Hard to come to anything reasonable when one side represents a group who thinks the guy they are negotiating with should be in prison (or worse) because he tricked the whole national security apparatus into taking orders from a foreigner and nation at large (except for Donald Trump and the Birthers) into illegally electing him twice.
No, during the Bush presidency it was decidedly one-sided. It's just a reaction to current politics. I am a big fan of the arrogance though. "The only reason these people wouldn't agree to work with Obama on his agenda is that they are too stupid/racist/brain dead." They couldn't possibly oppose his policies, really. Every person who thinks fairly agrees with me!
Birthers don't influence politics, really. Almost all representatives or big names on the right denounce the birther movement, which like I said, was started by Democrats in the primary cycle. It's politics.
You once again extrapolate way too far from the data available to you. Those last two paragraphs simply don't follow, they seem to be born from your mind based on what already think is true.
I'll give you that there is a political element to the conspiracy support.
The rest is wrong.
Most of the big names did little more than say something to the effect of "I take him at his word" while spending the last 6 years saying they don't trust him (doublespeak anyone?) I'd love to see who you think 'denounced' the birther movement?
Whether the conspiracy is true or not, the conspiracies do influence results.
And on the last two, I don't see what you don't comprehend?
People who think the President isn't a citizen have to think that his being president is criminal and that therefore cooperation is akin to being an accomplice in that crime?
By extension they have to think that the whole national security apparatus is in on it or incompetent.
How else could they think if they think he isn't an American citizen?
What else were those others supposed to say? As soon as the certificate came out, then it changed to "we have proof." I'm not sure what you expect more than that. Republicans wanted it to go away entirely, not have a big fight about it.
Yeah, as for that last part- you just invented it. No one says this (can you find more than you can count on a hand?), so this just has to be another one of your "they don't say it but they think it" type explanations. There are so many leaps of logic involved, I really don't need to parse them out. Besides, were it true, then their argument would be a legalistic one, not one based on race or religion.
They were 'supposed' to say. "Obama is an American citizen, any suggestion otherwise is absurd." (especially after he was elected)
Show me any of the future presidential nominees from the right who called birtherism what it was?
You cant! Because the crazy helps them. If the crazy didn't influence results why wouldn't they just say "Obama is an American citizen, let's move on"?
I don't think you understood what I was saying. Yes there are birthers, including a few in Congress. But multiple party/ideological heads/ commentators have repeated again and again that they think birthers are wrong and damaging the cause. But it's not exactly their primary mission in life to stamp out the birthers. If you are just mad because there hasn't been some great purge or campaign then I really don't feel sorry for you.
If everyone in the world is in facebook except you, you have lost your privacy. Your life is reflected in theirs unless you are a hermit with no relationships. The libertarian conception of privacy in which you contract away your privacg for the convenience of google or facebook has brought about an ecological disaster that has almost extiguished privacy for everyone. When privacy is extinguished democracy is impossible. The NSA isn't the stasi because it has more advanced methods. But social control is still achieved. And don't act like the only people that shohld be worried about it are revolutionaries trying to bring liberal democracy to their respective countries. There are far less dramatic examples of ideas that threaten the status quo. Regardless of what you think about net neutrality activists, animals rights activists, socialists, environmental activists, feminists, whatever, they have been persistently targeted by the FBI and other federal agencies throughout the decades. Civil rights activists were targeted in the 60s. Environmental groups are considered the number 1 domestic terrorist threat. Just stop bejng stupid. This stuff is regularly used already to target such groups and squelch free soeech. When privacy in society is being eroded, democracy dies. To pretend like knowing that the NSA can watch everything everywhere does not chill free speech is simply idiotic. And it's not because one person has a right to his "privacy" like he has a right to his person. It's far more expansive.
why did they do away with keyboards on phones? buttons are much more accurate than silly touch screens
I hate touchscreens so much.
Which future presidential candidates from the right (especially conservatives) have said that birthers were 'wrong'? Not that they 'were damaging the brand' but actually wrong?
I haven't looked into it, but I'll bet none of the contenders are birthers, though I don't know why ever single one would have to have stated his position. Someone would have had to have asked them. I'm sure you can check Media Matters and find out.
On November 16 2014 08:24 Introvert wrote: And the Democrat party is/was the home of the 9/11 Truthers. Did that have to do with race?
Birtherism was started by pro-Hilary Democrats, anyway. Birtherism and Truthers don't really sway anything. No use talking about them.
It's just a political reaction.
Pretty huge difference between the party lines on truthers vs birthers. Making them sound as if they are both equally partisan is beating the 'false equivalency' horse into mush.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of Democrats and 29% of those not affiliated with either major political party believe the government knew about 9/11, but only 17% of Republicans agree. Roughly one-in-five adults in all three groups are undecided.
Compared to
Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president's party share that doubt.
that's 5% more Dems for Trutherism and 30% more for the GOP on Birtherism. Practically the same right...?
No idea how you could come to the conclusion it 'doesn't sway anything'? Over half of the GOP isn't sure that Obama is an American... That would mean any cooperation with him in their mind is/may be akin to being an accomplice in one of the greatest crimes/frauds ever committed in the history of the nation.
It doesn't get talked about much but that's a pretty big problem... Hard to come to anything reasonable when one side represents a group who thinks the guy they are negotiating with should be in prison (or worse) because he tricked the whole national security apparatus into taking orders from a foreigner and nation at large (except for Donald Trump and the Birthers) into illegally electing him twice.
No, during the Bush presidency it was decidedly one-sided. It's just a reaction to current politics. I am a big fan of the arrogance though. "The only reason these people wouldn't agree to work with Obama on his agenda is that they are too stupid/racist/brain dead." They couldn't possibly oppose his policies, really. Every person who thinks fairly agrees with me!
Birthers don't influence politics, really. Almost all representatives or big names on the right denounce the birther movement, which like I said, was started by Democrats in the primary cycle. It's politics.
You once again extrapolate way too far from the data available to you. Those last two paragraphs simply don't follow, they seem to be born from your mind based on what already think is true.
I'll give you that there is a political element to the conspiracy support.
The rest is wrong.
Most of the big names did little more than say something to the effect of "I take him at his word" while spending the last 6 years saying they don't trust him (doublespeak anyone?) I'd love to see who you think 'denounced' the birther movement?
Whether the conspiracy is true or not, the conspiracies do influence results.
And on the last two, I don't see what you don't comprehend?
People who think the President isn't a citizen have to think that his being president is criminal and that therefore cooperation is akin to being an accomplice in that crime?
By extension they have to think that the whole national security apparatus is in on it or incompetent.
How else could they think if they think he isn't an American citizen?
What else were those others supposed to say? As soon as the certificate came out, then it changed to "we have proof." I'm not sure what you expect more than that. Republicans wanted it to go away entirely, not have a big fight about it.
Yeah, as for that last part- you just invented it. No one says this (can you find more than you can count on a hand?), so this just has to be another one of your "they don't say it but they think it" type explanations. There are so many leaps of logic involved, I really don't need to parse them out. Besides, were it true, then their argument would be a legalistic one, not one based on race or religion.
They were 'supposed' to say. "Obama is an American citizen, any suggestion otherwise is absurd." (especially after he was elected)
Show me any of the future presidential nominees from the right who called birtherism what it was?
You cant! Because the crazy helps them. If the crazy didn't influence results why wouldn't they just say "Obama is an American citizen, let's move on"?
I don't think you understood what I was saying. Yes there are birthers, including a few in Congress. But multiple party/ideological heads/ commentators have repeated again and again that they think birthers are wrong and damaging the cause. But it's not exactly their primary mission in life to stamp out the birthers. If you are just mad because there hasn't been some great purge or campaign then I really don't feel sorry for you.
If everyone in the world is in facebook except you, you have lost your privacy. Your life is reflected in theirs unless you are a hermit with no relationships. The libertarian conception of privacy in which you contract away your privacg for the convenience of google or facebook has brought about an ecological disaster that has almost extiguished privacy for everyone. When privacy is extinguished democracy is impossible. The NSA isn't the stasi because it has more advanced methods. But social control is still achieved. And don't act like the only people that shohld be worried about it are revolutionaries trying to bring liberal democracy to their respective countries. There are far less dramatic examples of ideas that threaten the status quo. Regardless of what you think about net neutrality activists, animals rights activists, socialists, environmental activists, feminists, whatever, they have been persistently targeted by the FBI and other federal agencies throughout the decades. Civil rights activists were targeted in the 60s. Environmental groups are considered the number 1 domestic terrorist threat. Just stop bejng stupid. This stuff is regularly used already to target such groups and squelch free soeech. When privacy in society is being eroded, democracy dies. To pretend like knowing that the NSA can watch everything everywhere does not chill free speech is simply idiotic. And it's not because one person has a right to his "privacy" like he has a right to his person. It's far more expansive.
why did they do away with keyboards on phones? buttons are much more accurate than silly touch screens
I hate touchscreens so much.
Which future presidential candidates from the right (especially conservatives) have said that birthers were 'wrong'? Not that they 'were damaging the brand' but actually wrong?
I haven't looked into it, but I'll bet none of the contenders are birthers, though I don't know why ever single one would have to have stated his position. Someone would have had to have asked them. I'm sure you can check Media Matters and find out.
Well you've said multiple leaders have denounced it, which ones did you have in mind?
the climate change stuff will make headlines but this is a pretty strong reaffirmation of the asian pivot. the australian joke of a leader should be in favor of this move unless he really has a bunch of coal mine stakes.
edit: obama mentioned the hk protests explicitly. long overdue
On November 16 2014 08:24 Introvert wrote: And the Democrat party is/was the home of the 9/11 Truthers. Did that have to do with race?
Birtherism was started by pro-Hilary Democrats, anyway. Birtherism and Truthers don't really sway anything. No use talking about them.
It's just a political reaction.
Pretty huge difference between the party lines on truthers vs birthers. Making them sound as if they are both equally partisan is beating the 'false equivalency' horse into mush.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of Democrats and 29% of those not affiliated with either major political party believe the government knew about 9/11, but only 17% of Republicans agree. Roughly one-in-five adults in all three groups are undecided.
Compared to
Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president's party share that doubt.
that's 5% more Dems for Trutherism and 30% more for the GOP on Birtherism. Practically the same right...?
No idea how you could come to the conclusion it 'doesn't sway anything'? Over half of the GOP isn't sure that Obama is an American... That would mean any cooperation with him in their mind is/may be akin to being an accomplice in one of the greatest crimes/frauds ever committed in the history of the nation.
It doesn't get talked about much but that's a pretty big problem... Hard to come to anything reasonable when one side represents a group who thinks the guy they are negotiating with should be in prison (or worse) because he tricked the whole national security apparatus into taking orders from a foreigner and nation at large (except for Donald Trump and the Birthers) into illegally electing him twice.
No, during the Bush presidency it was decidedly one-sided. It's just a reaction to current politics. I am a big fan of the arrogance though. "The only reason these people wouldn't agree to work with Obama on his agenda is that they are too stupid/racist/brain dead." They couldn't possibly oppose his policies, really. Every person who thinks fairly agrees with me!
Birthers don't influence politics, really. Almost all representatives or big names on the right denounce the birther movement, which like I said, was started by Democrats in the primary cycle. It's politics.
You once again extrapolate way too far from the data available to you. Those last two paragraphs simply don't follow, they seem to be born from your mind based on what already think is true.
I'll give you that there is a political element to the conspiracy support.
The rest is wrong.
Most of the big names did little more than say something to the effect of "I take him at his word" while spending the last 6 years saying they don't trust him (doublespeak anyone?) I'd love to see who you think 'denounced' the birther movement?
Whether the conspiracy is true or not, the conspiracies do influence results.
And on the last two, I don't see what you don't comprehend?
People who think the President isn't a citizen have to think that his being president is criminal and that therefore cooperation is akin to being an accomplice in that crime?
By extension they have to think that the whole national security apparatus is in on it or incompetent.
How else could they think if they think he isn't an American citizen?
What else were those others supposed to say? As soon as the certificate came out, then it changed to "we have proof." I'm not sure what you expect more than that. Republicans wanted it to go away entirely, not have a big fight about it.
Yeah, as for that last part- you just invented it. No one says this (can you find more than you can count on a hand?), so this just has to be another one of your "they don't say it but they think it" type explanations. There are so many leaps of logic involved, I really don't need to parse them out. Besides, were it true, then their argument would be a legalistic one, not one based on race or religion.
They were 'supposed' to say. "Obama is an American citizen, any suggestion otherwise is absurd." (especially after he was elected)
Show me any of the future presidential nominees from the right who called birtherism what it was?
You cant! Because the crazy helps them. If the crazy didn't influence results why wouldn't they just say "Obama is an American citizen, let's move on"?
I don't think you understood what I was saying. Yes there are birthers, including a few in Congress. But multiple party/ideological heads/ commentators have repeated again and again that they think birthers are wrong and damaging the cause. But it's not exactly their primary mission in life to stamp out the birthers. If you are just mad because there hasn't been some great purge or campaign then I really don't feel sorry for you.
If everyone in the world is in facebook except you, you have lost your privacy. Your life is reflected in theirs unless you are a hermit with no relationships. The libertarian conception of privacy in which you contract away your privacg for the convenience of google or facebook has brought about an ecological disaster that has almost extiguished privacy for everyone. When privacy is extinguished democracy is impossible. The NSA isn't the stasi because it has more advanced methods. But social control is still achieved. And don't act like the only people that shohld be worried about it are revolutionaries trying to bring liberal democracy to their respective countries. There are far less dramatic examples of ideas that threaten the status quo. Regardless of what you think about net neutrality activists, animals rights activists, socialists, environmental activists, feminists, whatever, they have been persistently targeted by the FBI and other federal agencies throughout the decades. Civil rights activists were targeted in the 60s. Environmental groups are considered the number 1 domestic terrorist threat. Just stop bejng stupid. This stuff is regularly used already to target such groups and squelch free soeech. When privacy in society is being eroded, democracy dies. To pretend like knowing that the NSA can watch everything everywhere does not chill free speech is simply idiotic. And it's not because one person has a right to his "privacy" like he has a right to his person. It's far more expansive.
why did they do away with keyboards on phones? buttons are much more accurate than silly touch screens
I hate touchscreens so much.
Which future presidential candidates from the right (especially conservatives) have said that birthers were 'wrong'? Not that they 'were damaging the brand' but actually wrong?
I haven't looked into it, but I'll bet none of the contenders are birthers, though I don't know why ever single one would have to have stated his position. Someone would have had to have asked them. I'm sure you can check Media Matters and find out.
Well you've said multiple leaders have denounced it, which ones did you have in mind?
Priebus, multiple governors (example: Chris Christie), major publications (e.g., National Review). People like that. I don't keep a running tally.
On November 16 2014 10:34 GreenHorizons wrote: Show me any of the future presidential nominees from the right who called birtherism what it was?
You cant!
I mean, Chris Christie, for starters, commented to the effect that it was a dumb idea, in the context of defending Mitt Romney, whom he thought wouldn't hold that idea.
Mitt Romney, occasionally still floated as a possibility, is likewise on record as being against birthers.
Rick Santorum said there was "no doubt" Obama was a US citizen, born in Hawaii.
Jeb Bush denounced the birther "movement" as well.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada (and is the object of an awful lot of birther ire).
On November 16 2014 08:52 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Pretty huge difference between the party lines on truthers vs birthers. Making them sound as if they are both equally partisan is beating the 'false equivalency' horse into mush.
[quote]
Compared to
[quote]
that's 5% more Dems for Trutherism and 30% more for the GOP on Birtherism. Practically the same right...?
No idea how you could come to the conclusion it 'doesn't sway anything'? Over half of the GOP isn't sure that Obama is an American... That would mean any cooperation with him in their mind is/may be akin to being an accomplice in one of the greatest crimes/frauds ever committed in the history of the nation.
It doesn't get talked about much but that's a pretty big problem... Hard to come to anything reasonable when one side represents a group who thinks the guy they are negotiating with should be in prison (or worse) because he tricked the whole national security apparatus into taking orders from a foreigner and nation at large (except for Donald Trump and the Birthers) into illegally electing him twice.
No, during the Bush presidency it was decidedly one-sided. It's just a reaction to current politics. I am a big fan of the arrogance though. "The only reason these people wouldn't agree to work with Obama on his agenda is that they are too stupid/racist/brain dead." They couldn't possibly oppose his policies, really. Every person who thinks fairly agrees with me!
Birthers don't influence politics, really. Almost all representatives or big names on the right denounce the birther movement, which like I said, was started by Democrats in the primary cycle. It's politics.
You once again extrapolate way too far from the data available to you. Those last two paragraphs simply don't follow, they seem to be born from your mind based on what already think is true.
I'll give you that there is a political element to the conspiracy support.
The rest is wrong.
Most of the big names did little more than say something to the effect of "I take him at his word" while spending the last 6 years saying they don't trust him (doublespeak anyone?) I'd love to see who you think 'denounced' the birther movement?
Whether the conspiracy is true or not, the conspiracies do influence results.
And on the last two, I don't see what you don't comprehend?
People who think the President isn't a citizen have to think that his being president is criminal and that therefore cooperation is akin to being an accomplice in that crime?
By extension they have to think that the whole national security apparatus is in on it or incompetent.
How else could they think if they think he isn't an American citizen?
What else were those others supposed to say? As soon as the certificate came out, then it changed to "we have proof." I'm not sure what you expect more than that. Republicans wanted it to go away entirely, not have a big fight about it.
Yeah, as for that last part- you just invented it. No one says this (can you find more than you can count on a hand?), so this just has to be another one of your "they don't say it but they think it" type explanations. There are so many leaps of logic involved, I really don't need to parse them out. Besides, were it true, then their argument would be a legalistic one, not one based on race or religion.
They were 'supposed' to say. "Obama is an American citizen, any suggestion otherwise is absurd." (especially after he was elected)
Show me any of the future presidential nominees from the right who called birtherism what it was?
You cant! Because the crazy helps them. If the crazy didn't influence results why wouldn't they just say "Obama is an American citizen, let's move on"?
I don't think you understood what I was saying. Yes there are birthers, including a few in Congress. But multiple party/ideological heads/ commentators have repeated again and again that they think birthers are wrong and damaging the cause. But it's not exactly their primary mission in life to stamp out the birthers. If you are just mad because there hasn't been some great purge or campaign then I really don't feel sorry for you.
If everyone in the world is in facebook except you, you have lost your privacy. Your life is reflected in theirs unless you are a hermit with no relationships. The libertarian conception of privacy in which you contract away your privacg for the convenience of google or facebook has brought about an ecological disaster that has almost extiguished privacy for everyone. When privacy is extinguished democracy is impossible. The NSA isn't the stasi because it has more advanced methods. But social control is still achieved. And don't act like the only people that shohld be worried about it are revolutionaries trying to bring liberal democracy to their respective countries. There are far less dramatic examples of ideas that threaten the status quo. Regardless of what you think about net neutrality activists, animals rights activists, socialists, environmental activists, feminists, whatever, they have been persistently targeted by the FBI and other federal agencies throughout the decades. Civil rights activists were targeted in the 60s. Environmental groups are considered the number 1 domestic terrorist threat. Just stop bejng stupid. This stuff is regularly used already to target such groups and squelch free soeech. When privacy in society is being eroded, democracy dies. To pretend like knowing that the NSA can watch everything everywhere does not chill free speech is simply idiotic. And it's not because one person has a right to his "privacy" like he has a right to his person. It's far more expansive.
why did they do away with keyboards on phones? buttons are much more accurate than silly touch screens
I hate touchscreens so much.
Which future presidential candidates from the right (especially conservatives) have said that birthers were 'wrong'? Not that they 'were damaging the brand' but actually wrong?
I haven't looked into it, but I'll bet none of the contenders are birthers, though I don't know why ever single one would have to have stated his position. Someone would have had to have asked them. I'm sure you can check Media Matters and find out.
Well you've said multiple leaders have denounced it, which ones did you have in mind?
Priebus, multiple governors (example: Chris Christie), major publications (e.g., National Review). People like that. I don't keep a running tally.
I'll give you Christie, EDIT: You can add (Santorum and Romney who both have a whole different type of crazy they appeal to) the other two I would have to see what you were talking about. I suppose Priebus coming out and saying "his position is that Obama is an American" was close enough.
Not what I would think of when I heard 'denounce' and still pretty far from just saying he is an American rather than "my positions is.."
But my main point was that it does influence voters. Which is why you won't see anything like you mention from anyone in a contentious race. If you have anyone 'denouncing' birthers leading into winning a contentious election I might conceed the point.
Jeb's comment was legit. On that note pretty sure immigration is going to be this next cycle's version of 'birthers' we'll see if Jeb can make it through a primary speaking to the crazy on that issue.
EDIT2:
Did the Republican primary to the 2012 election count as a contentious race? Both finalists were anti-birther despite several pro-birthers in the running (and several in-between like Gingrich, or, to a lesser extent, Paul).
Did the Republican primary to the 2012 election count as a contentious race? Both finalists were anti-birther despite several pro-birthers in the running (and several in-between like Gingrich, or, to a lesser extent, Paul).
On November 16 2014 09:06 Introvert wrote: [quote]
No, during the Bush presidency it was decidedly one-sided. It's just a reaction to current politics. I am a big fan of the arrogance though. "The only reason these people wouldn't agree to work with Obama on his agenda is that they are too stupid/racist/brain dead." They couldn't possibly oppose his policies, really. Every person who thinks fairly agrees with me!
Birthers don't influence politics, really. Almost all representatives or big names on the right denounce the birther movement, which like I said, was started by Democrats in the primary cycle. It's politics.
You once again extrapolate way too far from the data available to you. Those last two paragraphs simply don't follow, they seem to be born from your mind based on what already think is true.
I'll give you that there is a political element to the conspiracy support.
The rest is wrong.
Most of the big names did little more than say something to the effect of "I take him at his word" while spending the last 6 years saying they don't trust him (doublespeak anyone?) I'd love to see who you think 'denounced' the birther movement?
Whether the conspiracy is true or not, the conspiracies do influence results.
And on the last two, I don't see what you don't comprehend?
People who think the President isn't a citizen have to think that his being president is criminal and that therefore cooperation is akin to being an accomplice in that crime?
By extension they have to think that the whole national security apparatus is in on it or incompetent.
How else could they think if they think he isn't an American citizen?
What else were those others supposed to say? As soon as the certificate came out, then it changed to "we have proof." I'm not sure what you expect more than that. Republicans wanted it to go away entirely, not have a big fight about it.
Yeah, as for that last part- you just invented it. No one says this (can you find more than you can count on a hand?), so this just has to be another one of your "they don't say it but they think it" type explanations. There are so many leaps of logic involved, I really don't need to parse them out. Besides, were it true, then their argument would be a legalistic one, not one based on race or religion.
They were 'supposed' to say. "Obama is an American citizen, any suggestion otherwise is absurd." (especially after he was elected)
Show me any of the future presidential nominees from the right who called birtherism what it was?
You cant! Because the crazy helps them. If the crazy didn't influence results why wouldn't they just say "Obama is an American citizen, let's move on"?
I don't think you understood what I was saying. Yes there are birthers, including a few in Congress. But multiple party/ideological heads/ commentators have repeated again and again that they think birthers are wrong and damaging the cause. But it's not exactly their primary mission in life to stamp out the birthers. If you are just mad because there hasn't been some great purge or campaign then I really don't feel sorry for you.
If everyone in the world is in facebook except you, you have lost your privacy. Your life is reflected in theirs unless you are a hermit with no relationships. The libertarian conception of privacy in which you contract away your privacg for the convenience of google or facebook has brought about an ecological disaster that has almost extiguished privacy for everyone. When privacy is extinguished democracy is impossible. The NSA isn't the stasi because it has more advanced methods. But social control is still achieved. And don't act like the only people that shohld be worried about it are revolutionaries trying to bring liberal democracy to their respective countries. There are far less dramatic examples of ideas that threaten the status quo. Regardless of what you think about net neutrality activists, animals rights activists, socialists, environmental activists, feminists, whatever, they have been persistently targeted by the FBI and other federal agencies throughout the decades. Civil rights activists were targeted in the 60s. Environmental groups are considered the number 1 domestic terrorist threat. Just stop bejng stupid. This stuff is regularly used already to target such groups and squelch free soeech. When privacy in society is being eroded, democracy dies. To pretend like knowing that the NSA can watch everything everywhere does not chill free speech is simply idiotic. And it's not because one person has a right to his "privacy" like he has a right to his person. It's far more expansive.
why did they do away with keyboards on phones? buttons are much more accurate than silly touch screens
I hate touchscreens so much.
Which future presidential candidates from the right (especially conservatives) have said that birthers were 'wrong'? Not that they 'were damaging the brand' but actually wrong?
I haven't looked into it, but I'll bet none of the contenders are birthers, though I don't know why ever single one would have to have stated his position. Someone would have had to have asked them. I'm sure you can check Media Matters and find out.
Well you've said multiple leaders have denounced it, which ones did you have in mind?
Priebus, multiple governors (example: Chris Christie), major publications (e.g., National Review). People like that. I don't keep a running tally.
I'll give you Christie, EDIT: You can add (Santorum and Romney who both have a whole different type of crazy they appeal to) the other two I would have to see what you were talking about. I suppose Priebus coming out and saying "his position is that Obama is an American" was close enough.
Not what I would think of when I heard 'denounce' and still pretty far from just saying he is an American rather than "my positions is.."
But my main point was that it does influence voters. Which is why you won't see anything like you mention from anyone in a contentious race. If you have anyone 'denouncing' birthers leading into winning a contentious election I might conceed the point.
Birtherism does not make or break elections, it has minimal impact. You just have some really strange standards- like all these people should be a part of ObamaIsAmerican.org or something.
On November 16 2014 12:17 Yoav wrote: Did the Republican primary to the 2012 election count as a contentious race? Both finalists were anti-birther despite several pro-birthers in the running (and several in-between like Gingrich, or, to a lesser extent, Paul).
And it should be noted that the list from 2011 is quite old, pretty sure that most of those who "expressed doubts" aren't so wishy-washy anymore.
Rosebud, SD – In response to today’s vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to authorize the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal President announced that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) recognizes the authorization of this pipeline as an act of war.
The Tribe has done its part to remain peaceful in its dealings with the United States in this matter, in spite of the fact that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has yet to be properly consulted on the project, which would cross through Tribal land, and the concerns brought to the Department of Interior and to the Department of State have yet to be addressed.
“The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” said President Scott of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. “We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation. We are a sovereign nation and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people.”
In February of this year, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and other members of the Great Sioux Nation adopted Tribal resolutions opposing the Keystone XL project.
On November 16 2014 10:31 oneofthem wrote: internet and electronic data is a different beast entirely, both for individual sovereignty and for the challenges facing law enforcement. it's a case of moral intuitions not catching up with a changing world.
yes, there is a need for privacy, but this line is at least negotiable and there has to be a place for a basic government function like catching bad guys. i'm sorry if this is too complicated for those who just want to scream bloody murder.
There's quite a difference between an internet dragnet watching everyone everywhere always and a limited search warrant for one persin with probable cause. One ends up monitoring what people read, when, how often, what people write, and what they search for, the other costs more resources and is a targeted effort of a judicially approved target. The first explots tha data aggregators that are wreaking havoc with privacy and the second is a time-honored and constitutional search of a suspect. It used to be that the wires and envelopes of communication involved one line for eavesdropping, but the nature of the internet has blurred those lines. Security advocates that justify spying in everyone out of security concerns are like military generals in wartime who ignore collateral damage in order to achieve ab objective.
Rosebud, SD – In response to today’s vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to authorize the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal President announced that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) recognizes the authorization of this pipeline as an act of war.
The Tribe has done its part to remain peaceful in its dealings with the United States in this matter, in spite of the fact that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has yet to be properly consulted on the project, which would cross through Tribal land, and the concerns brought to the Department of Interior and to the Department of State have yet to be addressed.
“The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” said President Scott of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. “We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation. We are a sovereign nation and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people.”
In February of this year, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and other members of the Great Sioux Nation adopted Tribal resolutions opposing the Keystone XL project.
I know in the past there were protests, and the response was usually the same
A spokesman for TransCanada said: “It is really unfortunate that some of these activists are trying to make this an ‘us versus them’ debate when 100% of the landowners in South Dakota and Montana have already negotiated generous agreements with TransCanada to access their property for Keystone XL.”
The spokesman said the Keystone pipeline doesn’t cross reservation lands or lands held in trust. He added that TransCanada is working with the tribes.
I'll say it was pretty nice seeing Mary Landrieu in a sprint to try to get Keystone XL on her accomplishment page ahead of the runoff. Voicing support, that's one thing. Re-election looking shaky, that's quite another.
Four workers were killed and one was injured during a hazardous chemical leak at a DuPont industrial plant in suburban Houston, company officials said.
The chemical, methyl mercaptan, began leaking from a valve around 4 a.m. Saturday in a unit at the plant in La Porte, about 20 miles east of Houston. Plant officials said the release was contained by 6 a.m.
Methyl mercaptan was used at the plant to create products such as insecticides and fungicides, according to DuPont. The cause of the leak was not immediately known.
Five employees were in the unit at the time of the incident and were exposed to the chemical, the company said. Four died at the plant, and one was hospitalized.
"There are no words to fully express the loss we feel or the concern and sympathy we extend to the families of the employees and their co-workers," plant manager Randall Clements said in a statement. "We are in close touch with them and providing them every measure of support and assistance at this time."
The company said the fifth worker who was hospitalized was being held for observation but didn't provide further details. DuPont would only say "the employee is currently receiving treatment." None of the victims was immediately identified.
DuPont will cooperate with local, state and federal officials investigating the leak, Clements said.
"As part of that investigation, we are conducting our own top-to-bottom review of this incident and we will share what we learn with the relevant authorities," he said.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board, a federal agency that investigates chemical accidents, announced late Saturday that it was sending a seven-person team to investigate the incident.
there is no dragnet simply the possibility of access. the warrant scenario does not equvocate since private companies do not need warrants either. weve been over this
On November 17 2014 02:13 oneofthem wrote: there is no dragnet simply the possibility of access. the warrant scenario does not equvocate since private companies do not need warrants either. weve been over this
Yes there is. Compare it to how wiretapping used to work. You couldn't retroactively wiretap people and find out everything they ever said on the phone. It's about resource use and ease of access. Having everything aggregated so you can look at whatever you want whenever you want is a dragnet. Having to hack an individual's accounts, passwords, and phone lines one at a time is not.
Private companies are irrelevant. Not sure what that verb is.
EPT
