This is simply surreal! Seriously, the highest law enforcement figure in the State of Virginia believes the President of the United States is not rightfully elected? I’m sorry, can Virginia look any worse in the eyes of the country? This bizarre conspiracy theory is simply unfathomable to me.
You can click here to read the entire transcript.
I never believed the birther conspiracy theory, if that helps.
But I’ve seen some posters say some really wacky things on the blog – about things that happened in PWC and spouting theories that were equally bizarre as the birther theory and never being challenged in the same way. OK, that was the “old blog” so maybe it is unfair to make that comparison.
The thing is, that’s in the very same news item that was linked – which includes the transcript of the AG talking and the video. It seems to me – you can’t pick and choose which parts of the article you want to believe. Now, I never said I disputed the transcript – I said I thought the reporter kind of baited him into going down a hypothetical path and then people draw conclusions from that as fact.
I just find it interesting the same news source that presents that video, is doubted when they say that the reason the AG bowed out of attending that event was due to birthers. If not, then why don’t they say what the real reason is? Or, why didn’t that reporter ASK him why he didn’t attend? Instead, the reporter went down this hypothetical path. The whole thing is interesting.
And yes, there’s no doubt that politicians can be sunk by giving interviews to reporters who bait them into answering things a certain way. Politics is not fair, so that’s just the way it works.
It wouldn’t have had to been said -ad nauseum – if the introduction at the top mentioned it. I find it convenient that it wasn’t, and was looking for someone to explain why.
It you don’t like – ad nauseum – statements, than don’t read them!
Censored,
Thank you for clarying what I believe is pretty basic point. When someone says something so out of bounds of reality, the correct response should have been by Cuccinelli, “President Obama is the legitimate president, end of conversation”.
Let’s see – we now have two more preposterous theories than the “birther” theory being presented by way of comparison:
1. Conspiracy theories about 9/11 and how the USA might have somehow been involved in it or covered up what really happened (resulting in the deaths of 6000+ people)
2. Martians landing in New Jersey.
Both of these are presented as things comparable to saying the President of the USA was not born in the USA.
Now, all 3 theories have no credence, but I find the idea that someone should have the same reaction to the 3rd theory as the first 2, to be pretty peposterous.
Can we have some more crazy theories to use as comparisons/analogies to the birther theory – as to how people should react to all these theories in the same way?
This is not about cuccinelli attending a birther event, why does attending a birther event, whatever that is, have to do with 100% dismissing a crazy theory regarding your president? He entertained the idea that President Obama, and by the way, President Obama was in office almost a year when this exchange happened, was not legally the president. His answer should not have been as a “hypothical” given the fact there are fringe people who actually believe President Obama is not an American citizen.
The reporter kept the line of questioning going actually. Again, it is interesting how someone is blamed for taking the time to answer the reporter. Maybe no one else was asking questions at the time, so he figured he might as well do this interview. It seems more of an interview anyway – and I’m wondering if it was part of a bigger/longer interview.
Seems a lot of assumptions are being made here – and we all know what happens when one assumes…..
The relevance of my comparison has to do with crazy outlandish bizarre theories.
Bush 9-11 conspiracy = outlandish, not based in any sense of reality
Obama not an American = outlandish, not based in any sense of reality
heres another one, moon landing faked = outlandish, not based in any sense of reality
It does – when the article says he refused to attend the event because a birther was present. It is a piece of contradictory evidence, that was conveniently ignored. That’s what I find interesting – why that was neglected being mentioned.
Yes, but the impact of those 3 theories is much different. One is directly accusing Bush in being involved in the killing of 6000+ people. I would hope someone would have a much more visceral reaction to that than the other outlandish theories.
You asked “shouldn’t someone have the same reaction to the Bush/911 theory as the Obama/birther theory” (to summarize).
My take is no – one is accusing a human being of murdering many people, the other is just accusing a human being of being not born in the USA. Two very very different things, that I would expect any person to have two different levels of reaction to.
Well, I’m sure there’s a lot of people who would be perfectly happy to believe Bush was involved in 9/11.
In fact, it would be interesting to see which of those theories have more “believers” out there. I wouldn’t be surprised if the numbers are very close – which gets to my theory that there’s equal numbers on the fringes of both sides.
Actually, Cuccinelli and Bob Marshall are heros for their work protecting Virginians from the tyranny of Federal Government. I’m thinking if Obama doesn’t have to show his birth certificate (and he doesn’t, it’s so last year) and he doesn’t have to show his grades (which must have been in the toilet), then Cuccinelli doesn’t have to “publically disavow” anything. You’re using the arguments made recently famous by Dylan Ratigan (who is actually one big nostril) against the tea partiers. He looked like a total loon and well, you know who else does too. Look, I thought about it over lunch, and I know I’ve peed on your little “nut parade”, here, and I’m sorry about that. I’ll leave you folks to this thread to whip yourselves up into a frenzy. You guys have done it again! First Bob McDonnell’s thesis, and now this! You’re unstoppable! All Conservatives tremble before the searing logic of your fiery intellects!! There, that ought to get you started. I’m sure with StarryFlights help you will all soon achieve “supreme thumpedness”.
“stumpedness”
A new word to add to our dictionary!
I’m not sure what happened, but I made it look like MH said what Slowpoke really said – sorry about that – it wasn’t my intention to misquote anyone or make it look like someone else said what another person said. I goofed somehow in my editing of the “quote”.
This is what my quote should showed up – I see what happened, somehow a piece of MH’s quote inserted itself in there – due to my sloppy editing. It makes the quote I did confusing reading – to say the least!
I’m still laughing over “thumpedness”. “Thumpedness?????”
I didn’t catch that as my eyes went directly to your follow-on post with the word “stumpedness”! Now, “thumpedness” is funny!
The Democratic Party of Virginia sent out e-mails with “Exposed” in the subject line, and body copy with this stuff, along with an appeal for $5 to “fight Ken Cucinelli’s (sic) radical agenda.”
This is why I went to the Coffee Party on Saturday. I don’t like either “side” doing this middle school stuff.
Ken Cuccinelli is doing fine stepping in doo-doo all by himself. I’m more interested in seeing whether his recent opinion threatens the ABA accreditation of his alma mater, Mason Law & other public law schools in Virginia. The students are leading a protest next Tuesday (3/23) at 4 pm on campus.
I didn’t see the other news article. I didn’t see it. I just asked Elena to send me the link so I could post it. She had something else she had to do. I am not doubting the news source.
Now I have seen it. Isn’t Washington Independent an aggregate of political stories. I would need to see more. In this case, we hear what Cuccinelli says. It seems incompatible with what I read in WaIn. Could he have not wanted to share the stage for a different reason. I am not going to affix a cause/effect relationship until I find out more.
Maybe he just didn’t want to share the stage with someone named Gary Kreep. How much does a name change cost?
Cindy, can you cite a source that has shown a flaw in the AG’s legal interpretation of that issue?
My understanding is that people ‘disagree’ with him but no one has found anything incorrect about it. But, if I’m in error, please provide something that I can read/review.
Of course, I was holding back this piece of info, which can easily be found in a google search about the by now often quoted interview with the AG – he did a follow-up on it as many many people asked him about it. Here’s what he said:
In a statement Monday, Cuccinelli said: “I absolutely believe that President Obama was born in the United States. I don’t buy into the claims that he wasn’t. On the recording, I was asked a hypothetical legal question, and I gave a hypothetical legal answer in response.”
Of course, once again, upon reading the thread at the intro – we only get half the story here. It fits with what I was saying, and also with him not attending that gathering which included some “birther”.
It is nice to see the news presented in such a highly distorted fashion. This whole thread has been very amusing – to see how people can get spun up on a non-issue, especially when half the story is told! I felt it was far beyond time to tell the other half – but I was honestly hoping someone else would.
oh dear God, slice my hands off so that doesn’t happen. 😉
Now, I don’t mean to say there are legitimate things that should be discussed about the AG – but this whole business about the birther stuff is nonsense – as he basically said so himself in a follow-up interview – that could have easily been found by a google search!
I meant to say “I don’t mean to say there are NOT legitimate things…”
Sorry about that – I don’t know what happened there – but was due to sloppy editing on my part of a quoted post! I’m glad I caught it – I can just imagine the fun that would have resulted if anyone thought I was trying to put Slowpoke’s words in your mouth!
Slowpoke, I hate to disillustion you, but Marshall and Cuccinelli are not seen as heroes by MOST Virginians. The moderate Republicans, Moderates and Liberals see them as far right nutwings who do not represent the mainstream.
Cuccinelli will go the way of Rick Santorum. Bob Marshall will live and reign on in the 13th District until it changes shape enough to get more mainstream people involved in politics–people who don’t want to outlaw contraception.
And very true, the birther business could be considered old news. However, when I hear it on TV daily, perhaps it isn’t so old news as people would like to think.
Obama’s grandfather was a WWII veteran. He served under Patton. I am watching a show on Honor Flight as we speak and a flight out of Kansas, where his grandfather was from. The entire birther discussion dishonors his grandfather who was very much an Americian citizen. (and his daughter and his grandson were also)
@Moon-howler
Not to worry, Moon, I have no illusions. Best of luck this line of attack! I see great success, same as with McDonnell’s thesis! Go get ’em! While you’re at it, you might suggest to the Washington Post that they endorse Deeds again! One more time ought to do it!!
I must not watch the same TV stations then. But I’ll admit I don’t watch Fox News very much, which I suppose must be where you are hearing the daily talk about the birther stuff.
I really had not heard anything about it in some time, until this thread popped up. “Some time” being many months – and definitely not since the beginning of the year.
Someone should contact that clever reporter who asked the AG that “hypothetical line of questioning” and let him know how he succeeded in stirring up all this stuff!
“Slowpoke, I hate to disillustion you, but Marshall and Cuccinelli are not seen as heroes by MOST Virginians” –MoonHowler
I forget sometimes that to a schizophrenic, what’s happening around them seems quite normal.
Haha – I’m having a good laugh here. The people complaining about the topic and keeping this thread going are the very ones whining about it not being news…
Cuccinelli clarified (haha) his position only because this has become enough of a news story that he’s been forced to.
I’m having a good laugh that all of that wasn’t explained at the top (Cucinelli’s clarification). I gave everyone every possible chance to say it. No one did. That’s what I find funny! And you bought into it hook, line, and sinker!
Of course, if accurate stuff had been posted in the beginning, which I was hoping to see – this thread would have been very short.
American Bar Association Standards for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 211, Non-Discrimination:
Standard 211. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
(a) A law school shall foster and maintain equality of opportunity in legal education,
including employment of faculty and staff, without discrimination or segregation on the
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability.
You can believe Cucinelli’s clarification or not believe it. But would I choose to believe is two big pieces of info were intentionally left out of the story:
1. Cucinelli not attending the gathering that some birther (or birthers – I’m not clear on that) chose to attend – which is what kicked off this “interview” as it were.
2. Cucinelli’s clarification
Of course, I guess it is unacceptable behavior for a politician to clarify something reported about him in the news that he feels is misleading…… Apparently he must have ulterior motives for doing so. We should all keep that in mind the next time a Democrat issues a similar clarification – just to make sure both sides are playing fair now.
Mostly, this thread has shown how someone who wants to get a certain point of view across, will leave out all the pieces of the story that would allow a rational person to come to his/her own conclusion. Instead, just the biased information the presenter wants to give is put up – so as to try and steer the readers to the desired conclusion. Not a very objective presentation of the story – as obviously two pieces of info that presented information to contradict the story were left out – and ignored even when I mentioned one and hinted at the other.
Cindy, nothing will happen in terms of the ABA issue as actual discrimination needs to occur. The AG’s ruling never allowed discrimination it mearly stated that the Schools were unable to set their own policy as that’s a function of the General Assembly. Much like a public college can’t ban me from walking on it’s public grounds with a loaded firearm on my hip – they lack the authority.
You know, I am going to take a stand here that some of you will not like. Elena and I scan hundreds of articles in a week and attempt to put up articles people will find interesting to discuss. We have conservatives, moderates, liberals and people who are not particularly even interested in politics posting here.
I don’t have the time to do in depth background on every single article that is posted. i can honestly say that Elena and I try to bring in accuracy rather than sensationalize and spread malicious lies about people.
I am not totally satisfied that Cuccinelli wasn’t entertaining some birther notions at some point in time. Was that his voice answering the questions of a reporter? Did he ever say birther speak was absurd? Perhaps I missed it.
If you want to get on a high horse about something, go look at what was done to a campaign worker on a blog. Now THAT was trashy. It was very difficult for Alanna, Elena and me to not bring up an unfortunate incident with an aid whose public behavior resulted in legal action. But we don’t pride ourselves on cheap shots.
Speaking of cheap shots…how many of you all believed what was printed in the News and Messenger regarding the homeless shelter incident and ran with it? Just curious. Didn’t check that out real well, eh?
How about the President when he offers clarification? Does every person grousing about Cuccinelli being picked on give President Obama a second chance to explain? Didn’t think so.
I have heard Cuccinelli on the subject of Obama’s citizenship. I can’t recall exactly what I heard but enough of it is sticking with me that I think he has made some somments in a political setting. Not saying for sure.
At any rate, I don’t need to pile birther on top of an already arch-conservative world view to know that Cucinnelli doesn’t represent mainstream Virginia.
And Slowpoke, remember that Beatles song? It would probably not be a good idea to speak to my mental capacity. I might very well go postal on you and you know what happens when I do that.
Working on your law degree, Marin?
And why on earth would you want to walk on a campus if they have a no guns policy? Because you can? Poor reason. It just shows lack of respect to do something.
Brigham Young University had a sign up saying no smoking. I wanted to light a cigarette. I didn’t, out of respect for being on their turf.
Well, I just found it interesting it that he DID more or less say that he didn’t believe the “birther speak” in a follow-up intereview. Of course, people want to believe that follow-up interview is disingenuous. So be it.
But, one person attacked me for not answering Elena’s question to me in 14 minutes time and then claimed I was stumped! That I think is beyond ridiculous. Really, this entire thread is beyond ridiculous – when I was forced to answer a question about two crazy theories – one of which blamed a sitting president for having to do something with the death of 6000+ people, and wondering if people shouldn’t have the same reaction to that as to another theory that is just about where someone is born, and not having to do with those deaths. At least I answered the question – I don’t see anyone else who answered it. And, when I asked why people wouldn’t have a much more visceral response to being asked a question about a theory that wrongly blames someone for 6000+ murders, I get silence.
So, I find all of that interesting. And, it seems somehow I’m being blamed for just trying to inject some facts here.
Whatever, this thread has been quite interesting to see who at least answers questions when posed, and who doesn’t. It’s good to know people have a stopwatch on me and expect me to provide instant answers! It takes a lot more than a question like that to “stump” me, but of course one poster apparently believed I was stumped by Elena’s question. I hadn’t even seen it (addressed to me) when that poster loudly proclaimed that I was stumped.
That poster has been suspiciously quiet – but I haven’t gone and said that he/she was stumped.
Because MH as a public college it’s MY turf. Its YOUR turf. It belongs to the public and must follow public laws.
I can’t afford a law degree.
The point is a public college, facility or board must follow the law as allowed and provided by the GA. The key thing here was the GA pointed out the GA had failed to do so.
Actually, the point being made by one poster was that Cucinelli’s explanation was not to be believed. So by that logic, one could say anytime Obama tries to explain something he said earlier he should not be believed either and has some ulterior motive. I don’t subscribe to that theory – but obviously the other poster did at least in terms of Cucinelli.
As to questioning someone’s mental capacity – mine was questioned too in this thread. So, get used to it I guess, apparently that is in form for some posters on this blog to do that sort of thing. Too bad, but that’s the way it is in the blog world!
Mostly, this thread has shown how someone who wants to get a certain point of view across, will leave out all the pieces of the story…
Not just this thread GR. Oh, by the way, who is it on this blog that is just as determined to give Tom Hanks a “Liberals Only Media Pass.” Come on – you know who you are. And you still don’t see the bias do you.
“And that doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility.” is why I am saying I am not convinced. This discussion must have taken place during his campaign.
GR, I won’t think anyone is blaming you for anything. And so what if they are. I have been blamed for all sorts of things and I am alive and kicking. Mostly kicking, I might add.
The BOCS is meeting again. I just turned in at 3 pm. Did I miss anything?
And of course i always find it humorous when a poster objects to people continuing a thread or posting on it. Apparently, the suggestion is they should stop posting. You know what? If you don’t like what someone posts – when there isn’t anything really objectionable in their posts – no one’s holding a gun to your head and making you read it. I could see if I wrote something objectionable – but as far as I can tell I haven’t. Although, I have a long memory and I know that particular poster was one of those who tried to drive me off this blog at the very beginning (when it had a different name) and tried to label me as all sorts of nasty things, along with some other posters. Those arguments were incorrect, and as a result it makes me not believe anything that poster has to say – or believe that poster’s comments have any true value. That poster by now has been proven wrong about what he/she wrote about me a long time ago, so to me it is like in a court trial – once you find one thing a particular witness says to be untrue – you throw out their entire testimony!
And I’m sure that poster feels exactly the same way about me – and he/she is more than entitled to – just don’t be writing posts making it sound like I am posting too much or shouldn’t be continuing this thread. That is beyond silly.
I’m not sure Tom Hanks meant what it appears to be what he was saying. I’m very careful about labelling things as racist, as I’ve seen the word “racist” used in ways that aren’t accurate. Heck, I’ve even been called a racist on this blog (well, it’s early incarnation) by some frequent posters here – and some worse things than racist.
So, I’m treading carefully on the topic of Tom Hanks, as I don’t know all the facts yet of what he maybe was intending to say, but didn’t say it carefully enough. The jury is still out there, I think. That’s just my opinion, others may disagree.