Obama is half black. But people like Patricia would rather use magic words of disdain than articulate what truly concerns them -- that a middle aged white Christian guy is not in the White House right now.

LINK

From the link:



I am unsure of the reliability of the polling and note that this is nearly 6 months old. Is 61% significantly better than what GWB would have polled? I think so.

On stupid people who fling around words like "communist" without having the slightest clue what they mean:



Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l ... 78423.html

I recall the many skyjackings in the 1960s, and the perpetrators were called "terrorists". I asked my father what the word meant. He said that it meant people who use FEAR as their weapon.

It is a very old tactic, it did not start with any World Trade Center. The word should not belong to any certain group, as it is used by many.

Using the word does not do disservice to victims of 9/11. We musn't lose sight of the meaning of the weapon of terrorism- FEAR. It does not mean always killing people, but frightening people into inaction or powerlessness through fear.

Right now I see some of the Democrats upset with President Obama. What they need to realize is that the school speech and Jones issue is meant to try and distract from the important issue which is health care. The Republicans can read polls and realize that the majority of Americans want a public option. So, IMHO, the WH is smart for not taking the bait. And, this is what Jones said when he resigned. Now, if the Republicans block health care reform, they are going to own it. Just my opinion.

http://current.com/items/90742738_new-p ... option.htm
New poll: 77% support "choice" of public option

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/ ... 8517.shtml

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/8/20/165644/660


emphasis added

I'm forced to disagree. A bunch of morons who live IN fear due to their own racism, stupidity, etc. and who spread the same lies that they themselves already fear does NOT make a fair comparison to a suicide bomber or an airline hijacker. It just doesn't. For example, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are not "terrorists". They're assholes, sure, because they use fear as part of their trade to those willing to listen and BE afraid... but that doesn't make them TERRORISTS. To call them such only makes us look like the hysterical ones. When you use that specific term, you invoke some very specific imagery... none of which really applies to a racist conspiracy moron, 99.9% of which are, to date, completely non-violent.

The word "terrorist" has a pretty specific meaning to people in general when used in present-day context. There's really no need to apply it to birfers. As I said, it's crossing a line of hyperbole that simply isn't necessary and absolutely COULD be considered offensive to victims (and their families) of ACTUAL terrorists. There are plenty of other applicable names that can be used to identify birfers other than "terrorist" that get the point across just fine. I'd be amazed if the people on this site can't think of at least a dozen off the top of their heads.

There is one group to which some Birthers have attached themselves that is properly described as "paper terrorists", because they have caused real harm: the Sovereign Citizens' movement. I believe that there are more Sovereign Citizens than there are Birthers, and they do pose a serious risk of civil unrest.

I would agree with that assessment, Tolland. Big difference between potential for unrest and suicide bombers, however. I don't feel the birfers have risen to the level of being called a "terrorist", no matter how strongly we feel about their words and stupidity. Hopefully, they won't ever earn that moniker through any violent deeds. Only then would I consider the use of the word "terrorist", if they take innocent lives.

How about "errorists?"

Seems appropriate.

I'm another who has always considered terrorism to be the use of any form of fear or terror to achieve a goal. The focus of the term itself is on "terror" *not* on "violence." And while many of the people involved in pushing the message of the birthers and the anti-health reformers and so on and so forth aren't all that bright, the Limbaughs, Becks, O'Reilly's, along with the Republican Congressmen/women, Governors and other party leaders who "play to the base" and so forth know exactly what they're doing. They're trying to force a change by keeping as much of the population as terrified as possible of what might happen if the Dirty F'ing Hippy Libruls take over.

You're right in that, so far, there hasn't been violence used in relation to the birther or anti-health reformers, but there HAS been considerable violence used by the anti-abortionists, and there's a disturbing amount of overlap between those groups - meaning that it's not entirely unreasonable to have at least some concern for the potential of violence to erupt.

Perhaps, then, when referring to those who are clearly trying to use fear and terror to force the country to run they way they want to, but have not yet actually used violent means, we could call them "political terrorists," or "rhetorical terrorists" or something along those lines that indicates they're not up to the guns and bombs level yet, but that they are still functioning on the same basic principle that if you scare people enough and tell them you know the way to safety, you can get them to do what you want.

I'd like to stay on topic. I still don't know what it is that is to be "produced", and how it is to be obtained an produced.

I love this, though:



Barack Obama cannot "release his long-form BC".

That's the game here, and you should know that by now.

And this really gets to the heart of how many people do not understand how our system of government works, and what the rule of law means.

The President is not some dictator who can order anything he wants done. In fact, the President - any President - is utterly powerless to change valid state laws.

The State of Hawaii does not issue long form birth certificates to ANYONE. Those are their rules. Even if you are the President of the United States, you cannot ask any state official to violate the rules of that state. Period. End of story.

So, I'll add to my unanswered questions about "what" and "how"... Specifically how is Barack Obama to persuade the State of Hawaii to violate its own regulations to obtain this long form birth certificate? By asking nicely and pointing out the laws do not apply to him? They do apply to him, just as they apply to anyone else.

And speaking of those "millions of people around the world", I do a lot of international travel, because a large part of my work involves a peculiar international standards organization. And that time is spent in the REAL world - not some set of echo-chamber blogs. During a typical year, I spend about a month and a half outside of the US.

If you think the rest of the developed world - all of which have figured out some sort of insurance scheme for all of its citizens, and many of which treat US tourists for free - is recoiling in horror at the notion that the US is struggling with a debate on a subject they've settled long ago, then I really have to wonder about your knowledge of this world and the people in it. The general reaction abroad to the debate over this issue in the US is one of stunned disbelief.

I don't mean to be too cynical, since this statement is absolutely correct, but both the last President and the current one have filed legal papers all but saying that this is the truth. It is one of my gravest disappointments with Obama that he has not renounced the vastly expansive claims of executive power that Bush adopted, but has instead continued to argue through United States counsel the exact same claims of executive power that he seemed to disclaim in his campaign.

That isn't to disagree with your basic point with regard to the birth certificate, though. Regardless of the downright frivolous claims of virtually infinite power that both the Bush and Obama administrations have made in litigation, Obama is no more a dictator than Bush was, and does not have the power to order any official of Hawaii to violate the laws of the state.

I just think that if United States counsel consistently adopted this position that the President must obey the law, that there wouldn't even be any ambiguity on more minor issues like this.

Which claim, Tolland, mine or Patricia's? I'm basing mine on the enthusiastic reception the Obamas got when they visited Europe. Yes, I realize Europe's not the entire world, but it's a lot bigger than most Americans think. I also know that when I wore my Obama t-shirt traveling through New South Wales and Queensland in Australia all last summer, it never failed to elicit warm comments from people.

Considering the disinformation and outright lies that have been spread about the health care proposals, I suspect may of the people who answered in the affirmative may have thought the alternative was that everyone would be forced into a government-run scheme.

For the record, I never said that President Obama should release his long form BC.

What I said was that perhaps Obama should release his certified copy of his certification of live birth. (yes, I realize he already has done this (Factcheck) but perhaps he should do this again, perhaps to the Senate.--just a thought.)

Patricia's claim, which was made in the form of "many people" on another topic. I just don't see any empirical evidence for this. On the other topic, I pointed out that even several hundreds of thousands of people does not remotely approach a significant percentage of the voting age population of the U.S. Those few folks can certainly be loud, however.

http://americangrandjury.org/



Millions?, doesn't appear to be even close to millions of Americans. ;)

World Public Opinion is a consortium of research centers in 28 countries around the world, whose population includes almost the entire human population. Stephen Kull, Professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, is the leader of the consortium. WPP has done world-wide public opinion polls over the years that have produced reasonable results that proved to be consistent with the results from other polling organizations. I would consider these data to be very usable.

It seems unlikely that much would have changed in six months. It was already clear at the beginning of his term that the U.S. would not withdraw immediately from Iraq and that force levels would be increased in Afghanistan, which might have diminished his popularity from pre-inauguration levels.

To measure the accuracy of Patricia's claim that many people do not trust Obama, Kull would have had to ask that question directly. The result would not necessarily be the 100's complement of the approval rating; it would likely be far lower. Approval and distrust are not opposite ends of the same continuum.

Kull is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and you know what that means to Birthers and other anti-Obama types.

While Patricia is polite, I am afraid she is as thick as a brick. Her vague questionings belie a mind that is full of prejudices and fear, not a lively, inquiring, open mind.

President Obama has met the standard for citizenship.

Not only should he not produce his "long copy BC", he should not capitulate to any of the demands of the fringe right. Once he does that, the demands will increase and become increasingly more bizarre.

Remember, this is really about "usurping" an election through any means necessary, not about the legalities of Obama's citizenship (which, again, has been established).

So to answer the OP's question:

Hell no.

When has "the Senate" ever asked?

(I'm sure that if and when a Senate committee asks for whatever documentation from the President is necessary to fill their appropriate function, it will be sent).

I've heard that Congress held a hearing on the question of McCain's eligibility because of his Panamanian birth, and I've seen some references to Congress having already verified Obama's eligibility, but that they didn't have a hearing on it. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Maybe someone else can fill you in on the McCain story, I'm not really up on that.

But with Obama, what they're probably referring to is the unanimous, bicameral approval of the vote of the Electoral College; constitutionally, that's the official verification-of-eligibility process.

There's also the fact that the House recently passed a resolution in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood. The resolution contained a reference to Hawaii having been Obama's birthplace and it passed unanimously, so that has also been cited as a congressional acknowledgment of his having been born in the U.S.

Regarding McCain, see Senate Resolution 511. Here's one link:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/show

I didn't see the text there. Here's the text:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =sr110-511

There is a fake birth certificate on the internet. McCain never published his. The one you find on the internet is a fake.

Doc. C. has some info on that here:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/ ... a-forgery/

Race doesn't and has never concerned me. But you're not interested in the truth about what I think. Without any evidence at all, you accuse me of vileness. You are perpetrating an injustice on me by your false statement of what concerns me. What's so hard to believe about Americans not wanting ultraleftist "fundamentally transforming" the United States, as Obama said he would do? You cannot conceive that people are against that? Oh, well. Live in your world if you want. It's still a free country (for now).