Re: Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...

I assumed you speechless with indignation..

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:55 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...

 

Sorry about the blank send.  Paul you're free to assume that I believed your
logic was so brilliant that I thought it should be posted twice. ; - )



>What I *won't* entertain are persistent, silly accusations that linger

*after* sufficient evidence has been provided. (You may say it isn't
the "best evidence," or whatever, but it was perfectly legitimate,
legal, and independently corroborated. In other words, it was good
enough for everyone *except* the birthers.)>

I'll be honest, I don't even know *what* is required to satisfy the
citizenship requirement or to whom(?) you have to provide it.  But I am
surprised that the best evidence isn't required.  

Here's a hypothetical:  Lets say Ahnold can get whoever passed on Obama to
pass on his eligibility for president.  Would you accept that?  I'm assuming
you wouldn't and you shouldn't but that goes to show that there is the
possibility for error in the process that we all would think needed
correcting/investigating.  Obviously the Arnold example is extreme but
aren't you at least willing to give the benefit of the doubt those who said
sure somebody passed on his eligibility but I think it is possible a
mistake, (or fraud), has been made and I'd like to see some better evidence.
Keep in mind that Obama has claimed all along that the birth certificate
existed, (as opposed to claiming that it had been destroyed or lost and he
had provided the next best thing), so its not like anyone was asking for
something he claimed he couldn't produce.

On that point, it would be a very different matter Obama had claimed the
original was lost, destroyed, etc.  If that was the case he would have been
on much better ground, imo, to say F.U. I've produced everything I could and
it satisfied those responsible for declaring me eligible for president.  But
that wasn't the case and since he isn't just president of the eligibility
declarers but the president of all americans his obligations go beyond mere
legal technicalities and he should have been forthcoming with the
certificate.  The fact that there might still have been some nuts who
weren't satisfied is irrelevant, (and incidentally why this is different
that trutherism - is there anything that truthers say could be produced that
would be considered evidence, and/or is anyone accused of complicity in 9/11
saying that evidence exists but they just aren't going to produce it?).


>If it were possible for someone to provide evidence that the birther
movement *wasn't* rooted in latent racial anxiety, and all relevant
agencies agreed that the evidence was legitimate, I would no longer be
willing to entertain the notion. (Of course, that's not possible,
which is a shame.)  :P<

Oh, I have no doubt that accusations birther racism has been a somewhat
effective tactic.  It would just be nice if the evidence had come before the
accusation.


>Indeed, but it's also a fact that doesn't matter to *anyone* but the
people who didn't want him in office, which is my point. It didn't
matter to employers, universities, state or federal agencies, etc.<

I'm really puzzled why you keep saying this.  What mattered to employers,
etc is irrelevant to his eligibility for the presidency.  There isn't a *if*
it was good enough for employers, *then* it should be good enough for the
presidency equation.  It's only *is* he eligible for the presidency?   


>Sure, you can start flinging any baseless accusation you want at a
Presidential candidate, but that doesn't mean anyone has to take your
accusations seriously, particularly after the accusations have been
settled and dismissed by everyone *except* the accusers.<

This isn't the best analogy but that is almost like saying slavery wasn't
wrong because the supreme court said it wasn't.  IOW, there are times when
the accusers may indeed be right, even if they are the only ones saying
something.  Again these accusations weren't taking place in a vacuum.
Evidence existed, regarding a material issue as to his eligibility for the
presidency, and he refused to produce it, and instead was content to allow
this issue, (see his press conference on it for how he describes it), to
consume a not insubstantial chunk of the country's time.  I mean he is the
president after all, which is a leadership position.  So act like one,
(which incidentally the WSJ say he has by releasing the BC), go ahead and
give the speech that it is absurd, demeaning, etc.but that as president your
concern if for the country not your own sense of dignity, pride, etc and you
are releasing it to get rid of the distraction and preserve the integrity of
the office.

And the baseless accusation thing is irrelevant unless the accusations have
to do with eligibility requirements for office.  Please don't infer that I
am saying he, or any president, should be required to respond to all
accusations, only that accusations that go to the eligibility for office
deserve a different manner/amount of attention, and they should probably be
taken on a case by case basis.


> You can say all you want about how he shouldn't have had
> to and whatever, quite frankly lame reason, he shouldn't have
> had to release it but the unassailable fact still remains.

>Great! Now that the best evidence *has* been released, what will be
the persistent "unassailable fact" going forward?<

That he has released it and as an unassailable fact it should settle the
matter.  For those that say it is a forgery or some other nonsense the
burden is entirely on them - Obama has finally done everything in *his*
power settle the matter.  And that is the difference - now there is nothing
more he can do to settle the issue, previously there was.


> The refusal to release the best evidence is "at least
> enough circumstantial evidence to consider the
> possibility" that one of the reasons he wouldn't
> release it was because it didn't exist and/or there
> was a genuine issue as to his citizenship.

>Agreed, definitely enough to consider the possibility. There are also
*other* likely explanations, which must be taken into consideration as
well. Given the previously-released legal documentation, as well as
the independent corroborations, newspaper birth notice, etc., it's
fair to say that the circumstantial evidence leaned *heavily* in favor
of Obama's natural born status. At least when weighed against the mere
supposition that he's hiding something.<

Right, just as there are other considerations, besides racism, for why some
were concerned about his citizenship.  Such as the constitution and whether
a fraud had been perpetuated on the country. Not everyone who had those
concerns was a birther as much as Obama would like you to think so.  To be
fair, now that he has released the BC I say that the circumstantial evidence
that remaining birthers may be motivated by racism is that much stronger.


> I never gave the matter much thought, so it never even
> rose the level of doubt/trust for me.  I really didn't care.
> I was much more disappointed that the U.S. electorate
> fell for his hopeychangey hooey than the possibility that
> someone not technically a citizen got elected.  But, other
> people were concerned with it and most likely on a partisan
> basis, but so what.  Politics and elections are partisan
> things and both sides do whatever they can to elect their
> guy and prevent the other's guy from getting elected.

>Certainly, but we're supposed to at least pretend that we're disgusted
by mudslinging and lies.<

And negative campaigning never works.  It is what is.  But c'mon it is human
nature to extend greater benefit of the doubt to someone we agree with, (or
who hasn't called us *those folks clinging to our guns and religion*).  It
would be nice if that weren't so, but I addressing reality not some
unrealistic utopia


>Heh. I didn't wonder because I was and continued to be convinced that
he didn't feel it was very Presidential to stoop to the level of
rebutting baseless accusations.  ;)<

"Why won't you release your birth certificate?" is hardly a baseless
accusation, or an accusation at all for that matter.


>Your supposition is possible, of course, but as Adam Carolla pointed
out, if he was using the birther thing as a political strategy, it
would have been *much* more advantageous to let Trump (or whoever)
ride that horse all the way up to the election, and *then* drop the
bomb on them. Releasing it this early feels much more like trying to
get it out of the way, rather than maximizing it as a political move.<

The poll numbers say otherwise.  And there is the very real possibility that
Trump won't run so there wouldn't be anybody to drop that bomb on.  I'm sure
he got as much political mileage out of it as he thought politically.  The
polls and amount of mainstream attention it was getting show that there were
increasing number of people going "hmmm?" about it and that was becoming a
liability for him.  


>I realize I'm repeating myself at this point, but the difference is
that there was existing, legal, independently corroborated, and
external evidence to rebut the birther theories. I don't really know
how else to put it. The demands for further, "best" evidence appeared
to be transparent desperation, and, as expected, turned out to be
nothing more than a bunch of noisemaking.<

I think you go to far in equating anyone with a concern over proof of his
citizenship with birthers.  That label had certainly be effectively used to
marginalize anyone merely asking questions, but there is a huge difference
between asking a question and full on wacko conspiracy theories.

And the loudest and final noise was the release of the birth certificate.
If Obama had wanted to keep things quieter it was well within his power to
have done so.

Mike F.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot