Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I sure am glad so many people are concerned about a misspelling of "ad nauseum" when Rome is burning and being taken over by a dictator wannabe. At least you've got your priorities right....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now there is a wonderfully complex example :P

Well now there is a wonderfully complex example :P

Just sayin, sometimes "respectable" sources of information aint the final say and counting on their integrity or thoroughness is an incredibly big mistake.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-issues-apology-on-zimmerman-tape-screw-up/2012/04/03/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure am glad so many people are concerned about a misspelling of "ad nauseum" when Rome is burning and being taken over by a dictator wannabe. At least you've got your priorities right....

Yes, let's not leave any time for laughter in our lives while "Rome is burning." We should prioritize and be grimly serious at all times, and focus only on the most important issues in fighting against the dictator wannabe -- important issues like investigating birther theories, or spending hours and hours and hours intentionally mangling Kant's aesthetics in a lame attempt to distract from Rand's blatantly obvious aesthetic contradictions.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To this day men are legally required to register for the selective service. Some still refuse, either as a political statement or because they fear the return of active conscription. I considered refusing, but ultimately decided to comply. I would not be surprised to find out that, especially among leftists, the number of men who refused to register was very high six years after suspension.

I am in the strange boat (with a cohort of other young men of the time) of having refused to register with the selective service yet voluntarily enlisted in the Navy anyway. I simultaneously am and am not "a draft dodger".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schools that take federal money are required to verify a student's registration before they give aid. If Obama took such aid after 1980, when the registration rule came down, he was registered.

A wider question: you use the (very dated) phrase "draft dodger" as a pejorative. I wouldn't expect to see this sentiment in an Objectivist forum. What's your problem with draft-dodgers?

I'm about to play birther's advocate. Not because I believe the conspiracy theories, but because I think they can be fun. Before I do I should make it clear that I didn't mean to use, "draft dodger," pejoratively. I don't know of any other term that makes it clear what I'm talking about without sounding pretentious. My contempt I hold for Obama (which you may have sensed) is for other reasons.

It's forgivable to be ignorant of the nitty-gritty details of birther theory. The claim is that Obama's financial aid records are sealed to conceal the fact that he is a foreigner. Obviously, he is a citizen because his mother was. But, the conspiracies don't have to die here. The SS fraud version is that the school records are sealed to conceal the fact that he received aid as a foreigner (he wouldn't be eligible for aid as a US citizen if he dodged the draft; he’d have to contrive some other way, committing fraud in the process). The support for the “foreign student” claim comes from a mailman who worked a route that had him delivering mail to the parents of Bill Ayers. He claims to have had conversations with them in which they indicated that they were helping to support a foreign student. The mailman claims to have met and conversed with that student and firmly believes that said student is Barack Obama. In addition, you probably know that Bill Ayers is an unrepentant member of the terrorist group, the Weather Underground Organization (WUO). This is significant because as a member of the WUO, Ayers (and through Ayers, Obama) would have access to accomplished forgers. Some people, including Sheriff Joe Arpaio, believe Obama's social security card is a forgery because of discrepancies between the date stamp that appears on his SS card and the date stamp on other similar cards. I have no idea how credible this claim is (my own SS card has no date stamp). In addition, some believe that the number on the card indicates residency in a state in which Obama never lived. If you're rationalizing a belief in a forged SS card, you could suppose that any changes to a birth certificate are part of an elaborate plan to cover up for the forged SS card (maybe something on the original “long form” would give clues to finding out the mystery).

My purpose here is not only to engage in wild conjecture. It is to answer the question, "does anybody think these claims are serious?" As I've indicated before, the primary "birther" claims have absolutely no merit; even if Obama was born in Kenya, he is a US citizen. So those claims might be the slightest bit "serious" in the sense that he could possibly have been born in Kenya. But they are not serious in the sense of their implications; the circumstances of Obama’s birth make him as eligible to be president as any other US citizen. However, the claims regarding his SS card are more serious because there is a conceivable motive and clear means of forgery in the former members of the WUO (again, not saying I believe this charge to be true). They are also more serious in the other sense that if the claims are true, the implications would be far worse - criminal war-slavery avoidance, aid fraud, social security fraud and the like, which is at least impeachable.

A nauseum is a place that shows pictures of sick people.

Ha! Impressive puncraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should prioritize and be grimly serious at all times, and focus only on the most important issues in fighting against the dictator wannabe --

You mean, like destroy everyone’s credibility by repeating lies? Ok, but do I have to believe them too?

Here's the right way to deal with all those blockbusting revelatory birther stories:

Edited by Ninth Doctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm new here. I actually had a conversation with this guy thinking he was legit. But instead he's a birther nutjob. Some of you tried to warn me but I was too dense to get it.

And just to be clear, even bringing this issue up is a very clear sign of nutcasehood because even the most charitable interpretation is about whether Obama "lied" when all politicians at his level lie and this would be one of the most paltry (as compared to, say, lying about closing Guantanamo?). So bringing it up can only point to dishonest motives which are ultimately counterproductive besides.

Now I know :-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm new here. I actually had a conversation with this guy thinking he was legit. But instead he's a birther nutjob. Some of you tried to warn me but I was too dense to get it.

I don't think Thomas is going as far to say Obama is not really a US citizen and therefore saying Obama should no longer be president, as a birther would say. But of all the things that could be said of Obama lying or being disingenuous, his birth certificate is probably the most trivial issue to talk about. We don't even have good sources of information, so it'd be better to throw out the entire thing as arbitrary until there is *some* evidence to think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Thomas is going as far to say Obama is not really a US citizen and therefore saying Obama should no longer be president, as a birther would say. But of all the things that could be said of Obama lying or being disingenuous, his birth certificate is probably the most trivial issue to talk about. We don't even have good sources of information, so it'd be better to throw out the entire thing as arbitrary until there is *some* evidence to think otherwise.

No, even if we had rock-solid evidence of (whatever), it still would be a completely pointless issue. These conspiracy theories are effectively anti-concepts: they are not only invalid, but they displace legitimate conversation around actual issues.

In other words, debating the ACA or Obama's handling of this or that policy is perfectly valid and salient because as the democratically elected president we're stuck with, these are the issues that matter.

To put it another way... so where would this go? So we impeach Obama because he did such and such... and we replace him with... whom? If you're honest you'd have to recognize that the odds are better than even that it would be somebody even worse... (viz. that Mormon dude)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken in isolation, the possibility that Obama lied about his place of birth is not all that big of a deal; and I don't think he can be kicked out of office for it, even if it were true that he wasn't born here or is not a natural born citizen -- primarily because Congress would have the final say, and I don't think they would kick him out on a technicality like that anyhow. However, it is not just one isolated characteristic about him -- it shows that he is willing to lie wholesale and to the whole world, and he does that on a daily basis. Him saying that capitalism doesn't work is totally groundless, but so are so many other of his claims that I think the American people are just accepting that he is a liar and moving on with their lives.

Now, why would he be this way, and how can he get away with it so often? It is because of Immanuel Kant -- yes, the philosopher from 200 years ago has taken over our culture and made it nihilistic and not so concerned with reality. According to Kant, that which we observe is not reality the way it is, it is a Copernican Revolution that is brought about by our minds and has no direct connection to things the way they really are. So, why take it seriously enough to be in-tune with that which you observe with your own two eyes (like on TV when Obama is giving a speech) in the face of such massive contradictions to what actually exists? Obama could come out and say that the moon is purple, and no one would think that he has lost touch with reality even though they see it as white because you can't trust your senses anyhow, so why bother confronting him with his lying? Is it really lying or is it just dismissive of the opposition stance that capitalism is good (within limits, because they are no great defenders of capitalism either)? Can you say that an abstract statement must conform to reality? not if you are going to use Kantian pure reason, which is totally disconnected from the facts. Why argue about principles and a man's character, it's just phenomenal anyhow and has nothing to do with real reality noumena.

The facts don't matter to them because they have rejected reality in favor of power-lust; and besides, the tax payers will pay for it all anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, why would he be this way, and how can he get away with it so often? It is because of Immanuel Kant -- yes, the philosopher from 200 years ago has taken over our culture and made it nihilistic and not so concerned with reality.

What’s with all this blubbering about Kant? When did Obama’s attorney say that his birth certificate is a forgery? Either give us a reference, meaning a verifiable quote from the hearing, or admit that you didn’t know what the hell you were talking about when you started this thread, with its breathless opening salvo: “Obama's Birth Certificate *WAS* Faked”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken in isolation, the possibility that Obama lied about his place of birth is not all that big of a deal; and I don't think he can be kicked out of office for it, even if it were true that he wasn't born here or is not a natural born citizen -- primarily because Congress would have the final say, and I don't think they would kick him out on a technicality like that anyhow. However, it is not just one isolated characteristic about him -- it shows that he is willing to lie wholesale and to the whole world, and he does that on a daily basis. Him saying that capitalism doesn't work is totally groundless, but so are so many other of his claims that I think the American people are just accepting that he is a liar and moving on with their lives.

Now, why would he be this way, and how can he get away with it so often? It is because of Immanuel Kant -- yes, the philosopher from 200 years ago has taken over our culture and made it nihilistic and not so concerned with reality. According to Kant, that which we observe is not reality the way it is, it is a Copernican Revolution that is brought about by our minds and has no direct connection to things the way they really are. So, why take it seriously enough to be in-tune with that which you observe with your own two eyes (like on TV when Obama is giving a speech) in the face of such massive contradictions to what actually exists? Obama could come out and say that the moon is purple, and no one would think that he has lost touch with reality even though they see it as white because you can't trust your senses anyhow, so why bother confronting him with his lying? Is it really lying or is it just dismissive of the opposition stance that capitalism is good (within limits, because they are no great defenders of capitalism either)? Can you say that an abstract statement must conform to reality? not if you are going to use Kantian pure reason, which is totally disconnected from the facts. Why argue about principles and a man's character, it's just phenomenal anyhow and has nothing to do with real reality noumena.

The facts don't matter to them because they have rejected reality in favor of power-lust; and besides, the tax payers will pay for it all anyhow.

Thomas, you're the one who has no concern for reality. You make stuff up, you ridiculously misread others' views, and then when you get caught telling your falsehoods, you try to create distractions by making stuff up about Kant and blaming him for all of the evils that you imagine exist in the world. Will you never learn?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either Tea Party Members are lying or Conservatives are lying or Obama is lying.

As Epimenides, if he’d known only politicians (in addition to Cretans) might have said:

Here's a news story from a Hawaiian elections official that no record of Obama's birth certificate could be found.

Rather than providing evidence for your original assertion, you’re offering up yet another one! Again, when did Obama’s attorney say that the birth certificate is a forgery? Quote up or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snopes has an interesting article on the legitimacy of Obama being a natural born citizen, including examples of other Presidential candidate who were directly challenged in the courts while seeking election to the Presidency. By the way, it is not true, according to my dad, that Obama could be a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born due to his mother being an American citizen. Both parents would have to be American citizens and they would have to be working for the US government in some official capacity for their child to be an American citizen if born abroad. This issue came up with McCain,since he was born in Panama, but his parents were working for the US government at the time,so he qualifies. There is also an issue of residency, and more complicated issues, since it seems that the phrase "natural born citizen" is NOT clearly defined in the Constitution. Seems to be clear to me, that you have to be born here, and the children of immigrants who have children here are considered natural born citizens, but it seems there are other issues involved that don't make it so simple.

Added on edit: My dad was in the US Navy while he was having children, so it was a great concern of his that if he had children while stationed oversea that they would be American citizens, which is why he checked up on this issue and closely followed the issue regarding McCain. In my dad's case, all his children were born in the United States, so we are automatically natural born citizens, but he was concerned about having children outside of the United States.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the issue seems to center around the short form versus the long form. The long form is what they claim he faked. Still waiting for the transcript to verify or not. Either way, I do think that any legitimate means ought to be made to boot Obama out of office. I just don't think the Republicans have the balls to do it, though the Senate is controlled by the Democrats right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than providing evidence for your original assertion, you’re offering up yet another one! Again, when did Obama’s attorney say that the birth certificate is a forgery? Quote up or shut up.

Following links from the story linked to in the OP, the plaintiff attorney Mario Apuzzo Esq. has an account of the case at his blog. This is not as good as a transcript, but hopefully Mr. Apuzzo's professional ethics will keep the account from straying too far from what actually happened.

Link: Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection

What happened was that Obama's attorney maneuvered to block testimony by an expert witness in digital images about the publicized "long form birth certificate" publicized on Apri 27, 2011. She did so by agreeing to stipulate "that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth." That is entirely reasonable to stipulate without construing it as an admission of forgery. An electronic image of the document is not the same as the actual document, and would not meet the requirement of a law to produce such a document if such a law even existed, which Obama's attorney also disputes.

The Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin has since then issued a ruling that Obama is not required to produce documentary evidence to be nominated "because he does not have to consent to his nomination" (quoting Apuzzo). The New Jersey Secretary of State, Kimberly M. Guadagno, has accepted the ruling of the ALJ as final. Nothing more will come of the case unless the New Jersey Supreme Court decides to entertain itself with the appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either Tea Party Members are lying or Conservatives are lying or Obama is lying. Here's a news story from a Hawaiian elections official that no record of Obama's birth certificate could be found.

That guy was in no position to know, he did not have access to the records. If you pay attention to what is quoted you will realize this story is nothing but reporting on rumors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it appears that if he was born in Kenya, he would have to be naturalized. I'm not ruling out a legal defense, but the implications of the charge do seem to be more serious than I originally thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly did not expect a Tea Party affiliate to outright lie about what Obama's attorney actually agreed to, if the report above is correct (I'm still waiting for the transcript). Of course, a careful reading of the original story does not quote from Obama's lawyer admitting that it was a forgery. It looks like what they agreed to was that the digitized image was not a bonefide legal copy of the original, and therefore could not be used against Obama, since he never represented it to be a bonefide legal copy of the original. In a sense, if one is lawyerly enough, it was a forgery in that it wasn't a legal copy, but that appears to be stretching it. But this gives the digital image a hell of a lot of wiggle room as to what could be put on there without violating the law, since it is inadmissible in court; and as I've said before, Obama didn't make the digitized copy, so he is not personally responsible for it no matter what it says. Sometimes watching two lawyers arguing is like watching Alice in Wonderland. But here's the kicker -- regardless of what may or may not have been faked on the digital image -- Obama can not be held responsible for it, and yet, he can present it to the people of the world without suffering any legal damages should it be proven that it was a fake all along.

Neat hat trick, if you can do it.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×