Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

I laughed, and then I cried

damn_registrars (1103043) writes | about a year and a half ago

User Journal 23

First, I laughed that anyone would think they could pull off such an absurd stunt. Then, I cried when I realized that tragically some people mistook it for being connected to reality.First, I laughed that anyone would think they could pull off such an absurd stunt. Then, I cried when I realized that tragically some people mistook it for being connected to reality.

I'm referring to the "documentary" Dreams from my real father, which claims that Barack Hussein Obama Jr is the son of Frank Marshall Davis, who they allege to be a leader of the American Communist Party. To make it even more exciting, the film claims that Obama's mom and "dad" met while the latter was filming a porno starring the former.

So to get this straight, the documentary - which is today the 14th most-popular instant title on netflix - alleges:

  • Obama's mom was a porno actress
  • Obama's real dad was a communist
  • Obama's name and official identity are lies - right down to the birth certificate that lists him as "Barack Hussein Obama Jr".

I'm just waiting to find someone who subscribes to both this crackpot "theory" and the birther movement, since the two can obviously not both be true. Of course, birthers won't let something like reality or logic get in their way...

cancel ×

23 comments

Birthers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41655899)

I think that BHO himself owns a chunk of that silliness, given his bogus literary biography [breitbart.com] .

Re:Birthers (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#41657409)

Don't you know the corollary of Godwin that states any link to breitbart.com automatically loses the argument?

Re:Birthers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41657541)

Why, no: but I will allow that this is a splendid means of silencing opposition, rather than offering a counter-argument.
Bravo!

Re:Birthers (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41658579)

rather than offering a counter-argument.
Bravo!

Do tell! But for you... *golf clap* Dissing a lying gossiper is not equivalent to trying to silence him. Or does the simple refusal to patronize him constitute as censorship these days?

Elections are won on lies. Even Romney might be able to pull it off. He's just gotta pump up the charisma a tiny bit. So really, hearing all this rehashing of Obama's BS is very amusing. The best liar gets the job.

Tuesday's tomorrow, dude...

Re:Birthers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41662433)

The math seems to bear out that, as liars go, #OccupyResoluteDesk is the most expensive liar in history.
Will Romney prove a more economical lying swine?
Perhaps not, but my guess is that, unlike the BHO case, we'll actually have a budget.
To make us feel better about the lies, you understand.
So there's that.

Re:Birthers (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41663489)

I have but one question for you. You stated

BHO himself

Why do you insist on referring to Obama as BHO? Many people who I have seen use that acronym chose it to remind people that Obama's middle name is Hussein - as if perhaps to suggest that he is in cahoots with the likes of Saddam Hussein - while I spelled out his full name to show how ridiculous the documentary's "argument" is.

And don't say that the previous president GWB give you precedent, because the previous president was the son of a former president hence he could not be referred to simply by his last name. There has never previously been a president named Obama, so why do you insist on not referring to him by just his last name? I've never seen a conservative call Clinton "WJC" or "BJC", yet so many insist on calling Obama "BHO" instead of just Obama.

So why have you lowered yourself to their ranks? I know you are capable of a reasoned argument. Don't dilute your words by incorporating silly word games.

Re:Birthers (1)

unitron (5733) | about a year and a half ago | (#41669549)

And as we all know, literary agents (and whoever works for them) never, ever, get anything confused or wrong.

Re:Birthers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41679615)

Sure, and then their errors don't sit around for over a decade, only to be magically caught by the pre-campaign scrub.
Furthermore, Obama is made of solid teflon, for all no responsibility can cling to him.
Sadly, the opportunities to watch Obama partake of his falsehoods in public, like his Rose Garden remarks of 9/12 that BHO got to eat at last night's debate, are too few.

Re:Birthers (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41680335)

Furthermore, Obama is made of solid teflon, for all no responsibility can cling to him.

You guys had the ultimate teflon candidate [en] running for the nomination, and rejected him. Instead you went for a master flip-flopper and you have only yourselves to blame.

That said, there are plenty of problems sticking to Obama. He failed to reform health care, for one. He hasn't closed Guantanamo, for another. And we still are at war in Afghanistan (and arguably still in Iraq as well, just not officially) as well.

The difference, though, is that Romney wouldn't have done any better at any of those things. On top of that, Romney's tax plan will make unemployment worse and make economic progression an impossible dream for even more people than who it already it such.

Basically, right now we have the most conservative president this country has seen in decades - possibly ever. This path keeps leading us towards more unemployment, higher cost of everything, and a worse economic outlook for 99% of people. Romney wants to - at least this week - take us on an even more extreme conservative path. Why on earth would that be a good idea?

I would vote for Jill Stein, except she has no chance of winning. Instead I will try to help prevent Romney from winning. While Obama won't be great for my profession and ability to feed, clothe, and shelter my family, Romney would be disastrous.

Re:Birthers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41685371)

On top of that, Romney's tax plan will make unemployment worse and make economic progression an impossible dream for even more people than who it already it such.
*cough* Laffer Curver [wikipedia.org] *cough*, or as I put in on Twitter [twitter.com]

#Debates BHO is right. The Reagan Administration didn't happen. This talk of Ron is just a sordid Rovian plot. #RaiseTaxesNow

Re:Birthers (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41686417)

*cough* Laffer Curver *cough*, or as I put in on Twitter

Except the Laffer Curve applies only when you have a single tax rate. When you have a severely regressive tax system such as what we have here in the US, the curve does not fit. And making it even more regressive like Romney wants only puts us further outside the curve.

Re:Birthers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41692709)

Yeah, sure, but the principle of diminishing returns applies no less to the aggregate tax load: Romney's point stands.

Re:Birthers (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41694085)

Yeah, sure, but the principle of diminishing returns applies no less to the aggregate tax load: Romney's point stands.

No, actually, it doesn't. Especially when you're looking at a tax plan that so blatantly disproportionately favors the very wealthy. If he was proposing a flat tax, then you could say it applies, but what he is proposing doesn't in any vague way even start to kind of almost resemble something that could even under the right light be mistaken for something that almost seems like a flat tax.

Re:Birthers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41711919)

About the best argument against Romney I can come up with is that it snorts the Drano of our existing tax code.
If you want to argue going after the tax code with pliers and a blow torch, I'll sympathize.
The class warfare card is almost as smoked as the race card, though. Bore me not with accusations.

Re:Birthers (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41712091)

Obama is made of solid teflon...

That's funny. You seem upset that he gets the same treatment as Bush, or Reagan (Well, maybe not on FOX..), two people who, along with Nixon, set the tone of the 'imperial president' that we witness today. And let me guess, you believe Romney will bring the office back to earth.

This angst you display is quite a sight to behold. It's unfortunate that you never bring up any of the legitimate reasons for voting against him. Is that because you still believe in the 'Bush doctrine' which he has steadfastly upheld despite his promise to rein it in?

Re:Birthers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41712459)

Angst? [leo.org]
I'm advocating liberty in a positive way. Any collateral damage to a chap who may resemble a narcissistic, incompetent Commie is purely coincidental.
You just keep pluckin' that chicken.

Re:Birthers (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41715025)

I'm advocating liberty in a positive way.

:-) Yeah, okay... Whatever.. the power of your faith and conditioning overcomes all things, including reality. This is your trap that, should you decide to, you can walk away from with no need to look back.

Romney='positive'?! And the name calling! I hope you don't think I find it offensive or anything, but I thought you would be above that sort of stuff. I simply see it as more diversion, but feel free to continue, if it makes you feel better, or superior in some weird way.

Re:Birthers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41725427)

You accuse, accuse, accuse. You offer nothing. Can't you at least serve up a joke?
I assert no superiority. Liberty. That's the course. What else would you have society pursue?

Re:Birthers (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41725613)

Can't you at least serve up a joke?

Hey, I'm just the straight man. The jokes are your department, and you're doing a bang-up job with this 'but but but, Romney is different' jive. It's too bad you take legitimate criticism as 'accusation', but them's the breaks, I guess.

If you were for 'liberty', you would point people towards liberty and encourage them to vote that way, not just follow the cattle into the meat grinder and drag as many as you can with you because the entryway looks all glitzy and stuff. Don't look inside, it's a surprise... You're talking one thing and doing another. It can't be any more obvious. There is no accusation on my part.

And what is it that am I supposed to 'offer' that you don't already have before your very eyes? Some toothpicks to pry them open perhaps?

You left out the best part... (1)

unitron (5733) | about a year and a half ago | (#41669751)

Obviously this nefarious plot from half a century ago was also diabolically and fiendishly complicated and clever, involving as it does spiriting Ann Dunham off to Kenya just long enough to give birth and then whisking her and her newborn back to Hawaii so that they could fake her hospital stay there (probably had some other white woman give birth to a black son under her name and then switched them) and fool the hospital and newspapers into running the birth announcements, just so that they'd have the whole "birther" thing available to muddy the waters to conceal the true story, but everybody's overlooking the most important point--none of this works if Hawaii is not a state.

What, you think statehood being granted to it 2 years earlier was a total co-incidence and "just happened"?

Gullible fools.

Re:You left out the best part... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41670501)

No, no, no. You got it all wrong. My barber's son's teacher's drycleaner's boyfriend's taxi driver's cousin's best friend has it on good authority that the president is genuinely an alien. As in, from Mars. And no matter what anyone tells you, Mars is not a US territory.

Re:You left out the best part... (1)

unitron (5733) | about a year and a half ago | (#41689947)

"And no matter what anyone tells you, Mars is not a US territory."

Yes, but it will be retroactively made a state, and then the gentlemen in the dark suits with the funny flashing ballpoint pens will go around and make us all think it's always been that way.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...