Trade: Obama born in Kenya

i often think the whole obama in kenya thing is a poor attempt to hide the swathes of racism still present in the us, its We don't mind a black prez, except this ones born in kenya!!! seriously no one believes it.

I often think this whole "you think Obama isn't great - you must be a racist" thing is a poor attempt to hide the fact that his supporters have no answer to the charge that he is an appallingly bad President (and that's a VERY competitive field - in recent decades alone we've had Carter, Clinton and Dubya). He should never have been nominated in the first place (even leaving aside the question of his legal eligibility).

"You only dislike him because he's black*, it's nothing to do with a genuine objection to the way he runs the country"!!! Seriously, no-one believes it.

It is extraordinary when you think about it. You have a young, inexperienced man whose resume is expensive education, community organiser (God only knows), couple of weeks in the senate and then saw a nice lookin' house on Pennsylvania Avenue. He has done nothing in his life, and yet the electorate feel this man is an appropriate choice to become the penultimate leader of the most powerful country on earth?

Racism might well have played a part in his career, but not in the way you think.

*Sort of.
 
Last edited:
id like to congratulate you on taking the side of an argument that wasn't being discussed, my point was, when they can't say oh he's black he sucks, the racist elements just bring out the oh he's kenyan card. i never said i was supporting obama, and i never said everyone who criticises him is racist... i just said the whole born in kenya thing is an attempt to cover inherent racism. thats all.
 
id like to congratulate you on taking the side of an argument that wasn't being discussed, my point was, when they can't say oh he's black he sucks, the racist elements just bring out the oh he's kenyan card. i never said i was supporting obama, and i never said everyone who criticises him is racist... i just said the whole born in kenya thing is an attempt to cover inherent racism. thats all.

I was not "taking the side of an argument that wasn't being discussed". At least I think not - it is difficult to be sure, since your phrase does not make sense.

The point is entirely appropriate. You say concern over his eligibility based on the circumstances and place of his birth is not genuine but is in fact merely ineptly-cloaked racism. That might be the motivation for some.

It might also be that people are genuinely concerned about his constitutional eligibility (some people do think the law is worth observing and if needs be defending) to be President. There seems to be some evidence that requires explanation, such as the biography submitted to his literary agent, repeatedly updated and only amended immediately before he ran. Or the assertion of his grandmother that she was present at his birth in Kenya. There are other areas of controversy, although I cannot claim to be an expert in this case, as I have as little interest in this dimwit's place of birth as I have in the place of birth of the dimwit who preceded him.

This has nothing to do with race or party politics. It is entirely a question of law. Those who wish to settle this question should argue their case and not resort to intellectually bankrupt, morally repellent, cheap, lazy and groundless slurs such as accusing others of racism.
 
Last edited:
intellectually bankrupt is the side of people asking to see the presidents birth certificate, how dearly embarrassing for the whole of the usa, the rest of the world shook its head with shame. Of course its poorly veiled racism when they attack him on non political points, such as saying oh he's a kenyan. There is no intellectual point to saying he's a kenyan when he clearly isn't, its something continually trotted out by the far right lunatics who just don't wanna roll out the old "he's a nigger" card.

I will give you perhaps some are interested in the rule of law and following it to a tee, but I'm pretty sure its already been settled, the only morally bankrupt ones are people who are out of time,touch and ideas on which to attack the president, so they try to bring out this useless crap, which has proved to be groundless several times.

in short, the point had some validity, it was dispelled as untrue, the point should have died, it continues to live through hardline right wingers who can't admit they are just racists(or) lunatics, who can't attack him on policy issues.


the real tragedy here is for democracy, american politics is becoming a joke its all personal attacks all style no substance, smoke and mirrors ect, personal attacks such as the romney hair cutting, and the obama kenyan thing, are damaging to politics and make america look like a children's playground not a superpower.
 
intellectually bankrupt is the side of people asking to see the presidents birth certificate, how dearly embarrassing for the whole of the usa, the rest of the world shook its head with shame. Of course its poorly veiled racism when they attack him on non political points, such as saying oh he's a kenyan. There is no intellectual point to saying he's a kenyan when he clearly isn't, its something continually trotted out by the far right lunatics who just don't wanna roll out the old "he's a nigger" card.

This issue is not one of attack. It is one of fact - either he is eligible or he isn't. They are not attacking him because he is Kenyan or because he is black (although he isn't actually black, according to the New York Times), they are saying he is not eligible based on the circumstances of his birth.

You say "Of course its [sic] poorly veiled racism when they attack him on non political [sic] points". Are you sure? Can there be no other explanation? Might they not find him objectionable on other grounds than the colour of his skin? There are, for example, many politicians of the same race as me that I loathe and despise for reasons that have nothing to do with politics - their characters and their conduct, for example.

Your assertion is arrogant, prejudiced and simply incorrect.


I will give you perhaps some are interested in the rule of law and following it to a tee, but I'm pretty sure its already been settled, the only morally bankrupt ones are people who are out of time,touch and ideas on which to attack the president, so they try to bring out this useless crap, which has proved to be groundless several times.

I am not sure that it has proved to be groundless. How have the two pieces of evidence I referred to been dismissed, for example? They might have been - as I say, I have no interest in where the President of the United States is born, especially since almost everyone who runs for the post would by rights struggle to find employment as ballast.

in short, the point had some validity, it was dispelled as untrue, the point should have died, it continues to live through hardline right wingers who can't admit they are just racists(or) lunatics, who can't attack him on policy issues.

He is constantly attacked on policy issues, with justification. His policies are appalling. He seems to have seen his predecessors setting course for the edge of the cliff and decided to jump on the accelerator.


the real tragedy here is for democracy, american politics is becoming a joke its all personal attacks all style no substance, smoke and mirrors ect, personal attacks such as the romney hair cutting, and the obama kenyan thing, are damaging to politics and make america look like a children's playground not a superpower.

I agree that American politics is a joke, although this is not new. It is over a decade ago, for example, that the American people were offered, in apparent seriousness, a choice between Al Gore and George W Bush. This is like a choice between eating diarrhoea which has dehydrated somewhat and partially set and a solid stool which has been watered down a little and mashed.
 

Happy New Year: Obama Signs NDAA, Indefinite Detention Now Law of the Land

President signs authorization to indefinitely detain, torture and deny trial to Americans; grants power to all future presidents.
» Happy New Year: Obama Signs NDAA, Indefinite Detention Now Law of the Land Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

The provisions of that law were blocked. But why blame just Obama? Congress created it and passed it long before he signed it.

Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge - Bloomberg

Peter
 
Arizona elections chief says satisfied Obama a citizen | Reuters

TinFoilHatArea.jpg
 
I would be scared too, if I had a pistol held against my head and my family had been threatened with rape.

Bennett Backs Off Birther Issue As Hawaii Sends Arizona Obama Verification
Document
Secretary of State says he didn’t open email before making announcement


Steve Watson
Infowars.com
May 23, 2012

After suggesting that he may keep Barack Obama off the Arizona ballot in November owing to questionable eligibility, the Secretary of State Ken Bennett is backing away from the issue.

In an interview with an Arizona conservative radio host Friday, Bennett said it would be “possible” for him to leave President Obama off the Arizona ballot in November until he received official “confirmation” from the state of Hawaii that Barack Obama was born there.

The Secretary of State says he has now received information from Hawaii that “proves President Obama’s American birth and satisfies Arizona’s requirements for having the president on the upcoming election ballot.” reports The Arizona Republic.

“I’m happy that we got what we asked for and that’s what I was expecting all along,” Bennett said Tuesday night, without clarifying exactly what he had received in an email from Hawaii officials.

Bizarrely, Bennett said he had not actually opened the email as of 7 p.m. Tuesday, but was confident it contained the information he asked for, reports azfamily.com.
 
Jerome Corsi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does that look like someone impartial and unbiased to you?
Political mudslinging thats all.
There are no hard facts.
Your laws are now written in Brussels, you may soon be using Deutche Marks as cash, but you still can't see the obvious?

See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign

By John Borland Email 08.14.07
CalTech graduate student Virgil Griffith built a search tool that traces IP addresses of those who make Wikipedia changes.
Photo: Jake Appelbaum

On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the computer used to make the edits.

In this case, the changes came from an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself. And it is far from an isolated case. A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations.

Wikipedia Scanner -- the brainchild of Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith -- offers users a searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of internet IP addresses.

Inspired by news last year that Congress members' offices had been editing their own entries, Griffith says he got curious, and wanted to know whether big companies and other organizations were doing things in a similarly self-interested vein.

"Everything's better if you do it on a huge scale, and automate it," he says with a grin.

This database is possible thanks to a combination of Wikipedia policies and (mostly) publicly available information.

The online encyclopedia allows anyone to make edits, but keeps detailed logs of all these changes. Users who are logged in are tracked only by their user name, but anonymous changes leave a public record of their IP address.

The organization also allows downloads of the complete Wikipedia, including records of all these changes.

Griffith thus downloaded the entire encyclopedia, isolating the XML-based records of anonymous changes and IP addresses. He then correlated those IP addresses with public net-address lookup services such as ARIN, as well as private domain-name data provided by IP2Location.com.

The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's net address has made.

Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material.

Voting-machine company Diebold provides a good example of the latter, with someone at the company's IP address apparently deleting long paragraphs detailing the security industry's concerns over the integrity of their voting machines, and information about the company's CEO's fund-raising for President Bush.

The text, deleted in November 2005, was quickly restored by another Wikipedia contributor, who advised the anonymous editor, "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."

A Diebold Election Systems spokesman said he'd look into the matter but could not comment by press time.

Wal-Mart has a series of relatively small changes in 2005 that that burnish the company's image on its own entry while often leaving criticism in, changing a line that its wages are less than other retail stores to a note that it pays nearly double the minimum wage, for example. Another leaves activist criticism on community impact intact, while citing a "definitive" study showing Wal-Mart raised the total number of jobs in a community.

As has been previously reported, politician's offices are heavy users of the system. Former Montana Sen. Conrad Burns' office, for example, apparently changed one critical paragraph headed "A controversial voice" to "A voice for farmers," with predictably image-friendly content following it.

Perhaps interestingly, many of the most apparently self-interested changes come from before 2006, when news of the Congressional offices' edits reached the headlines. This may indicate a growing sophistication with the workings of Wikipedia over time, or even the rise of corporate Wikipedia policies.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales told Wired News he was aware of the new service, but needed time to experiment with it before commenting.

The vast majority of changes are fairly innocuous, however. Employees at the CIA's net address, for example, have been busy -- but with little that would indicate their place of apparent employment, or a particular bias.

One entry on "Black September in Jordan" contains wholesale additions, with specific details that read like a popular history book or an eyewitness' memoir.

Many more are simple copy edits, or additions to local town entries or school histories. One CIA entry deals with the details of lyrics sung in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode.

Griffith says he launched the project hoping to find scandals, particularly at obvious targets such as companies like Halliburton. But there's a more practical goal, too: By exposing the anonymous edits that companies such as drugs and big pharmaceutical companies make in entries that affect their businesses, it could help experts check up on the changes and make sure they're accurate, he says.

For now, he has just scratched the surface of the database of millions of entries. But he's putting it online so others can look too.

The nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, did not respond to e-mail and telephone inquiries Monday.
 
OK, answer me one simple question:

Why is Obama still in office if there is concrete evidence he was born in Kenya?

You seriously think the Republicans would not be marching up Capitol hill if it were fact...:rolleyes:
Thats all from me, I'm out of here.

There are NO FACTS.
 
I am not just blaming Obama, I am pointing out how far is has gone... We are done for, 'they' could bring down the Sears tower and no one would question it.
There is nothing to debate, all one can do is prepare for what's to come.

What would that be and how would one prepare for it?

Peter
 
Don't worry about it guys, go back to sleep. You are worthless.

I just love it when people have to resort to personal attacks when they get called out and can't support their argument. Seems to be a lot of that going on in different threads. I expected better from some people on here. I guess that's my fault.

Peter
 
Top