GMTom wrote:Yeah, it may require a bit of an explanation as Russ has just done, but to lay a claim as Rickyp did is a bit over the top.

The problem Tom is that my explanation is a load of crap. However, this is not thread for that conversation

Heh, yeah I caught that.

Anyway, I thought Bill Clinton was our first black president.

archduke

Actually McCain's citizenship issue wasn't less clear then Obama's. First, McCain was born to two natural born citizen Parents on a U.S. Military base. Law and precedence said that qualified him as a natural born citizen. The claim against Obama is that he only had one natural born citizen parent and was not born in the country

I think my point is Archduke that when the rather arcane law concerning military bases unique character in citizenship was clearly explained ..the issue went away. Even his severist critics, the guys who accused him of traitorous behaviour in Hanoi, didn't cling to this notion.
However, with Obama, the fact of his citizenship was "doubted" . That the authorities who grant everyone else in the country passports somehow missed out on this guy, and that somehow the documentation that was good enough for everyone else didn't suffice. That the issue lingered and was treated with genuine respect by the media strikes me as discriminatory.

Thankyou for the neo-Confed explanation. I would have called these people revisionists I guess. Anyone who doesn't like historical fact and feels free to reframe the past to include only the bits they like, and presents that as reality.

rickyp wrote:However, with Obama, the fact of his citizenship was "doubted" . That the authorities who grant everyone else in the country passports somehow missed out on this guy, and that somehow the documentation that was good enough for everyone else didn't suffice. That the issue lingered and was treated with genuine respect by the media strikes me as discriminatory.

Well, the argument they would make is that you are arguing two different issues. To get a passport, all you need is to be a citizen. He is a citizen via his mother being a citizen no matter were he was born. However, to be President you must be a natural born citizen. There is a difference.

The problem that form Obama originally released can be ordered without actually having been born in that state. All you have to do is provide enough documentation with your birth date on it. Let me give an example. A few months ago, I was helping a constituent that needed to provide a birth certificate for a Sec. 8 Housing voucher. The problem was she was an African American woman delivered by a mid-wife at home in 1946 Georgia. There was no birth record on file. However, after providing 3 documents that were older then 10 years that showed her birthday. Once I did that, Georgia issued a ceritificate of live birth in her name. There was no need to provide proof that she was actually born in Georgia.

This is the type of document Obama originally released. They claimed that was too easy to get and that if Obama was born in Hawai'i then the certificate issue at time of birth should be released. Hawai'i said it was available but that Obama refused to allow it to be released. This is what feed the Birthers.

rickyp wrote:Thankyou for the neo-Confed explanation. I would have called these people revisionists I guess. Anyone who doesn't like historical fact and feels free to reframe the past to include only the bits they like, and presents that as reality.

No worries. The problem with calling them revisionist is that it isn't a new phenomena. The Lost Cause myth started almost immediately after the War (1866) and has been reinforced through an enduring literary tradition ever since.

See what I mean.

Ricky, for some more information about the Lost Cause Meme check out this at wikipedia

GMTom wrote:My high school nickname was the Spartans. They have "Spartan Pride" yet the Spartans of old took kids from their families at a tender young age to train to be warriors and also taught homosexuality as part of their training. Does this mean I should not have "Spartan Pride"? A "Neo-Confederate" need not embrace every single aspect of the Confederacy and he can most certainly deplore slavery and racism while still calling himself that moniker. Yeah, it may require a bit of an explanation as Russ has just done, but to lay a claim as Rickyp did is a bit over the top.

well, the main differences would be:

1) The Spartans that we are referring to were over 2000 years in history, the Confederacy 150 (long enough that there's no living person connected, but not so long that it's not forgotten
2) The Spartans are from Greece. The Confederacy is local to the USA. The latter has far more relevance to the USA of today than the former.
3) While 'Neo-Confederates' may not embrace every aspect of the Confederacy, it would be interesting for them to say what parts they do embrace and what they don't. As far as I understand, the sporting nickname 'Spartans' refers to their sporting and martial prowess.

Randy - so the transitional arrangements to end slavery are as racist as the institution of slavery itself? Sheesh!

Russell does have a point. Just because the 'Lost Cause' is a lost cause, doesn't mean it was just.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:You fellas can call it revisionist thoery all you want. If you choose to be myopic and ignore the facts, cloaking yourself in the so-called nobility of the north go ahead.

Both sides were imperfect.

It's absurd to think that millions of Americans wnet to war, and 700,000 died over the sole issue of slavery.

Yes. It may seem absurd to some that people would fight to end an institution that put millions into slavery - forced labour, awful conditions, sexual exploitation, and all that came along with it. Why would they do that, when it's more 'rational' for millions to fight in wars over a scrap of land or an obscure constitutional point?

It's absurd to ignore the draft riots in New York City where northerners violently opposed a war to end slavery. It's absurd when you consider how close Abraham Lincoln was to not getting relected in 1864.

Ah, the "because some people in the Union opposed the war or the draft, then the whole Union must be suspect" angle. But Lincoln did win in 1864, and oddly I don't see your assertion being born out in the facts.

In 1860, Lincoln received less than 40% of the vote and carried 18 states out of 34. He won because there were two Democratic candidates whose votes were split, and a Constitutional Union candidate who stood on kicking the slavery issue into the long grass to preserve unity.

In 1864, Lincoln won 55% of the vote and carries 22 states out of 24. 55% is usually considered a fair winning margin in a Presidential election, is it not? Had the three states that the Republican took with less than a 5% margin gone the other way, Lincoln would still have taken a majority of the college votes (as well as of the overall vote and of the states).

It's absurd to take a conflict so complex that it rages on today, and say it was all about southern racism.

'All about' it? No. But it would take a spectacular level of denialism to suggest that it was not a major factor (and that there's none of it that is part of the residue of the conflict to this day). The other day I was reading something by a couple of British tourists in the South. They were taken around on a tour and it turned out that their guide was a 'Daughter of the Confederacy'. She told them blatant untruths about the Civil War and the 1960s civil rights struggle.

archduke

This is the type of document Obama originally released. They claimed that was too easy to get and that if Obama was born in Hawai'i then the certificate issue at time of birth should be released. Hawai'i said it was available but that Obama refused to allow it to be released. This is what feed the Birthers

I stand corrected. However... they also considered that the authorities(Repblicans in Hawaii) that researched the original birth records were lieing when they reported ?
Well, a good conspiracy theory requires a suspension of disbelief.

and how oh how did any of this have to do with racism as you have suggested? Someone wanted to see proof he was born in the States, why is that somehow racist? That is what you have stated, there is absolutely zero substance behind that claim, another made up fact that you pose as being factual.

GMTom wrote:and how oh how did any of this have to do with racism as you have suggested? Someone wanted to see proof he was born in the States, why is that somehow racist? That is what you have stated, there is absolutely zero substance behind that claim, another made up fact that you pose as being factual.

Seriously Tom, even I think you are being obtuse with this. Ricky's point was that the question of McCain's being born outside the country didn't stir anywhere near the debate the quesition of Obama did. Because he thought they were essentially the same response, it could only be fed by racism.

However, it appears that he has accepted there were major differences between the two situations so probably not racism.

rickyp wrote:I stand corrected. However... they also considered that the authorities(Repblicans in Hawaii) that researched the original birth records were lieing when they reported ?
Well, a good conspiracy theory requires a suspension of disbelief.

I should also point out, in a way to clarify your earlier argument about getting a driver's license/passport. There has recently been a major change in the U.S. that Randy alluded too. People are finding out the document they have been using as a birth certificate for many years isn't really a state issued birth ceritificate but rather a Notice of Live Birth issue by the hospital in which they were born. Up until very recently, the requirements to get a driver's license and/or passport were extremely relaxed. Most government agencies would accept these Notice of Live Birth as proof of citizenship.

However, those things are rather easy to fake and since 9/11 the requirements have tightened up a whole hell of a lot. So, it is possible that when anybody over the age of 25 got their driver's license or passport they did not show an actual state issued birth certificate.

archduke

However, it appears that he has accepted there were major differences between the two situations so probably not racism

I accept that the comparison between McCain and Obamas birthplace controverseys doesn't indicate that the "birther" issue was racism.
But, I think it would be foolish to dismiss the role that racism held in at least some of the conspiracy theorists who clung to the birther notions. I don't think its worth trying to define what that number is ... nor try to discredit all the conspiracy theorists as racists. Isn't being kooky enough?
The problem is that people can be extremely resistant to unwelcome factual information. Someone who's a died in the wool racist would naturally be receptive to anything that might reinforce their prejudice against having a black man as their president.
How the media deals with the factual information, and how it further provide forums for the cranks and blowhards (Trump.) is more of a problem then that the kooks put up a web site.

By the way..there remains a largely discredited theory that one of your presidents was born in Canada. (Arthur) So there seems to be a tradition of going after the opposition whereever possible. Even birth records.

Someone has probably already said this somewhere above, but who cares why people question the guy's citizenship? Since when is argumentum ad hominem a respectable rejoinder to any sort of opinion, crackpot or otherwise? Dismiss the birthers on the basis of their lousy arguments; their alleged lousy character is beside the point.

SOME of those who questioned Obamas citizenship certaily must have been racists. SOME of those who criticized Bush were also likely black racists, SOME who questioned Clinton, Reagan, etc
So why bring up the question and state in in a way that this entire issue is a racist one simply because someone or another is probably a racist? It's a complete non-issue and to try and claim race had anything to do with the case only attempts to avoid any and all criticism as simply racist and that just aint true.

It's not a non-issue though Tom. And if you re-read the post that started this thread you'll see that, the original position is that it SHOULD be a non-issue. That it isn't is ONLY becasue republican politiicans and some media allow the issues to exist. When suppossedly serious candidates for President can't bring themselves to speak objective truth clearly (Obama IS a citizen.) because they can appeal to a base that clings to the issue out of whatever misguided motivation allows the political discourse to collapse.
When leaders won't be leaders, and when the media won't act as objective editors of facts and nonsense, it is dangerous. Your nation does have a peculiar history of particularly tolerating cranks who distort politcal discourse in this manner... (recent examples? Glen Beck, Trump, Bachman etc... Past examples? John Birchers, Ignatius Donnelly ...etc.)
The one thing I've wondered about is whether or not Obama, in refusing to acknowledge the fringe and release his document for so long...has allowed the republicans to discredit themselves irreperably with many Independent voters...X said as much in the first post.

Arguments like those expressed in that Religion thread, however, the birther silliness, and a lot of the cheap shots we’ve seen, I think arise out of a discomfort many people have with a black man as president. If racism is a fear of the other, Obama is so other.

But then there is what Minister X said in the last part of that thread. There he writes:
Americans will catch on sooner or later. I hope the Republican candidate for Prez in 2012 realizes that, and rises above this sort of thing. One can focus on Obama's policies and official performance and make a good case he should be replaced. I'll vote for a Republican who does that; I will not vote for one who lowers him- or herself to baseless fear-mongering. I hope I'm not alone in that.

Playing to the basest of emotions will only take a Republican candidate so far.