Yeah, I get the difference. My point is that for some reason the birthers don’t. They actually seem to think there a difference between the document Hawaii has released about Obama’s birth and the document related to Reagan’s birth linked to in my previous post.
Whatever. I have no idea. There have been arguments on both sides and I’ve always assumed “long form” was birther code for the original record of birth.
There is a difference. One was issued to a white Republican male. The other wasn’t.
I don’t agree.
And the reason is: tax protesters.
Your theory seems to be that the only possible reason this much cognitive dissonance could happen, this much ardent refusal to be swayed by fact could exist is in service of racism.
And I say that tax protesters have the precise same sort of dogged blindness, the exact same cultivated single-mindedness for their point of view and refusal to be swayed by the sternest, most cogent logic an opponent might bring to bear.
I am certain that tax protesters are not motivated by racism.
So why must it be that birthers are racist? Why can’t birthers be driven by the same irrational force that compels tax protesters to claim that because a court’s American flag has a gold fringe, it’s somehow lost the power to adjudicate tax offenses.
Well, I did say that they were a combination of the following:
So, for some of them, their being shown Reagan’s birth certficate and Obama’s birth certificate, and then refusing to see the similarities, does fall under 1, 2 and 4. But I truly believe that for a very large percentage of them, even the ones that are in categories 1, 2, and 4, that category 3 is the strongest underlying cause.
I also think that there are significantly larger numbers of birthers than there are tax protesters, but I have no hard data to back that up.
For some people, undoubtedly racism is at issue. But I don’t know why you say it’s “a very large percentage” or even what you thinnk a very large percentage number might be.
I base my suspicions on rhetoric I’ve heard and seen from birthers, as well as out-and-out statements of racism from people I know. I obviously have no scientifically-gathered evidence.
Although tax protesters come in a lot of different shades and flavors, from the militiamen who claim that the Founding Fathers disavowed income taxes to black separatist groups who claim that taxes are a racist invention, they all do have one motivating force in common: money. Strip away all the trappings of their particular group, and what you’ve got left is one singleminded force: It’s my money, I want to keep it, and I don’t want the government to have any of it. And I’d posit that although the tax protestors are irrational, they’re not necessarily driven by an irrational force. We all want to keep as much of our money as possible, right? But most of us are aware of settled law, and that arguments like “Ohio wasn’t a real state when it passed the 19th Amendment because somebody misspelled a word in the State Act in Congress” or whatnot only works in Hollywood movies.
So if money motivates the tax protesters, what motivates the birthers? Why Obama, and not Clinton or Kerry or Kucinich or any other liberal you can think of?
Not at all. The founder admitted to having given money to Republicans prior to the '08 campaign and their website now is pretty much a love letter to Sarah Palin. I could never find a single liberal policy issue being touted by any of them. It was a Republican front group. You didn’t actually think they were real, did you? Nope. just racist, teabagger conservatives pretending to be disgruntled Hillary supporters.
The birthers also claim Obama is a dangerous “librul”. They are fueled by anti black feelings and a hatred of liberals. They are just too stupid to see what a middle 0of the roader Obama is. They have a Pavlovian reaction to Democrats and liberals. It is not based in reason, but emotional.
This comparison makes no sense. You are making a presumption that all irrational beliefs have to be motivated by the same thing - that if one irrational belief is not motivated by racism, then no other other irrational belief can be motivated by racism. That’s obviously nonsense. There is no motivational connection between Birthers and tax protestors. Those are different obsessions with different motivations.
To be blunt, that’s about as racist a statement as anything the right comes up with.
N/M.
I’m not arguing a case for cognitive dissonance. That’s just a red herring foisted by folks who are bending over backward trying to hand-wave evidence that is guiding us to the logical result. No one likes to admit that racism is still as prominent as it is; it’s easier to ignore it, convince ourselves that we’re more enlightened, and to denigrate those who shine the light of day on its insidious and cancerous effects, than to admit it and deal with it.
Not everything is about race, but when something so blatantly and obviously is, as in this case, with this president, it is a disservice to continue to try to shoehorn other less likely theories while dismissing the one that fits, whether we like it or not.
I don’t think all birthers are necessarily racist, I think that there is a significant number of them who fear change.
Change is what candidate Obama ran on, and also what his political critical opponents (like Limbaugh) harp on. “Obama is a Socialist! He wants to lead us down the road to the same failed policies Europe is suffering under!”
So, by preventing the candidate from holding office, you prevent the change(s) you fear. (Especially if you cannot articulate why you might oppose some social policy change.)
Every presidential candidate of an opposing party campaigns on change. Name for me a candidate who didn’t promise to do something different than the current administration of the other party? Are you saying they were fearful of the word ‘change’? I admit Obama probably used it more than all previous presidential candidates combined. So maybe that’s what you’re saying.
Actually, I was rebutting the implied argument that “It must be racism, because no other motivation makes sense.”
Since they are different obsessions with different motivations – which I grant – it then falls to the person arguing FOR racism to provide the evidence. that it’s racism.
What is that evidence, again?
Er… yes, what was that blatant and obvious evidence, again?
(snipped and bolded)
[off topic] The funniest thing you’ve ever said, man.[/off topic]
Obama may have used it more, I don’t know for sure, but his opposing pundits worked the “fear of change” angle more than normal, I think.
I don’t think the difference between the long form and short form matter, I was just pointing out they are physically different. Wikipedia mentions the differences and I think in this case it is reliable as a cite. Either way, it doesn’t matter and birthers are nuts. 