User:Filll Obama "birther" ringleader Options Rating

[Kato]

As noted on another thread, Filll (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who was a primary voice on the WikiVoices (formerly Not The Wikipedia Weekly) radio show, a regular Defender of The Wiki, and someone quick to attack Wikipedia Review whenever he could, is a leading light in the Obama "Birther" conspiracy theory. He came to this site's attention during his bitter battles on WP with Moulton last year.

Filll, using his real name Robert Stevens, is all over the internet trotting the old line that Obama's birth certificate is faked, blah blah blah.

Here Filll has a blog on the matter, where he discusses the WP article on Birther "Queen" Orly Taitz (T-H-L-K-D) and makes all kinds of weird claims in the comment section. Filll was an early editor of the WP bio creating a version in user space. A now deleted YouTube video from some unknown adversary claims that Filll manages the blog for Orly Taitz, the woman pushing these baseless Obama theories in public.

Filll previously went through a right wing phase of blogging against crazy Muslim strawmen arguments of his own creation. Later, after his WP dispute with Moulton, Filll wrote that he was afraid of "getting killed" and wrote a long preposterous essay about Wikipedia Review (which now seems to have disappeared).*

*Update: Found it.
User:Filll/Wikipedia Review reviewed - and here's WR's response.

[dtobias]

Weird... I thought his big thing on WP was to stringently oppose "fringe theories" (e.g., Intelligent Design) and the people who try to "push" them?

----------------
Now playing: Holly Conlan - You Are Goodbye
via FoxyTunes

[One]

Once an anti-fringe crusader, now a fringe-pusher? Are we sure this is the same guy?

[GlassBeadGame]

Once an anti-fringe crusader, now a fringe-pusher? Are we sure this is the same guy?

Don't ArbCom members has CheckUser abilities or at least other with same at their beakon call? You tell us.

Please, no nerd crap about "beck and call."

[Kato]

Once an anti-fringe crusader, now a fringe-pusher? Are we sure this is the same guy?

Here's Filll working on the Orly Taitz article in his user space. He made a bunch of edits on January 16th, a day after this mysterious user Huckit (T-C-L-K-R-D) created the biography.

Whoever it is that really has it in for Filll has created a kind of video timeline.

http://www.dipity.com/timeline/Orly-Taitz-Wikipedia

Presumably it is the same guy who has created this blog about Filll, which is a real mess and hard to follow.

http://filll-fan-club.blogspot.com/

[Milton Roe]

Once an anti-fringe crusader, now a fringe-pusher? Are we sure this is the same guy?

I think not. Our WP user:Filll is the semi-nerdly French-Canadian biology teacher (naturally liberal) with the facebook pic (looks to be in his early 30's) and want of girlfriends, in Bowie? Maryland (I need to look at the Filll thread again-- hey how come no Filll thread in the notable editor forum?). The Bob Stevens dude of the fringe ideas is probably the right-wing M.D. who seems a generation older.

They might have the same name and even live in the same state, but it's a common name and there must be lot of them around there.

[Kato]

Once an anti-fringe crusader, now a fringe-pusher? Are we sure this is the same guy?

I think not. Our WP user:Filll is the semi-nerdly French-Canadian biology teacher (naturally liberal) with the facebook pic (looks to be in his early 30's) and want of girlfriends, in Bowie? Maryland (I need to look at the Filll thread again-- hey how come no Filll thread in the notable editor forum?). The Bob Stevens dude of the fringe ideas is probably the right-wing M.D. who seems a generation older.

They might have the same name and even live in the same state, but it's a common name and there must be lot of them around there.

Milton please. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

Then why does Bob Stevens (who we know is Filll) write a blog post about editing the Wikipedia article on Orly Taitz and keeping it from deletion, the same day User:Filll edits the bio and keeps it from deletion?

I don't spend time peppering original posts with links for fun, you know. Nor do I pull these kinds of things out of my ass (unlike certain people here). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Moulton]

Filll, as Kato noted above, has been active on Skype for many years.

He landed on a right-wing Skypecast that called itself "Skype Assholes" (they even have a web site promoting their show, which runs 24/7). It was there that "Appliantologist" ran into Filll Bob Stevens (Bob.in.MD) and contacted me. Since then, "Appliantologist" has recorded some of the racist rants on the Skypecast, including those of Filll, which he then posted on YouTube, with links thereto from a blog called Filll-Fan-Club.

I have no idea how or why Filll descended from his IDCab role on the English Wikipedia into the openly racist character he has become today, but there is no doubt that it's the same person. His voice is quite recognizable on the Skypcasts, and his Skype ID is well known from his previous appearances on NotTheWikipediaWeekly.

It's all rather bizarre, and begging for analysis.

Note, also, that Filll was a disciple of FeloniousMonk and lamented the decision of ArbCom to act against FM.

Incidentally, Appliantologist compiled a fair amount of additional research to confirm that Filll is Robert Evan Stevens, a one-time climate modeler who lived and worked in Bowie MD.

[Kato]

I have no idea how or why Filll descended from his IDCab role on the English Wikipedia into the openly racist character he has become today, but there is no doubt that it's the same person.

I listened to one of the Skypecasts, where Filll was "in character" as an obnoxious right wing talk show host. And it is the same voice as the Filll who was a regular on NotTheWikipediaWeekly.

All of this, the racist diatribes, the anti-Obama thing, is certainly the same guy as Filll on WP. Last year, when his crazy anti-Muslim rants were exposed, it dawned on me that this guy is either a bona-fide crack-pot, or descending into one very rapidly, and figured it best not to comment further.

This new development, where Filll is providing back-up for the Obama birther movement is just too weird to keep quiet about.

[Moulton]

When Appliantologist first contacted me, after hearing Filll taking my name in vain on the Skype Assholes audiocast, I was skeptical it was the same person.

While I was talking to Appliantologist (on the phone), he patched me into the Skypecast, where Filll was holding forth. After I continued to express skepticsim, Filll proved to me his identity by recalling obscure details of our previous encounters that no one else would have known.

And, like Kato, I was able to confirm his nasal voice and style of speech was indeed that of Filll from the old WP Skypecasts.

Orly Taitz mentions Bob Stevens by name as her web site manager in a Birther's Movement press conference that Appliantologist reposted on YouTube.

So I have no doubt it's our own Filll Bob Stevens, who seems to have gone off the deep end since my first encounter with him two years ago.

[Kato]

So I have no doubt it's our own Filll Bob Stevens, who seems to have gone off the deep end since my first encounter with him two years ago.

You can see a change in Filll here: In the first of Filll's ill judged AGF Challenges, Filll constructs hypothetical cases which he believes challenge Wikipedia's "commitment" to assuming good faith in the face of FRINGE THEORIES. These exercises are silly but fairly random in scope, meaning that the exercise retains some credibility .

Filll wrote a follow-up; AGF Challenge 2. This time round, thinly-veiled anti-Muslim sentiment had crept into the questions, and a couple of them referred to real life cases that had got him hot under the collar at Wikipedia. This made Filll look obsessive and a poor judge of just about anything, let alone complicated FRINGE THEORIES.

A year on, it is shown that Filll is so bad at judging these things, he fell for the Obama Birther nonsense!

Case dismissed.

[TungstenCarbide]

Filll, using his real name Bob Stevens, is all over the internet trotting the old line that Obama's birth certificate is faked, blah blah blah.

That's a brilliant strategy by the way; demanding that Obama prove his innocence without really presenting evidence of guilt. If Obama concedes and makes his documentation public then that will open the door to an endless stream of fat maggots demanding ever more proof of innocence for imagined crimes. If he doesn't, they can just spend the foreseeable future spreading dissent, twisting his inaction as proof of guilt.

[Moulton]

Filll, using his real name Bob Stevens, is all over the internet trotting the old line that Obama's birth certificate is faked, blah blah blah.

That's a brilliant strategy by the way; demanding that Obama prove his innocence without really presenting evidence of guilt. If Obama concedes and makes his documentation public then that will open the door to an endless stream of fat maggots demanding ever more proof of innocence for imagined crimes. If he doesn't, they can just spend the foreseeable future spreading dissent, twisting his inaction as proof of guilt.

Actually, it doesn't work that way. The State of Hawaii is the custodian of record when it comes to establishing the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Hawaiian officials all the way up to the Governor of the state have attested that his birth certificate is authentic. Moreover, there were announcement of his birth in the newspapers as well. There is no way they could have been faked.

[Kato]

Filll, using his real name Bob Stevens, is all over the internet trotting the old line that Obama's birth certificate is faked, blah blah blah.

That's a brilliant strategy by the way; demanding that Obama prove his innocence without really presenting evidence of guilt. If Obama concedes and makes his documentation public then that will open the door to an endless stream of fat maggots demanding ever more proof of innocence for imagined crimes. If he doesn't, they can just spend the foreseeable future spreading dissent, twisting his inaction as proof of guilt.

Actually, it doesn't work that way. The State of Hawaii is the custodian of record when it comes to establishing the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Hawaiian officials all the way up to the Governor of the state have attested that his birth certificate is authentic. Moreover, there were announcement of his birth in the newspapers as well. There is no way they could have been faked.

Orly Taitz, Filll's new mentor, produced a faked Kenyan birth certificate suggesting that Obama was really born in Mombasa, Kenya. Unfortunately, this birth cert stated it was issued by the Republic of Kenya. Which is unusual given that Kenya was known as the Dominion of Kenya at the time the document was supposedly issued, and no such surrounding genuine documents would use that title.

[TungstenCarbide]

Filll, using his real name Bob Stevens, is all over the internet trotting the old line that Obama's birth certificate is faked, blah blah blah.

That's a brilliant strategy by the way; demanding that Obama prove his innocence without really presenting evidence of guilt. If Obama concedes and makes his documentation public then that will open the door to an endless stream of fat maggots demanding ever more proof of innocence for imagined crimes. If he doesn't, they can just spend the foreseeable future spreading dissent, twisting his inaction as proof of guilt.

Actually, it doesn't work that way. The State of Hawaii is the custodian of record when it comes to establishing the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Hawaiian officials all the way up to the Governor of the state have attested that his birth certificate is authentic. Moreover, there were announcement of his birth in the newspapers as well. There is no way they could have been faked.

Ya, but the endless supply of nuts have this constant refrain; "Why doesn't he just make his full birth certificate public, what does he have to hide". This is repeated over and over again (they generally leave out the part about Hawaii's governor). It's a brilliant smear job.

Orly Taitz, Filll's new mentor, produced a faked Kenyan birth certificate suggesting that Obama was really born in Mombasa, Kenya. Unfortunately, this birth cert stated it was issued by the Republic of Kenya. Which is unusual given that Kenya was known as the Dominion of Kenya at the time the document was supposedly issued, and no such surrounding genuine documents would use that title.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Kato]

Ya, but the endless supply of nuts have this constant refrain; "Why doesn't he just make his full birth certificate public, what does he have to hide". This is repeated over and over again (they generally leave out the part about Hawaii's governor). It's a brilliant smear job.

It is public and has been online for over a year.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

[dtobias]

Orly Taitz, Filll's new mentor, produced a faked Kenyan birth certificate suggesting that Obama was really born in Mombasa, Kenya. Unfortunately, this birth cert stated it was issued by the Republic of Kenya. Which is unusual given that Kenya was known as the Dominion of Kenya at the time the document was supposedly issued, and no such surrounding genuine documents would use that title.

Not to mention that somebody else found an Australian birth certificate from the same time period that was online in a genealogy site which exactly matched the alleged Kenyan one, complete with the document numbers in the corner, making it clear that the faker had used that as the starting point. Web archives show that this version was online long before the alleged Obama one (but conspiracy theorists will claim that's faked too).

[TungstenCarbide]

Ya, but the endless supply of nuts have this constant refrain; "Why doesn't he just make his full birth certificate public, what does he have to hide". This is repeated over and over again (they generally leave out the part about Hawaii's governor). It's a brilliant smear job.

It is public and has been online for over a year.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

apparently there's a 'long form' version that has not been made public, or so the nut jobs say.

Here you go, Kato. You'll get a kick out of this guy.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Moulton]

Irony upon irony.

The whole ID brouhaha emerged from a statement (originally signed almost a decade ago by some 100 scientists and academics) urging that people adhere to the protocols of the scientific method when examining and evaluating theories. The basic method of science is to try like the dickens to disprove any hypothesis before accepting it as a serious contender in the search for scientific truth.

Here is a case where disproof is laughably trivial, rendering the contentions of the birthers untenable by any reasonable standard of evidentiary proof.

This is the same error IDCab made when it adopted the untenable thesis that those same 100 scientists and academics were supporters of Intelligent Design. Not only was there no evidence to support that ludicrous claim, there was copious evidence to disprove it. And yet IDCab muscled that troublesome falsehood into dozens of articles and BLPs.

Filll and his ilk seem to be hell bent on enmeshing themselves in lunatic political drama, in contravention of the most basic tenets of scientific inquiry.

[Kato]

Most of these guys get shown up in the end. JzG, Gary Weiss, Filll, JoshuaZ, Jossi, Chip Berlet etc.

What's interesting is how many people at WP look at their cases early on, and don't conclude that these people are tripping out-of-their minds and clearly in the wrong. Regardless of the often misplaced tactics of their adversaries here, the offenders get away with it for months and sometimes years under the protection of Wikipedia clans. And it can be a concerted effort to get others to see rational sense and stop protecting these loons and their bad behaviour.

To be fair, justice isn't helped by the quantity of utter morons that roll up at this site at a regular rate. Bad, self-indulgent critics here devalue genuine criticisms and limit the occasions when we can identify abuse with credible evidence. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[One]

Ya, but the endless supply of nuts have this constant refrain; "Why doesn't he just make his full birth certificate public, what does he have to hide". This is repeated over and over again (they generally leave out the part about Hawaii's governor). It's a brilliant smear job.

It is public and has been online for over a year.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Yeah, I think the line is that it isn't an original birth certificate, but rather a duplicate.

Sucks to be me--I've also lost my original birth certificate. My duplicate birth certificate is good enough for a US passport, but the truthers might claim I was really born in Canada. Therefore, I have reluctantly decided, and do now announce, that I will not be running for the Office of President in 2016.*

*Actually, my mother was old enough to bestow birthright citizenship (not that anyone cares). The law that birthers cite against Obama was amended--nowadays a child born in Kenya under those alleged circumstances would still be a U.S. citizen by birth.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kelly Martin]

The document that the birthers are demanding Obama to release is the Certificate of Live Birth, which is not the same thing as a birth certificate.

A Certificate of Live Birth is a document completed (or at least signed and sworn) by the physician in attendance at a live birth as to the particulars of that birth. This document becomes a part of the physician's records (or, more typically the hospital's), and copies are filed with the county and the state. A copy of this document is not normally provided to the parents or the child, and most people would not have a copy of their certificate of live birth (or even know that the document exists).

The copies of a Certificate of Live Birth filed with the county and the state are not available for public inspection, and the copy filed with the state is the final legal proof of a person's birth. In most states, the only people who may inspect these certificates, absent a court order (and such orders are rarely ever granted), are the immediate relatives of the named party, certain public health officials, and officials of the state or county archives. Furthermore, these certificates may not be copied or removed from the archives, except by officials of the archives for the express purpose of data preservation (and for no other purpose). If someone somehow ends up with a copy of a certificate of live birth outside the archives, that certificate is not valid for any legal purpose and is presumptively fraudulent.

A birth certificate, on the other hand, is a document issued by a government agency (typically a county) attesting to the fact that it has upon its files a Certificate of Live Birth that indicates that the person named therein was born at the place and time specified of the parents specified in the certificate. Such a certificate (all certificates are "original" if they bear the seal of the appropriate agency, regardless of date of issue) is sufficient proof of birth for just about any legal purpose; the only exception would be in a proceeding in which the specific details of the birth have been challenged, and the burden of proof in such a challenge is typically very high.

The birthers are demanding the Certificate of Live Birth because they know it (a) exists and (b) cannot be produced. Makes for good political theatre.

[CharlotteWebb]

Orly Taitz, Filll's new mentor, produced a faked Kenyan birth certificate suggesting that Obama was really born in Mombasa, Kenya.

Orly?

I think most people have their minds made up about Obama more or less. I'm not sure how where he may or may not have been born would change any of that. Even if he was for-sure born outside the U.S., impeachment on that basis would be extremely petty.

Take McCain for example, whom certain conspiracy theorists believe was probably born 1936 in Colón (República de Panamá) on the basis that the naval hospital at Coco Solo wasn't established until 1941 (or maybe this document is also a fake). Ignoring the exact location, he still wouldn't have been a natural-born citizen at the time of his birth (as the supreme court held in Downes v. Bidwell, 1901 that unincorporated territories such as the canal zone are not really part of the U.S.), only retroactively declared one by title 8 section 1403 (1937).

Most of us common-folk (whose only familiarity with Mombasa stems from a Warren Zevon tune) could give a shit less about this rule-literalism codswallop (from which Wikipedia does also generally suffer), and I don't think anyone could with a straight face argue that article II could ever have been intended do disqualify either of these guys as a potential candidate.

[Cla68]

The birthers are demanding the Certificate of Live Birth because they know it (a) exists and (b) cannot be produced. Makes for good political theatre.

The people who dislike Obama (which apparently includes this Filll weirdo) should drop this nonsense.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[One]

Take McCain for example, whom certain conspiracy theorists believe was probably born 1936 in Colón (República de Panamá) on the basis that the naval hospital at Coco Solo wasn't established until 1941 (or maybe this document is also a fake). Ignoring the exact location, he still wouldn't have been a natural-born citizen at the time of his birth (as the supreme court held in Downes v. Bidwell, 1901 that unincorporated territories such as the canal zone are not really part of the U.S.), only retroactively declared one by title 8 section 1403 (1937).

No, it probably still counts. Both of McCain's parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born; he would be a citizen at birth (although it's unknown whether this would make him a constitutional "natural born citizen"). See 8 USC 1401( c), which predates McCain's birth, as explained by the N.D. Cal, in an earlier Alan Keyes birther conspiracy suit against McCain.

The birther argument here is that because only Obama's mother was a citizen, she was not then old enough to impart citizenship to Obama if he was born overseas. At the time, 1401 required:

"(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years..."

Because Obama's mother was only 18, there's no way this condition could have obtained. If he was born in Kenya, he would not have been a citizen, period. Therefore, Obama would only be a citizen by birth if he was born in the U.S. (Note that 1401 was amended in 1986, to read "...totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years," so now a 16 year-old mother could impart U.S. citizenship at birth.)

This post has been edited by One:

[Kelly Martin]

No, it probably still counts. Both of McCain's parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born; he would be a citizen at birth (although it's unknown whether this would make him a constitutional "natural born citizen"). See 8 USC 1401( c), which predates McCain's birth, as explained by the N.D. Cal, in an earlier Alan Keyes birther conspiracy suit against McCain.

Don't forget Chet Arthur, whose father was either Irish or Canadian (the record, even then, was unclear, and is no clearer today) and who may or may not have been born in the territory of the United States. The contemporary case for doubting Arthur's legitimacy was almost certainly stronger than the case for doubting Obama's, and yet Arthur was not only sworn in (first as Vice President and then as President, on Garfield's death), but actually ranks now as one of America's better presidents; his major legacy is and remains the civil service system (which Bush 43 tried to, but was only partially successful at, demolishing).

Orly Taitz is just the latest reincarnation of Arthur Hinman. This too will pass.

[CharlotteWebb]

No, it probably still counts. Both of McCain's parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born; he would be a citizen at birth (although it's unknown whether this would make him a constitutional "natural born citizen"). See 8 USC 1401( c), which predates McCain's birth, as explained by the N.D. Cal, in an earlier Alan Keyes birther conspiracy suit against McCain.

The birther argument here is that because only Obama's mother was a citizen, she was not then old enough to impart citizenship to Obama if he was born overseas. At the time, 1401 required:

"(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years..."

Because Obama's mother was only 18, there's no way this condition could have obtained. If he was born in Kenya, he would not have been a citizen, period. Therefore, Obama would only be a citizen by birth if he was born in the U.S. (Note that 1401 was amended in 1986, to read "...totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years," so now a 16 year-old mother could impart U.S. citizenship at birth.)

Thank you for further proving my point about the sheer ridiculousness of the rules in question, presumably adopted to filter out false-flag candidates, Manchurians if you will, but there's no way you can codify that. Besides if the general public wants to elect a president whom they feel will hasten the overthrow of the U.S. gov't they should have every constitutional right to due so, whether the candidate is a (middle-aged) "natural born citizen" or not.

Orly Taitz is just the latest reincarnation of Arthur Hinman. This too will pass.

Surely not the Aussie-rules footballer?

Hmm the disambiguation page wasn't there an hour ago. NE2 is obviously reading this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=...99728&diff=prev

[One]

Thank you for further proving my point about the sheer ridiculousness of the rules in question, presumably adopted to filter out false-flag candidates, Manchurians if you will, but there's no way you can codify that. Besides if the general public wants to elect a president whom they feel will hasten the overthrow of the U.S. gov't they should have every constitutional right to due so, whether the candidate is a (middle-aged) "natural born citizen" or not.

Most birthers seem to be the "U.S. Constitution was an inspired document" sort (I say this affectionately; I have a birther relative). I think you've just committed some form of heresy according to this worldview.

[Somey]

I have no idea how or why Filll descended from his IDCab role on the English Wikipedia into the openly racist character he has become today, but there is no doubt that it's the same person. His voice is quite recognizable on the Skypcasts, and his Skype ID is well known from his previous appearances on NotTheWikipediaWeekly.

It's all rather bizarre, and begging for analysis...

Irony upon irony. ... Filll and his ilk seem to be hell bent on enmeshing themselves in lunatic political drama, in contravention of the most basic tenets of scientific inquiry.

Just in case anyone is still puzzling over this, I'm going to risk the ire of the Evolutionary Science supporters here (of which I am one myself) to say that this shouldn't be surprising at all. Darwinism has been misused as a phony "scientific proof" of racist ideologies for years, almost since The Ascent of Man was first published. In Wikiland, and even once or twice on this board, we've seen racists and racially-motivated folks cherry-pick quotes from Darwin to support their so-called "views."

Intelligent Design is completely wrong, and may even be semi-moronic in its basic scientific approach - but the fact is, it's a fundamentally non-racist concept. Even the most committed wingnut would never argue publicly that God created white people to be better than black people or any other group - that would be tantamount to throwing what may be their best political support-argument right into the toilet.

Unfortunately for other "IDCab" folks like FeloniousMonk, Raul654, and JoshuaZ, the flawed wiki-based system they've been operating under doesn't allow them to "vet" their allies and comrades in advance of an edit war or a campaign against petition-signers, in the hopes of determining their true motivations. If you're a Wikipedian, you basically get in bed with whoever shows up for the orgy, and if one of them happens to have a social disease, too bad.

[CharlotteWebb]

Most birthers seem to be the "U.S. Constitution was an inspired document" sort (I say this affectionately; I have a birther relative). I think you've just committed some form of heresy according to this worldview.

The bill of rights, at least, is suitable for framing, however the constitution's lesser known passages are plagued by logorrhoeic instruction creep which the average true-believer wouldn't recognize printed on a freeway billboard in 9000pt black-letter, much less consciously adhere to.

From this perspective one may infer eerie parallels to the "ten commandments" and the remainder of the hebrew torah, which a similarly popular excess also consider to be an "inspired document".

One could further compare mythologies by superimposing Mt. Vernon with Mt. Sinai, the cherry tree with the burning bush, the delaware river with the red sea, the tea party with the plague of blood.

Let my people go! Well certainly there are some glaring inconsistencies upon which I dare not touch but somewhere in the course of human events one could write an entire screenplay based on such juxtapositioning of premise, sorta like what they did (brilliantly) with Titus Andronicus. I mean that's what new-world nationalism is all about, right?




Disclaimer: most of this is intended as absurd satire, and I failed to address the pyramid issue.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Eva Destruction]

Even the most committed wingnut would never argue publicly that God created white people to be better than black people or any other group - that would be tantamount to throwing what may be their best political support-argument right into the toilet.

Somey, I have to disagree with you on that one. I've heard exactly that line from assorted religious cranks dozens of time (generally citing a garbled reading of Genesis 9:20-27 as "proof"). Wikipedia's Hamitic article is surprisingly good, given the potential crank-bait of the subject matter.

[Somey]

Even the most committed wingnut would never argue publicly that God created white people to be better than black people or any other group - that would be tantamount to throwing what may be their best political support-argument right into the toilet.

Somey, I have to disagree with you on that one. I've heard exactly that line from assorted religious cranks dozens of time (generally citing a garbled reading of Genesis 9:20-27 as "proof"). Wikipedia's Hamitic article is surprisingly good, given the potential crank-bait of the subject matter.

Sorry, you're right - I posted that too quickly. I should have said something like, "In the politically-correct world we live in today, even the most committed wingnut would never use the basic premises of Intelligent Design to argue publicly that God created white people to be better," etc.

Actually I'll admit there are probably a few wingnuts who would do even that, but I doubt they exist in large enough numbers to be a genuine factor, even on Wikipedia.

[LaraLove]

I have no idea how or why Filll descended from his IDCab role on the English Wikipedia into the openly racist character he has become today, but there is no doubt that it's the same person.

It's great to know that Filll, the dipshit who kept baiting me with his little "ID cabal" friends after the white pride bullshit last year, is a racist.

The birthers are demanding the Certificate of Live Birth because they know it (a) exists and (b) cannot be produced. Makes for good political theatre.

The people who dislike Obama (which apparently includes this Filll weirdo) should drop this nonsense.

I wouldn't hold your breath. Filll lives for this sort of stuff. He is alll about the drama and will keep it going for as long as possible.

[Somey]

It's great to know that Filll, the dipshit who kept baiting me with his little "ID cabal" friends after the white pride bullshit last year, is a racist.

They must have felt you were being too "unscientific"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Sorry, I just had to get that one in.

[CharlotteWebb]

Sorry, you're right - I posted that too quickly. I should have said something like, "In the politically-correct world we live in today, even the most committed wingnut would never use the basic premises of Intelligent Design to argue publicly that God created white people to be better," etc.

The south at least is still teeming with wingnuts and cone-head splinter groups, the most insidious of which are disguised as family-friendly sunday-morning broadcasts. While they do overtly ridicule evolutionary science (a.k.a. The Smart-Ass Folk Who Say We Come Descended From Monkeys)........ I don't recall a single one of them using the term "Intelligent Design" which I will confess never having heard prior to the internets.

[victim of censorship]

Even the most committed wingnut would never argue publicly that God created white people to be better than black people or any other group - that would be tantamount to throwing what may be their best political support-argument right into the toilet.

Somey, I have to disagree with you on that one. I've heard exactly that line from assorted religious cranks dozens of time (generally citing a garbled reading of Genesis 9:20-27 as "proof"). Wikipedia's Hamitic article is surprisingly good, given the potential crank-bait of the subject matter.

Some love and racial healing from the long time spiritual mentor of the POTUS.

[One]

From this perspective one may infer eerie parallels to the "ten commandments" and the remainder of the hebrew torah, which a similarly popular excess also consider to be an "inspired document".

That's an apt metaphor. Both are bread and butter to certain U.S. evangelicals.

I must disagree with you in part: I think the U.S. constitution was a pretty good document. It was well-considered, and most of the passages carry a lot of weight and subtlety. I just get annoyed when the "inspired document" fringe gets hung up on phrases like "coin money" or "titles and nobility," which they misunderstand, yet toss about with fundamentalist zeal.

[Somey]

...I think the U.S. constitution was a pretty good document. It was well-considered, and most of the passages carry a lot of weight and subtlety. I just get annoyed when the "inspired document" fringe gets hung up on phrases like "coin money" or "titles and nobility," which they misunderstand, yet toss about with fundamentalist zeal.

I think it was a good document too, but people have to remember that it was also a product of a completely different political, social, and (just to get back on the subject a bit) racial landscape. The whole ridiculous business about the Electoral College and the "3/5ths rule" was basically a concession to Southern slaveowners to get them to sign on - otherwise they probably wouldn't have, because they would have figured (perhaps correctly) that Northerners would quickly use their overall popular majority to end slavery, enfranchise the resulting freed black people, and thereby (arguably) ruin the Southern states economically.

We no longer have to deal with the 3/5ths rule, but the Electoral College is still screwing up our elections a full 240 years later.

It's just a good thing they allowed for amendments, that's all I can say!

[The Adversary]

Jeeez, I simply cannot believe that anyone with an IQ above 32 can believe this story. A white American girl travelling to Mombasa to give birth??! I was in Mombasa in the 1990´s -it was still a city with rows of leprosy-patients (missing fingers, arms, legs) sitting begging in the main street every day..... & where you never missed taking your malaria-profylactics. Never, never, never. And this should be a place an 18 year old American girl choose to have her first baby??

Besides the cost in the 1960s...one guy I knew well worked for the UN in Africa in that decade; well-payed job, but it was just -economically- impossible for his family (in Europe) to visit him; air-travel in the 1960s was extremely expensive compared with today. Basically, you only flew out there if somebody paid you. Or you were extremely rich. Which the Duhams/Obamas were not.

This is so utterly, totally absurd.

[Somey]

Jeeez, I simply cannot believe that anyone with an IQ above 32 can believe this story.... This is so utterly, totally absurd.

As I recall, the official "top limit" for wingnut IQ's here in the US is 20. Anything above that, and you're apparently able to think for yourself to some extent.

[Moulton]

As I recall, the official "top limit" for wingnut IQ's here in the US is 20. Anything above that, and you're apparently able to think for yourself to some extent.

Dunno what Filll's IQ is, but you may recall that Raul and Jimbo both rushed to his aid when his stature and standing were in jeopardy.

[No one of consequence]

Thank you for further proving my point about the sheer ridiculousness of the rules in question, presumably adopted to filter out false-flag candidates, Manchurians if you will, but there's no way you can codify that. Besides if the general public wants to elect a president whom they feel will hasten the overthrow of the U.S. gov't they should have every constitutional right to due so, whether the candidate is a (middle-aged) "natural born citizen" or not.

The constitutional requirement for Presidents to be natural born citizens is quite simple. The complicated rules for claiming citizenship apply to everyone, not just the Pres.

[Cedric]

The document that the birthers are demanding Obama to release is the Certificate of Live Birth, which is not the same thing as a birth certificate.

A Certificate of Live Birth is a document completed (or at least signed and sworn) by the physician in attendance at a live birth as to the particulars of that birth. This document becomes a part of the physician's records (or, more typically the hospital's), and copies are filed with the county and the state. A copy of this document is not normally provided to the parents or the child, and most people would not have a copy of their certificate of live birth (or even know that the document exists).

The copies of a Certificate of Live Birth filed with the county and the state are not available for public inspection, and the copy filed with the state is the final legal proof of a person's birth. In most states, the only people who may inspect these certificates, absent a court order (and such orders are rarely ever granted), are the immediate relatives of the named party, certain public health officials, and officials of the state or county archives. Furthermore, these certificates may not be copied or removed from the archives, except by officials of the archives for the express purpose of data preservation (and for no other purpose). If someone somehow ends up with a copy of a certificate of live birth outside the archives, that certificate is not valid for any legal purpose and is presumptively fraudulent.

A birth certificate, on the other hand, is a document issued by a government agency (typically a county) attesting to the fact that it has upon its files a Certificate of Live Birth that indicates that the person named therein was born at the place and time specified of the parents specified in the certificate. Such a certificate (all certificates are "original" if they bear the seal of the appropriate agency, regardless of date of issue) is sufficient proof of birth for just about any legal purpose; the only exception would be in a proceeding in which the specific details of the birth have been challenged, and the burden of proof in such a challenge is typically very high.

The birthers are demanding the Certificate of Live Birth because they know it (a) exists and (b) cannot be produced. Makes for good political theatre.

This may well be the system in Hawaii, but laws on this differ from state to state. Although the present statute in my state of birth (Indiana) dates back to only 1993, I have good reason to believe that the present system actually dates back to 1953, with the only major amendments since being with regard to adoptees and to paternity affidavits. A "Long Form" must be filled out after birth by "a person in attendance at a live birth", or if no such person, one of the parents. This is sent to the County Dept. of Health in the county of birth. From this information, the County Health Officer records the birth in the county's Birth Record Book. The information is then forwarded onto the State Dept. of Health. The usual birth certificates issued by either the County or State Dept. of Health include only the more limited information contained in the county's Birth Record Book.

Outside of the limitations with regard to adoptees, the county's Birth Record Book is a public record available for public inspection. However, only the person whose birth is recorded, or another person with "a direct interest" by near kinship or other legal standing to that person, can purchase a birth certificate. A certified copy of the Long Form, also considered a legal record, may also be purchased if you know to specifically ask for it. I was born in the same year as Obama, and I have three birth certificates: the Long Form (which I have never seen, but likely still exists), the normal certificate based on the Birth Record Book (of which I have a number of official copies), and a hospital certificate of birth (which has no legal standing I know of, but is rather interesting).

Take McCain for example, whom certain conspiracy theorists believe was probably born 1936 in Colón (República de Panamá) on the basis that the naval hospital at Coco Solo wasn't established until 1941 (or maybe this document is also a fake). Ignoring the exact location, he still wouldn't have been a natural-born citizen at the time of his birth (as the supreme court held in Downes v. Bidwell, 1901 that unincorporated territories such as the canal zone are not really part of the U.S.), only retroactively declared one by title 8 section 1403 (1937).

No, it probably still counts. Both of McCain's parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born; he would be a citizen at birth (although it's unknown whether this would make him a constitutional "natural born citizen"). See 8 USC 1401( c), which predates McCain's birth, as explained by the N.D. Cal, in an earlier Alan Keyes birther conspiracy suit against McCain.

Indeed. The lunatic fringe conspiracy theory re McCain's citizenship is nearly as nutty as the one re Obama's (though not based upon a clearly forged birth certificate, AFAIK). I looked into this back during the 2008 campaign, and there is no doubt McCain was a US citizen from birth. The later Act of Congress clarifying the status of those born in the old C.Z. had no real application to McCain in that both of his parents were US citizens when he was born. If he had been born in Ulan Bator instead of Colón, it would have made no difference; he still would have been a US citizen under the laws existing at the time.

The only real wrinkle with regard to McCain was the "natural-born citizen" angle. It seems to me that the likely intent and only reasonable interpretation of this constitutional language is to mean those who were US citizens under the laws existing at the time of their birth. As I opined many months ago, for the Supreme Court to adopt a significantly different interpretation would seriously risk causing a political earthquake that they are not prepared to handle.

Don't forget Chet Arthur, whose father was either Irish or Canadian (the record, even then, was unclear, and is no clearer today) and who may or may not have been born in the territory of the United States.

Chester A. Arthur was born in Vermont in 1829 to an Irish father (British subjects at the time) and an American mother, native to Vermont. Canada was not an unified nation until Confederation in 1867, before which it was a number of separate British colonies (sometimes collectively referred to on American maps as "The Canadas"). Newfoundland was the last of these to join the Dominion of Canada, in 1949.

A final note of acknowledgment to Moulton and Kato for the background information on Filll. I have always suspected there was a racist element to the birther conspiracy theory; now I have more reason to believe that.

[Random832]

No, it probably still counts. Both of McCain's parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born; he would be a citizen at birth

Except that by the law at the time, citizenship was granted specifically to people born in the US and people born "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" to American parents. Neither clause applied to the canal zone.

Or so the argument goes, anyway.

[gomi]

... but the Electoral College is still screwing up our elections a full 240 years later ...

Lefty bleeding-heart that I am, I will entertain a spirited defense of the Electoral College in the Politics forum upon request! In short, the Electoral College performs a similar function vis-a-vis the general population that the Senate performs vis-a-vis the House of Representatives. We are a nation of states, not one of individuals, and if you think otherwise, I invite you to move to Mississippi or Alabama.

The lunatic fringe conspiracy theory re McCain's citizenship is nearly as nutty as the one re Obama's ...

Notwithstanding the "wingnut IQ theorem", does anyone find credible the notion that this whipped-up issue is a stalking-horse for the anti-immigration right wing to overturn jus soli (citizenship by location of birth) in favor of jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood) or some even more restrictive policy?

[Milton Roe]

Notwithstanding the "wingnut IQ theorem", does anyone find credible the notion that this whipped-up issue is a stalking-horse for the anti-immigration right wing to overturn jus soli (citizenship by location of birth) in favor of jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood) or some even more restrictive policy?

It could well be, but they are really totally separate issues. I, for example, am quite happy to have Obama as president, and would be, even if he had been born in Kenya to an underage mother. It's rather a shame that the US constitution makes blood or birth location proxies for where somebody's loyalties lie. Clearly that's a matter of the mind. I think the document should be changed so that anyone who is a legal US citizen may run, and leave the matter of loyalty detection up to the voter.

However, that said, I'm not too happy about the US unrestricted jus soli clause to grant simple citizenship automatically with no other blood or residency requirements, and (truthfully) not too many industrialized/developed countries would have our system, either (I think we and Canada are about the only "1st world" countries to have a pure jus soli rule for children of illegals, and Canada doesn't have much of an illegal immigration problem due to being insulated by water and the US.)

If you read the WP article on anchor babies, you'd thnk that birth tourism was non-existant and that it was hate speech to pretend that it was. There's also a lot of deliberate confusion suggesting that the term is used routinely in a racist fashion against children even of legal immigrants (which in my experience is nonsense, but hey, it's Wikipedia).

[Guido den Broeder]

As I recall, the official "top limit" for wingnut IQ's here in the US is 20. Anything above that, and you're apparently able to think for yourself to some extent.

Dunno what Filll's IQ is, but you may recall that Raul and Jimbo both rushed to his aid when his stature and standing were in jeopardy.

I had an unpleasant encounter with Filll back in 2007, where he tried to keep reliable medical sources from a topic that he (incorrectly of course) considered fringe. From his posts at the time, his IQ could easily be below 20. There was a whole string of complaints about him by numerous users (we had to number them for easier reference) but of course nothing was ever done, he had protection.

[One]

No, it probably still counts. Both of McCain's parents were citizens, so it doesn't matter where he was born; he would be a citizen at birth

Except that by the law at the time, citizenship was granted specifically to people born in the US and people born "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" to American parents. Neither clause applied to the canal zone.

Or so the argument goes, anyway.

That argument was dead in the water in 1884, when the Supreme Court ruled that an Indian born in U.S. territory was outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Jurisdiction meaning the jurisdiction of a state, which could only be shown in that case by taxation to the state, ect. See Elk v. Wilkins (1884) "Jurisdiction of the United States" is a very old legal phrase that traces back to when "United States" was plural rather than singular. It refers to jurisdiction of the states.

The citizenship statute was written in reference to the Fourteenth Amendment, which says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." As the Supreme Court noted, this term is the compliment to "outside the jurisdiction of the United States." McCain was outside and was a citizen at birth.


GBG: Yes, in my experience birthers are also upset about jus soli. In my case, he thinks that all justices who support this interpretation of the 14th Amendment (which is basically all of them since 1898) should be impeached.

[Moulton]

I had an unpleasant encounter with Filll back in 2007, where he tried to keep reliable medical sources from a topic that he (incorrectly of course) considered fringe. From his posts at the time, his IQ could easily be below 20. There was a whole string of complaints about him by numerous users (we had to number them for easier reference) but of course nothing was ever done, he had protection.

For the life of me, I don't understand why the current ArbCom doesn't review the corruption that emanated from the rest of IDCab, and not just FeloniousMonk.

[EricBarbour]

Dunno what Filll's IQ is, but you may recall that Raul and Jimbo both rushed to his aid when his stature and standing were in jeopardy.

I had an unpleasant encounter with Filll back in 2007, where he tried to keep reliable medical sources from a topic that he (incorrectly of course) considered fringe. From his posts at the time, his IQ could easily be below 20. There was a whole string of complaints about him by numerous users (we had to number them for easier reference) but of course nothing was ever done, he had protection.

Please, let's not have this thread be derailed by discussion of Obama's birth certificate.....

The real issue here is simple: Is Filll batshit-crazy? I think his open and aggressive
support of "birther" beliefs adds to the proof.

I've seen Orly Taitz on TV, and yeah, she's nuts.

Finding evidence on-wiki of Filll's crazy shit is not difficult.
(I defy anyone to figure out what the hell he's trying to say there.)

And again, Moulton and Appliantologist have done a very thorough job of proving
and documenting that Filll=Bob Stevens of Bowie MD, a clearly bigoted and
arrogant white man......just remember his berserk AN arguments about
ScienceApologist and various pseudoscience articles, not to mention the ID gang.
A lot of them have Filll spewing abuse--very badly, and very stupidly.

The mystery is this: why does Raul (or anyone) protect this guy?
For that matter, why does Wikipedia not have a rule against fomenting racial bigotry?
Perhaps because such a rule might prevent POV-pushing by insiders?

Wikipedia: the encyclopedia where you can insert bias as truth!

[Moulton]

The mystery is this: why does Raul (or anyone) protect this guy?

It really is a mystery.

Filll was a protege of FeloniousMonk.

Before the ArbCom case blew up in FM's face, Jimbo, Cary, and Raul were protecting FM, Filll, and their IDCab gang.

Jimbo backed a gang of losers, and now they are stuck in a pickle over it.

[SB_Johnny]

Please, let's not have this thread be derailed by discussion of Obama's birth certificate.....

No, can't have that!

BTW, is there an actual link somewhere to where he's "defending" the article and/or its subject on Wikipedia? I've heard of him, but haven't really had any contact with him as far as I know.

[CharlotteWebb]

It could well be, but they are really totally separate issues. I, for example, am quite happy to have Obama as president, and would be, even if he had been born in Kenya to an underage mother. It's rather a shame that the US constitution makes blood or birth location proxies for where somebody's loyalties lie. Clearly that's a matter of the mind. I think the document should be changed so that anyone who is a legal US citizen may run, and leave the matter of loyalty detection up to the voter.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say earlier.

[grievous]

(IMG:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/141/369925948_c431c7d3d7_o_d.jpg)

[Milton Roe]

Dunno what Filll's IQ is, but you may recall that Raul and Jimbo both rushed to his aid when his stature and standing were in jeopardy.

I had an unpleasant encounter with Filll back in 2007, where he tried to keep reliable medical sources from a topic that he (incorrectly of course) considered fringe. From his posts at the time, his IQ could easily be below 20. There was a whole string of complaints about him by numerous users (we had to number them for easier reference) but of course nothing was ever done, he had protection.

Please, let's not have this thread be derailed by discussion of Obama's birth certificate.....

The real issue here is simple: Is Filll batshit-crazy? I think his open and aggressive
support of "birther" beliefs adds to the proof.

I've seen Orly Taitz on TV, and yeah, she's nuts.

Finding evidence on-wiki of Filll's crazy shit is not difficult.
(I defy anyone to figure out what the hell he's trying to say there.)

You've got me, but thanks for the ref for some July, 2007 blast-from-the-past stuff on the ID article FA debate. Particular fun is where FM spills the beans that SandyGeorge has been out all the time with a secret agenda: trying to MARGINALIZE respected editors SlimVirgin and Raul654, who have been shivering in the cold out there, with no backup, in 2007. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) . OrangeMarlin and Filll both say "Thanks for explaining this, Felonius!" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Wow, you see, it was just a group of editors trying to gain power over poor marginalized SlimV, Raul, FM, and other powerless WP editors in July, 2007. Golly. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Comment Sandy, yes we know all about your campaign against Raul645 that you, Marskell, and Tony1 have been conducting, trying to undermine him here at FA for some time, over a year now it appears. The entire project does. It's transparent that your participation here is part of that campaign. Your little group has tightened the FA criteria to the point of absurdity, with all kinds of new ridiculous rules about how citations should be written, and quality of writing and sources, which you guys simply ignore when when it suits you. Your new rules go way, way too far, and were made without any substantive community input. It's clear to observers that your little group tries to maintain the FA review process to give them more control over FA content and guidelines, and you frequently use it as a weapon, either against Raul or against individual editors; both being the case here. A good number of we admins have watching this from the sidelines for several months now, so don't make the mistake thinking that you're going to continue on like this at FA unopposed... the cat is out of the bag. This behavior of yours matters because several of the best FA writers have stopped writing FAs because of your group and it methods I've outlined. I'll also note Marksell and Tim Vickers (another from your group) have recently turned up at NOR, V, and RS trying to force unduly tightened sourcing policies too. This constitutes a pattern by a group, and the pattern shows that the group's aims are not the betterment of the project, but undermining and marginalizing fellow volunteers like Raul654 and SlimVirgin. Until you stop trying to impose inane new FA criteria and cease engaging in selective enforcement of same, I'm taking a personal interest in seeing your group's vendetta against Raul654 and SlimVirgin aired out and ended for good. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Sandy's rude comment. Yes it passed. Of course, since I participated for several months in editing and building the article, I would be clueless to whether it was FA or not. And thank you FM for pointing out what's going on here. I didn't know. Orangemarlin 06:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea. This is more complicated than it appears at first glance. Thanks FeloniousMonk.--Filll 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[UserB]

Those of us who are conservatives absolutely despise the whole birther thing and wish these people would go away. The media focuses on them and tries to make it look like they are mainline conservatives - they aren't - they are kooks.

Right now, health care and cap+tax are two major issues on the table where we believe there is a high potential for harm to be done to the country if either becomes law as is, but the whole birther thing provides Obama a way to paint all of his opponents as nutjobs. Obama could, were he so inclined, order the release of a copy of his "long form" birth certificate, but I'm sure not releasing it is a calculated move - he wants the issue out there so that he can continue pointing at the silly RWNJs.

I looked into it when the issue first surfaced. The theory that he was born in Kenya but there was a vast conspiracy to make it look like he was really born here just in case he ever wanted to be President some day was utterly nutty and barely dignifies a response. The original Berg lawsuit did have one interesting piece to it, though. It claimed that his citizenship lapsed when he was adopted by his mother's second husband. Last fall, I wondered if there might have been something to this. At least it didn't involve believing in obviously disproven facts. But a previous SCT case Perkins v. Elg ruled that this loss of citizenship was not possible. It's indisputable that he's a citizen and the conservative movement would be much better off if this garbage would just go away.

As for Filll, this certainly falls into the "interesting if true" category. He apparently was into birtherism as far back as November of last year - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=252392826

He certainly seems to have done a 180.

[Moulton]

He certainly seems to have done a 180.

He's definitely undergone a phase change.

Then again, at one time he was employed as a researcher in climatology.

Evidently he had a meltdown.

[Milton Roe]

Filll, as Kato noted above, has been active on Skype for many years.

He landed on a right-wing Skypecast that called itself "Skype Assholes" (they even have a web site promoting their show, which runs 24/7). It was there that "Appliantologist" ran into Filll Bob Stevens (Bob.in.MD) and contacted me. Since then, "Appliantologist" has recorded some of the racist rants on the Skypecast, including those of Filll, which he then posted on YouTube, with links thereto from a blog called Filll-Fan-Club.

I have no idea how or why Filll descended from his IDCab role on the English Wikipedia into the openly racist character he has become today, but there is no doubt that it's the same person. His voice is quite recognizable on the Skypcasts, and his Skype ID is well known from his previous appearances on NotTheWikipediaWeekly.

It's all rather bizarre, and begging for analysis.

Note, also, that Filll was a disciple of FeloniousMonk and lamented the decision of ArbCom to act against FM.

Incidentally, Appliantologist compiled a fair amount of additional research to confirm that Filll is Robert Evan Stevens, a one-time climate modeler who lived and worked in Bowie MD.

Well, it certainly does appear that Filll (T-C-L-K-R-D) is working hard on behalf of Orly Taitz, main Birther conspiracist. Here's some more from his to-do page on WP. All that stuff was added by Filll.

"Appliantologist" appears to be a satire of ScienceApologist (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a humorless exhibit A for the perils of Scientism as a complete outlook on life (at least if you have no sense of humor and not much empathy). And bedeviler of Mouton on WP on the Picard and ID-cabal business. And I went to Appliantologist's Filll fan club website to see the promised "Bob Stevens'" racist rants, but all had been erased. What remains is the face of our French Canadian Filll from his personals ad (located long ago) and some personal info on him, as Stevens. Supposedly he was born in 1967 and is 42.

All of this is weird. First of all, the Filll fanclub blog is nearly insane with hatred for Filll. Somebody doesn't like Filll at all, at all. http://filll-fan-club.blogspot.com/

The photo of "Filll" looks about 32. Maybe 22. But Filll wouldn't be the first man to use an outdated photo in a personals ad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) So maybe he is 42.

Odder to me is the implied political stance. French Canadians are not exactly known for political views that are rightwing even by US standards. Filll's a guy who attacks creationism/ID and denial of human-caused global warming-- these are all standard rightwing ideas in the US. He should love the US democrats (which are center of the road politically in Canada) and certainly should be happy with Obama's views, which dovetail his own.

Maybe he's smitten with Orly Taitz (Google her image). But the whole "stopsocialism.wordpress.com" thing? It just doen't sound very Canadian. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

But okay, I'll bite. Maybe it is him. I think if "Filll" continues with his worship of the standard mainstream scientific view, he and the American right wing are going to find themselves uncomfortable bedfellows. And goodness knows what viewpoints Filll is going to try to ram through Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[Moulton]

As far as I know, there is no linkage between Appliantologist on Skype and ScienceApologist on WP. Appliantologist is not a Wikipedian. He's into Skype and YouTube.

The last I checked (a few days ago), Appliantologist still had at least one YouTube video with one of Filll's racist rants. This one featured a sendup of Filll as a South Park cartoon character. Previously, Appliantologist had sent me long audio recordings from the Skypecast. They are painful to listen to.

The level of mean-spiritedness on the Skype Assholes audiocast is beyond belief.

[One]

The people who dislike Obama (which apparently includes this Filll weirdo) should drop this nonsense.

I think UserB is right on the money about this. People who dislike Obama wish that this would go away because it's a lazy way to discredit conservatives. Birthers horrify conservatives as a class (and I'm speaking as one of them).

We're not alone either. Consider the unanimous House resolution declaring Obama to be born in Hawaii, including votes representing the reddest Bible-thumping panhandle districts in the country.

[Moulton]

Appliantologist reports that Filll was so upset that his racist rants on Skype and his Orly Taitz connection made it onto a YouTube video that he's vanished from the scene.

[Kato]

Appliantologist reports that Filll was so upset that his racist rants on Skype and his Orly Taitz connection made it onto a YouTube video that he's vanished from the scene.

Frustratingly, the guy who has it in for Filll on that blog (who presumably is Appliantologist) seems incapable of clearly presenting a case.

His blog is a mess. I clicked on the recent post and had to sit through a load of bullshit from Southpark before getting close to what was going on. The formatting is terrible and half the videos don't work. When you first mentioned the site a while back, Moulton, I couldn't make head nor tail of what it was trying to say, so gave up in frustration.

[Moulton]

Appliantologist seems more enamored of the video production toys than presenting a well-crafted message. Then again, the audience for his blog was Filll, himself, more than anyone else.

[CharlotteWebb]

The document that the birthers are demanding Obama to release is the Certificate of Live Birth, which is not the same thing as a birth certificate.

A Certificate of Live Birth is a document completed (or at least signed and sworn) by the physician in attendance at a live birth as to the particulars of that birth. This document becomes a part of the physician's records (or, more typically the hospital's), and copies are filed with the county and the state. A copy of this document is not normally provided to the parents or the child, and most people would not have a copy of their certificate of live birth (or even know that the document exists).

The copies of a Certificate of Live Birth filed with the county and the state are not available for public inspection, and the copy filed with the state is the final legal proof of a person's birth. In most states, the only people who may inspect these certificates, absent a court order (and such orders are rarely ever granted), are the immediate relatives of the named party, certain public health officials, and officials of the state or county archives. Furthermore, these certificates may not be copied or removed from the archives, except by officials of the archives for the express purpose of data preservation (and for no other purpose). If someone somehow ends up with a copy of a certificate of live birth outside the archives, that certificate is not valid for any legal purpose and is presumptively fraudulent.

A birth certificate, on the other hand, is a document issued by a government agency (typically a county) attesting to the fact that it has upon its files a Certificate of Live Birth that indicates that the person named therein was born at the place and time specified of the parents specified in the certificate. Such a certificate (all certificates are "original" if they bear the seal of the appropriate agency, regardless of date of issue) is sufficient proof of birth for just about any legal purpose; the only exception would be in a proceeding in which the specific details of the birth have been challenged, and the burden of proof in such a challenge is typically very high.

The birthers are demanding the Certificate of Live Birth because they know it (a) exists and (b) cannot be produced. Makes for good political theatre.

Apparently teh White House has released same this morning:

President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate

Certificate of Live Birth

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I have no idea what this is all about but I hard heard that President Obama's grandmammy was from the British Isles ...

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[melloden]

"Donald Trump Beside Himself With Glee After Obama Birth Certificate Release" ...

Wow.

[Michaeldsuarez]

"Donald Trump Beside Himself With Glee After Obama Birth Certificate Release" ...

Wow.

I'm just wondering why it took so long. I always assumed that there was an embarrassing typo or coffee stain, but it appears fine.

[Somey]

I'm just wondering why it took so long. I always assumed that there was an embarrassing typo or coffee stain, but it appears fine.

You mean, why it took so long for Trump to take credit? I believe he was on a plane at the time, and on planes they don't let you use your cell phone, much less hold press conferences in front of multiple cameras. I doubt that having a coffee stain on his tie (or a typo, or whatever) would have stopped Trump from attempting to grab more attention for itself.

[Sxeptomaniac]

"Donald Trump Beside Himself With Glee After Obama Birth Certificate Release" ...

Wow.

I'm just wondering why it took so long. I always assumed that there was an embarrassing typo or coffee stain, but it appears fine.

It took a while because the "long form" was on file and the state of Hawaii does not normally release that version. They make certified printouts like the one that was released years ago. Those are all the average citizen will get and cover all legal purposes for establishing birth. Up until the colossal douchebag known as Trump started hogging airtime, it wasn't a particularly big priority to go asking for a special exception. Obama had already thoroughly established his natural-born citizenship for all reasonable people.

[Somey]

I'm just wondering why it took so long. I always assumed that there was an embarrassing typo or coffee stain, but it appears fine.

It took a while because the "long form" was on file and the state of Hawaii does not normally release that version...

Oh, you think he's talking about that? I assumed he was talking about Trump itself - actually, I was wondering why he thought Trump "appears fine" when in fact it appears to be a disgusting rich ball of slime with a bad combover, but I didn't want to confuse things.

[Sxeptomaniac]

I'm just wondering why it took so long. I always assumed that there was an embarrassing typo or coffee stain, but it appears fine.

It took a while because the "long form" was on file and the state of Hawaii does not normally release that version...

Oh, you think he's talking about that? I assumed he was talking about Trump itself - actually, I was wondering why he thought Trump "appears fine" when in fact it appears to be a disgusting rich ball of slime with a bad combover, but I didn't want to confuse things.

Your logic and premises appear to be sound. Perhaps I was the one mistaken.

[tarantino]

I'm just wondering why it took so long. I always assumed that there was an embarrassing typo or coffee stain, but it appears fine.

It took a while because the "long form" was on file and the state of Hawaii does not normally release that version...

Oh, you think he's talking about that? I assumed he was talking about Trump itself - actually, I was wondering why he thought Trump "appears fine" when in fact it appears to be a disgusting rich ball of slime with a bad combover, but I didn't want to confuse things.

It's not your ordinary combover. It's the rarely seen double combover!

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Donald_Trump_announcing_latest_David_Blaine_feat.jpg/480px-Donald_Trump_announcing_latest_David_Blaine_feat.jpg)
(photo credit to wikimedia foundation's favorite sockpuppet master, David Shankbone)

[EricBarbour]

And if that's not funny enough...........

Here's the Free Republic nerds talking about the birth certificate.

[radek]

And if that's not funny enough...........

Here's the Free Republic nerds talking about the birth certificate.

It's reassuring to know that there are still places with crazier crazies than Wikipedia out there.

[Zoloft]

And if that's not funny enough...........

Here's the Free Republic nerds talking about the birth certificate.

It's reassuring to know that there are still places with crazier crazies than Wikipedia out there.

Oh, try HillBuzz some time. Here's the mix:

Hillary Clinton devotees set up a site to promote her candidacy in 2008. The site is run by gay activists from Chicago with a lot of women and elderly as members. Obama arises as the Democratic candidate, narrowly beating her (in their view, by cheating). They throw up racist, conspiratorial, and rightist fantasies and then move to the right for McCain in the general election. They delude themselves that all the polls are wrong and wake up aghast one morning with Obama as President.

The scheming, streaming madness begins. The site becomes a pit of Birther, Tea Party, anti-liberal stew.

Hillbuzz: Madness Central

[Somey]

Much of the spinbuzz that's been going around today has focused on this idea that Obama has "disappointed" people by "giving in to pressure" from Trump to produce the birth certificate, thereby giving Trump a "big victory" which further legitimizes Trump as a Presidential candidate. But if we accept that US Republicans would never be so stupid as to actually nominate Trump, is that really such a bad idea, strategically? It's classic divide-and-conquer if you ask me - he's trying to get the other Republicans to run against Trump instead of against Obama, and that can only be a positive for Obama since it will make the Republicans look even more ridiculous than they do already. And in the unlikely event that they do nominate Trump, then Trump almost certainly can't win... but in the unlikely event that Trump does win, who would want to live in the United States at that point anyway? We all might as well just move to North Korea. Hell, North Korea would probably be lookin' pretty good at that point.

They don't have internet in North Korea, though. I'm just sayin'.

[Gruntled]

They don't have internet in North Korea, though. I'm just sayin'.

Oh dear. That will hinder my attempts to become an admin on the Korean WP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[Sxeptomaniac]

And if that's not funny enough...........

Here's the Free Republic nerds talking about the birth certificate.

Gotta love how they are doing "analysis" of the PDF to supposedly show how the layering of the PDF image must mean it was a crappy photoshop job. Birthers must find a way to believe what they want.

Never mind that it's the standard effect of Adobe Acrobat's OCR, or that the lack of anything under the layered text indicates it was just a scan. Nope. Instead, birthers are listening to a hack graphic designer that knows nothing about what he's talking about.

[bi-winning]

Much of the spinbuzz that's been going around today has focused on this idea that Obama has "disappointed" people by "giving in to pressure" from Trump to produce the birth certificate, thereby giving Trump a "big victory" which further legitimizes Trump as a Presidential candidate. But if we accept that US Republicans would never be so stupid as to actually nominate Trump, is that really such a bad idea, strategically? It's classic divide-and-conquer if you ask me - he's trying to get the other Republicans to run against Trump instead of against Obama, and that can only be a positive for Obama since it will make the Republicans look even more ridiculous than they do already. And in the unlikely event that they do nominate Trump, then Trump almost certainly can't win... but in the unlikely event that Trump does win, who would want to live in the United States at that point anyway? We all might as well just move to North Korea. Hell, North Korea would probably be lookin' pretty good at that point.

They don't have internet in North Korea, though. I'm just sayin'.

Why not give credit to the joke candidate? If Trump gets a bump (not even a nom), it makes the whole party look like a joke.

[Somey]

Why not give credit to the joke candidate? If Trump gets a bump (not even a nom), it makes the whole party look like a joke.

I'm not sure I'm quite catching the nub of your gist here, squadron leader...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Trump does what it does because it can't do anything else - the few ounces of icky offal and slimy, smelly goo that fills its head-like appendage tell it to do these things, and the rest of the Trump Entity merely follows instructions. If a certain percentage of Republicans think Trump is a viable candidate and would vote for it, then sure, this is laughable, hardy-har-har - but the humor value isn't an intentional effect on Trump's part. Trump isn't really self-aware to that degree; Trump has no "sense of humor" in any real sense.

Remember, the Democrats nominated Michael Dukakis at one point. Sure, they'd been having some bad times back then, maybe were tying one on a bit too often, having trouble at home, and so on... and yeah, I know, at least Michael Dukakis was human. But speaking only for myself, I'm not so jaded as to think that American politics benefits from these kinds of "joke" candidacies. This sort of thing should be relegated to elections for Senior Class President at High Schools, or hazing pranks at the Kiwanis Club, or maybe something even sillier like a WMF Board election. I mean, the President has control of nuclear weapons, or as they were called during the Bush II era, nukular weapons. That's no laughing matter, even if the North Koreans are about to get them too (which, I'll admit, is sort of funny as long as they never actually use them).

[EricBarbour]

So....what the hell ever happened to Filll anyway?
His blog is still dead, and he last made a change on WP back on March 25.

Did Barry Kort eat him or something? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

And he left so much undone! So young, so young!

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[victim of censorship]

The document that the birthers are demanding Obama to release is the Certificate of Live Birth, which is not the same thing as a birth certificate.

A Certificate of Live Birth is a document completed (or at least signed and sworn) by the physician in attendance at a live birth as to the particulars of that birth. This document becomes a part of the physician's records (or, more typically the hospital's), and copies are filed with the county and the state. A copy of this document is not normally provided to the parents or the child, and most people would not have a copy of their certificate of live birth (or even know that the document exists).

The copies of a Certificate of Live Birth filed with the county and the state are not available for public inspection, and the copy filed with the state is the final legal proof of a person's birth. In most states, the only people who may inspect these certificates, absent a court order (and such orders are rarely ever granted), are the immediate relatives of the named party, certain public health officials, and officials of the state or county archives. Furthermore, these certificates may not be copied or removed from the archives, except by officials of the archives for the express purpose of data preservation (and for no other purpose). If someone somehow ends up with a copy of a certificate of live birth outside the archives, that certificate is not valid for any legal purpose and is presumptively fraudulent.

A birth certificate, on the other hand, is a document issued by a government agency (typically a county) attesting to the fact that it has upon its files a Certificate of Live Birth that indicates that the person named therein was born at the place and time specified of the parents specified in the certificate. Such a certificate (all certificates are "original" if they bear the seal of the appropriate agency, regardless of date of issue) is sufficient proof of birth for just about any legal purpose; the only exception would be in a proceeding in which the specific details of the birth have been challenged, and the burden of proof in such a challenge is typically very high.

The birthers are demanding the Certificate of Live Birth because they know it (a) exists and (b) cannot be produced. Makes for good political theatre.

There is no question BHO Jr. was born in this country.

But, the question which should be asked is...
"Why didn't President Obama submitted this document sooner and squelch all of this nonsense long ago"???

I, and others who want jobs or passports, need to submit poof of birth, why is the president any different considering the constitutional requirement of being the US President???

Any rate, I think efforts are better spent now in bringing to light the failures of policy's, the misguided doctrines, the flawed philosophy and distorted world view this president has and the damage he has caused. The issue of the Obama's birth place is settled. He's a US citizen by birth.

Lets move forward to what is important.

[Zoloft]

The document that the birthers are demanding Obama to release is the Certificate of Live Birth, which is not the same thing as a birth certificate.

A Certificate of Live Birth is a document completed (or at least signed and sworn) by the physician in attendance at a live birth as to the particulars of that birth. This document becomes a part of the physician's records (or, more typically the hospital's), and copies are filed with the county and the state. A copy of this document is not normally provided to the parents or the child, and most people would not have a copy of their certificate of live birth (or even know that the document exists).

The copies of a Certificate of Live Birth filed with the county and the state are not available for public inspection, and the copy filed with the state is the final legal proof of a person's birth. In most states, the only people who may inspect these certificates, absent a court order (and such orders are rarely ever granted), are the immediate relatives of the named party, certain public health officials, and officials of the state or county archives. Furthermore, these certificates may not be copied or removed from the archives, except by officials of the archives for the express purpose of data preservation (and for no other purpose). If someone somehow ends up with a copy of a certificate of live birth outside the archives, that certificate is not valid for any legal purpose and is presumptively fraudulent.

A birth certificate, on the other hand, is a document issued by a government agency (typically a county) attesting to the fact that it has upon its files a Certificate of Live Birth that indicates that the person named therein was born at the place and time specified of the parents specified in the certificate. Such a certificate (all certificates are "original" if they bear the seal of the appropriate agency, regardless of date of issue) is sufficient proof of birth for just about any legal purpose; the only exception would be in a proceeding in which the specific details of the birth have been challenged, and the burden of proof in such a challenge is typically very high.

The birthers are demanding the Certificate of Live Birth because they know it (a) exists and (b) cannot be produced. Makes for good political theatre.

There is no question BHO Jr. was born in this country.

But, the question which should be asked is...
"Why didn't President Obama submitted this document sooner and squelch all of this nonsense long ago"???

I, and others who want jobs or passports, need to submit poof of birth, why is the president any different considering the constitutional requirement of being the US President???

Any rate, I think efforts are better spent now in bringing to light the failures of policy's, the misguided doctrines, the flawed philosophy and distorted world view this president has and the damage he has caused. The issue of the Obama's birth place is settled. He's a US citizen by birth.

Lets move forward to what is important.

So... Trump/Bachmann vs Obama/Biden in 2012... who would you vote for?

[Sxeptomaniac]

There is no question BHO Jr. was born in this country.

But, the question which should be asked is...
"Why didn't President Obama submitted this document sooner and squelch all of this nonsense long ago"???

Because until the douchebag with the bad combover started attracting a lot of press, it was obviously nonsense. The leaders of the movement were obvious fruit-loops like Orly Taitz. While also clearly quite a few cards short of a deck now, Trump carries with him a more established media personality that was more difficult to ignore.

Also, Hawaii wasn't willing to make a special exception until they realized the nut-cases weren't going to stop hounding them for a document that they could never legally release to a third party. Hawaii's actions in making the exception were a essentially shouting to the birthers, "now shut the &@$# up and leave us alone!"

I, and others who want jobs or passports, need to submit poof of birth, why is the president any different considering the constitutional requirement of being the US President???

He did submit proof; the same proof that would be required for a passport, job, driver's license, etc. Birthers just decided that the same level of proof that would settle the question for anyone else wasn't sufficient when it came to Obama. This is the reason why some believe the birthers are just racist; I don't believe that's necessarily true, as I think it's related to the conspiracy theories that were created during the Clinton administration.

[CharlotteWebb]

He did submit proof; the same proof that would be required for a passport, job, driver's license, etc. Birthers just decided that the same level of proof that would settle the question for anyone else wasn't sufficient when it came to Obama. This is the reason why some believe the birthers are just racist; I don't believe that's necessarily true, as I think it's related to the conspiracy theories that were created during the Clinton administration.

Maybe I'm too optimistic in assuming this is more about xenophobia than racism.

Maybe I'm too optimistic in assuming any U.S. citizen who has lived elsewhere (and/or has a foreign-born parent) would be viewed with the same suspicion regardless of skin color, at least by a subset of this "birther" movement.

Maybe I'm too optimistic in assuming he wouldn't have won the election if these points were anything reasonable to panic about.

Meh.

[Rhindle]

http://www.younggogetter.com/entrepreneur/...-jobs-on-1-page

Being Donald Trump is #9 in the top 50 Bullshit jobs to have.

[bi-winning]

Why not give credit to the joke candidate? If Trump gets a bump (not even a nom), it makes the whole party look like a joke.

I'm not sure I'm quite catching the nub of your gist here, squadron leader...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I mean anything Obama can do to make Trump seem like the Republican front runner in the polls makes Republicans look like imbeciles, not Trump (who does whatever he does, like you said).

So if Trump "gets credit," and a wave of appreciation from current and former birthers, better for Obama.

[Tarc]

But, the question which should be asked is...
"Why didn't President Obama submitted this document sooner and squelch all of this nonsense long ago"???

Basic "Rules for Radicals" tactics, JoJo. Let the enemy stretch out its neck too far, then decapitate when the time is right. Birtherism was on a fringe slow-burn for years until The Donald (a useful idiot if there ever was one) took it mainstream. Now all Republicans get to be tarred with birther-by-association accusations from now til election time.

Another Alinksy tactic was "ridicule is a potent weapon". The Correspondent's Dinner couldn't have come at a better time, Trump got eviscerated.

[Sololol]

He did submit proof; the same proof that would be required for a passport, job, driver's license, etc. Birthers just decided that the same level of proof that would settle the question for anyone else wasn't sufficient when it came to Obama. This is the reason why some believe the birthers are just racist; I don't believe that's necessarily true, as I think it's related to the conspiracy theories that were created during the Clinton administration.

Maybe I'm too optimistic in assuming this is more about xenophobia than racism.

Maybe I'm too optimistic in assuming any U.S. citizen who has lived elsewhere (and/or has a foreign-born parent) would be viewed with the same suspicion regardless of skin color, at least by a subset of this "birther" movement.

Sadly, the 2008 election already explored this question, in part. The nebulous "natural-born citizen" requirement has never been satisfactorily fleshed out. Hence law professors arguing that McCain does not meet the requirement (this prof graciously admits that it's a ridiculous WP:POINT and can expect a ban from NYT's ARBCOM). I've yet to hear of a birther batting an eye at this.

[victim of censorship]

But, the question which should be asked is...
"Why didn't President Obama submitted this document sooner and squelch all of this nonsense long ago"???

Basic "Rules for Radicals" tactics, JoJo. Let the enemy stretch out its neck too far, then decapitate when the time is right. Birtherism was on a fringe slow-burn for years until The Donald (a useful idiot if there ever was one) took it mainstream. Now all Republicans get to be tarred with birther-by-association accusations from now til election time.

Another Alinksy tactic was "ridicule is a potent weapon". The Correspondent's Dinner couldn't have come at a better time, Trump got eviscerated.

Obana is not wanting to united people (lie) but to cause divisiveness, and class hate to cause dividing and concurring. Obama is a liar, and thug.

[Milton Roe]

Obana is not wanting to united people (lie) but to cause divisiveness, and class hate to cause dividing and concurring. Obama is a liar, and thug.

But he's coming up fast in the war videogame operation thing, you gotta admit that. The essential Americanness shows through, no matter what. You don't need no stinkin' birth certificate-- he's clearly one of OURS.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Gruntled]

Obama is a liar, and thug.

So VoC doesn't like Obama? Nor does HK. What can we conclude from that?

[The Joy]

Obama is a liar, and thug.

So VoC doesn't like Obama? Nor does HK. What can we conclude from that?

One is Donald Trump and the other is Donald Trump's hair?

[Somey]

Obana is not wanting to united people (lie) but to cause divisiveness, and class hate to cause dividing and concurring. Obama is a liar, and thug.

I couldn't even understand that first sentence at all...? The second, coming after the first, also made no sense, though of course if you take it by itself it's completely untrue.

Anyway, I suppose it's to be expected that the birthers would now be saying things like "it's time we put all this behind us and concentrated on what's really important for America" and all that rubbish, as if they would know. Personally, I think it's long-since time we concentrated on getting the birthers themselves deported, except I doubt anybody else would take them.

(China might I suppose, but they'd have to keep their mouths shut pretty much 100 percent of the time, and that wouldn't be easy for 'em.)

[Tarc]

But, the question which should be asked is...
"Why didn't President Obama submitted this document sooner and squelch all of this nonsense long ago"???

Basic "Rules for Radicals" tactics, JoJo. Let the enemy stretch out its neck too far, then decapitate when the time is right. Birtherism was on a fringe slow-burn for years until The Donald (a useful idiot if there ever was one) took it mainstream. Now all Republicans get to be tarred with birther-by-association accusations from now til election time.

Another Alinksy tactic was "ridicule is a potent weapon". The Correspondent's Dinner couldn't have come at a better time, Trump got eviscerated.

Obana is not wanting to united people (lie) but to cause divisiveness, and class hate to cause dividing and concurring. Obama is a liar, and thug.

Don't bring a knife to a gun battle, JoJo.

[victim of censorship]

Obana is not wanting to united people (lie) but to cause divisiveness, and class hate to cause dividing and concurring. Obama is a liar, and thug.

I couldn't even understand that first sentence at all...? The second, coming after the first, also made no sense, though of course if you take it by itself it's completely untrue.

Anyway, I suppose it's to be expected that the birthers would now be saying things like "it's time we put all this behind us and concentrated on what's really important for America" and all that rubbish, as if they would know. Personally, I think it's long-since time we concentrated on getting the birthers themselves deported, except I doubt anybody else would take them.

(China might I suppose, but they'd have to keep their mouths shut pretty much 100 percent of the time, and that wouldn't be easy for 'em.)

Sorry for the bad grammar... What I wanted to write is

Obama is not uniting people, but pulling them apart, by classes and races. This divisiveness and hate is what Obama wants to created. I consider Obama a Liar and a political thug.

But, the question which should be asked is...
"Why didn't President Obama submitted this document sooner and squelch all of this nonsense long ago"???

Basic "Rules for Radicals" tactics, JoJo. Let the enemy stretch out its neck too far, then decapitate when the time is right. Birtherism was on a fringe slow-burn for years until The Donald (a useful idiot if there ever was one) took it mainstream. Now all Republicans get to be tarred with birther-by-association accusations from now til election time.

Another Alinksy tactic was "ridicule is a potent weapon". The Correspondent's Dinner couldn't have come at a better time, Trump got eviscerated.

Obana is not wanting to united people (lie) but to cause divisiveness, and class hate to cause dividing and concurring. Obama is a liar, and thug.

Don't bring a knife to a gun battle, JoJo.

I just bring a BMG caliber 7.62mm.

[Zoloft]

Obana is not wanting to united people (lie) but to cause divisiveness, and class hate to cause dividing and concurring. Obama is a liar, and thug.

I couldn't even understand that first sentence at all...? The second, coming after the first, also made no sense, though of course if you take it by itself it's completely untrue.

Anyway, I suppose it's to be expected that the birthers would now be saying things like "it's time we put all this behind us and concentrated on what's really important for America" and all that rubbish, as if they would know. Personally, I think it's long-since time we concentrated on getting the birthers themselves deported, except I doubt anybody else would take them.

(China might I suppose, but they'd have to keep their mouths shut pretty much 100 percent of the time, and that wouldn't be easy for 'em.)

Sorry for the bad grammar... What I wanted to write is

Obama is not uniting people, but pulling them apart, by classes and races. This divisiveness and hate is what Obama wants to created. I consider Obama a Liar and a political thug.

But, the question which should be asked is...
"Why didn't President Obama submitted this document sooner and squelch all of this nonsense long ago"???

Basic "Rules for Radicals" tactics, JoJo. Let the enemy stretch out its neck too far, then decapitate when the time is right. Birtherism was on a fringe slow-burn for years until The Donald (a useful idiot if there ever was one) took it mainstream. Now all Republicans get to be tarred with birther-by-association accusations from now til election time.

Another Alinksy tactic was "ridicule is a potent weapon". The Correspondent's Dinner couldn't have come at a better time, Trump got eviscerated.

Obana is not wanting to united people (lie) but to cause divisiveness, and class hate to cause dividing and concurring. Obama is a liar, and thug.

Don't bring a knife to a gun battle, JoJo.

I just bring a BMG caliber 7.62mm.

*sigh*
Let's stop picking on Joe's grammar:

Obama doesn't unite people; he pulls them apart, dividing them by class and race. This divisiveness and hate is what Obama wants to create. I consider Obama a liar and a political thug.


That's what he meant to say.

Oh, and I've seen a guy with a knife win a gunfight. The other guy was overconfident.

This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[Sxeptomaniac]

Obama is not uniting people, but pulling them apart, by classes and races. This divisiveness and hate is what Obama wants to created. I consider Obama a Liar and a political thug.

I'm curious what examples you have of Obama's hate and divisiveness. It just seems like the version of Obama by extreme detractors is a little jarring when you actually look at what the man says and does.

[Milton Roe]

Obama is not uniting people, but pulling them apart, by classes and races. This divisiveness and hate is what Obama wants to created. I consider Obama a Liar and a political thug.

I'm curious what examples you have of Obama's hate and divisiveness. It just seems like the version of Obama by extreme detractors is a little jarring when you actually look at what the man says and does.

Ya think?

We haven't had such a sane, even-tempered, intelligent, and basically humanistic person in the white house in my life time. Clinton and JKF come closest, but JFK had a core of I-don't-give-a-shit and Obama I think actually cares. Clinton was full of himself in a way that beats even Obama. Obama beats Eisenhower in temperment, and has Carter's intelligence and temperment with Eisenhower's organizational skills (which Carter lacked).

It's the world's nastiest and hardest and most thankless job. In a country which has been totally screwed up for years. And he's coping with it. Who do you like better, folks? I mean, really?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

We haven't had such a sane, even-tempered, intelligent, and basically humanistic person in the white house in my life time. Clinton and JKF come closest, but JFK had a core of I-don't-give-a-shit and Obama I think actually cares. Clinton was full of himself in a way that beats even Obama. Obama beats Eisenhower in temperment, and has Carter's intelligence and temperment with Eisenhower's organizational skills (which Carter lacked).

It's the world's nastiest and hardest and most thankless job. In a country which has been totally screwed up for years. And he's coping with it. Who do you like better, folks? I mean, really?

We need an icon for "gag me with a spoon." While I certainly don't buy into Joe's theory that Obama is a closet Marxist, I consider him to be as destructive as Dubya. He is utterly indifferent to the suffering of the poor, whether they be Haitians or the Alabamans that just lost whole cities to tornadoes. He is monomaniacally committed to the care and feeding of Wall Street, while uttering transparently insincere platitudes of concern about Main Street. He is presiding Neronically over the shutdown of the most basic and essential infrastructure and services, while waging 3 unnecessary wars and shoveling mindblowing amounts of cash into the gaping maw of the financial speculators.

And yes -- when it comes to those speculators, Obama "actually cares."

[victim of censorship]

Obama is not uniting people, but pulling them apart, by classes and races. This divisiveness and hate is what Obama wants to created. I consider Obama a Liar and a political thug.

I'm curious what examples you have of Obama's hate and divisiveness. It just seems like the version of Obama by extreme detractors is a little jarring when you actually look at what the man says and does.

Ya think?

We haven't had such a sane, even-tempered, intelligent, and basically humanistic person in the white house in my life time. Clinton and JKF come closest, but JFK had a core of I-don't-give-a-shit and Obama I think actually cares. Clinton was full of himself in a way that beats even Obama. Obama beats Eisenhower in temperment, and has Carter's intelligence and temperment with Eisenhower's organizational skills (which Carter lacked).

It's the world's nastiest and hardest and most thankless job. In a country which has been totally screwed up for years. And he's coping with it. Who do you like better, folks? I mean, really?

Obama is basically just a product of the political crucible of the Chicago south side where bullying and other "vote early vote often" tactics are the norm. Where Demagoguery and lies are practice as an art form.

You say look what the man says... ok lets check this out... Obama's speech of April 13, 2011 speech. Lets read first the speech...


And lets read the Analysis of Obama's speech by factcheck.org...

The typical narrative of "it's Bush's fault" "it's the fat cats that need to be taxed" that "Republicans hate people" nada nada nada .. is all themes that create divisiveness and don't jive with the truth of the situation.

In so many words, links and commentary, BHO is a Lying sack...

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The typical narrative of "it's Bush's fault" "it's the fat cats that need to be taxed" that "Republicans hate people" nada nada nada .. is all themes that create divisiveness and don't jive with the truth of the situation.

Well, Vic, Bush did trash the country for 8 years, and now Obama is continuing to trash it. Defending Bush doesn't strengthen your argument. It is, in fact, the fat cats that need to be taxed, but Obama won't do that. He will, however, talk about it, and watch liberals get all moist and runny. Republicans don't hate people, they're just sort of indifferent to people and they think starvation and disease are simply social Darwinism and work, whereas Democrats think that starvation and disease are Gaia defending herself against too many evil humans. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the same thing. Many people confuse "jive" with "jibe," and sometimes it's funny.

[Zoloft]

The typical narrative of "it's Bush's fault" "it's the fat cats that need to be taxed" that "Republicans hate people" nada nada nada .. is all themes that create divisiveness and don't jive with the truth of the situation.

Well, Vic, Bush did trash the country for 8 years, and now Obama is continuing to trash it. Defending Bush doesn't strengthen your argument. It is, in fact, the fat cats that need to be taxed, but Obama won't do that. He will, however, talk about it, and watch liberals get all moist and runny. Republicans don't hate people, they're just sort of indifferent to people and they think starvation and disease are simply social Darwinism and work, whereas Democrats think that starvation and disease are Gaia defending herself against too many evil humans. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the same thing. Many people confuse "jive" with "jibe," and sometimes it's funny.

Politicians of whatever stripe give us all the old hand jive:

[Somey]

Well, Vic, Bush did trash the country for 8 years, and now Obama is continuing to trash it. Defending Bush doesn't strengthen your argument. It is, in fact, the fat cats that need to be taxed, but Obama won't do that. He will, however, talk about it, and watch liberals get all moist and runny. Republicans don't hate people, they're just sort of indifferent to people and they think starvation and disease are simply social Darwinism and work, whereas Democrats think that starvation and disease are Gaia defending herself against too many evil humans. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the same thing. Many people confuse "jive" with "jibe," and sometimes it's funny.

As you know, I personally don't think Obama is actively trying to "trash" the United States the way Bush did. I'm certainly not happy with the snail's pace of financial reform, which (come to think of it) might not be giving sufficient credit to snails. However, I'm also convinced that the Republicans would simply prevent any effort to provide sufficient regulatory oversight to investment bankers, etc., as long as they have the votes - which they do, at the moment.

I believe Obama would like to get the rich paying their fair share of taxes, but again, the Republicans will prevent this too, at nearly all costs. It may be that Obama doesn't want his "legacy" to be one of failure, which it probably would be if he made tax-the-rich the central focus of his administration - even though this is what most Americans actually want. Frankly, Obama's most costly mistake so far has been to trust (obviously false) Republican claims that they're interested in "bipartisan compromise" and other such claptrap, but the fact remains, if he doesn't have the votes, he doesn't have the votes.

It's interesting that the link Mr. Victim posted to factcheck.org buries the most important point at #5, and blithely reports that Obama's use of the term "millionaires and billionaires" to refer to people making over $250,000 per year means that he's "lying." The fact is, if that's your income and you aren't a millionaire, then you either haven't been making that much for very long, or you're living way beyond your means, or (more likely) both. Either way, the fact that Republicans would have us believe that such people aren't actually rich shows just how out-of-touch they are with current economic reality - and it's one of the scariest things about modern US society I can think of, in fact.

I guess if I had to come up with an analogy, it would be that the Republicans have been busy collectively butt-f*cking the United States and its citizens for the past 10-12 years or so, all the while proudly proclaiming that we're "enjoying it," while privately voicing concern amongst themselves that the boner pills they're forced to take to keep this up only allow them to butt-f*ck us for a limited period of time. Meanwhile, the best the Democrats can do is look sympathetic, and say they hope that the Republicans are using some sort of lubricant. (Hint: They're not!)

It seems especially hypocritical because the Republicans are the ones saying they're in favor of anti-sodomy laws.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I guess if I had to come up with an analogy, it would be that the Republicans have been busy collectively butt-f*cking the United States and its citizens for the past 10-12 years or so, all the while proudly proclaiming that we're "enjoying it," while privately voicing concern amongst themselves that the boner pills they're forced to take to keep this up only allow them to butt-f*ck us for a limited period of time. Meanwhile, the best the Democrats can do is look sympathetic, and say they hope that the Republicans are using some sort of lubricant. (Hint: They're not!)

I think your analogy (is there a pun here?) has merit, but I would modify it as follows: the actual authors of said butt-f*ckery are a financial oligarchy which is not particularly sentimental about partisan politics, but lately they have found the Republicans to be more cooperative. Amazingly, they got Bush elected to a second term, but they could see popular rage building and they knew that ride was coming to an end. So they found a chameleon, a guy that looks and talks like a Democrat but has all the same instincts, particularly a veneration for wealth, that one associates (lately) with Republicans. Then they poured an unprecedented amount of money into marketing him to the public, used some unknown threat to drive Hilary out of the race, and there you go.

“A new poll shows that President Obama’s approval rating is down to 41 percent. A lot of people that voted for him now say they liked him a lot better when he was a Democrat.” –Jay Leno

[victim of censorship]

The typical narrative of "it's Bush's fault" "it's the fat cats that need to be taxed" that "Republicans hate people" nada nada nada .. is all themes that create divisiveness and don't jive with the truth of the situation.

Well, Vic, Bush did trash the country for 8 years, and now Obama is continuing to trash it. Defending Bush doesn't strengthen your argument. It is, in fact, the fat cats that need to be taxed, but Obama won't do that. He will, however, talk about it, and watch liberals get all moist and runny. Republicans don't hate people, they're just sort of indifferent to people and they think starvation and disease are simply social Darwinism and work, whereas Democrats think that starvation and disease are Gaia defending herself against too many evil humans. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the same thing. Many people confuse "jive" with "jibe," and sometimes it's funny.

The "Bush did it all" rhetoric isn't working any more... Bush is gone it's Obama's mess now. Lets not forget, under Obama, the debt has increased in magnitude where under Obama, the surpasses all the other presidents, including bush combined!.

Also, lets not forgot most of Bush administration was under a hard core democratic "spend and tax" congress. The only fault I have with Bush, was Bush caved in to the democrats.

[victim of censorship]

Well, Vic, Bush did trash the country for 8 years, and now Obama is continuing to trash it. Defending Bush doesn't strengthen your argument. It is, in fact, the fat cats that need to be taxed, but Obama won't do that. He will, however, talk about it, and watch liberals get all moist and runny. Republicans don't hate people, they're just sort of indifferent to people and they think starvation and disease are simply social Darwinism and work, whereas Democrats think that starvation and disease are Gaia defending herself against too many evil humans. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the same thing. Many people confuse "jive" with "jibe," and sometimes it's funny.

As you know, I personally don't think Obama is actively trying to "trash" the United States the way Bush did. I'm certainly not happy with the snail's pace of financial reform, which (come to think of it) might not be giving sufficient credit to snails. However, I'm also convinced that the Republicans would simply prevent any effort to provide sufficient regulatory oversight to investment bankers, etc., as long as they have the votes - which they do, at the moment.

I believe Obama would like to get the rich paying their fair share of taxes, but again, the Republicans will prevent this too, at nearly all costs. It may be that Obama doesn't want his "legacy" to be one of failure, which it probably would be if he made tax-the-rich the central focus of his administration - even though this is what most Americans actually want. Frankly, Obama's most costly mistake so far has been to trust (obviously false) Republican claims that they're interested in "bipartisan compromise" and other such claptrap, but the fact remains, if he doesn't have the votes, he doesn't have the votes.

It's interesting that the link Mr. Victim posted to factcheck.org buries the most important point at #5, and blithely reports that Obama's use of the term "millionaires and billionaires" to refer to people making over $250,000 per year means that he's "lying." The fact is, if that's your income and you aren't a millionaire, then you either haven't been making that much for very long, or you're living way beyond your means, or (more likely) both. Either way, the fact that Republicans would have us believe that such people aren't actually rich shows just how out-of-touch they are with current economic reality - and it's one of the scariest things about modern US society I can think of, in fact.

I guess if I had to come up with an analogy, it would be that the Republicans have been busy collectively butt-f*cking the United States and its citizens for the past 10-12 years or so, all the while proudly proclaiming that we're "enjoying it," while privately voicing concern amongst themselves that the boner pills they're forced to take to keep this up only allow them to butt-f*ck us for a limited period of time. Meanwhile, the best the Democrats can do is look sympathetic, and say they hope that the Republicans are using some sort of lubricant. (Hint: They're not!)

It seems especially hypocritical because the Republicans are the ones saying they're in favor of anti-sodomy laws.

Again, the "Dan Rather liberal narrative" of Bush did this, did that, hates America yada yada yada gets old, tired and just propagates the lie which you eat up like candy.

and some more

In fact, you are wrong again, in light of the facts. You should take off the liberal tinted glasses and stop drinking the cool aid.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[victim of censorship]

The typical narrative of "it's Bush's fault" "it's the fat cats that need to be taxed" that "Republicans hate people" nada nada nada .. is all themes that create divisiveness and don't jive with the truth of the situation.

Well, Vic, Bush did trash the country for 8 years, and now Obama is continuing to trash it. Defending Bush doesn't strengthen your argument. It is, in fact, the fat cats that need to be taxed, but Obama won't do that. He will, however, talk about it, and watch liberals get all moist and runny. Republicans don't hate people, they're just sort of indifferent to people and they think starvation and disease are simply social Darwinism and work, whereas Democrats think that starvation and disease are Gaia defending herself against too many evil humans. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the same thing. Many people confuse "jive" with "jibe," and sometimes it's funny.

Politicians of whatever stripe give us all the old hand jive:

Here's a real hand Jive.....

[Sxeptomaniac]

Obama is not uniting people, but pulling them apart, by classes and races. This divisiveness and hate is what Obama wants to created. I consider Obama a Liar and a political thug.

I'm curious what examples you have of Obama's hate and divisiveness. It just seems like the version of Obama by extreme detractors is a little jarring when you actually look at what the man says and does.

Ya think?

We haven't had such a sane, even-tempered, intelligent, and basically humanistic person in the white house in my life time. Clinton and JKF come closest, but JFK had a core of I-don't-give-a-shit and Obama I think actually cares. Clinton was full of himself in a way that beats even Obama. Obama beats Eisenhower in temperment, and has Carter's intelligence and temperment with Eisenhower's organizational skills (which Carter lacked).

It's the world's nastiest and hardest and most thankless job. In a country which has been totally screwed up for years. And he's coping with it. Who do you like better, folks? I mean, really?

Obama is basically just a product of the political crucible of the Chicago south side where bullying and other "vote early vote often" tactics are the norm. Where Demagoguery and lies are practice as an art form.

You say look what the man says... ok lets check this out... Obama's speech of April 13, 2011 speech. Lets read first the speech...


And lets read the Analysis of Obama's speech by factcheck.org...

The typical narrative of "it's Bush's fault" "it's the fat cats that need to be taxed" that "Republicans hate people" nada nada nada .. is all themes that create divisiveness and don't jive with the truth of the situation.

In so many words, links and commentary, BHO is a Lying sack...

As usual, when I ask for some specific examples, I get a lot of dodgy and misread stuff.

If Obama is so hate-filled and divisive, what are some specific examples of this? It would be funny, the way the extreme right talks about Obama as if it's a given fact that he's a vindictive, iron-fisted dictatator, if they weren't so dead serious about it. It belongs in The Onion, it's so far away from any known reality.

[Somey]

Again, the "Dan Rather liberal narrative" of Bush did this, did that, hates America yada yada yada gets old, tired and just propagates the lie which you eat up like candy. ... In fact, you are wrong again, in light of the facts. You should take off the liberal tinted glasses and stop drinking the cool aid.

That's easy for you to say, when you're one of those doing the pitching, not the catching.

Let me just say this: I, and I hope the rest of America, will never forget the damage Bush and his pals did to the United States, damage that will take decades, not just years, to clean up and recover from. Do you know what a TRILLION DOLLARS is, Mr. Victim? It's 1,000 billion, a million million. It's an almost inconceivable amount of money, and that's how much Bush and his pals threw away on a personal revenge game in the Middle East, along with thousands of American lives and who knows how many tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghan civilians.

You're right - Bush shouldn't be "blamed," he should be arrested, tried, convicted, and punished. Whatever the sentence would be for mass murder and the greatest embezzlement of public funds in American history, that's what he should get, and this "narrative" will never "get old," ever, while this criminal is still at large.

If believing in enlightened capitalism, responsible government, fair taxation, and an end to cripplingly expensive military adventurism makes me a "liberal," then fine, I guess I'm a liberal. So you don't support those things, then? Well, more the fool you! You should move to North Korea, where they run things in a way that's more in line with your beliefs.

[Zoloft]

I like Ike.

I like his tax rates.

Good Ol' Republican icon, right?

If we had those tax rates back, the budget would have a huge surplus and we'd eliminate all the deficit in eight years.

[Somey]

If Obama is so hate-filled and divisive, what are some specific examples of this?

Don't hold your breath waiting for them to come up with even one. They'll just keep referring to the fact that he used the word "millionaires" to describe people making more than $250,000 per year, as if he'd committed some sort of crime.

It would be funny, the way the extreme right talks about Obama as if it's a given fact that he's a vindictive, iron-fisted dictatator, if they weren't so dead serious about it. It belongs in The Onion, it's so far away from any known reality.

I wish he were some sort of a "political thug." We've been living through what's easily the worst campaign of political obstructionism in US history, and it's long past time to start kicking some ass.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Also, lets not forgot most of Bush administration was under a hard core democratic "spend and tax" congress. The only fault I have with Bush, was Bush caved in to the democrats.

I'm certainly not happy with the snail's pace of financial reform, which (come to think of it) might not be giving sufficient credit to snails. However, I'm also convinced that the Republicans would simply prevent any effort to provide sufficient regulatory oversight to investment bankers, etc., as long as they have the votes - which they do, at the moment.

I believe Obama would like to get the rich paying their fair share of taxes, but again, the Republicans will prevent this too, at nearly all costs.

And yet somehow, none of the core policies have changed during 11 years of Republican presidents thwarted by Democratic congresses and vice versa. As Cee Lo Green would say, Ain't that some shit.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Obama is a liar, and thug.

So VoC doesn't like Obama? Nor does HK. What can we conclude from that?

Well, Mike, based on the statistics (which is supposed to be your bailiwick,) I would conclude that Vic and I are both U.S. citizens. There is also a high probability as well that we are both unemployed, and that neither of us is consumed by fantasies of being a buxom bottle-blonde babe, clutching a giant smiling orange phallus. But as is surely clear to those whose judgement has not been warped by vegetable eroticism, Vic and I have little in common politically.

[Gruntled]

I like Ike.

I like his tax rates.

Good Ol' Republican icon, right?

If we had those tax rates back, the budget would have a huge surplus and we'd eliminate all the deficit in eight years.

Eisenhower was always regarded with suspicion by hard-line Republicans as not really one of them.

[CharlotteWebb]

Republicans don't hate people, they're just sort of indifferent to people and they think starvation and disease are simply social Darwinism and work, whereas Democrats think that starvation and disease are Gaia defending herself against too many evil humans.

Conservative: practice social Darwinism but teach creationism so your voters don't catch on.
Liberal: acknowledge natural selection and its long-term benefits but do everything possible to prevent it.

It's like rain, on your wedding day.

[EricBarbour]

Conservative: practice social Darwinism but teach creationism so your voters don't catch on.
Liberal: acknowledge natural selection and its long-term benefits but do everything possible to prevent it.

Yep. Hypocrisy is the order of the day.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Conservative: practice social Darwinism but teach creationism so your voters don't catch on.
Liberal: acknowledge natural selection and its long-term benefits but do everything possible to prevent it.

Yep. Hypocrisy is the order of the day.

That's why I dislike conservatives and liberals. And Darwin.

[victim of censorship]

Conservative: practice social Darwinism but teach creationism so your voters don't catch on.
Liberal: acknowledge natural selection and its long-term benefits but do everything possible to prevent it.

Yep. Hypocrisy is the order of the day.

That's why I dislike conservatives and liberals. And Darwin.

This is why I don't like Liberals...



some talking points on BHO



How liberal journalist and Wikipeditots Think



This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[chrisoff]

Conservative: practice social Darwinism but teach creationism so your voters don't catch on.
Liberal: acknowledge natural selection and its long-term benefits but do everything possible to prevent it.

Yep. Hypocrisy is the order of the day.

That's why I dislike conservatives and liberals. And Darwin.

This is why I don't like Liberals...



some talking points on BHO



How liberal journalist and Wikipeditots Think

Hey, thanks for those. They are actually very funny. (Are you subversive?)

This post has been edited by chrisoff: