News The birther movement: racist? total crap?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingNothing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movement
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the legitimacy of the "birther" movement, which questions Barack Obama's citizenship and birth certificate. Participants argue that there is no credible evidence supporting these claims, suggesting that the movement is politically motivated and may appeal to racial biases. A Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii, which is legally recognized, has been available for years, affirming Obama's birth in the U.S. Some participants draw comparisons to similar controversies surrounding John McCain, but emphasize that the intensity and hostility of the birther claims against Obama are unmatched. Overall, the conversation highlights the intersection of politics and race in the scrutiny of presidential legitimacy.
KingNothing
Messages
880
Reaction score
4
The "birther" movement: racist? total crap?

There exists a group of people who seek to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Barack Obama's citizenship and his birth certificate. I have searched very diligently and still have not found a single quantum of credibility to this theory.

Sure, any document can, in theory, be faked. People can be manipulated and evidence can be tampered with. The same could be said about the documents of every other president, congressperson, or senator. Certainly when the quality of the allegedly fake document exceeds the limitations of your ability to detect it's falsehood, one must concede.

Though it is undoubtedly just a political maneuver, I cannot help thinking that it is also an appeal to racism. I am rarely one to blow the racism whistle, but come on: we all know that if Barack was white and had a more traditional American name, none of this would have come up.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


A Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii was made available many years ago, which is a short form birth certificate, and is evidence of birth in any court.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
 


Insanity said:
A Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii was made available many years ago, which is a short form birth certificate, and is evidence of birth in any court.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Ah yes, this completely clears up the OP's questions.

I think it's one of those things where people say they believe it, but they really just like the idea that it could be believed by someone, which will help them gain political power/support
 


KingNothing said:
I am rarely one to blow the racism whistle, but come on: we all know that if Barack was white and had a more traditional American name, none of this would have come up.
Really? So you don't remember almost the exact same issue being raised about McCain?
MSNBC said:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his advisers are doing their best to brush aside questions — raised in the liberal blogosphere — about whether he is qualified under the Constitution to be president. But many legal scholars and government lawyers say it's a serious question with no clear answer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/ns/nightly_news/

That's MSNBC!, the liberal answer to Fox, forwarding the anti-McCain crackpottery as if it could possibly have had some merit. I suppose they could just be a bunch of black racists, but I'm thinking no...just run-of-the-mill crackpots.
 


Yah this is the same ol political BS. People hear stuff like that and think "oh yah that sounds good, i believe it!". Hell, I personally thought the guy was born on a military base. Sounded good, why not, go for it.

There's nothing racist about it, some people just want SOMETHING to pick up on to claim he's illegitimate. Same stuff that happened during Bush's tenure.
 


KingNothing said:
There exists a group of people who seek to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Barack Obama's citizenship and his birth certificate. I have searched very diligently and still have not found a single quantum of credibility to this theory.

Sure, any document can, in theory, be faked. People can be manipulated and evidence can be tampered with. The same could be said about the documents of every other president, congressperson, or senator. Certainly when the quality of the allegedly fake document exceeds the limitations of your ability to detect it's falsehood, one must concede.

Though it is undoubtedly just a political maneuver, I cannot help thinking that it is also an appeal to racism. I am rarely one to blow the racism whistle, but come on: we all know that if Barack was white and had a more traditional American name, none of this would have come up.
Yeah, the fact that "birthers" are mostly the same people who have always opposed Democrats of all races is a total coincidence. Must be because he's black. :rolleyes:

As far as his original long form birth certificate, I always thought he probably had one, but the recent shenanigans of Hawaii officials, including the Governor, changing their stories and left wing pundits trying to say "there is no issue" does have me wondering. Especially the claim that it exists but the President isn't allowed to have a copy for himself, even though I've seen no link to any Hawaii law that says that, instead ofhttp://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/19/338/I/338-18".

I'm not claiming there isn't such a law specific to original birth records, just that I haven't seen it quoted or linked anywhere. Perhaps someone could provide a link?

My guess is that the President has it in his possession, but it's in his best political interest not to release it now. Just a wild guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


russ_watters said:
Really? So you don't remember almost the exact same issue being raised about McCain?

Nope...I don't. I honestly make zero effort to listen to MSNBC or Fox, and I hadn't heard that.
 


russ_watters said:
Really? So you don't remember the exact same issue being raised about McCain?

It didn't have the same level of hostility, IMO.

Besides, it's widely accepted that being born on an overseas military base is the same as being born in the US. The thousands of US citizens born on foreign bases have *exactly* the same rights as everyone else - no one would ever think to deny them their rights.

I think the issue around McCain's birth was largely a media-manufactured "story du jour" - they come and go all through election season. This one didn't stick - it was a non-issue from the get-go.
 


KingNothing said:
Nope...I don't. I honestly make zero effort to listen to MSNBC or Fox, and I hadn't heard that.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: It's not like MSNBC was the only place you could have seen it. How 'bout USA Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-28-mccain-natural-born_N.htm

New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie070998.htm

CNN?
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-20/opinion/chin.natural.born_1_natural-law-united-states-and-subject-citizenship-clause?_s=PM:OPINION

This got quite a bit of airtime during the campaign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10


lisab said:
It didn't have the same level of hostility, IMO... [snip] I think the issue around McCain's birth was largely a media-manufactured "story du jour" - they come and go all through election season. This one didn't stick - it was a non-issue from the get-go.
Well sure: he didn't win, so it died!

Anyway, I'm not going to start linking crackpot liberal sites to prove hostility (nor do I think it should be necessary). My point is simply that it had quite a bit of traction and I don't think it is reasonable to use the fact that it died to show it was less serious than Obama's.
Besides, it's widely accepted that being born on an overseas military base is the same as being born in the US. The thousands of US citizens born on foreign bases have *exactly* the same rights as everyone else - no one would ever think to deny them their rights.
Not according to MSNBC...

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it had any legitimacy, I'm just saying it happened and it was picked-up and debated in mainstream media. A lot.
 
Last edited:
  • #11


OH it was McCain who was born on a military base? God I'm out of it
 
  • #12


lisab said:
It didn't have the same level of hostility, IMO.
That's because no one objected to discussing the issue. No one was screaming incessantly "there's nothing to see here, no issue at all, the debate is over, etc."

McCain provided all info and documents, and the issue was only whether being born on U.S. territory qualified as being a "natural born" citizen.
The thousands of US citizens born on foreign bases have *exactly* the same rights as everyone else - no one would ever think to deny them their rights.
That's not really relevant. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and any naturalized citizen, has the rights of a citizen, too. But there are qualifications to be eligible for President in addition to citizenship, like being born in the U.S. Not meeting the requirements for the office isn't a violation of rights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13


russ_watters said:
Really? So you don't remember almost the exact same issue being raised about McCain?

But did 40 percent of Democrats believe that McCain was ineligible to be President?
 
  • #14


Al68 said:
McCain provided all info and documents, and the issue was only whether being born on U.S. territory qualified as being born in the U.S.

I don't even know if he provided any documents. Certainly few people believed he wasn't born on US territory and the issue of whether that qualifies as being a natural born citizen was never settled beyond people deciding it was a boring one and not paying attention to it/bringing it up in the media
 
  • #15


Al68 said:
That's because no one objected to discussing the issue. No one was screaming incessantly "there's nothing to see here, no issue at all, the debate is over, etc."

McCain provided all info and documents, and the issue was only whether being born on U.S. territory qualified as being born in the U.S.

They "screamed incessantly" that there was "nothing to see", "no issue", and "the debate is over"...because there was, in fact, nothing to see, no issue, and the debate was over.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/index.html?iref=NS1

Look, there is *no* comparison between the McCain birth "controversy" and the crazy Obama-is-a-Kenyan birthers. Not even close!
 
  • #16


jtbell said:
But did 40 percent of Democrats believe that McCain was ineligible to be President?
1. So you're saying that 40% of Republicans don't believe Obama was eligible? Do you have a reliable source for that? All I can find is links to a single poll that even typically irresponsibly liberal news outlets like Huffington Post couple with a disclaimer about reliability: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/new-poll-less-than-half-o_n_248470.html

2. The McCain conspiracy theory didn't have time to fester like Obama's did. Again, he lost.
3. We're getting pretty far from a racist motivation here...
 
  • #17


lisab said:
They "screamed incessantly" that there was "nothing to see", "no issue", and "the debate is over"...because there was, in fact, nothing to see, no issue, and the debate was over.
That's a very odd thing to do, which was my point. Are you aware that one can get a "certification of live birth" even if there was never an original birth certificate?

I think Obama was most likely born in Hawaii, but claiming "the debate is over" despite unresolved issues, unanswered questions, and ever-changing stories by officials is suspicious at best.

Plus, Democrats typically use terms like "crazy" and "crackpot" for other people whenever they are trying to obfuscate the truth themselves. That's what has me wondering about this issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18


Office_Shredder said:
I don't even know if he provided any documents. Certainly few people believed he wasn't born on US territory and the issue of whether that qualifies as being a natural born citizen was never settled beyond people deciding it was a boring one and not paying attention to it/bringing it up in the media
Yep, that was the conclusion of the Senate hearing on it: it's too boring to pay attention to. :rolleyes:
 
  • #19


lisab said:
Look, there is *no* comparison between the McCain birth "controversy" and the crazy Obama-is-a-Kenyan birthers. Not even close!
Why not? When you have a major media outlet saying the crackpots are credible, I'd think that would be a pretty big deal. Don't you?
 
  • #20


Al68 said:
That's a very odd thing to do, which was my point. Are you aware that one can get a "certification of live birth" even if there was never an original birth certificate?

I think Obama was most likely born in Hawaii, but claiming "the debate is over" despite unresolved issues, unanswered questions, and ever-changing stories by officials is suspicious at best.

Did you read the link? What exactly are the unresolved issues that you have?
 
  • #21


russ_watters said:
Why not? When you have a major media outlet saying the crackpots are credible, I'd think that would be a pretty big deal. Don't you?

No one outside of the media gave or gives a rat sass that McCain was born in Panama, it is a complete non issue.

Compare that to the passion and numbers of people who follow the birther movement. It was this one issue that catapulted one play-candidate - Donald Trump, no less - from dabbling with the idea to becoming an actual candidate! That is one powerful issue!

Again: there is *no comparison* between the the McCain "controversy" and the birther movement. Not even close!
 
  • #22


Al68 said:
I think Obama was most likely born in Hawaii, but claiming "the debate is over" despite unresolved issues, unanswered questions, and ever-changing stories by officials is suspicious at best.

Everything that can be produced as evidence has been produced. It's not really fair to say that a birth certificate isn't an acceptable proof of birth.

Al68 said:
Plus, Democrats typically use terms like "crazy" and "crackpot" for other people whenever they are trying to obfuscate the truth themselves. That's what has me wondering about this issue.

I think the fact that you see political mud-flinging as a party-specific issue has more to do with you than with the parties themselves.
 
  • #23


Again, like I said, I don't believe that it was only brought up because of race. But I would contend that Obama's race is a factor in why it has gained so much momentum.
 
  • #24


lisab said:
Did you read the link? What exactly are the unresolved issues that you have?
Yes, I read the link. I had already read that exact page before I posted in this thread. It makes a lot of assertions, and shows the same scan of the "certification of live birth" that everyone knows about. That link doesn't resolve anything that wasn't already known.

And I've already mentioned a couple of unresolved issues, but you can find more with a little research on the issue.
 
  • #25


lisab said:
No one outside of the media gave or gives a rat sass that McCain was born in Panama, it is a complete non issue.

Compare that to the passion and numbers of people who follow the birther movement.
That is just so not true. As I said before, I'm not going to start linking crackpots, but you really should have a look. There are tons of websites out there still displaying that story. Google it. Please.
 
  • #26


russ_watters said:
That is just so not true. As I said before, I'm not going to start linking crackpots, but you really should have a look. There are tons of websites out there still displaying that story. Google it. Please.

I think what lisa is saying, is that the percentage of people who bought into that theory was a lot less than the percentage buying into this theory.
 
  • #27


KingNothing said:
Everything that can be produced as evidence has been produced.
So you're saying the original (long form) certificate of birth cannot be produced?
It's not really fair to say that a birth certificate isn't an acceptable proof of birth.
One can argue semantics all day, but the document provided is a different document from the one being referred to as unprovided, despite a similar sounding name. I actually have both for myself, but have never used the term "birth certificate" to refer to the short computer printout you can get them to print up at your local state building. Some do, but most are fully aware that it's not the same thing.

But one thing that some birthers are wrong about is the claim that "you can't get into kindergarten with that thing, much less a drivers license". That's simply false. You don't need an actual birth certificate to get a drivers license, a "certification of live birth" printout is fine for that purpose. The reason is simple: it's easy for them to print out from database info, and not everyone's birth is registered at the time. Not having your birth registered immediately doesn't disqualify one from obtaining a drivers license, or running for President. But it means that no actual birth certificate exists, so a certification of live birth is printed up from data provided to the state later, sometimes many years after birth.
I think the fact that you see political mud-flinging as a party-specific issue has more to do with you than with the parties themselves.
Nope, it's the Democratic Party itself. And I wasn't referring to political mud-flinging.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28


KingNothing said:
I think what lisa is saying, is that the percentage of people who bought into that theory was a lot less than the percentage buying into this theory.
The story wasn't active long enough for anyone to even take a poll on it - it happened during the election. Then he lost, so it died. But that still means you have no basis for your claim that the percentage of people who bought into it was a lot less. All we can really say for sure is that it got substantial media attention.
 
  • #30


Al68 said:
Yep, that was the conclusion of the Senate hearing on it: it's too boring to pay attention to. :rolleyes:

I know there was a Senate resolution, but I don't know how much effort went into investigating this issue when it was passed. If you have a link you'd like to present that shows there was a serious effort in the Senate to settle the issue I'd appreciate it. Heck, the House passed a resolution which states that Obama was born in Hawaii
 
  • #31


Office_Shredder said:
I know there was a Senate resolution, but I don't know how much effort went into investigating this issue when it was passed. If you have a link you'd like to present that shows there was a serious effort in the Senate to settle the issue I'd appreciate it.
There wasn't much effort to settle it because it didn't need much effort. Being born on U.S. territory is "natural born", even if not in one of the states. There was no other issue in dispute.
Heck, the House passed a resolution which states that Obama was born in Hawaii
Whether Obama was born in Hawaii is a factual, not a legal, issue. The McCain issue was a legal, not a factual, issue. The facts were not in dispute, obviously negating the need for an investigation of facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32


russ_watters said:
But that still means you have no basis for your claim that the percentage of people who bought into it was a lot less. All we can really say for sure is that it got substantial media attention.

You know, it's pretty frustrating when I can't try to clarify what another member is saying without being "called out". I didn't make any such claim, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I did.
 
  • #33


Al68 said:
There wasn't much effort to settle it because it didn't need much effort. Being born on U.S. territory is "natural born", even if not in one of the states. There was no other issue in dispute.Whether Obama was born in Hawaii is a factual, not a legal, issue. The McCain issue was a legal, not a factual, issue. The facts were not in dispute, obviously negating the need for an investigation of facts.

A legal question on what the definition of natural born is requires researching and discussing what the definition of the words are. There are people who say that even if Obama was born in Kenya, he's a natural born citizen by being born to an American citizen. It seems to me that the McCain question is much harder to settle than the Obama one in principle
 
  • #34


I personally believe that both instances were just pathetic political maneuvers and nothing more. I think John McCain and Barack Obama both had every right to become president.

The point of this thread was to discuss whether or not racism plays some part in this. I believe it does. It is a lot easier to accuse a part-black man with a foreign-sounding name of such a thing than a white-skinned man with a more American name, and to have the accusation gain momentum.
 
  • #35


russ_watters said:
That's MSNBC!, the liberal answer to Fox, forwarding the anti-McCain crackpottery as if it could possibly have had some merit. I suppose they could just be a bunch of black racists, but I'm thinking no...just run-of-the-mill crackpots.

There is a slight difference- McCain really was born outside the US in the canal zone, which really did lead some legal scholars to question his eligibility. In a very wise move, the senate did pass a resolution affirming his natural born citizenship. No conspiracy theory, a minor issue about definition of natural-born-citizen, resolved by the senate almost instantly.

Whereas Obama was born in Hawaii. Anyone with a functioning brain knows Obama was born in Hawaii. The conspiracy (like all conspiracy theories) isn't about facts, it flies in the face of the facts.
 
  • #36


Office_Shredder said:
A legal question on what the definition of natural born is requires researching and discussing what the definition of the words are. There are people who say that even if Obama was born in Kenya, he's a natural born citizen by being born to an American citizen. It seems to me that the McCain question is much harder to settle than the Obama one in principle
Researching the McCain legal question should take but a few minutes. It's pretty easy to determine that "natural born citizen" means citizen by virtue of birth instead of by the naturalization process. What else could it mean?
 
  • #37


ParticleGrl said:
Anyone with a functioning brain knows Obama was born in Hawaii.
Anyone with a functioning brain with an IQ over 65 knows that they don't know for sure where Obama was born.
 
  • #38


Al68 said:
Anyone with a functioning brain with an IQ over 65 knows that they don't know for sure where Obama was born.

Sure, in exactly the same way you can't be sure that the US landed on the moon, or al qaeda was responsible for 9-11... in the same way you can't be sure the holocaust happened. Its the same pathological thinking.
 
  • #39


Al68 said:
Yeah, the fact that "birthers" are mostly the same people who have always opposed Democrats of all races is a total coincidence. Must be because he's black. :rolleyes:

As far as his original long form birth certificate, I always thought he probably had one, but the recent shenanigans of Hawaii officials, including the Governor, changing their stories and left wing pundits trying to say "there is no issue" does have me wondering. Especially the claim that it exists but the President isn't allowed to have a copy for himself, even though I've seen no link to any Hawaii law that says that, instead ofhttp://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/1/19/338/I/338-18".

I'm not claiming there isn't such a law specific to original birth records, just that I haven't seen it quoted or linked anywhere. Perhaps someone could provide a link?

My guess is that the President has it in his possession, but it's in his best political interest not to release it now. Just a wild guess.
So you're willing to feed into this nastiness? Why?

Let me remind you that there were birth notices in two (not one, but TWO) Honolulu newspapers. These were not the type of self-congratulatory notices that family could insert in papers for a fee, but the type of notices that the social editors of newspapers of that era would generate by reporting births, deaths, etc, recorded by local hospitals and other agencies.

If you think that Obama has in his possession his original "long-form" birth certificate (a phrase so loved by the birthers) and refuses to release it, perhaps you ought to come up with your proof. Conspiracy theories are very easy to manufacture, and I'm pretty sure that they are forbidden under the guidelines of this forum. You might want to check.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40


Al68 said:
There wasn't much effort to settle it because it didn't need much effort. Being born on U.S. territory is "natural born", even if not in one of the states

Actually, this is not settled. Barry Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona, and was challenged. The lawsuit was, of course, moot after the election of 1964.

As pointed out, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which, like Arizona, was a territory.

Much legal opinion has been written about the phrase "natural born", and I think the predominant (but not universal) opinion is that it is likely to be interpreted as "citizen at birth". Under this theory President Obama is natural born whether he was born in Hawaii or on Mars.

By the way, this kind of challenge is nothing new. There were "birthers" under the administration of Chester A. Arthur.
 
  • #41


Has anybody of the discussers here any idea what a [strike]fight[/strike] discussion like this does to the image of the USA?
 
  • #42


There are Trig Palin birthers too. Regarding Obama's birthplace, the thing about conspiracies, real conspiracies, is that they tend to be almost impossible to keep under wraps. Usually some skilled journalist (s) will figure things out. If President Obama truly had not been born in Hawaii, I think someone would have figured it out by now.
 
  • #43


turbo-1 said:
So you're willing to feed into this nastiness?
Yep, got to love feeding into nastiness! :rolleyes:

Seriously, it is "feeding into this nastiness" by many on the left, by acting like there is something to hide, that I've been objecting to.
Let me remind you that there were birth notices in two (not one, but TWO) Honolulu newspapers.
Why would you remind me of that? Have you misread one of my posts?
If you think that Obama has in his possession his original "long-form" birth certificate (a phrase so loved by the birthers) and refuses to release it, perhaps you ought to come up with your proof.
So I need proof for something I labeled as a "wild guess". Have you forgotten all the assertions you make as if they were settled fact, yet consistently refuse to provide any substantiation whatsoever. I guess substantiation is only required for wild guesses, not assertions passed off as undisputed fact.
Conspiracy theories are very easy to manufacture, and I'm pretty sure that they are forbidden under the guidelines of this forum. You might want to check.
Nope. Wild guess <> conspiracy theory.
 
  • #44


Vanadium 50 said:
Actually, this is not settled. Barry Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona, and was challenged.
I was referring to the issue being settled by the Senate hearing for McCain, not settled back then in that lawsuit. But regardless, people will differ on whether they think any issue is settled.
Much legal opinion has been written about the phrase "natural born", and I think the predominant (but not universal) opinion is that it is likely to be interpreted as "citizen at birth". Under this theory President Obama is natural born whether he was born in Hawaii or on Mars.
I was under the impression that someone born outside the U.S. had to be naturalized. You mean all those kids I fathered overseas in my Navy days are natural born citizens of hhe U.S.? :biggrin:
 
  • #45


ParticleGrl said:
Sure, in exactly the same way you can't be sure that the US landed on the moon, or al qaeda was responsible for 9-11... in the same way you can't be sure the holocaust happened. Its the same pathological thinking.
LOL, seriously? That Godwin was one smart dude, apparently.

As far as your point, those conspiracy theories are not analogous to this issue in any relevant, significant way. They're far more analogous to those of the left claiming that Republicans are on the side of the rich against poor people, want to throw old people out on the streets, etc. Except those you mention are far less delusional and hateful.
 
  • #46


It was never my intention to discuss the truth value of the conspiracy. I don't think moving on is really "nastiness". There are always going to be doubters and haters, you can't dedicate too much time to arguing with them. Frankly there are much more pressing issues and I would appreciate a president who tends to them.

This thread was never intended to be about right vs. left. Al68, if you want to turn it into that, I would respectfully ask that you start your own thread.
 
  • #47


KingNothing said:
This thread was never intended to be about right vs. left. Al68, if you want to turn it into that, I would respectfully ask that you start your own thread.
LOL. Request denied. I just love to "turn things into" right vs left, you know, since that's never how they are when I find them.

I do try to refrain from assuming racism for no apparent reason, and offering no logical explanation. Then claiming "we all know" it's true. :bugeye:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48


Al68 said:
I was referring to the issue being settled by the Senate hearing for McCain, not settled back then in that lawsuit.

You seem to be claiming the Senate has lent a lot of authority and thought to this issue, when the most I can find is a single non-binding resolution. Can you please source these Senate hearings so we can see exactly what happened?
 
  • #49


Al68 said:
I do try to refrain from assuming racism for no apparent reason, and offering no logical explanation. Then claiming "we all know" it's true. :bugeye:
That's part and parcel of being an Obamafan: the fact that Obama is black is enough evidence to believe that any criticism of Obama must be due to racism, regardless of if there is actually any evidence for the racism.

Maybe people don't remember, but we had this discussion several times during the campaign. It was always the same: Obama is obviously (obviously!) the far superior candidate, so any criticism of him must always be due to racism. Riiiiiiight. That's just as much a conspiracy theory as the birther movement itself.

See, all this discussion of why the birther movement is larger than the McCain eligibility issue ignores the point: regardless of size, both exist but one is assumed to be due to racism while the other is assumed not to be. At the same time, though, bringing into it that up to 40% of Republicans may believe the birther movement - in the context of this thread - means people in this thread think 40% of republicans are racists?

Here's how it really works: marketing. With good enough marketing, you can get a disturbingly large fraction of the population to believe something that isn't true. We've discussed the problem numerous times here as it pertains to evolution: Are Americans who don't accept evolution all racists or are have they just succumbed to a highly successful marketing campaign?
 
Last edited:
  • #50


russ_watters said:
That is just so not true. As I said before, I'm not going to start linking crackpots, but you really should have a look. There are tons of websites out there still displaying that story. Google it. Please.

Yay! You hit it on the head, they're crackpots! Whereas *actual, serious candidates* on the right believe this stuff.

Big, big difference!
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top