Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So, I got this off the blogosphere. The latest "proof" that Obama is a Kenyan national is an unsourced quote from a family member that Obama was never circumcised. Supposedly, it was customary in many states in the 60's to just lop that shit off without consulting parents and if he was born in Kenya, they would have just left him uncut.

The problem with this hypothesis is that Kenya, Indonesia, and just about every other country Obama spent his time in has circumcision rights as a coming of age ceremony, typically around Christmas, which I guess...sucks to be him. Regardless, doctors have more or less always asked for consent for every kind of surgical procedure and in an age where because of reform movements, you can't even tell if someone is Muslim or Jewish by the state of their pee pee, this tells us absolutely nothing.

So is he America's first black, uncut president? For Michelle's sake, I hope so.

Who cares?

If it turns out that he is not a natural born US citizen then impeach him, but until some proof comes forward, I don't care.

He's not Kenyan, he's Hawaiian that's been settled. Really now people just have to prove that Hawaii is part of the United States when it is clearly an island, not a state.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's not Kenyan, he's Hawaiian that's been settled. Really now people just have to prove that Hawaii is part of the United States when it is clearly an island, not a state.

Are you being sarcastic?

Wouldn't it be funny if minority leader John Boner subpoenaed him to drop his pants in front of congress? If this goes through, it could get to be an even bigger waste of money than the Clinton trial and the Meese Pornography Commission. At least in each of those cases, there's some value for your dollar in the form of some hilarious findings and testimony.

My favorite quote from the Meese Commission hearings-

"Is it illegal to have sex with a corpse if you're married to it?"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you being sarcastic?

So you can't prove it then? Are you really that brainwashed into the party line that you refuse to even think about it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you can't prove it then? Are you really that brainwashed into the party line that you refuse to even think about it?

What? Hawaii being a state?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's not Kenyan, he's Hawaiian that's been settled. Really now people just have to prove that Hawaii is part of the United States when it is clearly an island, not a state.

While I like your sarcasm here, the angle from 'them' is, does he meet the "Natural Born" clause since his father was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth .

Originally posted by Darth Jello

So is he America's first black, uncut president? For Michelle's sake, I hope so.

Well, at least we can put the "He's a Muslim!" to rest, as no self respecting Islamophile would be uncut.

Circumcision in Islam is a matter of custom, not faith. Most Muslims just happen to live within traditions and regions that have some sort of practice or tradition. Again, no longer an indication of faith. Hell, we live in a world where it's estimate that as many as 5% of Jews are uncut. You're talking to one of 'em.

Basically, this doesn't determine anything other than how good he has it and how good he can give it to Michelle, that's it.

I get it now. This is not a birther thread, it's a wee wee thread.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Constitution of the United States.

Does the Constitution require the president to be human?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does the Constitution require the president to be human?

No, just natural born. That means an alien that is born here can become president.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Does the Constitution require the president to be human?

It says "person", so I'd guess yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
It says "person", so I'd guess yes.

Person is more generic than just human.

I think the Founding Fathers were expecting contact with alien species (such as negroes like 'bama)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Person is more generic than just human.

I think the Founding Fathers were expecting contact with alien species (such as negroes like 'bama)

I'm going to have to side with Merriam-Webster and disagree, a person is a human.

I don't think so, or else they would have included the forming and sustaining of an air force.

These birthers are out of their minds.

Originally posted by KidRock
These birthers are entirely reasonable people and we need more of them.

mmm

Nobody wants to discuss the topic? that the birthers and republicans have boiled the argument down to "SHOW US YOUR DICK!"?

well... id be intrigued. shrug

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Circumcision in Islam is a matter of custom, not faith. Most Muslims just happen to live within traditions and regions that have some sort of practice or tradition. Again, no longer an indication of faith. Hell, we live in a world where it's estimate that as many as 5% of Jews are uncut. You're talking to one of 'em.

Basically, this doesn't determine anything other than how good he has it and how good he can give it to Michelle, that's it.

I thought all Jewish men, no exception were circumcised.
Certain Orthodox Rabbi in Israel are going ape shit over people not being circumcised, particularly those immigrated from Russia and such.
I don't think its THAT big of a deal, personally...

Many reform Jews aren't and when you think about how much errogenous and protective tissue is removed and how much better sex can be for both partners, it is a big deal.

The birthers are the dumbest human beings I have ever witnessed.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Many reform Jews aren't and when you think about how much errogenous and protective tissue is removed and how much better sex can be for both partners, it is a big deal.

lol, they have done before and after studies?

"Keep your government off my medicare and social security, you communo-fascist!"

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Many reform Jews aren't and when you think about how much errogenous and protective tissue is removed and how much better sex can be for both partners, it is a big deal.

To me, it makes no difference. I wouldn't want my partner to get circumcised and neither will my children. If they decide to do it when they get old - they can.

Who wants to get circumcised should, and the rest should be left to their own.

The point is that there are valid medical arguments on both sides and people who have got their genital mutilation later on in life have reported sagnificant loss of sensation.
If you get it done when you're young - guess you'll never know the difference anyway.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

The point is that there are valid medical arguments on both sides and people who have got their genital mutilation later on in life have reported sagnificant loss of sensation.
If you get it done when you're young - guess you'll never know the difference anyway.

There is no valid medical argument to circumsize children (certain birth deformities aside), foreskin's there for a reason.

It comes down to visual preference and/or some religious belief that cutting off a piece of your penis brings you closer to God.

There are valid medical arguments in cases of rare congenital defects, infections, and cancers that typically affect a very, very small proportion of men, otherwise, it's just unnecessary surgery. You may as well pull all your teeth and get removable dentures because teeth are difficult to clean (much more than your junk) and are prone to infection.

Originally posted by Robtard
There is no valid medical argument to circumsize children (certain birth deformities aside), foreskin's there for a reason.

It comes down to visual preference and/or some religious belief that cutting off a piece of your penis brings you closer to God.

I was TRYING to be diplomatic.

Why do I feel like I'm the only one here who finds this situation insanely funny?

is it really the mainstream of the Reps who believe that Obama might not be an American citizen though?

I don't watch any american news anymore, so I really only thought it was the crazies... which, admittedly, is the mainstream of the GOP

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I was TRYING to be diplomatic.

I go for the cold hard truth, diplomacy be damned.

Actually, quite a bit. At least once Republican congressman is suing Obama over it. Don't know about how accepted the penis none sense will be once that breaks beyond blogs.

Oh, and cold, hard truth? don't you mean hot hard truth in this instance?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Actually, quite a bit. At least once Republican congressman is suing Obama over it. Don't know about how accepted the penis none sense will be once that breaks beyond blogs.

Oh, and cold, hard truth? don't you mean hot hard truth in this instance?

lol, wow

ya, I find this really hilarious as well then

what is wrong with your country?

I'm pretty sure that any and all global congresses and parliaments have unhealthy obsessions to see each others' dicks.

touche

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Actually, quite a bit. At least once Republican congressman is suing Obama over it. Don't know about how accepted the penis none sense will be once that breaks beyond blogs.

Oh, and cold, hard truth? don't you mean hot hard truth in this instance?

Is Palin the one blogging on this? Wouldn't surprise me, as she's become the Rightwing's facebook heroine.

Originally posted by Robtard
heroine.

I don't think there is an "e" on the end of that

LoL.

I thought I wouldn't be as embarrassed over voter stupidity as I was during the tea parties. I was oh so wrong.

Oh how quickly the lib-tards forget, "George Bush IS NOT MY PRESIDENT!" "Illegally elected!"

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Tarkus/FacePalm.jpg

Well, Bush was illegally elected and no liberal ever asked to see his dick as election verification.

http://www.jessicadunton.com/blog/TinfoilHat.jpg

Even funnier then the birthers are the liberals that don't realize they're just as retarded.

Originally posted by KidRock
Oh how quickly the lib-tards forget, "George Bush IS NOT MY PRESIDENT!" "Illegally elected!"


If you were honest, you'd see the epic difference between the voting-fiasco that happened in Florida and people claiming Obama is Kenyan, Indonesian, a British citizen and now wanting the state of his penis addressed.

I'm sorry if rampant ballot tampering, police intimidation, overstretching of the powers of the supreme court, a staged riot that shut down the recount, and voter registration tampering and public revelation of the software used to commit the voter registration tampering doesn't look like a fair election or two to me.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you were honest, you'd see the epic difference between the voting-fiasco that happened in Florida and people claiming Obama is Kenyan, Indonesian, a British citizen and now wanting the state of his penis addressed.

And if you were you would realize how ridiculous and sad it is that 8 years after the incident people still claim Bush was illegally elected.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm sorry if rampant ballot tampering, police intimidation, overstretching of the powers of the supreme court, a staged riot that shut down the recount, and voter registration tampering and public revelation of the software used to commit the voter registration tampering doesn't look like a fair election or two to me.

I agree, ACORN and Obama didn't seem very fair.

Originally posted by Robtard
a British citizen

Are you saying I can't be a president of United States? Racist.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well, Bush was illegally elected and no liberal ever asked to see his dick as election verification.

No, he was legally elected. You could argue that he was not fairly elected but ultimately it was a legal election.

Yeah, the way the blocked off roads, threatened voters, and used a computer program to kick 40% of republicans in certain states off the voter rolls. It was really horrible the way ACORN did that.

Originally posted by KidRock
And if you were you would realize how ridiculous and sad it is that 8 years after the incident people still claim Bush was illegally elected.

I'm not overly concerned with Bush anymore, but if it's true, that would be a country-wide crime and I don't thing the passing of 8 eight years makes it right. Maybe I'm wrong and there is an 8 year statue of limitations.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Are you saying I can't be a president of United States? Racist.

You have too many citizenships.

"Bush was not legally elected! BALLOT TAMPERING! POLICE INTIMIDATION! STAGED RIOTS! VOTER REGISTRATION! Bush was behind it all!"

"Oh these birthers? They're so hilarious and sad! Stupid conspiracy theorists!"

I feel bad for people who are so partisan they can't even see the hilarity of this.

Except there were actual civil and criminal convictions for that situation.

kidrock, what evidence, to you, would constitute reasonable to assume that there may have been some "less than civil" issues with the 2000 and 2004 elections?

on the other hand, what evidence, to you, would constitute reasonable doubt that Obama was possibly a natural citizen of another country?

maybe also gauge where you see the evidence of Obama's penis... you know, if you think that is reasonable given the evidence it would require you to doubt his citizenship.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Except there were actual civil and criminal convictions for that situation.

Same with ACORN buddy..

Yep, and ACORN really had choice point, and diebold, and the GOP, and state and local police departments, and the supreme court, all in their pockets. How does a rinky-dink inner city non-profit network do it?

Maybe we should prosecute the United Way and the Salvation Army for unamerican activities? Perhaps keep tabs on anyone who's ever called 211?

Obama should just release his birth certificate and put this stupid argument at rest.
End.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Obama should just release his birth certificate and put this stupid argument at rest.
End.

He did. The problem is that Hawaii gives a "certificate of live birth" and Republicans don't recognizes it as an actual document.

So they can find another complex way to get a good look at "lil' bama"?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He did. The problem is that Hawaii gives a "certificate of live birth" and Republicans don't recognizes it as an actual document.

So they don't recognize birth certificate documents of people in Hawaii?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So they don't recognize birth certificate documents of people in Hawaii?

Apparently.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yep, and ACORN really had choice point, and diebold, and the GOP, and state and local police departments, and the supreme court, all in their pockets. How does a rinky-dink inner city non-profit network do it?

Maybe we should prosecute the United Way and the Salvation Army for unamerican activities? Perhaps keep tabs on anyone who's ever called 211?

And this is the reason why I laugh at you like I do the birthers..CONSPIRACY THEORIES. "OMG BUSH HAD THE POLICE AND SUPREME COURT IN HIS POCKET!"

So how do you feel about all the voter fraud that was committed on behalf of Obama? Do you care at all?

15.9 million dollars campaign's by ACORN..yeah, very rinky dink.

This is sad.

Originally posted by Darth Jello

Maybe we should prosecute the United Way and the Salvation Army for unamerican activities? Perhaps keep tabs on anyone who's ever called 211?

Did United Way or the Salvation Army register 2000 voters that didn't exist?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
So they can find another complex way to get a good look at "lil' bama"?

He's a president and therefore open to scrutiny.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
He's a president and therefore open to scrutiny.

Except that if a shot of Obama's penis is ever produced they'll try to impeach him for public indecency.

They run non-profit networks that include ACORN. And you know, they can block off roads and get AmeriCorps members and alumni like me to intimidate voters with trail building equipment and compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that if a shot of Obama's penis is ever produced they'll try to impeach him for public indecency.

Noone in their right mind would release picture of their dick..if they're the president, that is.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
He's a president and therefore open to scrutiny.

Very true, but the state of his penis shouldn't be, as him being cut or uncut really proves nothing either way.

In the end, these nonsense claims from the Right only help Obama, as they're busy focusing on Birth Certs, African relatives twice removed and foreskins, the real questionable issues slip by.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Noone in their right mind would release picture of their dick..if they're the president, that is.

You give Silvio Berlescone so little credit.

the real hilarity here is that circumcision surgery can be performed later in life, as can exercises that extend and regrow the foreskin to some degree.

If these people believe that Obama is getting doctors to lie for him now, and he is this criminal mastermind from Kenya who has duped the entire American population, do they think he would produce a penis that didn't confirm his story?

What political party/parties do these birthers belong to?

Originally posted by Mindship
What political party/parties do these birthers belong to?

From those I've chatted with, mostly the Right.

Republican. Although a growing number of them are coming from the LaRouche movement.

Originally posted by Mindship
What political party/parties do these birthers belong to?

Seem to be mostly those that conform to libertarian ideology.

The Republicans are mostly libertarians and far right conservatives, many are plants from the freedomworks, CPR, and AHIP. The LaRouche people are avowed Fascists, as are a lot of the far right militia people also supporting this stuff.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The Republicans are mostly libertarians and far right conservatives, many are plants from the freedomworks, CPR, and AHIP. The LaRouche people are avowed Fascists, as are a lot of the far right militia people also supporting this stuff.


Didnt Lyndon LaRouche attempt to run for President as a DEMOCRAT numerous times?

wiki seems to paint the LaRouche thing as a Democratic position as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

Originally posted by inimalist
wiki seems to paint the LaRouche thing as a Democratic position as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

CONSPIRACY

Clearly the GOP has wikipedia in their pocket.

Birthers maybe silly...but I like their conspiracies...that's only because I'm a nutjob for conspiracy stuff.

LaRouche was a Stalinist in the 60's and 70's and became a fascist in the 80's. He always tries to run on the democratic ticket and the local parties never have it. He's also been linked to repeated acts of violence and intimidation against both the left and the right, especially student groups. I believe he did quite a bit of jail time in the 90's for that and tax evasion.
Fred Phelps ran as a democrat too.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
LaRouche was a Stalinist in the 60's and 70's and became a fascist in the 80's. He always tries to run on the democratic ticket and the local parties never have it. He's also been linked to repeated acts of violence and intimidation against both the left and the right, especially student groups. I believe he did quite a bit of jail time in the 90's for that and tax evasion.

indeed, there does seem to be a lot in the nationalism, racial, re: American, rhetoric that is reminiscent of the Palin crowd from 2008

I honestly believe the far left is as into fascism as the far right, though much less honest about it. I'm sure there are elements of it that motivate the extremes in both groups, but ya, hardly any mention of its ties to the GOP. One would have to jump from the capitalist control to modern Randian style economics, a jump LaRouche didn't necessarily make himself. at least, if I read the philosophy correctly.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Fred Phelps ran as a democrat too.

wow

I think you mean Stalinist or Communist. By definition, the left can't be fascist.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think you mean Stalinist or Communist. By definition, the left can't be fascist.

Of course they can. Nazi party was National Socialist.

The American left isn't particularly close to the ideological left.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Of course they can. Nazi party was National Socialist.

That's what they called themselves but their ideology wasn't socialist.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Of course they can. Nazi party was National Socialist.

And the Kmere Rouge was Democratic Kampuchea. It's just words, there was nothing socialist about the Nazis.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's what they called themselves but their ideology wasn't socialist.

And Stalin called himself communist but his ideology wasn't. He was a dictator and Russia was a dictatorship.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And the Kmere Rouge was Democratic Kampuchea. It's just words, there was nothing socialist about the Nazis.
Then this below post is rubbish, since Stalin's leadership had no connection to communism at any level other than 'words'.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think you mean Stalinist or Communist. By definition, the left can't be fascist.

The main difference that I'm getting at is that Stalinism is an autocratic system in which a one party state controls the means of production in a planned economy. In fascism, a one party state colludes with large corporations who control the means of production within a market economy. In one, hierarchy is primarily based on wealth and family, in the other, hierarchy is based interparty connections and bureaucratic office.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think you mean Stalinist or Communist. By definition, the left can't be fascist.

/shrug

walks, talks, quacks...

Originally posted by inimalist
/shrug

walks, talks, quacks...

Anarchy/Marxism, Facism/Communism. I'd say you're both correct in a sense, the farther ones moves toward the extreme left the closer you get to the extreme right (and obviously the more you move center the more similar you get). Both sides have inherent similarities.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The main difference that I'm getting at is that Stalinism is an autocratic system in which a one party state controls the means of production in a planned economy. In fascism, a one party state colludes with large corporations who control the means of production within a market economy. In one, hierarchy is primarily based on wealth and family, in the other, hierarchy is based interparty connections and bureaucratic office.

And I don't dispute that. But Stalinism and communism are completely different.
He used the name communism but was a dictator - so one cannot claim that left cannot be fascist and at the same time claim that Stalin was a communist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anarchy/Marxism, Facism/Communism. .

That is a gross simplification of very complex ideologies, which are not akin to each other.

I still consider communism a far left, oppressive, tyrannical system. I don't think of Stalin, but I do think of Pol Pot who came closest to communism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anarchy/Marxism, Facism/Communism. I'd say you're both correct in a sense, the farther ones moves toward the extreme left the closer you get to the extreme right (and obviously the more you move center the more similar you get). Both sides have inherent similarities.

fair enough

however, there are far right anarchists

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

however, there are far right anarchists

The idea of a far right anarchists hurt my head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

however, there are far right anarchists

From this site I almost have a hard time believing their are far left anarchists.

so do I

lil is right...Marxism is more philosophical rather than political. If Marx had met both Lenin and Stalin he would have thrown up.

I don't think left or right can apply to anarchy.

Originally posted by WhoopeeDee
lil is right...Marxism is more philosophical rather than political. If Marx had met both Lenin and Stalin he would have thrown up.

that is true of most "ism"s though. Even democracy doesn't work the way it is supposed to on paper.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think left or right can apply to anarchy.

true, the left/right compass is extremely limiting, and, imho, is a major propoganda tool of mainstream parties, sort of a way to limit the types of political opposition that exist. Parties have to have predictable positions based on where they fall on such a spectrum.

Anarchy is hard to put on the left/right scale, though, without abandoning it, anarchy can be generalized as the extremes of "people control" (left) or "no state control" (right)

Well, on other side of the extreme I don't think both Socrates or Plato would be too thrill with our current Democratic system...but that's a topic and discussion for another time.

Plato was highly undemocratic. The Republic calls for rule by philosopher kings chosen by either heredity or some form of childhood meritocracy, i can't exactly remember...

Originally posted by inimalist
Plato was highly undemocratic. The Republic calls for rule by philosopher kings chosen by either heredity or some form of childhood meritocracy, i can't exactly remember...


Weren't those called the guardians or something?



And, yeah, it's basically a caste system that he came up with. Not much of a Utopia.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Weren't those called the guardians or something?



And, yeah, it's basically a caste system that he came up with. Not much of a Utopia.

I disagree.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I disagree.


Be specific and cite your sources.

I . . . disagree.



But seriously my point was that utopia is inherently subjective (unless you're Ayn Rand).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I . . . disagree.



But seriously my point was that utopia is inherently subjective (unless you're Ayn Rand).


http://www.cyberessays.com/Politics/107.htm


"Plato's utopia consists of three distinct, nonhereditary
class systems (Hacker 32). The Guardians consist of non ruling
Guardians and ruling Guardians. The non-rulers are a higher level of
civil servants and the ruling is the society's policy makers (Hacker
32). Auxilaries are soldiers and minor civil servants (Hacker 32).
Finally the Workers, are composed of farmers and artisans, most
commonly unskilled laborers (Hacker 32). The Guardians are to be wise
and good rulers. It is important that the rulers who emerge must be a
class of craftsmen who are public-spirited in temperament and skilled
in the arts of government areas (Hacker 33). The guardians are to be
placed in a position in which they are absolute rulers. They are
supposed to be the select few who know what is best for society
(Hacker 33)."


So, yeah, I was right. Guardians. Though, they come in two flavors, apparently.

It does say nonhereditary, so I guess that's what you were disagreeing on?

Wow, how did a thread about conservative, male, penis curiosity and possible homoeroticism turn into ta discussion about the foundations of Greek Republicanism and the theoretical establishment of a meritocratic monarchy? Waaaaay too mature up in here.

A receipt for the purchas of unscented, Ph balanced soap or body wash could be the smoking gun to prove he's not a citizen!!!

topics are my playthings

If the foreskin don't fit, you must acquit.