More Birther News - INB4 GS

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

No one who remotely buys into the birther crap would ever vote for Obama, anyway.

says the clown who keeps talking about R primaries as if the voters in those might some day vote for Obama.

[volved]

Originally Posted by therealUT

However, lying to sell books, while morally indefensible, is not a Constitutional barrier to the Presidency.

A history of morally indefensible actions is relevant in a Presidential campaign. This is more proof that Obama was not vetted by the mainstream media.

[Weezy]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

if that's your standard, you have to hate Obama supporters who have continued to hang on to the dream.

Don't hate 'em, but they are idiots as well. Obama is a bad president, but it has very little to do with his birthplace.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by Weezy

Don't hate 'em, but they are idiots as well. Obama is a bad president, but it has very little to do with his birthplace.

agreed. The debate about his birthplace is just superfluous fluff, but it's hard for me to completely write it off as unsupportable.

The enormous effort made in our media to completely marginalize everyone supporting the point seems very problematic to me.

[golfballs]

Obama created the birther movement by refusing to release the document for as long as he did.

[golfballs]

Why did it take so long? Very curious, IMO

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

If Obama released a legit birth certficate, why would he let this unquestionable untruth about his origins propagate for so long?

Is it possible that he may have had a suspicion that whatever he released was only going to add more flame to the fire? Is it possible that then the fire got so big that he figured that he at least had to try to douse the flames, even if the attempt had an equal chance of of making the fire even larger?

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by volved

A history of morally indefensible actions is relevant in a Presidential campaign.

Should they be? George W. Bush's reckless past should not have been relevant; Clinton's weed smoking should not have been relevant, neither should his sexual trysts; Kerry's participation in Vietnam War protests should not have been relevant.

What should be relevant are the policies that these individuals espouse and their record of voting on such policies. On that measure, there is a great deal in which to disagree with Obama; I disagree with much of his policies and I wish he were not the POTUS (of course, I do not care for McCain to be the POTUS; I do not want Romney to be the POTUS).

But, the fact that the man's publishing house lied about him in an effort to sell books is not something that is relevant: of course, the things he says in Dreams From My Father, the ideas, particularly his affinity for socialism which he espoused in that book, should be relevant and one should ask Obama which of those ideas he still agrees with and which of them he has since discarded.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by therealUT

Is it possible that he may have had a suspicion that whatever he released was only going to add more flame to the fire? Is it possible that then the fire got so big that he figured that he at least had to try to douse the flames, even if the attempt had an equal chance of of making the fire even larger?

that doesn't remotely begin to explain allowing his editor to go unchecked with info that he knew to be absolutely false. Hell, that was long before his was a national name.

The bottom line: as your original post points out, the guy will say anything and everything if it means political gain, regardless of reality.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

The bottom line: as your original post points out, the guy will say anything and everything if it means political gain, regardless of reality.

This description applies to the vast majority of politicians and cannot be made out to be a specific point of contention with Obama, without also being the same specific point of contention with Romney, McCain, Santorum, Clinton, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by therealUT

Should they be? George W. Bush's reckless past should not have been relevant; Clinton's weed smoking should not have been relevant, neither should his sexual trysts; Kerry's participation in Vietnam War protests should not have been relevant.

What should be relevant are the policies that these individuals espouse and their record of voting on such policies. On that measure, there is a great deal in which to disagree with Obama; I disagree with much of his policies and I wish he were not the POTUS (of course, I do not care for McCain to be the POTUS; I do not want Romney to be the POTUS).

But, the fact that the man's publishing house lied about him in an effort to sell books is not something that is relevant: of course, the things he says in Dreams From My Father, the ideas, particularly his affinity for socialism which he espoused in that book, should be relevant and one should ask Obama which of those ideas he still agrees with and which of them he has since discarded.

how is a person's past not relevant to decisions about his or her future employment? How in the hell can people decide about what a politicians policies might actually be when his penchant for lying like a rug is so plain? What does one use to decide upon folks in a field littered with liars - what they say or what they've done?

Placing this issue at the feet of the publishing house is pathetic, especially given the number of fabrications that litter everything else he has put in / allowed into his bio type books.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by therealUT

This description applies to the vast majority of politicians and cannot be made out to be a specific point of contention with Obama, without also being the same specific point of contention with Romney, McCain, Santorum, Clinton, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

that doesn't change that your argument regarding motive is off.

[Gramps]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

that doesn't remotely begin to explain allowing his editor to go unchecked with info that he knew to be absolutely false. Hell, that was long before his was a national name.

The bottom line: as your original post points out, the guy will say anything and everything if it means political gain, regardless of reality.

Can you name one politician in Washington that the bolded does not describe?

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by Gramps

Can you name one politician in Washington that the bolded does not describe?

Ron Paul.

And I don't claim that Obama has a monopoly on the practice. He claims, and his supporters still slurp it up, that he was a Washington outsider coming in to clean the place up. Even some of his brighter supporters on this site were espousing the silliness.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

how is a person's past not relevant to decisions about his or her future employment?

You are equivocating; his past is relevant, insofar as that past consists in policies he espouses and policies he has voted for/against. What is not relevant is whether he has lied to sell books, smoked dope, committed adultery, etc.

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

How in the hell can people decide about what a politicians policies might actually be when his penchant for lying like a rug is so plain? What does one use to decide upon folks in a field littered with liars - what they say or what they've done?

What they have done, with respect to implementing policy (or, for someone without prior political experience, what they have done with respect to running a business, institution, etc.)

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

Placing this issue at the feet of the publishing house is pathetic, especially given the number of fabrications that litter everything else he has put in / allowed into his bio type books.

1. You are presuming that Obama did know about this pamphlet; he may have, and he may not have.

2. The publishing house is going to dictate how their authors are marketed. Maybe the publishing house made Obama aware of the bio they were running with in the pamphlet and also told Obama that they thought this bio necessary to sell enough quantities of the book to break even (Dreams From My Father did not sell very well until the second printing of it in 2004), and, further, that without their bio they would not sell the book. Obama knows the bio is a lie but he also knows that he clearly states that he was born in Hawaii in the book. It is still a lie (which is morally indefensible), however, it is no more of a great defect than telling one's wife that their dress does not make them look fat.

3. The only fabrication I can think of, off the top of my head, that Obama has made regarded his life is regarding his mother and insurance companies. Are there others?