Once again Rush is right .

[habsheaven]

Keep telling yourself that.

No, it is based on his 4-year-history of promoting the same ideas and spouting off the same type of rhetoric. It is not because I personally don't like the guy.

[Star_Cards]

Eh, maybe it's just me but I'd also find it a bit racist (or at the very least extremely idiotic) if Rubio lost an election and somebody said back to Cuba for ol' Rubio, and the fact that nobody would ever think of saying back to Mexico for ol' Romney when Romney has just about the same relation to Mexico as Barack has to Kenya.

To believe in/continue to perpetuate the birther movement in 2012 you either have to be a complete moron or a bit racist, but you're right, Intimadator2007 probably isn't a racist.

I suppose I can see your point a bit, but still don't think it was racist. Ignorant, yes. I never saw the birther movement as being racist. I just saw them as being upset that a Republican wasn't in office so they grasped at anything possible to try to discredit obama rather talking about the actual ideals he has that they disagreed with. I see them more as a sore loser type of group than anything.

[AUTaxMan]

Keep telling yourself that.

So you are saying he does not have a history of spewing this type of class-warfare, anti-capitalist rhetoric?

[mrveggieman]

I suppose I can see your point a bit, but still don't think it was racist. Ignorant, yes. I never saw the birther movement as being racist. I just saw them as being upset that a Republican wasn't in office so they grasped at anything possible to try to discredit obama rather talking about the actual ideals he has that they disagreed with. I see them more as a sore loser type of group than anything.

I have to disagree with you on that point. Who is the majority of the tea party/birther movement? Angry white people along with a few idoitic blacks who are upset that a blackman is the POTUS. When clinton was in office yes the republicans said a few dumb things about him and tried to discredit him but no where on the level that they spend their every waking moment trying to discredit president obama. They little plan is going to backfire come election day when President Obama defeats romney in a landslide.

[habsheaven]

So you are saying he does not have a history of spewing this type of class-warfare, anti-capitalist rhetoric?

That's a pretty loaded question. I would not characterize any of his speeches as spewing or rhetoric. I also wouldn't characterize them as class-warfare or anti-capitalistic in nature.

Now if you said he has a history of wanting to be Robin Hood, I might agree.

[pghin08]

This whole deal reminds me of something that Jeff Daniels said on the first (or maybe second) episode of The Newsroom on HBO. His quote was that "people choose the facts they want now". That actually kind of rings true. With the wealth of information available with the popularization of the 24 hour news cycle and the internet, people can choose their own arguments, and then simply build facts or innuendos behind it. Do you really think that the Obama birther "controversy" would have happened 40 years ago on the scale in which it happened presently? No way. But it's part of this Limbaugh-Maher-internet lifestyle. People have an inherent tendency to be attracted to those who say what they want to hear.

I guess therein lies the biggest problem. People now have a greater capacity to hear those voices and read the words of those who support their own predispositions. And that leads to an absolute lack of challenge. People refuse to admit they have the ability to be wrong. If I believe that Obama was born in Kenya (or more accurately, if I WANT to believe that Obama was born in Kenya), then I can go on the internet/radio/tv and find tons of people who feel the same way I do, and I can champion their "evidence", whatever it may be, to legitimize my position. In reality, what we should do is establish our own thoughts or theories, and then try to figure out why we may be wrong. But that doesn't happen on a large scale anymore.

[Wickabee]

This whole deal reminds me of something that Jeff Daniels said on the first (or maybe second) episode of The Newsroom on HBO. His quote was that "people choose the facts they want now". That actually kind of rings true. With the wealth of information available with the popularization of the 24 hour news cycle and the internet, people can choose their own arguments, and then simply build facts or innuendos behind it. Do you really think that the Obama birther "controversy" would have happened 40 years ago on the scale in which it happened presently? No way. But it's part of this Limbaugh-Maher-internet lifestyle. People have an inherent tendency to be attracted to those who say what they want to hear.

I guess therein lies the biggest problem. People now have a greater capacity to hear those voices and read the words of those who support their own predispositions. And that leads to an absolute lack of challenge. People refuse to admit they have the ability to be wrong. If I believe that Obama was born in Kenya (or more accurately, if I WANT to believe that Obama was born in Kenya), then I can go on the internet/radio/tv and find tons of people who feel the same way I do, and I can champion their "evidence", whatever it may be, to legitimize my position. In reality, what we should do is establish our own thoughts or theories, and then try to figure out why we may be wrong. But that doesn't happen on a large scale anymore.

Or, maybe we should look at the evidence and then establish our thoughts and theories. Blindly making the decisions and then finding out if they make sense is what leads to the problem.

[pghin08]

Or, maybe we should look at the evidence and then establish our thoughts and theories. Blindly making the decisions and then finding out if they make sense is what leads to the problem.

I was a little unclear there. To me it was implied that looking at evidence is part of establishing a theory. Like a modified scientific method. You look at evidence, determine your hypothesis, and then figure out how you may be wrong. I didn't mean to sound like I was advocating blind ideals.

[Wickabee]

I was a little unclear there. To me it was implied that looking at evidence is part of establishing a theory. Like a modified scientific method. You look at evidence, determine your hypothesis, and then figure out how you may be wrong. I didn't mean to sound like I was advocating blind ideals.

Well, I would argue that the scientific process is look at some evidence, come up with a hypothesis and prove yourself correct at all costs, but I digress.

[MadMan1978]