Posted by MikeT23 on 4/28/2011 8:23:00 AM (view original):
If you question any action of the President, you are a RACIST!!!!

It's very simple if you think about it.

The problem with people like you(is that RACIST!!!!?) is that you want everything to have racial undertones.   Everything doesn't.   There are people who disagree with Obama's policies.  They didn't want him to be President.   They don't want him to be President.  So, in the political game, they look for something.  In the article I posted earlier, McCain's health was questioned.   Bush's drinking in college was questioned.  Clinton's failure to inhale was questioned.   Infidelity has always been a hot button topic.   In this case, we have/had a candidate who's father was a Kenyan who traveled extensively.  The candidate wasn't born on the mainland.  Those two facts were used in an attempt to sway people who were/are undecided on the candidate. 

Posted by antonsirius on 4/27/2011 10:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 4/27/2011 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/27/2011 9:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/27/2011 9:20:00 PM (view original):

swamp is seldom right.   He is this time.   Presidents get ****.  Obama gets ****.  Same thing, different ****. 

Only in this case it's racist ****, which means it isn't at all the same.

It's like saying "Catholics use crosses. The Klan uses crosses. Same thing."

Racist?  Seriously?  Jeez, when you're not focused on swamp, at least you had a coherent argument, even when I disagreed with you...but racist??????

I don't even know where to go with that.  You wanna let us know where that ties in? 

Yes, I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that white Presidents and Presidential candidates who weren't born in the US, or had parents who weren't born in the US, didn't have to go through this.

What do you need, a Venn diagram? Birtherism is racist ****. It's also desperate and pathetic, which is why I laugh it off most of the time. But Obama having to show his papers was a disgrace, and I don't much feel like laughing right now.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/28/2011 8:35:00 AM (view original):
Very stupid if you think about it. 

Questioning citizenship of a man whose father traveled extensively isn't racist.

You've reached swamp-level dumbass.   Congrats.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/28/2011 8:35:00 AM (view original):
Very stupid if you think about it. 

Questioning citizenship of a man whose father traveled extensively isn't racist.

You've reached swamp-level dumbass.   Congrats.

Posted by silentpadna on 4/28/2011 9:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/27/2011 10:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 4/27/2011 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/27/2011 9:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/27/2011 9:20:00 PM (view original):

swamp is seldom right.   He is this time.   Presidents get ****.  Obama gets ****.  Same thing, different ****. 

Only in this case it's racist ****, which means it isn't at all the same.

It's like saying "Catholics use crosses. The Klan uses crosses. Same thing."

Racist?  Seriously?  Jeez, when you're not focused on swamp, at least you had a coherent argument, even when I disagreed with you...but racist??????

I don't even know where to go with that.  You wanna let us know where that ties in? 

Yes, I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that white Presidents and Presidential candidates who weren't born in the US, or had parents who weren't born in the US, didn't have to go through this.

What do you need, a Venn diagram? Birtherism is racist ****. It's also desperate and pathetic, which is why I laugh it off most of the time. But Obama having to show his papers was a disgrace, and I don't much feel like laughing right now.

The one making the racism assertions ought to be able to provide foundation.  It's your assertion and you base your assertion on.... "this didn't happen to white presidents".

Whether someone has chased the issue on prior presidents or not is irrelevant.  If it is relevant, you should be able to show why.  All you have done is assert it.  I would submit that if Clinton or Bush or anyone else was providing wholesale changes to our way of life and their was question as to the legitimacy of their birth, opponents would be going down the same road.

Clinton and his scandal affecting the civil trial....

Bush and the national guard stuff...

Opponents look for anything they can find to try to go after political enemies.  I'm not saying it's right.  I'm certainly not in on this whole "birther" thing, but I suspect it's been mostly politics (by both the "birthers" in the chase, and Obama in his timing of the release - which I totally understand).  None of this stuff proves any kind of racism.  Even if you were to find a certain number of "birthers" who happen to be racist, it does not logically follow that the issue itself is driven by race.  Doesn't it stand to reason in today's political climate and ease of information that if there were doubts about where Clinton/Bush were born, or whether their parents were natural born citizens (or however their aruguments go) that the same thing would happen?

Personally I can't stand Obama as a president.  I think his policies are harmful for this country and contrary to the values I hold.  Like I said before, if it is shown that he doesn't qualify, only then does that become an issue.  And if it was an issue, it would not make me a racist any more than disagreeing with his policies would.  If the birther thing is not an issue (and it appears to not be one - as I always thought), I could care less.