Post your Obama conspiracy comments here when they don’t relate to the current articles. Comments will close in two weeks.
286 Responses to The occasional open thread: lizard people edition
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I wonder if Paul Irey will take the scanned image of Orly’s “subpoena” and do an analysis of the letters in the Orly Taitz stamp. Something looks fake to me 😉
I shortened two comments by someone at FREEP (leaving out judgmental and speculative parts) to ask anyone with expertise if this is true:
The BW image used by the WH matches the current posted image at Snopes …
… the WH … use[d] a BW image that is clearly just an Explorer browser screen print (the headers and footers formats are default Explorer settings) instead of fresh new scan and photos of the actual COLB.
The BW Image is a photocopy of a birth certificate, which they photocopied so that they could hand copies out to the Press to take home, along with showing them the original copy (didn’t allow them to take that copy home), and scanning it and putting it up on the web.
Obama is working for the Republicans.
Since President Obama is working for all Americans, whatever their political affiliation, that is very true.
Assuming we are referring to the WHitehouse release of the LFBC on April 27, 2011.
1. The BW image of the COLB posted on tthe Whitenouse web site is a browser print of an image stored on the Snopes server. It is not a print of any image stored on Ron Polland’s photobucket account.
2. The BW image of the LFBC handed out in packets to the press in attendance is a photocopy of one of the two certified copies sent from Hawaii.
3. The high resolution BW Associated Press scan is a scan of one of the BW photocopies handed out in the press packets.
4. The color PDF is direct (optimized) scan from one of the two certified copies sent from Hawaii.
5. The Savannah Guthrie photographs are of one of the two certified copies sent from Hawaii.
a poster at the khon link clains to have gotten PANAM flight logs that show Obama entered Hawaii at 5 mos old.
flight logs don’t show passenger info, those are on passanger manifestos
poster is a lying sack of pupu
This sufficiently answered my question, assuming you have the expertise.
Nice graphic, Doc! Original to you? If this is a dumb question…I don’t get out much.
I have been giving the term “Natural Born” some thought. I recall that in Julius Caesar, he was described as having been “ripped unnaturally from his mother’s womb”, hence the term “Caesarian Birth”. Could it be that the framers of the constitution meant to exclude all those born “unnaturally”? Don’t forget that people of the time were very superstitious and they may have believed that such children had a defect and , therefore, not fit to be future presidents. It is just as valid an idea as most of the rubbish that has been claimed. So, can we find out if Mr. Obama is “naturally born”?
A humorous point, but a sick question. Birthers would love it, and have no compunctions about pursuing it.
Doubtful. But then again maybe they were only talking about legitimate children.
From John Adams autobiography,
“M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages. “In France,” said M. Marbois, “they are not admitted into the army nor any office in government.” I said, they were not excluded from commissions in the army, navy, or state, but they were always attended with a mark of disgrace. M. Marbois said this, no doubt, in allusion to Mr. F.’s natural son, and natural son of a natural son. I let myself thus freely into this conversation, being led on naturally by the Chevalier and M. Marbois on purpose, because I am sure it cannot be my duty, nor the interest of my country, that I should conceal any of my sentiments of this man, at the same time that I do justice to his merits. It would be worse than folly to conceal my opinion of his great faults.’
Mr F. that he is talking about is Ben Franklion.
When I was 10 years old, I had great fun playing the Super Nintendo version of Sim City. I still do pick it up occassionally, although after 20 years I still can’t manage to get the highest rank, of Megalopolis. I would need 500,000 citizens and the best I can ever do is 300,000. That is, of course, with the $999,999 trick.
I remember in that game if you did a really poor job with your city, you could be impeached, which is basically Game Over (although of course you could always reload your latest save state if it wasn’t too late). This formed my interpretation of the concept of impeachment. It wasn’t until a high school civics class several years later that I found out you could only be impeached as punishment for criminal actions.
I sometimes see “IMPEACH OBAMA” bumper stickers and signs. I get the feeling that these people are holding the same perception of impeachment as I did at age 10.
Speaking of SNES Sim City…. has anyone here ever attained Megalopolis rank in that game? I just can’t pull it off. I get that you need more of your zones to develop into higher ranks, so that you can achieve greater population density, but I can’t seem to do that to great effect. It seems like every game I play, Pollution becomes my top problem because of my industrial zones. I keep them on the edge of the city, but I don’t have enough space to spread them out too much. Crime and traffic are thankfully not a problem, as I build tons of police stations and forego roads in favor of mass transit.
PS. That info would be on the left side of the birth record which no one has a right to see.
Have you googled “SNES Sim City Tips and Cheats?”
Such as: http://www.gamewinners.com/snes/SimCity.htm
I used to play the hell out of that game back in the day and no, I was never able to reach Megalopolis level. I once got as high as a population of about 350K or 400K, but that’s the best I could do.
Hey! Hey! That was Jim F.’s (spoof?) question, not mine! I just chimed in to say it was pretty sick.
Sef August 10, 2011 at 12:38 pm (Quote) #
J.Potter: So, can we find out if Mr. Obama is “naturally born”?
34% of all children born in the U.S. in 2009 were delivered via c-section.
Just know that if you decide to put it on a t-shirt, Charles Baldwin might send you a nasty letter….
“”””Every time I go into the doctor’s office or the dentist’s office or a hospital anywhere, I’ve always got my eye out for it. Naturally, I’m proud of the fact that I was able to come up with something, or direct a program that evolved into this symbol that’s so widely recognized, so helpful. But I ran into a peculiar situation one time a couple years ago when someone was putting on a seminar on biohazards. As gifts for the participants, he devised a beautiful tie with little biohazard symbols all over it. This got me upset, and I sent him kind of a nasty letter saying this symbol was not designed to be used sartorially.””””
Sartorially? Who uses that word? He’s either really straight or really funny.
I think it looks like three mermaids doing synchronized swimming in a hot-tub…but, that’s probably just me.
Oh wait. I just remembered, I *did* manage to get a Megalopolis on SNES Sim City. I think it was some time in early 2000, and I was playing on an emulator. The secret is cheating. And I mean above and beyond the $999,999 trick. I used Game Genie codes to get a bunch of Gift buildings that increased property value.
I have published a new and very informative and very detailed 08.10.2011 blog report at my WOBIK Blog.
‘John Kwame Odongo and Dr. [Florence] Ng’endo Mwangi (Kenya’s first woman physician).’
Thank you so much for letting us know Lucas.
I’ll go right now an announce it to everyone who could possibly be interested.
Thank you, Daniel! I’m grateful for your support!
And you can certainly count on the same level of support from me, so long as you always your current level of integrity.
Well, I read your post.
You can say it was informative about Dr. Mwangi, but really didn’t have anything to do with Odongo.
You seem to spend a whole lot of effort trying to find unrelated examples just so you can say that something might merely be possible. That is about the extent of things of what you seem to spend time posting.
It really doesn’t go anywhere from there. There is quite a leap from mere possibility to even situational plausibility and then a much further leap from there to connecting two unrelated events to say that *is* what happened.
In other words, you are trying too hard to connect unrelated people and events instead of providing any substantiating evidence about the actual matters at hand. Seems like nothing but an effort of smoke and mirrors to me.
I believe the word you might be looking for is distraction.
Yes, I would characterize it as that. If you note how I concluded my post, I consider this to be a smoke and mirrors effort. In other words, an elaborate trick of intentional distraction.
I wrote the text and selected the design, but it was executed by one of those warning sign generator web sites.
There are hundreds of sign generator options on the Internet, perfect for the graphically challenged like me.
I know that you understand what he is doing but I’m not sure that Lucas understands that everyone knows what he’s trying to do. And I also remember that you’ve told him before that this is all just an attempt to distract from the real issues.
I really think it is a shame that he hasn’t realized that the ship has sailed on the Kenya BC thing and it’s time to move on. He’s not untalented, he’s just really misdirected.
And let’s not forget that Lucas is an experienced grifter. He knows better than to try to con people with the usual birther bombast, so at times he sounds reasonable and almost rational. But when all is said and done he is still running a game, which is why he will never admit that the Kenya BC is a fake and he will never admit that he’s never been to Kenya.
I still haven’t figured out his angle on this business unless he still thinks he can sell the paper copy of the POSFKBC. Oh, perhaps he has sold it (under promise of secrecy) lots of times to folks who think they bought the “original.” If it’s an ongoing business, then it makes sense for Smith to expend effort keeping it going. All speculation, of course.
WorldNetDaily published an article in October of 2009, titled: Is it time to whisper the word ‘impeachment’ in which Floyd and Mary Beth Brown wrote:
people who spout “impeachment” are people suffering from”impearment”
Wow! See, I really don’t get out much. I mean, if I wanted such a thing, I would go reinvent the wheel. Think of all the time that I could be save by not knowing how to … hmm, wait, sounds like birther logic there! Could go all Orly …. it’s easy to be a lawyer when you don’t know what yer doin’! Corsi: just make stuff up and find a citation later; if you can’t find a citation, it’s OK to skip a few, who reads footnotes!
Thanks again for the tip!
I agree that that is never going to happen. I was think more on the lines of him just droppping it and moving on with his life.
That is MY image on THEIR server. Snopes has been using my image since June 2008, and it makes no difference where it was on the day the WH copied it (April 25). It is still my image,
Snopes has always used my image, either from their server or from my Photobucket account and the direct to my image on Photobucket has never been changed.
Only the image itself has been changed.
More than 5,900 views to my forged image came from Snopes on April 27, and the people posting that link all thought that it went to a copy of Obama’s “genuine COLB scan.”
I can prove that Snopes continued to use my image and only my image from June 22, 2008 until Aug 1, 2011.
Sometime between Aug 1 and Aug 3, however, they resampled and resaved the image. Although it looks the same, and the luminance values are the same, the chrominance values are higher because of chroma subsampling. Before the change both tables had nearly the same quality values. The file size was also bumped up to 113k and the DPI had not been set.
I saved the previous image at 44% quality using IrfanView, It is 1024 x 1000 pixels, @300 DPI, 33,634 color count, approx. 110k, and has the same metadata found in the Kos and Factcheck images (the Kos came from a Factcheck-sized image).
FYI: I imported the metadata from the Kos image into my image using ExifTool after saving it.
The current forgery clone with the tilting “prima facie” statement is a replacement I put in its place last year to see if anyone would notice the “obvious flaw.”
Nobody did. Now if I knew that the WH would be using a b&w copy of my previous image in the future, I would have left it alone.
After April 27th, I sent out a number of Twitter feeds alerting people to the swap I had made.
The bottom line is still that the WH used a COLB image they found on Snopes to make copies and distribute it to the press, saying that it is Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, when, in fact, it was the image I made.
Either way you slice it, they did not have any scan images to submit, nor a real COLB to copy – yet, they claimed to have submitted a scan they made of Obama’s actual COLB they also claimed to have received in June 2008, copied, and then pasted on Fight The Smears.
Lying about it will not change the reality of it. Get used to it.
And you have proof of the this assertion.
Actually Snopes is using MY image on their server. I’m the one who created it.
Why are you trying to take credit for MY work Polland… or Polarik… or whatever alias you’re using these days.
Taitz files lawsuit against Fuddy, Onaka in HI state court.
Fuddy on suicide watch.
You wish. Fuddy has done nothing but follow the law, and Taitz has done nothing but abuse and lie about the law.
When this Taitz folly crashes and burns*, will you pretend to be surprised?
*She included 48 pages of exhibits, she claims, which probably include her usual dreck including pictures of t-shirts, affidavits signed by “XXXXXX”, etc.
Here is the sum total of Orly and the birther’s “evidence” that Obama is using a SS number issued to someone else who was born in 1890:
Can you please explain to me how the numbers “1890” randomly placed on a page amount to “treason”, Fraud”, and the “greatest Constitutional crisis in U.S. history”?
Seriously ShapeShipper, Do you consider this solid evidence?
Dr. Ron Polland,
Did you figure out how they faked all the videos of young Obama in the 70’s?
Is the rabbithole well-lit?
Well, if Lucas Smith were a physicist, he’d go like this:
“My experiment proving faster-than-light speed is not flawed simply because the scanner image showed bosons with negative mass.
Look here at this list of experiments where the scanner showed wrong results!
This proves my experiment must be correct because those parts of the results I don’t like cannot be trusted!”
Yeah, that would fly well in the scientific community.
That is an apt analogy.
In many ways, it is the same type of logical fallicy thinking that we’ve seen as an excuse from many other Birthers in their rationalizations to distract from their weak arguments. On another thread, Harrison pulled out the tired old over-generalization excuse of “politicians lie” and “the government can’t be trusted”, as if that in any way had a direct correlation to any of his claims. It simply does not and fails for the same logical reasons as in your example below.
*rolls eyes*. Yeah, right…
Wow, you are really one step away from stuffing your hand in your shirt and frog marching around in circles shouting “I am Napolean!”, aren’t you? Can’t wait to hear what delusional fantasy you will claim to have invented next…
A new 47-page filing from Orly…guess she’s going by the “Since I’m in Hawaii anyway may as well file some meritless suits here, too”. Or maybe it’s “Hey I like it here…maybe I can get my gullible donors to give money to fly out here even more often if I have more lawsuits I need to argue.”
Maybe she’s Orly Lawsuitseed, spreading lawsuits in every state through which she travels. Or like a dog leaving a urine scent everywhere.
Given Orly’s 0-20 or so track record I doubt any Hawaiian official is shaking in their boots.
Taitz v Fuddy, Onaka could have been avoided by a response to Orly’s repeated inquiries as to whether or not HI DoH was going to comply with the subpoena. A fax, email and a followup letter through certified mail stating HI DoH was not going to comply with the subpoena due to privilege would have saved Orly and her investigators thousands of dollars in unnecessary travel expense.
Score one for Fuddy and Onaka. Now, Orly is angry and will stop at nothing to exact revenge.
I’m curious. Why do Obots flame the flames of discontent while proclaiming disappointment in the adversarial nature of verifying a document allegedly made public?
As far as Susan Daniels is concerned, a little compassion and sympathy could go a long way to resolving the issue. But no, Obots egg her on and she has staked her reputation on an ill conceived theory.
Sandra is about to find out that it is quite common for children involved in contentious adoption procedures to have multiple SS-5 forms on file with the SSA. Unfortunately, Sandra believes there is one application for a SSN for each person with an SSN and anything else is fraud.
Again, Obots are more interested in being dismissive and intellectually abusive than resolving the issue. Why is that?
Orly was already angry and would stop at nothing long before her recent trip to Hawaii, and based on what Orly said on her blog, the DoH’s refusal was actually expected.
I don’t understand your comments about Susan Daniels. It is Orly Taitz, if anyone, who egged Daniels on. If Susan Daniels had read THIS web site, she could have been educated about her mistake rather than digging in her heals. However, she has no one but herself to blame for making false assertions. Someone claiming to be an expert is responsible for their own folly.
Now I remember why I put you in moderation long ago for being a troll, Sven.
It looks like a face.
Orly did not have to fly to Hawaii to deliver the “subpoena” herself. There are numerous options for one that doesn’t want to fly over the ocean. She could have retained local counsel to deliver it. There are legal organizations she could have paid far less than the cost of her flight to do it. Her flying to Hawaii was done so she could put on a show, a spectacle. On that, she succeeded. But that does not mean it is Hawaii’s fault, and that is why she can’t claim those costs even if she won (which she will not). This (among many things) is also why her claim that she needs an emergency hearing because it costs a lot to fly back falls on deaf ears. You can’t do something “the hard way” the claim hardship when as more logical alternative was available.
By Orly’s logic, had she chosen to fly first class to Hawaii the state would then the liable for those much greater “wasted” costs. Doesn’t work that way.
The mother lode of these is:
While it is within the realm of possibility that a fake COLB image created by Ron Polland got copied and circulated around the Internet and even ended up on the Snopes.com web site and from there to the White House web site, that doesn’t imply that no original COLB exists. It would always be easier for some White House functionary to get an image off the Internet than to figure out who has a physical document, go through the hassle of getting it and then scanning it.
Certainly Ron Polland didn’t create the high-resolution color images released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008.
My brother’s best friend from childhood, who was the best man at his wedding, somehow scored a good, secure job at a hospital in Hawaii many years ago (somewhere between 5 and 10 years). I’m so envious.
Yeah that’s apropos of nothing except for the fact that we’re talking about Hawaii.
Taitz had the first response from the state saying that they could not disclose the information due to Hawaiian laws. Nothing changed between the time of the first letter and the second subpoena.
And this should scare who exactly? Her quest for “revenge” will only cost her more money. Considering her track record thus far, do you really think anyone is worried about Orly?
The document has already been legally verified. More has been done to confirm the qualifications of this president than any president in our country’s history, and a small group of ungovernable malcontents are still whining based on lies, rumours, and innuendo. We are not the ones trying everything in our power to delegitimize a legally elected president.
So now we’re responsible for someone else’s own stupdity? Whatever happened to personal responsiblity?
Who’s Sandra, and what does any of this have to do with the President? The President was never adopted, and unless it has been recently changed, there is no evidence that the President ever had more than one SSN (and how would this Sandra ever find any of this out, as it would all be private information held by SSA?)
Actually, the issue has been resolved since 2008. When one side has all the evidence, and the only logical explanation, and the other side has nothing but lies, rumours, and inconsistent theories, there isn’t an issue left to resolve.
One key to running a con is to not let anyone know what the game is. I suspect that Lucas is still getting birthers to help him out financially with his legal problems, but to do that he has to keep the Kenyan birth certificate fantasy alive.
I don’t know if anyone here has linked to this before, but I found a pretty interesting summary of Lucas’ legal issues here:
Sounds like deja vu all over again. Didn’t you post a fake BC at FreeRepublic, insist that it was real and when the Freepers found a number of errors, didn’t you say that you put it up to see if anyone could catch the errors?
If you put the “crooked” COLB (name seemed appropriate on several levels) up last year, and the White House linked to it through Snopes.Com , this year, then shouldn’t the White House’s COLB be the “crooked” COLB?
Orly recieved those things. The Hawaii Attorney General sent Orly Taitz a letter that said that her “subpoena” was invalid because of various things. Furthermore, the letter said that Hawaii Law prevented them from disclosing the birth certificate. This, of course, didn’t stop Orly Taitz, who knew that her subpoena would not be complied with, to spend thousands of dollars to fly 3 people over to Hawaii to deliver a subpoena that the Hawaii Attorney General already said was invalid. What did she think that they were going to do? Say, “Well, even though I said it was invalid before and that Hawaii prevents me from legally disclosing the information that the subpoena sought, now that you’re over here, I’m going to change my mind.”
If Orly it angry, it will just mean that she’ll be labeled a vectous litigator in another jurisdiction. She’ll really be racking them up.
Because Birth Certificates are not adversarial in their verification. They are self-authenticating documents. That means that nobody in their right mind would say that they’re fake without direct evidence of their fraud backed up by real experts.
Her ill-concieved theory was all her doing. Her entire evidence of Obama’s using a fraudelent SSN is that the number “1890” appeared in a database that has disclaimers in it that these databases are riddled with errors (so much so that even she knows that).
I’m persuming that you actually mean Susan, not Sandra. And those databases don’t mean SS-5 forms on file. Those databases that Susan based her theory on basically get generated every time a SSN is used for something such as a Credit check. She knows this, and has stated this previously.
Because the issue is resolved with this official statement from the Hawaii Department of Health.
“I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii Department of Health. Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. State Registrar.”
You can read that statement here: “http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg”
In a nutshell, who can tell me what Orly’s pursuit of the social security registration and draft registration fantasiies is about? What profit would Mr. Obama gain from using one stolen SSN, much less 39? As for the draft registration, what relevance today? Is her theory that he didn’t register at all, but later made up a false record of registration? Taking the devil’s advocate posttion, what’s the legal relevance today of any draft registration violation? I’m sure the statute of limitations would have long since run, so trying to force public disclosure of any related documents would have no bearing on any criminal case today. Sure, such an act would have moral implications, but you can’t force public discolsure of documents created long ago to show that someone had bad character. back then.
IIRC, most of the 39 SSNs were first reported after 2008. So essentially,l she is saying that after the President became a candidate, he began to use fake SSNs. Before that he was good. Same thing with the Harrison Bounel thing, he doesn’t show up until 2010. So did the President start using an alias after he became the President?
There is also something else. If you look at the Susan Daniels’ affidavit from one of Orly’s cases, the second to the last page shows two entries for Barack Obama at the Sommersville, Massachusett address and the XXX-XX-4425 SSN. But one entry has a DOB of 1890 (the famous missing person) and the other entry has a DOB of 1990 (another missing person?).
Orly never mentions the 1990 DOB. I wonder why? LOL
One last thing about Susan Daniels. I listened to her being interviewed by Mark Gillar and Gillar first reads to her the SSA website note that says ‘never mind the geographic locator on SSNs’. Daniels says that that was a recent addition to the SSA’s website. But the wayback machine shows it was there in 2001.
Now this is sad, not necessarily birther but involves mindless opposition to the President. A radio caller from my home state of Okiehomie called in to say he had just abandoned plans to expand his business, because ” ‘Barry’ is in there and he doesn’t know what he’s doing.” The caller couldn’t articulate a coherent reason, and the whole story may have been BS. I mention it here because of the reference to President Obama as “Barry” which I have only seen/heard on rightwing blogs and talk radio, particular in birther circles. Doc often points out that birthers (and by extension wingers) can be otherwise normal, successful people, and that is surely true. But it’s sad to think that any fraction would be allowing this fearmongering to influence major life decisions. Even sadder, there likely isn’t any chance of talking sense to the guy. He may have other reasons for pulling back and just be projecting every adverse aspect of his life onto the President.
Before Obama went to college, my understanding is that he went by the nickname Barry, and I think some of his friends may still use that name. The sure birther giveaway is when someone calls him Soetoro.
The school yearbooks at Punahou list him as Barry Obama.
I know the whole Illustrator/layer thing has been done to death, but I had this map of Charleston on my computer and opened it into Illustrator. It must have a hundred layers and they are very random.
Actually this is good news. There are 2 possibilities:
1. There really is no demand for this guy’s products or services, so expanding would only result in him losing his investment. So Obama has saved him money.
2. There really is demand for his products or services. In this case, his competitors will step up to fulfiil the demand. This will result in a shift of money from a foolish Obama-hater to someone possibly at least marginally less foolish and Obama-hating.
There is no ‘legal’ subpoena, and Fuddy did respond to Taitz with the DoH’s complete, accurate, and legal explanation of why Taitz’ FSPOS is not going to get her access to Obama’s or anybody else’s vital records.
That Taitz didn’t like the response is no skin off Fuddy’s nose.
And one of those people was apparently there just to carry her car keys!
Hey, it’s the Lakin case all over again. Birthers always equate “getting a response I don’t like” with “getting no response”.
I believe at least a part of the birther movement started with pretty much that goal – not to prove Obama did anything illegal or was legally ineligible, but simply to dig up some dirt that would harm his chances of being re-elected. Like the speculation, his BC would say something along the lines of “Religion: Muslim”.
And at least a part of the birther movement is mostly about that still, because not everyone hates him from the bottom of their hearts (though many newer birthers were probably fooled by the “forgery” stories and think he’s ineligible though they don’t hate him).
I wouldn’t wonder if Orly actually thought that. After all, she travelled cross country to a court thinking there would be a hearing on her motion and the judge, moved by her story, actually gave her some time to present her case, even though there was no hearing scheduled.
After wading through pages of 8/4/1961 (and the occasional 4/8/1961 to confuse Americans), there is one entry of 1890. So, to Orly, that makes it a sure thing. With the 1990 and 1890 both coming from his address while at Harvard (and only having the year shown), the simple explanation would be that the company that ran the SSN those 2 years had some data mapping/entry issue on their system.
Indeed and this is fascinating because it’s demonstrably untrue. Orly said quite publicly that she got a letter from DOH *weeks ago* telling her she wasn’t going to get the records and why – the law prohibited disclosure. She traveled all that way to likely get another copy of the same letter.
That IS a response. That it isn’t “Yes ma’am, right this way to the Certficate Chamber” does not mean she was ignored.
Lakin’s supporters often talk about how he asked all the way up his chain of command about the President’s eligibility and got “No response” and that he was completely ignored. But that is hogwash – Lakin himself in a number of his statements said that he was told the President was eligible. More than once. From superior officers, from military legal offices, etc. By no means was he “stonewalled”, except that he was told that the military wasn’t going to go and request a birth certificate from the President of the United States on the whim of a lieutenant colonel. Furthermore he was told that were he to disobey orders based on this theory of his he’d be court martialed. He was told in advance exactly what would happen. He chose to believe the birther whispers instead. But again, the answer of “He IS eligible and your Commander in Chief” is not “No answer” just because it isn’t the answer the birthers want to hear.
But it proves absolutely nothing. You DO get that, don’t you?
Unless you can prove that the state of hawaii signed off on your copy, too, instead of issuing a fresh COLB, and later a Long Form, this is funny, but irrelevant.
ShapeShipper: “Again, Obots are more interested in being dismissive and intellectually abusive than resolving the issue. Why is that?”
Ah, no, my surly Padawan. Being dismissive and abusive is EXACTLT the correct response to folks who deny that the issue has been resolved, and it has. Evidence that the issue is NOT thoroughly resolved is as diaphanous as evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.
Or is Obama actually a shaved Sasquatch? Can’t wait to see THAT on WND.
Speaking of dismissive abuse:
A Liberal walked into a bar and asked the bartender, “Hey, have you heard the latest Birther joke?” The bartender replied coldly, “No. And I’ll have you know I’m Birther.” That’s OK,” said the Liberal. “I’ll talk slowly.”
Q: What does a Birther have in common with a beer bottle?
A: They’re both empty from the neck up.
Q: If you’re paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many pancakes will fit in your dog-house?
A: Ask the Birfers. That question would make perfect sense to them.
Q: Why do birthers pee their pants at their tiny outdoor rallies?
A: They’re afraid the porta-potties are FEMA camps.
Q: What swivels around, moves up and down, and has a sticky, smelly top?
A: Orly Taitz’s dental chair.
Isn’t it a shame how 99.999% of the Birthers give the whole movement a bad name?
Q: What skill must be learned for a Scout to earn a Birther Merit Badge?
A: The Scout must demonstrate the ability to tie the United States Constitution into a hangman’s noose.
Q: What did the Birther girl say while having sex?
A: Get off me, Dad… you’re crushing my smokes!
Q: What’s wrong with Birther jokes?
A: Birthers don’t think they’re funny and other people don’t think they’re jokes.
(Anyone with good Birfer jokes, please post them. I’ve got quite a collection.)
This is a unique trait I haven’t seen in *any* other crank movement I’ve encountered over the last 10 years.
Only the birthers exhibit that strange behaviour of saying “no-one refutes us” instead of “no-one *can* refute us”.
Take for example the claim “no-one remembers Obama from college”. Of course that is easily rebuked, but birthers then don’t say “well, those people are lying”, they simply wait for a few days to pass, then regurgitate “no-one remembers…”.
I’ve read this today on WND quite clearly, where one birther wrote (paraphrasing) “there is no controversy (i.e. some people saying A and others refuting them), only the truth and the attempt to hide it”. That is their state of mind. Evidence to the contrary isn’t just forged or a lie, it “doesn’t exist”! Reminds me of the totalitarian world view in “1984”.
They would claim “there is no release of anything from Obama” if they could.
Well Orly still seems to be under the mistaken impression that the difference between winning and losing a case depends, not on the quality of your evidence and arguments, but rather on how many people you can stack the court room with.
The crazy…. it burns…
Exerpted from various entries on Orly’s site (warning possible maleware site)
“I need my supporters to be there in the US district court in HI on Spt 14, 10am. Please, contact Trump and media, ask them to bring this issue to the forefront
…Taitz also made an appeal for her supporters to show up in person in Hawaii.
“I would appreciate people showing up in Honolulu on Sept. 14 in Judge Puglisi’s courtroom to support me,” Taitz asked. “The judge will think twice before sweeping an issue under the rug or dismissing me as an attorney if people supporting me show up to attend the hearing.””
sorry should read “malware”
How about re-purposing some blonde jokes:
Q: How can you tell when a birther has been making chocolate chip cookies?
A: By the M&M shells on the floor.
Thanks, Sef. That goes in the file.
Open thread, right? OK … so as a Bachmann and Cain supporter … I thought Ron Paul whipped them all last night. Ron Paul 2012!
As a Republican, I have to facepalm every time I see the current lineup of candidates for nomination. If Bachmann gets the nomination, I may have to have my fingertips stapled to my forhead permanently.
When did my party go from the party of “fiscal responsibility” to “pull my finger”?
As a Democrat, I kinda want Bachmann to get the nomination.
Here’s a brand new report from Kevin Willmott’s team about just what it was that Trump’s “investigators” uncovered in Hawaii:
What was the last Republican administration that could be termed, in all seriousness, fiscally responsible?
I’d cast a vote for Bush the First, for being responsible enough to call for raising taxes in the face of mounting Reagan deficits. If not HW, then … Ford? If not Ford, it would have to be Eisenhower? My point is, the last Republican to at least pay some lip service to some version of fiscal responsibility was labeled a traitor and challenged by his own party’s Reaganaid-slurpin’ rightwing in the shape of Buchanan.
Please don’t ask me embarrassing questions
I watched it. Good heavens! I found an authentic Kenya BC! Obama’s?!
Oh… that is funny. That is just so great!
Actually they share this trait with the “Truthers”.
The High School Maths teacher who has ‘proved’ that WTC7 could only have been a controlled demolition because some parts of it reached ‘free fall’ for some irrelevant length of time refuse to acknowledge that they have been refuted by demolition experts, physicists, engineers, computer modelers, and several other classes of actual experts.
The mantra is repeated over and over, “they can’t refute us, even the investigative committee has admitted that free fall occurred, and the only way that that could have occurred is if it was a controlled demolition. Never mind all those scientists and other experts that have refuted us; nobody has refuted us.”
Is she admitting to some fear that the Judge may ‘dismiss’ her, as in invalidate her credentials?
I’d almost pay to see that, but it seems there are plenty of witnesses in Honolulu to relate it.
As a Democrat, its Bachman/Palin 2012 for me!
The Birthers on WND are complaining that The Issue wasn’t addressed in the Republican debate. Regardless of anything else, that alone would be enough for sane people drop the subject.
When I was a birther … it wasn’t the difference of him being black … which is always inferred by some of you (I know there are SOME racist birthers … but I still contend not the majority). The biggest difference is that he is the most Radical, revolutionary, change our form of governance and the power of the presidency that causes one on the right to wonder.
That jogs a memory of what Jessica Rabbit said in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?: “I’m not bad. I’m just drawn that way.” I think that the right portrays Obama as far more radical than he is.
You may be right but I suspect the non-racist (or non-racist-leaning, since we all tend to pick up some bigoted leanings without realizing it) are generally quieter that the racist ones. Therefore, what we here more often are the more racist/bigoted group. It may be unfair, but perception of racism is hard to avoid.
Come on Bob … that is completely disingenuous and dishonest. No one was going to default. Giving an overspending, overwhelmed indebted entity a higher credit limit with essentially no redux in the budget is absolutely radical. It is still easy to wonder if he is not after the destruction of America with his policies. His only answer is class warfare, attack any success of the market and business, and produce universal misery. Radical is the Jeremiah Wright’s who hate America, the Van Jones who are openly communist, the lady in his administration whose chief hero is Mao, his political buddy being an unrepentant terrorist who bombs our country. These types of things and the policies that follow them are radical beyond what we’ve ever seen. Why did his budget get 97-0 votes? Because his spend without cutting is beyond even the majority on the left. He lies without remorse (I am going to reduce the deficit in half during my first term–now no interest in that, My mother died of cancer without any healthcare–actually was mostly paid for by her healthcare coverage minus minor copays, etc etc).
The fact that he became President during an unusual time in our history (economy faltering, 2 wars, etc.) likely causes an increase acceptance of this portrayal.
OK … I can accept that. Most the folks I know who considered it like mysefl, were mostly talking quietly between ourselves. It wasn’t until I came to this site and entered “recovery” that I ever “voiced” anything in a public forum.
I can see racist being more vocal and heard in these forums.
Some of them do. The birthers certainly do. The fact is that Obama is no more radical than Regan, or any other President in living memory.
I think the birthers have had to hide, perhaps even from themselves, that they hate the idea of a black man being President, so they make up the fallacy that he’s a nazi/communist/muslim/liberal/illuminati plant in order to shift attention away from the real reason they cannot abide him.
Was it radical when Bush did it?
“Jeremiah Wright’s who hate America, the Van Jones who are openly communist, the lady in his administration whose chief hero is Mao . . ”
Sorry but your list of concerns isn’t any more or less outrageous than a concern that Obama is a “shape-shifting alien” and you’re not fooling anyone.
Why is wasn’t radical is this. First, it was wrong (Bush’s excess spending). The difference is in the level of excess spending and the context. Both sides of congress agreed with Bush’s excess spending and both sides authorized the two wars that created the excess spending.
Obama started a third war with no congressional approval, and his spending is a radical expansion of government to takeover private sectors, and expand entitlements and spend the government beyond the ability to recover … so yes it is radical now when it wasn’t radical then.
Why IT wasn’t … typing too fast for myself again. ;(
Joyeagle. I have some questions for you.
First, what does it take to make you realize that the portrayal of Obama as radical socialist/Marxist/whatever is as false as the allegation that he was born in Kenya?
Second, is there any GOP contender who is so appalling that you would vote for Obama even if you still believe he is a radical socialist/Marxist/whatever instead (Or at least stay home at election day)?
First, I think the facts speak for themselves … his associations are radical and unrepentant. If one were huge left-leaning, socialist, communist anti-christian … then Obama won’t seem radical. His agenda mimics his associations. His rhetoric is continuing to be more openly class-warfare. You can’t compare the two items (political philosophy/policy and birthplace) because one is a subjective opinion and one is based on facts.
Second, no. None that are running are appalling to me. Some are less appealing. I don’t care for Romney or Gary Johnson. I don’t like Giuliani or Rick Perry. My favorites are Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. I certainly won’t stay home, but will try to bring as many like-minded people to the voting booth (and primaries) as possible. Why do you ask?
Thank you for your answers. I ask because people with cognitive dissonance are fascinating to me.
No offense Mr Eagle (I assume you’re a man) but if you think that Obama is radical and yet your favorite contenders are Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann, then you have cognitive dissonance.
It’s like someone who complains about Lady GaGa shallow superficial act but his favorite singers are Britney Spears and Madonna (This analogy might be more understandable if you remember Britney Spears).
Ha! I may be a bit too old to appreciate the B Spears vs Gaga analogy but I get your point. However, it is not as much cognitive dissonance as a different political philosophy about what government is best suited. I am sure each side can see the other as “radical” to their own political philosophy.
Oh, and my whole point in this was … not a political debate … but a comment on my belief that political leanings are more a cause for the percentage of births than racism as is often charged on here. I don’t have any hard-core statistical proof of that.
ooh … getting sloppy … sorry … birthers not births.
joyeagle, ultimately I think that birtherism started in either Racism or Xenophobia. Ultimately it is a bunch of people stating, “He’s not one of us.” And the only reason that they can find to say that is that he lived outside the country.
I agree with you that this isn’t just racism. It’s the same group of people who held onto the belief that the Clintons were a part of a massive criminal conspiracy that murdered people left and right that got in their way (read about Vince Foster’s suicide and what the right truly believes about that). It’s the same group of people that believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that John Kerry staged his Military service, including at points shooting himself, in order to use it 30 years down the road to run for President (read about the Swift Boat Veterans for truth).
However, I don’t think that you can state that there aren’t elements of racism and xenophobia in this, and those elements of racism are being actively promoted in order to try to “bring down this President”.
Thank you. Perfectly balanced and objective analysis … worded better than I can. I was “open” to the theories on the Clinton’s too … may have even given some mental assent to them internally, but never talked with others about it. However, looking backwards, the Clintons seem rather more moderate than I viewed them at the time.
My theory (and not based on the birther argument that Farah makes) is that HRC will be the democratic nominee in 2012 …. based on lack of leadership and economic disaster of this administration.
No offense but your theory seems more like wishful thinking and has no connection to reality where Obama still popular among the Democratic base.
So popular that his lows are still HIGHER than any US presidents since Kennedy: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/presidential_approval.html
Yes, my theory/opinion is just that … no reality to compare a future predicted. However, I don’t believe his approval rating has reached its low yet … as he continues to tank the economy, so will his approval … as he continues to blame everyone else and offer no concrete solutions, only class warfare rhetoric, his lows will continue to dive. The far left is offering more and more criticism of him now too, even comparing him to Jimmy Carter (see the daily beast apr 24). It’s just a theory, but will seem more and more reality based as we get closer. Maybe it won’t be HRC … maybe she was honest with never planning to run again.
It;s actually an amazing trick these so-called conservatives pull:
Clinton; bad because he dodged the draft
Kerry-bad because he didn’t dodge the draft
Bush Jr-good because he dodged the draft (yes I know he joined the Reserves. Even if he actually showed up, which is unclear, it was done to avoid going to Vietnam)
Cheney-good because he dodged the draft
Gingrich-good because he dodged the draft
Obama-bad even though there was no draft to dodge
McGovern-bad because he opposed the Vietnam war, even though he was a World War II hero
Reagan-good because he suupported the Vietnam war, even though he spent World War II making films
Besides, polls are very tricky. Average presidential approval is 54% vs BHO 41%. At this point in the presidency of GW 60% and H.W. 71%. The only president with a lower approval at this point in their presidency was Jimmy Carter. The point is, it is trending down with no good prospect of a reversal.
So you say Obama speaks of class warfare and yet the far-left is mad because he doesn’t. Interesting. If by “class warfare” you mean that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should expire, something like 80% of the public, including a majority of Republicans, support it.
Here’s a little test. See if you can identify who said the following: “Class warfare? There has been class warfare for the last 30 years and my class has won”.
i will be back shortly with the answer.
No, I’m not speaking about his desire of charging a huge tax increase and inevitably slow down the economy by letting the tax cuts expire (wording makes an assumption the govt owns that money preeminently vs another wording recognizes it is the people’s money that the govt is taking). No, it is the continuous bashing of corporate America in his speeches, “jet sets’, millionaires and billionaires (which by his policy pushes means job creating businesses making over 250k per year), and pitting the economically wealthy vs the entitlement dependent. If you’ve listened to any of his speeches lately (which I regularly do) you would see it as obvious even with your political blinders on.
Warren Buffett is correct, as is much of what he says. And quite frankly, I will put Wrren Buffet’s knowledge of how the economy works over Michelle Bachmann (who has never in her life held a private sector job). In fact , I would put Warren Bffett’s distant cousin Jimmy Buffett’s knowledge of almost anything (even after several maragaritas) over M Bchmann’s.
The fact is that the economic “theories” you propound are flat-out insane and have no support amonst any significant grouup of economists nor amongst any actual business people (as opposed to people who have spent their lives in right-wing “think-tanks”). I have just been reading my copy of The Economist, a real conservative publication, as opposed to the radical reactionary clap-trap you spout and i would urge you to spring for a few bucks and pick one up. If you give me your address, i’ll be happy to send it when I’m done with it. Or, read the following http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/business/economy/voices-faulting-gop-economic-policies-growing-louder.html?hpw
Believe me, life-long conservatives are throwing up their hands at the sheer lunacy of people like you (even if you aren’t a birther).
Mr Eagle, the majority (Though the number may not be 80%) not only ready for tax increase they even asked for LESS tax cuts.
Here is the 2010 petition from Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength who asked Obama NOT to extend Bush tax cuts.
Dear Mr. President
We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.
For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.
We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.
Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.
Slow down the economy by letting the tax cuts expire? What world are you living in? We had almost ten years of tax cuts and job creation just wasn’t there. The Dow was lower when Bush left it than he received it and he had the worst job Creation record since hoover. Tax cuts don’t create growth and actually help stifle it.
Do you know that Rev. Jeremiah Wright’ is a very decorated veteran, and as a surgeon he operated on President Johnson & (if what I read is true) John McCain’s father?
You believe more right-wing smears against a veteran, who has had his words twisted and taken out of context.
I consider there to be very little difference between Bill Ayers and the Tea Party. Both considered the government of their time to be persuing wrong and dangerous policies, and committed misguided actions in protest that opponents could construe as “anti-American”.
You mean the radical element don’t think he’s a radical, but you do.
You should do some research on the Great Depression
In all fairness, one might say that George W Bush was “trending down with no good prospect of a reversal.” Remember, Bush was riding high after his approval shot up to 90% following the 9/11 attacks. You note 60%. By the time of the 2008 election, Bush’s approval was at 20%.
However, if you want to put Obama’s approval rating into perspective, compare it to Congress. This past week’s Fox News poll (Aug. 7-9) approval rating for Obama was 42% compared to Fox’s approval rating for Congress: 10%. I think that the American public is generally pissed off with its leadership, and not with Obama’s policies in particular.
Obsolete, you have been so reasonable in the past … but the difference between the terrorist Ayers and the Tea Party is not wrong and dangerous policies and actions … no … only Ayers conducted bombings against Americans. I’ve been to tea party meetings … and it is mostly common concerned citizens who believe in common sense. Things like you can’t spend more than you bring in … continuously without limit. Sounds like you have just taken the weekend talking points of DNC to start calling Tea Party activists as terrorists … because they’ve decided to vote based on fundamental sound policy–not bomb America.
You have shown yourself completely unreasonable in this–no differently from any birther.
Actually, I subscribe to the Economist and enjoy it … I don’t find it conservative by any means, but more balanced than most of the MSM and a balanced approach of a worldview outside of just America.
I haven’t propounded any economic “theories” … but I do believe we will see that a majority of americans get common sense better than all of the willy-nilly head in the sand obfuscations of the spend us into destruction left … with the dillusional belief that the “rich” can carry the burden of it all without killing the economy. Talk about misguided and unintelligent …
That is nice leftist spin in the NY Times article, but not representative of the reasoning behind the S&P downgrade … it wasn’t based on lack of revenues — it had more to do with the lack of substantial debt reduction.
The silly unsubstantiated comment from earlier that 80% of Americans, including Republicans, want a tax increase … that ludicrous statement pulled out of thin air like leftist talking points are want to do … reminded me of a post I came across on Facebook today:
PLEASE post this as your status if you know someone who has been eaten by Penguins. Penguins are nearly unstoppable and, when hungry, also breathe fire. 71% of people won’t copy this into their status because they have already been eaten by Penguins. Another 28% won’t because they are hiding in their showers with fire extinguishers awaiting the coming Penguinapocalypse. The remaining 1% are awesome and will re-post…
It isn’t quite 80%, but a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Aug. 4-7 shows that 66% of Americans favor raising taxes on upper income Americans. This closely mirrors a CNN poll conducted Aug. 5-7, which shows that 63% of Americans favor increasing taxes on businesses and higher income Americans. A CBS News/New York Times poll conducted Aug. 2-3 shows that 63% of Americans favor increasing taxes on households making more than $250,000 per year.
“Deficits don’t matter.” – Dick Cheney
By the way, it’s “wont to do,” not “want to do.”
Sure … I can believe those polls and those numbers. The 50% of Americans paying no taxes want to tax the highest taxed citizens more … not exactly intelligent for the long haul. To tax the $250k and above — the job creating small businesses more so that that unemployment goes higher, creating more non-tax-paying entitlement-dependent citizens as the leftist want … its a power-grab solution that leaves our country bankrupt. The tea party patriots are not extreme or terrorists or ignorant or racist for recognizing this and trying to reverse it through voicing their concerns and voting accordingly.
Oh, I get it, You believe the polls which agree with your biases, but you dismiss the polls which contradict your biases. How convenient.
CNN Poll Aug. 5-7 Approval Rating of the Tea Party
So the Tea Party has a favorable rating which is double-digits LOWER than the favorable rating for Obama which you have been crowing about. Hypocrisy much?
The fact is that there is zero evidence that increasing taxes on the supposed “job creators” would increase unemployment. However, increasing taxes on the wealthy would go a long way toward reducing the deficit which you hate so much.
And instead of just parroting right-wing talking points, you might want to do a little research. It simply isn’t true that 50% of Americans pay no taxes. 45% of American households pay no INCOME taxes, but they pay plenty of other taxes. Most of them are poor households, but 5 million of them have incomes between $50,000 and $1 million+. Many of the latter group are taking advantage of tax loopholes which the Republicans in Congress refuse to close.
No, I believe most of the polls … can’t think of one I’ve argued against here … just the 80% number pulled out of thin air. and ok, I rounded the 45 to 50 % paying no income taxes … the point is that the no income tax payers continue to vote to increase the tax requirement on the tax-payers until there is nothing left to create jobs with.
I believe the poll about the favorable rating of the tea party too–the leftist and leftist press continuously lie about the tea party as being extreme and racist — that is where most people get their favorable opinion from. And Obama has a higher favorable rating than the Tea Party–so?
This is a ripe one, “increasing taxes on the wealthy would go a long way toward reducing the deficit which you hate so much.” like in which universe. They’ll just increase spending.
Here is something we should be able to agree on. Tax loopholes are a problems, and the democrats and republicans both like them, because they “payback” their special interest groups with them. A fair tax solves it all. It is a non-partison fix for the corrupt tax system that we are currently under.
(Oh, cnn is not the most unbiased source out there 😉
The Daily Beast article you pointed to up-thread put the number at 72%. Was it just the headline you were interested in?
Both wanted to hurt Americans financially. (Ayers claims he only wanted to damage property) That is a fact. The Tea Party would have hurt Americans on a much larger scale than Ayers could’ve dreamed of if they were able to cause the default they wanted. And they did hold the country hostage to their demands, which are nowhere near “fundamental sound policy”.
Remember the saying, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” You consider them freedom fighters, I consider them something else.
My greater point is that almost every President has political opponents who consider him or his policies “anti-American” or dangerous to America. They protest, or engage in civil disobedience. Supporters of the President consider those opponents “Anti American” while the protesters consider themselves patriots of the highest order, fighting injustice.
I try to see both sides.
Can you see how The Weathermen considered themselves patriots, fighting an unjust war that was killing thousands? Even those who didn’t engage in violent activity like Abbie Hoffman were called traitors and worse by supporters of Nixon. Hoffman considered himself a patriot, fighting against Nixon the crook and war criminal.
Have you looked into the life of decorated veteran Rev. Wright? He was not a one-dimensional cartoon figure. Do you consider John Kerry “anti-millitary”? It seems your views are severely colored by the right-wing filters. You may have broken free of birtherism itself, but fall under the other spells of those who created birtherism.
Ok, there is the obsolete I’ve come to “know and love”. 😉
Sure I can see the weathermen thinking what they think–just like criminal’s who shoot abortion doctors. They are both still wrong.
Still, I contend, you have a greater filter to suggest:
“The Tea Party would have hurt Americans on a much larger scale than Ayers could’ve dreamed of if they were able to cause the default they wanted.”
It simply is not true, is hypothetical, and mis-states their position.” I did not hear one tea party congressman/woman advocating default. The downgrade and stock crash were not in response to a default, but an ever-expanding debt growth. That is the facts … a default is hypothetical. I imagine you have raised children and have grand-children by now. If you keep bailing out your children’s credit card limit, as it grows and grows beyond control … and your only loving response is to continually increase there debt limit … maybe you aren’t really helping them in the long run. Maybe you are only enabling an addiction. Our government is addicted to runaway spending. Do you see the 30% Republicans who voted for Ron Paul? They recognize we can’t afford an unlimited “defense” and every war in the name of freedom fighting.
I do agree that the politically polarized sides see the other side as “hurting” America.
Neither do I think that a decorated veteran ensures espousing policies or attitudes that are beneficial to America. Jeremiah Wright is a bitter, hate espousing grifter. I’ve heard enough of his first-hand sermons and press conferences to get his gig.
I think John Kerry and John McCain are both quintessential un-principled politicians. Their military service was great and patriotic, but did not inoculate them to the contamination of a lifetime in politics.
I see Dr. Kate is hosting a video about “HAARP rings” which are circular weather patterns, or more likely RADAR anomalies returning ring-shaped images. It’s being associated with high-altitude research in Alaska.
You talk as if you were an expert on economics. I wouldn’t say something that adamant because I know that I am not an expert on economics.
I do know from experience, being part owner of a company once, that when tax time came around in “good years” we spent money to reduce our tax bill, thereby stimulating other businesses. Today corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, not using them to create jobs. I’m not saying that a tax increase is the best motivation to get businesses to put their money (and thereby the people) to work, but it’s going to be hard to get the economy moving without some change in the current incentives for business.
I think it has been shown that high-income people spend a lower percentage of their income than lower-income people. I don’t see how taxing the rich is necessarily a drag on the economy. It would seem more likely that taxing the rich would stimulate the economy by getting the money in circulation through federal spending rather than private saving.
I do know that tax rates have been much higher in the past during times of economic prosperity. I don’t think it’s at all certain that allowing the Bush tax cuts for persons earning over $250,000 would be a drain on the economy at all.
Anybody know what Dr. Kate is doing on her super-secret Patriot’s Ark page?
I’m really curious what your actual real-life experience with business is. I have run my own small business and worked for both a small start-up business and a large multinational corporation. Never have I seen a decision to expand or reduce investment or hiring based on the top income tax rate.
Why not? Let’s run the numbers. Suppose Joe has a pizza parlor that makes really good pizza (1000x better than the crap Herman Cain made). So good that on many nights he has to turn customers away. So he considers expanding the store and hiring another cook and a couple of waiters. Let’s say that his costs would be $9,000 a month and he believes it would add $10,000/month to his take, for an increased profit of $1,000/month. Let’s say, Joe is in the 35% tax bracket, so after taxes he would net $650/month. Now, if his tax bracket goes to 39%, he would net only $610/month. So your argument is that he would throw away $610/month simply because it wasn’t $650. That makes no business sense whatsoever.
Furthermore, where is the data to support the argument that the top tax bracket has any effect on how the economy does? The top rate was 90% in the 1950s and the economy did well; it was 70% through the 1970s and the economy sucked; it was 50% through most of the 1980s and the economy did well; it was 39.6% through the 1990s and the economy boomed; and it was 35% in the 2000s and the economy was mediocre followed by tanking. So where exactly is the correlation??
So instead of simply regurgitating that “raising taxes increases unemployment” , please PROVE it. Thank you
You said that 50% of Americans pay NO taxes. The word “income” appears nowhere in your comment. And you didn’t “round,” either. 45 is already a round number. You just inflated it because 50% sounds more dramatic than 45%.
I believe the poll about the favorable rating of the tea party too–the leftist and leftist press continuously lie about the tea party as being extreme and racist — that is where most people get their favorable opinion from.
Of course, it is all the fault of the “leftist press.” It can’t possibly be due to the fact that Tea Party favorites keep saying outrageous and untrue things. Michele Bachmann is so ignorant of American history that she believes that John Quincy Adams was a founding father. She also told the St. Cloud Times in 2007 she had knowledge of an “agreement made” between Iraq and Iran: “They are going to get half of Iraq, and that is going to be a terrorist safe-haven zone where they can go ahead and bring about more attacks in the Middle East, and come against the United States.” She also claimed that the 1976 swine flu epidemic took place during the Carter administration. Herman Cain doesn’t believe that the First Amendment applies to Islam.
(Oh, cnn is not the most unbiased source out there
At hominem attacks do nothing to enhance your credibility. If you believe that the article to which i linked is biased, prove it. If you like, I can cite a half-dozen other sources which say the same things as the CNN story.
You’ll have to go to one of the uglies (ORYR) for it:
Air Force Staff Sergeant Refusing Orders Until Obama’s Eligibility Dealt With
They should have hit Lakin harder.
Yet another example of a birther receiving an answer to a question and then claiming that the question was never answered. Here we go again!
Also, I just noticed that the newest birther martyr has a rather unfortunate name. Let’s hope this Moran decides to get a brain before he suffers the same fate as Lakin.
Pride in our Women Who Serve
here’s hoping he makes a quick trip to caaflog before tomorrow morning.
Good evening Obotopian!
Kevin Willmott video sucks but should be great for Obotopian crackers with attention spans of a grasshoppers.
But check out Bruce Steadman’s new video!
OMG! Obama Was Born In Kenya! Thanks, Lucas Daniel Smith!‘
New WOBIK Blog report was published today regarding Bruce Steadman’s downright outstanding video:
Very reallstic Lucas I can really imagine actual co-workers having that exact conversation. And the machine voices are sooo realistic, I felt i was right there in the moment.
Discourse and Conflict: The President Barak H.
Obama Birth Certificate Controversy and the New
Timothy Lee Adams
h/t WTPOTUS posted by “Bridgette”
Extract of Bridgette’s synopsis
The thesis is a mixture of information from literature comparisons to politics. He expresses his opinions on different issues that are interspersed with current events, history, narrative, quotations, and personal experiences. It is presented utilizing both a time line of events and his analysis of the circumstances. It is a most unusual dissertation, unlike what I expected from reading the abstract. He describes his effort as being akin to Gonzo journalism. He calls his writing style creative, but I would describe it as a convoluted style, but that is my opinion.
Gallup: Obama job rating sinks below 40% for first time.
Recommended exercise: roll the phrase around on your lips, “President Michelle Bachmann” twenty times … then get used to it.
Farther down on the page you linked to:
“I was due to get out soon under an administrative and Honorable discharge for a “Personality Disorder”, because I told them homosexuality is sin.”
The guy has problems, obviously. The Air Force may just send him home and be done with him.
I might be able to do that if I thought she might actually become President of something beyond the local Kiwanis Club.
Oh really,. From the statement itself…
“…indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.”
“It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.”
“The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them. ”
“Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act”
So yeah, the downgrade had nothing to do with the lack of ability to raise revenues at all. [/snark]
45% will vote for President Obama, 39% for a republican.
Personally I’m wondering who the hell Gallup is calling. Every other poll shows Obamas ratings going up, even Rasmussen. *shrug*
Speaking of which you might want to have a look at the beliefs of bachman and the books she reads
Here’s the complete New Yorker article:
Bachmann is a Dominionist. In cruder terms, a Christofascist.
Here’s Bachmann practicing giving a…well, you know:
“We are in the last days,” Bachmann prayed from a Minnesota stage in 2006, the year she was first elected to Congress. She asked God during that appearance to help foster the success of You Can Run But You Can’t Hide, a Minnesota ministry led by Bradlee Dean, a pastor who has been repudiated even by Republicans for calling gays “predators,” among other things.
In that appearance, Bachmann praised the ministry’s outreach to public schools and its attempt to explode notions about the separation of church and state, which she called “a myth.”
The Republican Party will split in two rather than nominate Michelle Bachmann. She would implode more spectacularly than any other candidate in history. She will never be able to withstand the close scrutiny. The sane members of the GOP will force a civil war within the party instead of agreeing to present her as candidate.
Sorry, joyeagle she is a font of crazy, bigotry, inaccurate statements, and every time she speaks she writes her opponent’s commercials. A public blowup/breakdown is a certainty.
(written on the new iPad I bought my cat using J. Madsen’s tax money!)
Bachmann’s and Perry’s goal is to subvert the 1st Amendment, nothing less.
Huckabee: “What we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards.”
joyeagle – have you considered that some of that rating is because our president is too far to the right for many progressives?
joyeagle- As someone who, by their own admission, fell for a load of horse excrement (birtherism), you might want to consider whether you are perhaps susceptible to believing arrant nonsense in other areas as well. Just a thought…
Now please, Mr/Ms joyeagle provide us some evidence that your financial acumen (or Ms Bachmann’s ) is superior to Mr Buffett’s…
I wonder what he means by that – and why no-one in the media tried to get him to talk turkey.
What amendments would he actually suggest? “Gay marriage is illegal.”? “The prerequisites for US president, vice president and member of Congress are hereby amended as follows: Must be Christian. Must be white. Must be heterosexual.”?
And birthers will spin it as “they are afraid of the publicity a court-martial would generate” – yeah right, as if that worked out for Lakin…
I found the longer article from which this story comes quite interesting as well:
Now to move all this stuff over the t Open Thread.
I am not an expert … but common sense and fundamental beliefs do drive me. You state below your belief that the FEDERAL spending is the answer, whereas conservatives like Herman Cain and me belief the business sector is the “Engine” driving the economy. I think evidence shows that government spending is rarely the answer to a lagging economy.
I have … she is awesome.
I have to admit … it is hard to see how she succeeds in the campaign … but hey, Obama somehow won
Finally we agree
I actually think it should be. Unfortuunately, right now, it isn’t.
Consider that these might in fact be rare times, like a the aftermath of a once in a century financial crisis. Consider also how the Geat Depression ended, with a massive bout of public spending (also known as World War II). Or do you somehow believe the war was a private-sector project?
I think that is absolutely part of it. He continues to reveal himself as more/too radical to the conservative and independent, and too compromised from revolution for the progressive left. But, i think the biggest portion of American’s are not idealogical at all and just reflect the pocket book being hurt.
Spoken by someone who thought the birthers were awesome, not too long ago…
Joyeagle: ” I think evidence shows that government spending is rarely the answer to a lagging economy.”
Tell that to WW II spending finally ending the Great Depression. The New Dwal started to improve the economy, until Republicans forced spending cuts due to their screaming over deficits. The economic recovery halted when spending cuts were implemented, and the situation was reversed and the depression finally ended by massive government spending in preparation for war.
In times of depression and deep recession, government is the only entity that can spend enough (or even has enough money) to stimulate a recovery. It’s not wild-eyed socialism, it’s history and basic economics.
Sure … I’m always open to that … tried to talk my little brother out of birtherism yesterday. He is another not racially incited birther, who consider’s it due to the extreme political agenda he senses going on.
However, I see more dillusional thinking in the leftist … more similar to birthers in the political points.
Except in a global recession, where the business sector is holding onto their money, and putting into safe low risk investments. Consumer confidence is low, and the American middle class is trying to save what money they. Since demand is low, the business sector is not expanding. They are holding onto their money. So much so, that banks are beginning to charge premiums for these clients to store their money (a negative interest rate). So if the business sector isn’t expanding and hiring because the middle class isn’t spending, and the middle class isn’t spending because they’re concerned about the job market and their languishing salaries, who is going to kick start the economy to get the middle class spending? The answer is the Government. The Government spends on infrastructure projects, hiring middle class un/underemployed. The middle class now has money. Unlike the wealthy, where a few extra dollars really don’t change their spending habits, the middle class do tend to spend more as their income increase, for the simple fact that they don’t have the luxery of tons of disposible income to begin with, and live on tighter budgets. More money, more money dumped into the economy. Thus we now have an increase in demand. Finally, now the business sector will take notice and start spending money to increase production. Moodys actually did a study of the impact of tax cuts on the economy, and found it gave the worst return for our investment. For every $1 in tax cuts, we get a 32 cent impact on the economy. In contrast, something as simple as unemployment benefits, that same $1, has a $1.61 impact on the economy. Now if just a hand out has that much impact, don’t you think an actual roads project would as well?
Mr Buffet’s interview with Tom Brokaw was dishonest hack job for the president … neither he nor the president offered up any of their “rich” money to the govt … they took EVERY tax loophole and tax cut available. They are hypocrites and just want to keep others from succeeding.
Just my opinion 😉
You’ve made this mistake twice now. it’s delusional, not dillusional. Dill is grown in the garden…
umm …. we tried that to the tune of $1 trillion dollars in 2009. Didn’t work.
Providing jobs to the middle class would get them spending … they’d actually have money to spend.
Not an economic expert … its just common sense. That is why we need a Cain or Bachmann or Palin … someone with not too much education mixed with collegiate leftist brainwashing so that they have some commons sense.
All of the suggestions that these guys aren’t Smart just because they are politically opposite is no different than birther assumptions about the president because of his politics.
Right, spellcheck generation … thanks.
Wrong The stimulus did save many jobs, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/24/cbo-stimulus-lowers-jobless-rate-by-up-to-18-points/
You’re kidding, right?
Why not my dog??? Or Misha’s cat. They have no education at all
OK … just being facetious now. I didn’t say no education. I suggested those who were able to get an education without being brainwashed with the leftist ideology like most. You might note that Cain has a Math degree, and a Computer Science Masters from Purdue. Obviously Bachmann’s Law degree is well known. Sarah Palin is just an inherent genius (obvious to all but the left … and Daniel). I’m not anti-education … just too many liberal politicians lose their common sense in Ivy league schools — and it shows in their policies and attitudes.
I’ll tell you what turns off so many Americans about President Obama … it is his condescending, arrogant, I’m smarter than you so just shut-up and take it, attitude.
No, Cain and Bachmann are more suited and educated and up to the task of the presidency more than Misha’s cats or President Obama.
joyeagle- See if you can give a coherent response to this:
You fell for birther nonsense.
Therefore I contend you are prone to fall for nonsense
Therefore, how do you know many of your other beliefs aren’t just as nonsensical as birtherism?
And I have my degrees in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology-not much ideologiical indoctrination there
I’ll try to slow down and be coherent.
I wasn’t talking about you and your education specifically … more to the candidates. You seem to have a more balanced approach than most of what i would term leftists. But I would bet money that your social sciences teachers in college were left-leaning idealogues, that may have had an influence on you. I’ve seen this anecdotally … young colleagues of mine just gettting out of colleges … went in conservative, came out vegetarian, tree-hugging, pacifist liberal’s with lots of idealism and not a lick of common sense.
The leftist activist have for the most part taken over the university systems. It’s there right. It has been very strategic and smart move to further their progressive agenda and has been working for them.
I am not immune to falling for nonsense, and I’ve not argued that–but been honest with my deficiencies there and you can use that as a means to beat down all of my arguments if you like. I’d suggest those never touched by birtherism are not immune for wrong-thinking either. I don’t claim to have all the answers, just espousing my beliefs about political foundations.
Bachmann has a law degree and Cain has a masters in computer science.
Do you have any idea what a screaming stereotype this sounds?
First, there is a decimal missing in the link (1.8, not 18), so the link is unintentionally misleading. Additionally, if you go the CBO report within that link, you will read caveat after caveat after caveat. This statement can also be found in the report:
CBO assumes that as the recovery progresses, the Federal Reserve
will see less need to provide monetary stimulus. Under CBO’s
current macroeconomic forecast, that assumption implies that in
early 2012, the Federal Reserve will gradually begin to offset fiscal
policy actions by raising interest rates (or engaging in other
actions to tighten monetary policy) in order to reduce the risk in
later years of excessive inflation.
Interesting assumption eh?
Additionally, this is from a later report from the CBO:
Although CBO has examined data on output and
employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment,
those data are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic
effects as might be supposed because isolating the
effects would require knowing what path the economy
would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that
path cannot be observed, the new data add only limited n
information about ARRA’s impact.
Estimated Impact of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act on
Employment and Economic Output from
October 2010 Through December 2010
No, I don’t see it. They do surveys … the majority of University professors are left-leaning … in fact, it helps your hiring prospects to be left-leaning. Notice I didn’t say ALL … just most. That’s similar to most African-Americans voted for President Obama. Not a stereotype–just a statistic. Less than 6% of nurses are male … is that a stereotype?
Joyeagle, the stereotype is that these “left-leaning” professors are brainwashing their students. You also assumed that anybody who was left-leaning is an ideologue. Obama is left-leaning, and he’s far from being an ideologue. In fact, he seems to be too much of a pragmatist for my cause.
That would be like me trying to claim that anybody to the right of center is a right-wing ideologue. That statement just isn’t true, because I can point to thousands of examples of people who are right of center who are not ideologues. Lincoln Chafee and Judd Gregg seems to come to mind. They are right of center, but not ideologues.
You make assumptions there that you cannot back up. Yes, the majority of college professors are left-leaning. However, that doesn’t mean that every professor is left-leaning, nor does it mean that any of them are actually ideologues.
First, that’s actually spelled “ideologues”. It really helps you to be taken more seriously if you spell big words correctly. Second.I actually took very few classes outside the sciences; my undergrad school didn’t believe in taking a few classes in this and a few in that-they preferred you to focus on your major. Believe it or not, but people who think differently from you may not have been indoctrinated by anyone; they may have come by their opinions on their own.
There are always caveats in economics. Harry Truman once said, “All my economists say, on the one hand, on the other hand. Give me a one-handed economist.” Late 2008/early 2009 looked the world was falling into an abyss; was the governnment really supposed to shrug and do nothing?. The stimulus package was a perfectly reasonable response. Virtually every country in the world did something similar and many did more (China spent 2x what the US did in proportion to GDP). While it didn’t bring back boom times, it stopped the precipitous decline. Here’s a graph
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm GDP turned positive in Q3 2009 when the stimulus began kicking in and stayed positive unntil the end of 2010, when the stimulus ended. Coincidence? Probably not.
Census jobs having an impact…. coincidence? Probably not.
Are you agreeing or not? Government spending (stimulus) didn’t have an effect – it was the government spending (on the census) that had an effect?
The stimulus was a temporary fix that should have been more effective than it actually was IMUO (in my unprofessional opinion). My husband held a steady job for 15 years with a local company. When the economy turned sour, he (along with others) lost their jobs in 2009. The company was not on verge of bankruptcy; the owner of the company was not making the profits he wanted. When I say that he is of record as an Obama supporter, I say it not to place blame on Obama. I say it to show that business owners are business owners, no matter their political affiliation. Anything that cuts into their share of profit is cut. Loyalty to one’s company means nothing. I know that there are business owners that ride out the storm, so to speak, with their employees. I would venture to say they are far and few between. Who do you think is really going to pay for tax increases? What about business owners who make $250,000 (or not much more) but after paying all of their expenses, pretty much have a modest income?
On a somewhat related note, I was appalled when I learned that Bono set himself up in the Netherlands to avoid corporate taxes in Ireland. I was appalled not that he took advantage of favorable tax laws but that he criticizes the rest of the world for failure to take of the poor. He could have helped his native land by paying his “fair share of taxes.”
If I were filthy rich, well, I actually wouldn’t be. I would give away most of my money. Hypocritical celebrities make me sick with their completely lavish lifestyle. I have no problem with those who are not self-righteous (actually, I believe they will have a problem with accountability at a later point; you can guess what I mean).
In my heart of hearts, I pray that your Sarah “You can see Russia from Alaska” Palin is sarcastic. But considering you’re ranting about indoctrination by left leaning professors at the best universities in our country, and then point to Bachmann, the great mind that thought defaulting on our debt was no big deal’s, and her law degree, which came from Oral Roberts University (at the time a bottom tiered law school up until they closed their doors), as an example of educated conservatives, I begin to worry. But I’m sure the fine institution like Oral Roberts U. was very open and well balanced in their approach to education.
I don’t know what your experience in higher education is, but I have had professors all over the political spectrum. In my experience, the vast majority really don’t care what your political beliefs are, so long as you can defend them with facts and logic. If you can’t do that, it doesn’t matter what your political beliefs are. You’re going to fail.
I don’t know whether I would support either woman or not, but the trashing of them is disgusting. The use of I can see Russia line is as stupid as the label given to Palin. Bachmann got an advanced tax degree from a good university. Obama has blundered here and there on some facts also. The debt ceiling argument is also taken out of context. If the issue were not pushed to the degree that it was, it would not have been taken as seriously as it is being now. Do you think the bi-partisan commission (can’t think of the name of it now) would have been established had this not happened? Our country is failing financially.
You’re starting from a false premise. Any increase in taxes would not be based upon a gross sales. It would be based upon net profit. A business which grosses $300,000 but has a net profit of $75,000 would not be affected at all.
Also, any increase in taxes would be marginal increases – i.e., there would be no change in the taxes owed on the first $250,000 of profit. Only the profits in excess of $250,000 would be taxed at a higher rate.
Could you please source that?
Sure. To begin with, nobody – not individuals, not businesses – pays taxes based upon gross income. We pay based upon taxable income. A business which has total sales of $1 million but posts an operating loss pays zero income taxes.
All small businesses are allowed to deduct business expenses, including the cost of producing and marketing goods, capital expenses and improvements, employee salaries and benefits, rent, interest, insurance, etc.
The Obama campaign is doing a poor job of communicating that point. Most people get gross versus net, that deductions bring your AGI down. I think that people see the below link and fume. Were I a small business owner whose net profits were around the hovering $250,000, I would be livid, even if the tax increase were “marginal”:
Loopholes. Close those and quit picking on the small entities. “Marginal” is relative to one’s situation.
CNSNews.com asked a GE spokesperson if the company contested Recovery.gov’s representation that GE had received 14 stimulus grants worth $24.9 million, and also whether the company now employed more or fewer workers as a result of receiving the grants.
In an e-mail response, GE spokeswoman Anne Eisele said, “I’m afraid I must politely decline to comment.”
There you go. Who hoo stimulus…
I would say that it is more a case of people such as Michele Bachmann distorting the facts.
Currently a small business with a net profit of $300,000 pays 33% of the amount in excess of $250,000 in Federal taxes, which works out to $16,500. If the Bush tax cuts were to expire and go back to the Clinton era rates, the $16,500 would go up to $17,500.
If you had a business with a net profit of $300,000 you would be livid over having to pay $1,000 – .00035 of your net profit – in additional taxes?
As for General Electric, Obama wants to close the loopholes which allow companies such as GE to avoid paying income taxes, but so far the Republicans in Congress refuse to close those loopholes.
I’m sure that GE just wants sooo much for those loopholes to be closed. Good grief…. Please Mr. President, just get those Repubs to do the right thing… we’ll just give only to your PAC in the future if you can right this terrible wrong.
The graph showed GDP, not jobs. The census doesn’t really add much to GDP.
and the trashing of Obama by biirthers and others?
I am livid too. But let’s be clear, none of the tax dodges used by GE to avoid taxes were put in by Obama. They are long-standing loopholes in the tax code. In the recent debt ceiling travesty, Obama proposed tax reform, which would get rid of many of those loopholes and lower rates and also raise some revenues. Boehner walked away (to be fair, he may have wanted to do the deal, but the Republicans in the House as a body rejected it).
I agree to an extent. It should have put more into infrastructure and less (or nothing) into the tax cuts. But those were added to get Republican votes in the Senate. By the way, within a few miles of my house in several directions are stimulus projects, including: a new water tank that replaced an aging tower, another water tower removed that was a flight hazard near the airport, a roundabout that replaced a terrible intersectiion that had a large # of accidents and a new express bus service on a busy corridor.
Can you say Jeffrey Immelt?
Everyone in politics gets trashed. And how exactly are they be trashed? By pointing out that while ranting about big government, the Bachman farm is getting $100ks in farm subsidies from that same government? Is it trashing to point out she took advantage of federal lending programs she seeks to elimnate? Bachman isn’t getting trashed. At least people aren’t coming up with bizare conspiracy theories attack his deceased parents, and grandparents. .
I have no sympathy for Mrs. Palin. She was not ready for prime time. Made a series of unfortunate comments, blamed everyone else for them, and then continued to seek the lime light like a complete media whore. She begs for attention, and then makes herself look foolish, and then it’s everyone else’s fault.. There are a great many brilliant conservative female out there. Mrs. Palin is not one of them.
Yes he has…and we still hear about the 57 states. However, do you really want to sit down and compare the lists between Mrs. Palin, and President Obama?
Please explain how these can be taken out of context:
“I will not be casting my vote for that bill. … I cannot. I am committed to not raising the debt ceiling,”
“For the last two weeks, I led the fight against raising the debt limit,”
And now, in her bizzaro world, is claiming that increasing the debt limit is the reason why our credit rating was reduced. I agree we have some serious financial problems. Financial problems that include both spending and revenue. The reason we even need the bi-partisan comission is because congress doesn’t have enough adults to do it in the normal course of business. But even President Reagan made it clear that the debt ceiling is not something to be used as a political pawn. Even President Reagan was willing to have revenues on the table. Not only are we dealing with people who have said $0 in increased revenue…which means not only no eliminating tax cuts for corporate jets, but no closing loopholes, and while cutting social programs for the poorest Americans is the main target of spending cuts, cutting welfare for oil companies recording the greatest profits in human history is off the table.
Regarding Bachmann and the debt ceiling, I was referring to the above comment. There are those who believed that the US would not have defaulted on the debt had the debt ceiling not been raised on August 1. Aren’t you horrified at our debt?
I’ll have to respond more fully later to your other points.
Let me just add that any comment concerning race is wrong. He made his life story the focus of his first campaign. Challenging him on his qualifications was not wrong IMO. Judging someone as inferior because of their parentage or circumstances of birth is different than the discussion of qualifications. When someone is in a protected class, one would always have a difficult time proving that the challenges are related to qualifications versus race, unless one is making their case on race. The internet changed everything. The 2008 campaign was really the first presidential campaign that was internet based so to speak. When Bush ran for his second term, there was nothing new really to dig up.
Census workers are low paid. GDP turned around from -7% in Q1 2009 too +4% in Q4. That ain’t a couple hundred thousand census takers. No way.
What you have expressed is you feel sorry for candiidates for the job who are far-right women. They should be protected from all criticism that hurts their feelings, even late-night TV satire. However, you don’t feel sorry for a mildly left-of-center man when he is exposed to scurillous attacks based on falsehoods.
No one is saying that Obama should have been immune to attacks based on his lack of executive experience, his voting record, his minister, his associates, provided they were based on actual verifiable facts. Only he was subjected to real attacks (not satire) based on utter falsehoods.
So, JoZeppy, when Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, was his decision “to default on our debt” showing his great mind?
There is a difference between voting against something that’s going to pass anyway and voting against something that can’t pass without your vote. One is a political statement; the other is substance.
Doc there’s a new birther claim going around all courtesy of Manning in which he uses a section from Dreams talking about how Obama once slept in an alleyway and Manning claims Obama is a liar because Manning claims there are no Alleyways in New York City.
Guess he’s never seen this list: http://www.forgotten-ny.com/Alleys/ALLEYS%20HOME/alleys.html
Let’s compare the two situations.
2006- there was no question the debt ceiling would pass
2011- it was very possible we would default
2006- Sen Obama never said default was no big deal
2011- Rep. Bachman wanted the deal line to pass, because she claimed it was all just a scare tactic
2006- the vote was held well in advance of any possible default
2011- we had already hit the debt ceiling and the only reason we weren’t already in default is because we stopped payments to federal retirement funds, and actual default was days away.
2006- it was a clean increase (to use Bachman’s words, “a blank check’)
2011- required deep cuts in spending during a recession
2006- Pres. Obama now views his vote as a mistake
2011- Rep. Bachman is proud of her vote, and in bizzarro world fashion, claims that if we didn’t increase the debt ceiling, our credit wouldn’t have been downgraded
Now here’s a question for you. Where were all these newly minted fiscal conservative Republicans back in 2006 when they gave then President Bush a “blank check”?
Not just 2006 but the 8 times they allowed the debt ceiling to be raised under President Bush. Where were they when Bush was doubling the debt? Obviously he couldn’t have done it without their votes.
And not just then. Go back through every modern presidency since the “debt ceiling” rule was added and you will see that it was raised without much of a fuss countless times. Never has this dangerous game of “chicken” been played with nation’s ability to pay its bills.
And that is all this is after all – the ability to pay our EXISTING bills. The debt ceiling is not really about taking on future debt as all. It has to do with paying the existing bills that we owe, which happen to exceed revenues.
A good portion of that reason is because taxes have in many cases gone too low and are not being collected in many places where they need to be due to too many egregious loopholes in tax code and law.
I still maintain the only REAL difference in the No to debt ceiling vote (portrayed by some of you as equivalent to a terrorist bombing act) was (Obama in 06 and Bachmann in 11) he is your guy.
Where were the fiscal conservative Republicans you ask?? absent. That is why the tea party is mostly freshmen. I am not a big Republican fan–they are not much different than democrats.
He’s not my guy. I voted Republican, always have.
I’m starting to rethink my stance though, with Boehner and the current crop of tea party Republicans in Congress acting like spoiled babys, and Airhead anti-Constitutional Bachmann having a chance to actually get the nomination (I shudder to think what that will do to Conservatism in the US) I may have to leave the Republican party for the first time in more than 20 years of my adult life.
When I look at the looney bin that the Conservative right is going to.. I have to hang my head in shame. I’m just glad that Truman, Jefferson, and Eisenhower aren’t alive to see what’s become of the work they put in.
No. I’m not.
I’m horrified at the sudden right-wing interest in using it as the boogyman to scare the common folks into giving in to the destruction of the safety net and Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
The country cannot be run like the family checkbook. There are times when the very survival of our nation may depend on deficit spending.
The stimulus should have been at least twice the size it was, according to Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman and other economists.
Yes, I think about the moderate Republican dilemma sometimes. You really don’t have much to work with these days. I would say that the country needs three political parties — left, center and right — but our Constitution as amended doesn’t work very well that way. If the electoral vote gets meaningfully split 3 ways, then every election is decided by the House of Representatives.
Where was the Tea party during the last administration? Were they out doing protests? Were they getting pumped up by Fox News? The Tea Party is just another artificial movement that seems to come about everytime a Democrat is in office. Before that we had the militia movement when Clinton was President.
Yeh … Tea Party = “Milita movement”. Talk about hyperbolistic paranoia of birther proportions. The thing that is not convincing is that I’ve been to the tea party rallys in several different states. They are neighbors and working class common sense Americans … I’m sorry you don’t get that and take your perception from what you see on TV instead. They are not some extreme fringe that the press makes them out to be. So, you can make them out to be something that they are not if that helps allay your mind, and live in fantasy instead of reality, but the tea party is here to stay and change America back to commons sense roots.
That and his vote wouldn’t matter one way or the other, and merely symbolic, we weren’t on the verge of default, nor did he go on the record saying that the ceiling should not be raised or that not passing it would have no ill effect, the fact that it was a clean debt ceiling increase, and that he now says the vote was a mistake….but yeah…besides those facts, there was no difference.
On the other side of the token, can’t we just as easily say that the difference between that vote and the one in 2006 is that President was Republican, and all those Republicans kicking and screaming (perhaps we should run down how many voted for the increase in 2006?) only care because their man isn’t in the White House?
Funny how Republicans only care about the debt when a democrat is President? Under Reagan, it was “we can out grow the debt.” Under Cliton, it was the end of the world. Under Bush, to parapharse Cheney, “deficits don’t matter” and it’s a huge issue now. While Democracts do the same thing, at least they never pushed the country within a couple of days of default, and publicly advocated for default. As far as I can tell, the worst they did was a 3 day government shut down under GHWB prior to passing a budget that included a tax increase.
So please…do tell me how being willing to take the country into default (quite literally a couple of days from default), while we’re trying to build a very weak economy, is the same thing? And yes, someone who is willing to tank what little recovery we have because they refuse any compromise deservers every label you want to tack on them.
Ahh yes, the appeal to the great unwashed. So tell me, would you trust these barbers and taxi drivers, and grocery store clerks; these “working class common sense” Americans, to perform brain surgery on your children? No? Then why in hell would you think they are qualified to administer fiscal and economic policy?
All the tea party has succeeded in doing is to dumb down the Republican party to the point where people who stack lettuce for a living are deciding the details of fiscal policy of what was once a party of fiscal responsibility.
Now it’s turning into the party that celebrates not knowing a thing about what you’re doing.
Not paranoia at all. The tea party did a good job of swallowing up a lot of the old militia movement. The same paranoid anti-government, don’t trust the government types seem to have infiltrated the Tea Party and the Tea Party has yet to distance themselves.
I don’t have to get it from TV I get it from what I see at actual gatherings. Yeah they are the fringe and a totally corporate driven entity. Really where were you guys 4 years ago?
Sure Daniel, the old republican party of fiscal responsibility … the ones that are at least as much to blame as the democrats for $16.7 trillion dollars in debt … great fiscal responsibility … those smart people sure did a great job. Common sense Americans don’t have the blinders over their eyes anymore. It is all about special interest groups and tax law power in DC … both parties. You can wish for the “good ole days” of combined political irresponsibility, and YES I do prefer common sense barbers, taxi drivers, and grocery store workers to the elite who have brought us to where we are today.
Being born politically.
There has never been a republican party of fiscal responsibility. Much of the debt since WW2 has come from Republicans being in power. They have never shown “great fiscal responsibility”. Funny how it was the democrats who kept inheriting the debt from republicans and having to clean it up.
Boy, you said it. The Republicans are the party of Lincoln, for pity’s sake, Abraham Lincoln! In the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln passed the Homestead Act, gave land grants for colleges, launched the transcontinental railroad, and establlished national banks. he built the country, not tore it down. He put in the first income tax to pay for the war. This current crop of faux-Republicans actually cut taxes while going to war. Name another case in the entire hiistory of the world where a country cut taxes while going to war.
The Tea Party are faux-conservatives. Conservatives are supposed to want to “conserve”; i.e., keep things that have served the country well. This crew are frankly anarchists or perhaps even Leninists. Remember it was Lenin who said,, “The worse, the better”, which is a sentiment I have heard often from Tea Party types. In 2008 they argued for letting everything go bust. sure things aren’t great now, but imagine if they had had their way and nothing whatsoever had been saved.
Moreover, they mock the actual Tea Party. The American revolutionaries were not against taxes. They recognized that Britain had defended them against the French and their allies and realized that had to be paid for. What they wanted was representation in the Parliament that levied the taxes. They only declared inndependence when that was denied. Their motto was not “no taxation” it was “no taxation without representation”. Big difference.
Being born politically? Uh huh sure. So you’re basically saying most of the tea party didn’t pay attention to politics when a so-called christian conservative republican was in office driving up the debt but as soon as a Democrat gets in office you guys wake up. Sorry if I can’t empathize with you but 2 republicans have done more to drive up the debt than all the democrats combined since WW2. Where was your whining then? I guess you weren’t really paying attention.
I could take the Tea Party seriously if they didn’t have that short circuit in their brain that fails to connect tax cuts with increased deficits
The really stupid part of the tea party is the disconnect that allows “common sense Americans”, the grocery clerks and plumbers and waiters, to support tax cuts for the rich instead of for the middle class, as if somehow giving rich people more money will somehow make their lives better.
When did “common sense” become a euphemism for abject stupidity?
I am fond of saying that Democrats are “tax and spend” and Republicans are just “spend.”
joyeagle: Common sense Americans don’t have the blinders over their eyes anymore.
“Common sense Americans”? Are these the same people as Mrs. Palin’s “real America”? I may be cynical, but your “common sense Americans” is a load of BS. Like “real Americans” it is just another attempt to make the sheep of the latest Conservative movement seem new, exciting, and even more sincere (and yes, there is a cadre of liberal sheep as well). These are the same people that were the red blooded Americans whose only concern was protecting our country from the evil terrorists, and were perfectly happy with big government peering into every aspect of their lives because they had nothing to hide. They didn’t think the deficit was a big deal because Dick Cheney said deficits don’t matter…and afterall, we were fighting a war. Poor President Bush had to contend with the economic down turn, 9/11, and the war we had to fight in Iraq, because Saddam was going to nuke us. However, deficits do matter now, because the Republicans told us they do (just like they did in the mid 90s). They’ll now pretend that they weren’t rank and file “red blooded Americans” and try to disown their past. They try to claim the Bush wasn’t conservative and really a secret liberal, and do whatever they need to to seem remotely consistent. And when a Republican is President again, we’ll be back to, deficits aren’t that bad afterall.
And that much has still not changed….for all their claims of being of the people, perhaps you should take a look who financed the vast majority of these tea party freshmen…let me give you a hint. It wasn’t “the common sense Americans” that paid for their campaigns. It was the same special interest groups that finance everyone else.
You seem to be under the mitaken impression that any of that has changed. Sorry, but the same people are calling the shots. Just because a group of Republicans have taken on a populist language doesn’t mean anything has changed. They were still put into office with corporate money. They are still beholden to the same interests. Funny, they’re all about cutting social programs, but haven’t even touch corporate welfare (subsidies paid to oil companies making record profits), and tax loopholes for big business. GE hasn’t paid a penny in taxes, but they still say not a single cent in increased revenue (unless they talk about the fact that half the country doesn’t pay taxes…apparently they do want to raise taxes, but only on the poor). Funny, but I recall part of Reagan’s tax reform was to close loophles. Guess Reagan isn’t conservative enough to be a Republican these days.
So your solution when the surgeon screws up your child’s operation is to go get the plumber to give it a try?
That’s stupid of a whole higher order.
The biggest recipient was Rep. Stephen Fincher, a Republican from Frog Jump, Tenn.
While the self-described Tea Party patriot lists his occupation as “farmer” and “gospel singer” in the Congressional Directory, he doesn’t mention that his family has received more than $3 million in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009, according to the Environmental Working Group.
When asked whether he would be willing to see all his subsidies go away, Fincher would not directly say he would no longer take any more subsidies.
“We need a good, better, we need a better farm program and we need to streamline it,” he said. “We need to look at many many options. And that’s a long way off.”
I liked the “that’s a long way off” statement, but we need to cut stuff he doesn’t benefit from right now.
Who ever suggested voting for a plumber for president or congress. You are just saying stupid things. I’d trust the barber, grocer, and plumber to see through the crap coming out of DC and vote for smart common sense americans like Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. You are making up stupid stuff because you have no real argument.
You’ve not heard of Joe The Plumber’s campaign?
That’s exactly what the teabaggers are proposing. Do away with experienced politicians and educated “elites” and let Joe Plumber decide what fiscal policy is going to be.
Your ridiculous comments on the debt ceiling debacle is a good example of why we don’t need teabagging fools in congress.
Democracy is a great institution with some glaring faults. One of those is that people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are are allowed to vote.
“Now, 20 percent approve while a stunning 40 percent disapprove of it. Ironically, the conservative movement is now more unpopular than two often-marginalized groups it sometimes rails against — Muslims and atheists — and is the least popular of the 23 groups the poll asked about:” http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/17/297731/poll-tea-party-muslims/
Apparently the teabbagger party doesn’t represent nearly as many “common sense Americans” as some people would like us to believe.
Common sense Americans like Bachmann? She rails against the federal government all the while accepting federal money.
And pretends to be a Constitutionalist while promising to enact policies which are blatantly against the Bill of Rights.
yeah….so smart she thinks it would have been no problem if we let the country slide into default and the S&P downgrade is because we didn’t let the country go into default…
but I suppose she’s smart enought to convince you that the government is bad while her family farm keeps raking in the subsidies and her husband collects medicair funds for his “chistian counselling.” Taking advantage of mortagage programs that she now wants to cut for everyone else. And then there is her cashing in on some quarter of a billion dollars in stimulus money for her district, while railing about how much a waste the stimuus is.
I’m not going to even touch on the “global warming hoax” stuff.
Yeah…smart alright. As for those who believe her line of B.S. Perhaps not so much.
So smart she thought Terri Schiavo was a healthy person.
In her stump speech, Bachmann tore into Obama for saying that the debt default could hurt social security recipients and payments to the Army. She said we didn’t need to default because solving the deficit was “easy.” All we had to do was prioritize and cap spending.
Well, as I understand it, the deficit equals 40% of the total government spending. 60% is Medicare, Social Security, Defense and the interest on the national debt, things Bachmann said would be supported. So 100% of the budget minus 40% deficit spending minus 60% protected spending leaves exactly 0% of the budget to prioritize, which is indeed easy. Just shut down the Federal government.
Personally I like someone inspecting meat and keeping the airplanes from falling on my house. Bachmann’s simplistic bullshit is why she shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of the White House.
What’s in the budget? Check out this handy chart.
Call your Representative or one of your Senators.
Ask for a copy of the Aug. 8, 2011 CRS Report entitled “Qualifications of Members of Congress,” Number of Pages: 33, Order Number: R41946.
It has an excellent discussion of the entire history of the questions that have arisen over the years on the qualifications that Members must meet. Pages 6 and 7 discuss the burden of proof, and quote authority from the 19th Century.
The issues raised are very analogous to the issues of qualifications for Presidents.
Here is the abstract, quoted:
There are three, and only three, standing “qualifications” for U.S. Senator or Representative in Congress which are expressly set out in the U.S. Constitution: age (25 for the House, 30 for the Senate); citizenship (at least seven years for the House, nine years for the Senate); and inhabitancy in the state at the time elected. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, cl. 2 (House); and Article I, Section 3, cl. 3 (Senate). The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the historical understanding that the Constitution provides the exclusive qualifications to be a Member of Congress, and that neither a state nor the Congress itself may add to or change such qualifications to federal office, absent a constitutional amendment. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 522 (1969); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 800-801 (1995); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001).
The Constitution expressly delegates to each house of Congress the authority to be the final judge of the qualifications of its own Members (Article I, Section 5, cl. 1). In judging the qualifications of their Members, and deciding by majority vote, the House and Senate are limited to judging only the qualifications set out in the Constitution. Powell v. McCormack, supra.
Although the states have no authority to add to the constitutional qualifications for congressional office, the states have the responsibility under the “Times, Places, and Manner” clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 4, cl. 1) for administering elections for federal office, including regulating such subjects as ballot design, candidate placement on the ballot, ballot security measures, nomination procedures to appear as a party’s nominee on the ballot, and ballot access requirements for independent and new or minor political party candidates. Legitimate “ballot access” rules and regulations, even though they may pose certain administrative requirements on federal candidates, have been upheld when they have been found to be within a state’s constitutional authority to regulate the election process, to ensure orderly elections, and to prevent fraud and voter confusion. The states have been allowed to implement rules which, for example, prevent over-crowding and confusion on the ballot by requiring a minimum show of public support to appear on the ballot, by prohibiting such things as dual candidacies on the ballot, and by implementing “sore loser” laws that bar a candidate on the general election ballot from appearing as an independent if that candidate had lost a party primary. Such administrative requirements have not been deemed to be additional “qualifications” to run for office. However, requirements that are more than merely administrative and procedural or measures to protect ballot integrity have been found to be unconstitutional as additional qualifications for office. Examples include requirements for congressional candidates to live in the congressional district (and not just the state), durational residency requirements, ineligibility of convicted felons, and disqualification of incumbents (term limits).
Frankly, we are in this debt crisis because of people like Michele Bachmann who pander to the public by saying that solving the debt is easy and nobody except a few bureaucrats in Washington will feel any pain.
The deficit is 40% of the federal budget. There’s no way that’s going to change without some deep pain. Only politicians like Bachmann are more concerned about getting elected than solving the problem.
Here is the common sense of Hermann Cain,
“The president is supposed to uphold the laws of this nation … and to tell the Department of Justice not to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act is a breach of his oath.”
I remember when you thought that President Obama, not defending the DOMA, was unconstitutional, until you found out other Presidents have been doing similar things since Eisenhower.
“Common sense” Herman Cain also believes that communities have the right to ban mosques.
House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (Rep. Wisc.) drafted a proposed budget for 2012 which included a $995 billion deficit. There are only two ways to bridge any deficit, higher taxes or borrowing and thus increasing the debt ceiling. (The Ryan budget had a lower deficit than President Obama’s proposed budget.) Congresswoman Bachmann voted for this proposal in April. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/15/house-vote-gop-2012-budget/
Now she says that she can balance the budget by capping and prioritizing. On Meet the Press, she said she would never send an unbalanced budget to Congress.
Perhaps she could have shared her budget cutting ideas with Congressman Ryan before he proposed to drive us another $1 trillion into the hole.
And I’m a Republican.
This is some great stuff about Bachmann! I need to bookmark this page. There’s a guy on another board who fiercely defends her, not particularly because he likes her but just because the resident Democrats are criticizing her. It’s quite hilarious to see his weasely arguments and temper tantrums when confronted.
Essentially her mantra is that she would not raise the debt ceiling and she would not raise taxes, but there wouldn’t be a default, either.
Maybe her secret plan is to have the Treasury sign up with one of those debt relief companies which advertise on TV.
I agree with you- but any politician who produces a detailed plan that includes pain to anyone gets savaged by his opponents Both sides are using the very real problems to try to score political points rather than resolve the problems.
That said, Bachmann is probably the absolute worst of the bunch.
That’s what I thought but honestly Rick Perry concerns me much, much more. The last time we had an arch-conservative governor of Texas become President things did not end well.
Not that it began well, either. Much like having a child, getting married … some become President and make it terribly obvious they didn’t have a plan for what to do after the election. Making them, literally, a ‘tool’ for others.
Rick Perry is scary, as is Bachmann. Entertaining for now, but we’ve seen this play out before.
Silly list with a fun throwaway reference to birtherism on Hawaii’s entry:
The difference between Perry/Bachmann and Bush, as I see it, is that Perry and Bachmann are true believers. Bush paid a lot of lip service to the religious right agenda, but when push came to shove he really didn’t do much to advance it while he was in office.
The scariest part about Perry is that he is electable.
Bachmann doesn’t stand a chance in hell, but Perry….he has the look, he is from a big Southern state, he was a governor(iso a legislator)….he could win the election.
Just curious what this “religious right agenda” is that you speak of?
Among other things – overturning Roe v. Wade, allowing school led prayer in public schools, allowing taxpayers funds be used to support private religious schools, supporting the teaching of “creationism” as science in public schools, allowing tax-exempt churches to support political candidates, and in general dismantling the separation of church and state.
Don’t forget the outlawing of sodomy.
I posted this on another thread. I’m repeating for your benefit:
Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
Read on: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2011/08/17/the-tea-party-is-a-religious-movement
I forgot to add:
The Tea Party Is a Religious Movement
Oh, good. I was afraid you were insinuating something extreme, not just the same old agenda that Reagan upheld … social norms of pre-RoevWade. Not really dismantling separation of church and state as much as allowing religious/spiritual expression–the constitutional “freedom of” not “freedom from” religion. The atheistic, secular democracy that so many progressives desire today was reflected in the French revolution, not the American one.
Soooo ….. I may have sharpened my guillotine a little too early?
The French Revolution canard is a classic! Thanks for bringing it in. “We’ll take this revolution, you guys can have that one.” I would, due to my own bias and beliefs, reverse the revolution assignments and refute what I see as revisionism. How do you see similarities between the 21st century American left and the populist, cannibalistic passions of the French Revolution?
Reagan wouldn’t be accepted into today’s republican party. He would be considered a leftist by the Tea Party. No the right only wants freedom of their religion not those of other religions.
Ah, the right-wing myth that Americans are not allowed religious/spiritual expression. In fact, it is only government which is restricted in religious/spiritual expression, which is absolutely appropriate because the government represents all of us, and we do not all have the same religious/spiritual beliefs.
When was the last time that you were prevented from practicing your religion?
And exactly how many progressives support an “atheistic” democracy? Please provide sources. In fact, only about 2% of Americans consider themselves to be atheists.
The current spin is to worship the words, but not the actions, of Reagan. The man knew how to play a crowd. Reviews his policies and actions. He made the rightwing howl all 80s-long! He was a great compromiser. Now, the cult of Reagan blames it all on the Democratic congress. The problem with the Regan personality cult is that they bought the image, and only the image, in a very literal way.
It can be difficult to be a Republican and a Wiccan at times. There are quite a few on the far right who are unwilling to accept any other faith but Christianity in politics.
I had one local county Republican party demanding I give up my membership unless I renounced my faith. Of course they claimed it wasn’t religious censorship since, as they put it “practising Satanism isn’t religion” (I am not a Satanist, nor do I believe in Satan). Fortunately they decided, after a letter from a GOP lawyer, that I would be “permitted” to retain my membership, so long as I didn’t cause any trouble.
Of course they were not a typical Republican party organization, but the stigma attached to other non-Christian religions is still a problem in the GOP overall, one that I’ve been fighting my entire adult life.
When Reagan was Governor of California, he signed the Beilenson Therapeutic Abortion Act, which allowed legal abortions under limited circumstances.
Barry Goldwater supported Phoenix reporter Sheri Finkbein (spelling?) when she sought an abortion.
Don’t get me wrong. I am pro-life. People ought not get abortions. But they ought to decline to do so because of their moral convictions and not because some religious nut threatens them.
Sorry, but I demand freedom “from” religion. The right-wing and tea party does not get access to my bedroom or alter. They want to regulate people’s private business.
Many of the founders were Deists, not Christians. I can relate to their wanting to be left alone.
As for Reagan, when I think of his Hollywood (and Democrat) days, I think of actress Selene Walters:
Her story hasn’t changed or been challenged, and it wasn’t spread with malice or sold for money. Last I heard, I believe she has mostly forgiven him.
Well the price of Gold is going through the roof, and there’s still a lot of it in Fort Knox.
There is because James Bond saved it from nuclear contamination. I thought everyone knew that.
Sherri Finkbine: She and her husband then flew to Sweden where she obtained a successful and legal abortion, which caused a minor controversy. The abortion panel of the Royal Swedish Medical Board granted Finkbine’s request for an abortion on August 17, 1962, to safeguard her mental health. The operation was performed the following day.
The Swedish obstetrician who performed the abortion told Finkbine that the fetus had no legs and only one arm and would not have survived. It was too badly deformed to be identified as a boy or a girl.
Anti-abortion violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Don’t forget how evangelicals were harassing non-Christians at the Air Force Academy. At the same time, Ted Haggard and his New Life Church were harassing non-Christians in Colorado Springs. Haggard “sent teams to pray in front of the homes of supposed witches—in one month, ten out of fifteen of his targets put their houses on the market.”
And cruising around the wee, I find US gold reserves estimated at a hair under 9,000 tonnes. The price of gold continues to soar tonight, now overtaking platinum (wait… what?!?), at $1870/oz. troy. If we liquidate all that gold we could pay off how much of the $14.4Tn debt?
Ummmm …. 2.8%.
And selling all that gold (more than a quarter of the world’s reserves) would nuke the price.
Welcome to the world of “extreme” fractional reserve banking! If we were on the gold standard, we’d be leveraged 35:1. Leveraged 30+ to 1? That sounds familiar ….
As I told you, I was invited to join the Philadelphia Witches Circle. They are constantly talking about how they are harassed by Christians, especially Republicans. What are you doing with those people?
at 3am, “wee” = “web”. Wheeeeeee!
I’m up with asthma. This takes my mind off laboring to breathe.
Hitchens is right. Take religion out of the Middle East, and see what happens.
Nor because those same religious nuts impose their will through the law. I have never really heard much from the “ban abortion” crowd regarding what would actually happen after they passed a bunch of laws. i suppose it would work like the drug laws which have eliminated the use of illegal drugs. What’s that you say? They haven’t? Oh.
So, we would have a combination of underground abortions (some done by doctors, some not), chemical abortions (by both modern pills and ancient herbal methods, like pennyroyal) and travel abroad (when abortion was illegal in Ireland they actually tried to criminalize travel to England for abortions-didn’t work). And those caught would add to the already ridiculously large incarcerated population in the US (highest rate in the entire world). That would help the deficit-NOT!!
And finally, an interesting note for the Tea Partiers who like everything associated with the Founding Fathers. At the time of the FFs abortion was legal until the quickening (mid 2nd trimester) as it had been under English common law. Early abortion only became illegal in the latter part of the 19th century.
Desperately blowing out matches… mostly 😉
That’s kind of like saying that “freedom of speech” demands that I must speak.
Well said! I agree.
The Constitution pretty much only mentions religion in terms of explicitly saying that it shouldn’t be mixed with government. It does this in terms of saying that there should be no religious tests in order to hold government office (or for public trusts) and then in the First Amendment, where it states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Therefore, the freedom to worship as you please (provided said worship doesn’t violate any other laws – i.e. you can’t “sacrifice” people at the alter, because that is murder, etc.) or to not worship at all is completely protected.
An excellent and official site covering the topic in much greater depth, including diving into the history of how our laws respecting religion came about can be found here:
Sheriff Arapaio is in the news again. Or rather, he’s in the fake news — WND has a story that he has promised to open an investigation into the President’s birth certificate. Can’t find any confirmation of this story from a credible source.
Local news blog that emailed the WND story to Arapaio press staffer asking for confirmation — but no response.
Wonkette making fun of the whole thing.
Birther friendly Mike Huckabee jams with Phil Collen of Def Leppard:
“Pour Some Sugar on Me”
One thing I have never quite understood. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the birth certificate which Obama released in April is in fact a forgery. So what? What law did he break?
As far as I can tell, the birth certificate wasn’t used for any legal purpose. Obama didn’t use it to register to vote, or apply for a passport. To my knowledge he hasn’t filed it with any government agency, Federal or State. All he did was hand out copies of it and put an image of it on the Internet.
So even if it is a forgery, how is it a crime? Are Lucas Smith’s forgery and Polarik/Polland’s forgeries crimes?
More on Sheriff Arpaio here:
Romney to Trump: Obama Doesn’t Need a Birth Certificate
(excerpt) It’s only an extreme portion of the population that doesn’t believe Obama was born in the U.S., and this question isn’t really relevant to him. It does show, however, how far removed from reality the so called “birthers” (the name given to people who question Obama’s birth), and supporters like Donald Trump, are. On their website they claim (in bold letters): “We seek strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America, regardless to the momentary passions of the body politic.” A closer look at the constitution may reveal that they’re the ones with the momentary passions.