What's new
By:

Is Obama a Natural Born US Citizen?

Is Obama A Natural Born US Citizen?

  • No, I'm a crazy *** birther

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • Yes, I'm a blind follower

    Votes: 8 33.3%

  • Maybe, but he's hiding something.

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • Who gives a rat's ***

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • Whatever Kicky says

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
I liked John Scalzi's blog post on this:

Obama’s Birth Certificate: It’s times like these that one has to make a conscious act of will to remember that in fact Americans are not getting stupider, they’ve always believed idiotic things about the politicians they hate. Believing that Obama was not born in the US long ago got placed on my list of Things That Suggest You May Be a Willful Moron, along with believing in horoscopes, being against immunizations, arguing against evolution and thinking 9/11 was an inside job (note: this is not a complete list), so it’s not entirely surprising to me that the President releasing the long-form birth certificate doesn’t satisfy the birthers at all. Morons can’t help being morons; most of them like being morons. Also, there’s money (and/or votes) to be had continuing to argue to other morons that you’re right in the face of all reasonable evidence.

The best you can say about it is that if you ever believed Obama was not a US citizen, you might have been a moron, but if you still believe it, well, now you’re definitely an ultra moron. So well done you. Honestly, people who are unhappy with the president have lots of genuine and legitimate reasons to be be unhappy with him. Focusing on his birth just indicates your inherent ridiculousness and unseriousness.
 
Mantis said:
Sigh. Okay, I'll try again.


It's possible to read this as saying that Hitler was in Australia at some point in time - and yes, I know that isn't what he meant, it's just a quirk of the English language, and his choice of words and sentence structure. Hence my attempt at a humorous quip that Hitler wasn't Australian but Austrian. So ignore that bit, if that made you think I didn't understand what you wrote.

However, on a serious note, you appear to be making a temporal relationship between Hitler and the course of European/Indigenous relations in Australia, and implying some sort of causal relationship as well. I do not agree in any way shape or form with this assertion, if this is what you are saying. As I said, you can certainly draw parallels between the early settlers' attitude that the continent was "uninhabited", and the shooting of/driving out of natives living in areas wanted as pastoral land or other settlement, and Hitler's writings about "Lebensraum". I can also see a parallel between the Nazi practice of abducting children of Aryan appearance from occupied Poland and placing them with German families, and the Australian practice of taking Indigenous children away from their parents and placing them with white families (a practice begun in the 19th Century and not ended until 1969) - although the Australian practice was far more sinister in its motives (genocide by "breeding-out" being amongst them). And then there is the actual genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigines. And so on. However, if you are saying that Hitler's ideas were neither new or unique, but were actually espoused and even practiced by others, and the history of Australian settlement is evidence of this, then you are correct.
Click to expand...

Now I'm starting to wonder if I understood NAOS correctly. I though he was saying that his students think that Hitler was so unbelievably terrible that nothing like that could every happen again, but then after he teaches his students about Hitler he teaches them about Australia to show that historically our memories are short and we often repeat our mistakes. Is that also wrong?
 
Agoxlea said:
Now I'm starting to wonder if I understood NAOS correctly. I though he was saying that his students think that Hitler was so unbelievably terrible that nothing like that could every happen again, but then after he teaches his students about Hitler he teaches them about Australia to show that historically our memories are short and we often repeat our mistakes. Is that also wrong?
Click to expand...

Don't be silly. Hitler was in Austria, not Australia. Those are two different states, and Kentucky separates them. It's just not possible.

Besides, nothing like that ever happened in the south.
 
freakazoid said:
Don't be silly. Hitler was in Austria, not Australia. Those are two different states, and Kentucky separates them. It's just not possible.

Besides, nothing like that ever happened in the south.
Click to expand...

If intentional the Austria/Australia joke was funnier the first time. I also never said Hitler had anything to do with Australia. It is the comparison of Hitler to the events that happened later, sans Hitler, in Australia that show that we suck at learning from our mistakes. This, I think, is why NAOS teaches these one after another. To show history repeats itself.
 
freakazoid said:
Don't be silly. Hitler was in Austria, not Australia. Those are two different states, and Kentucky separates them. It's just not possible.

Besides, nothing like that ever happened in the south.
Click to expand...

Also everyone knows Kentucky isn't a state. It's a province of the Islamist State of the Midwest that is under Sharia law because we irresponsibly ignored that threat within our borders.
 
Mantis said:
However, if you are saying that Hitler's ideas were neither new or unique, but were actually espoused and even practiced by others, and the history of Australian settlement is evidence of this, then you are correct.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I understood NAOS to be saying.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E&feature=player_embedded

Obama makes fun of Trump at the Correspondent's dinner, in which Trump is a guest.
 
Anyone remember the movement to have the constitution amended so that Ahnold could run? Good times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top