President Obama vs. the "birthers"

Discussions of things currently in the news.

President Obama vs. the "birthers"

Postby KLA2 » Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:12 am

I am so tired of hearing this shit. Has there ever been a "white" president challenged as to his country of birth? (Well, I think one. Chester Arthur. Rumoured his American parents crossed over into ...Canada) :lol: .

Still.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... /?hpt=Sbin


When Obama inherited the farm, his predecessor(s) had burned down the house, poisoned the well and salted the fields.

Then he is challenged, “How can you make such a failure of this place?” :roll:

So many Americans love their warrior kings, do not appreciate their architects, builders and peacemakers.

My Canadian opinion. :wink:
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
KLA2
Enlightened One
Enlightened One
 
Posts: 7178
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:41 pm
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada

Postby Blue Monster 65 » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:00 am

Well, a black Democrat was elected president at a time when it should have been a white Republican (according to many). The white male is slowly being replaced as the dominant figure in American public life (or so we're told) and the thought is driving a whole lotta people nuts.

That's the short version anyway.

Personally, I think it's because we're overrun by assholes in this country to whom everything is a conspiracy and everyone else owes them something for some imagined damage done. They come from every stripe, creed, race, etc. and they're breeding like rats. If it wasn't the birthers, it'd be someone else with something along the same lines about the opposing party. Sigh ...
Is there such a thing?
User avatar
Blue Monster 65
Puppet Master
Puppet Master
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:50 am
Location: Down In the Lab ...

Postby Superluminal » Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:41 pm

Well, why doesn't he show his birth certificate? My kids had to show theirs before they could play T-ball. But someone wants to be president of the U.S.A. and we're just supposed to believe him when he says, "Hey, I'm cool."?
What if the next president is a Republican with a questionable birth? Will birthers then still be considered wacko's?
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org
User avatar
Superluminal
Puppet Master
Puppet Master
 
Posts: 3255
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:26 am
Location: +33.6690 94.1755

Postby Blue Monster 65 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:08 pm

Superluminal wrote:Well, why doesn't he show his birth certificate? My kids had to show theirs before they could play T-ball. But someone wants to be president of the U.S.A. and we're just supposed to believe him when he says, "Hey, I'm cool."?


Gotta show it in order to get a passport. Also, plenty of people have seen it and verified it, but you're not going to believe them. Frankly, if he did show it, besides verifying the wackos, they wouldn't believe him anyway. Should he waste the time? Do you really think he just said, "Hey - I wanna be president, so support me" and people did? Is that what Bush did? Gore? Kerry? McCain? Clinton? Etc. Etc.?

Superluminal wrote:What if the next president is a Republican with a questionable birth? Will birthers then still be considered wacko's?


Yes. They'll fall into the same category as those who were coming up with batshit theories about Bush and Cheney.

We're becoming a nation driven by idiots. I shouldn't have wasted my time with this, but I did. (No, I'm not implying you're an idiot, Super.) But this kind of crap is trying to push public policy and it just wastes time and resources left and right (no pun intended). If you can't beat your opponent by selling your position on issues, then come up with some lie about their background and pound that into the discussion endlessly. It's annoying, pointless, and cheapens our political discourse to where we're not much better off than tribal feuding. Maybe that's what the rest of you want, but I don't, so I'm done with it.
Is there such a thing?
User avatar
Blue Monster 65
Puppet Master
Puppet Master
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:50 am
Location: Down In the Lab ...

Postby Superluminal » Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:39 am

I didn't keep up with the birther issue until Trump started it up. My impression was that no one had seen it. That under Hawaii law no one not even Obama can get a copy of it. So, who has seen it?
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org
User avatar
Superluminal
Puppet Master
Puppet Master
 
Posts: 3255
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:26 am
Location: +33.6690 94.1755

Postby Blue Monster 65 » Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:17 am

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... e_usa.html

Mactep also sent along a link to a Wikipedia page.

Bill O'Riley addressed this, along with many other Obama rumours, on his show, too, denying any truth to any of them.

Again, none of this stuff will satisfy anyone who doubts it. Kind of like UFOs, Bigfoot, etc.

I guess my question really is what is Trump playing at? Is he serious about wanting to be president? Or is he a closet Democrat; making independent voters think the Republican party is the home of crazies? Does he really think the public at large is so easily led by TV personalities that it will elect another B-grade celebrity to public office?

Hmm ... that last question may not be one to ask ...
Is there such a thing?
User avatar
Blue Monster 65
Puppet Master
Puppet Master
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:50 am
Location: Down In the Lab ...

Postby Dragon Star » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:44 pm

Frankly I don't give a rats ass where he's from, he's already bent the USA over, told it to grab it's ankles while he plants his 10' debt penis all the way into to her small intestine.

People are focused on the wrong thing. Where he was born? That's nothing...what him and the administration have done with their fiscal irresponsibility? Thats everything.

.02
User avatar
Dragon Star
Enlightened One
Enlightened One
 
Posts: 12588
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: Islamorada, FL

Postby St. Jimmy » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:57 pm

I typed out a 7 paragraph response to this, but in the end deleted it due to the fact it wasn't worth posting, because the "birther" movement won't believe the certified, authenticated, validated, longhand, stamped, raised embossed seal, signed, dated birth ceritficate even if God himself descended straight from the heavens and told us it is indeed real and authentic. The birther's problem isn't the birth certificate or the possibility that Obama isn't American; it's right-wing, tea party extremists, racist bastards, that are willing to jump at any miniscule chance they have to get Omaba kicked out of office, because the guy the voted for didn't win the election. :roll:
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion....you must first set yourself on fire.
User avatar
St. Jimmy
Puppet Master
Puppet Master
 
Posts: 4914
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:10 am
Location: Comimg soon to a theater near you

Postby Arneb » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:17 pm

Dragon Star wrote:Frankly I don't give a rats ass where he's from, he's already bent the USA over, told it to grab it's ankles while he plants his 10' debt penis all the way into to her small intestine.

People are focused on the wrong thing. Where he was born? That's nothing...what him and the administration have done with their fiscal irresponsibility? Thats everything.

.02


I'd expressed it differently, but I'll fully second it nonetheless. There are WAY better reasons not to vote for a second Obama term than right-wing loonies drooling over stupid conspiracy theories. The debt; the economy, stupid; the diminishing superpower status. Or take all those campaign promises: I hear gitmo was closed almost two years ago.

To turn it around again: Why are some parts of the right wing so not concerned with issues? The anwer may be a reason to actually contemplate a second Obama term.

0.02 US$ = 0.01371 €
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem
User avatar
Arneb
Moderator
Moderator
German Medical Dude
God of All Things IT
 
Posts: 70003
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: Potsdam, Germany

Postby KLA2 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:47 am

Dragon Star wrote:Frankly I don't give a rats ass where he's from, he's already bent the USA over, told it to grab it's ankles while he plants his 10' debt penis all the way into to her small intestine.

People are focused on the wrong thing. Where he was born? That's nothing...what him and the administration have done with their fiscal irresponsibility? Thats everything.

.02


Not sure exactly what you are referring to, but he inherited TARP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_A ... ef_Program

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

Originally expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion ...


I am no expert on US politics or economics. Still, perhaps you should provide some specific example before making sweeping defamatory accusations.

{10"? How you know dat, you his tailor, or his bitch?} :P

:lol: {No offence, DS, going for the joke.}
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
KLA2
Enlightened One
Enlightened One
 
Posts: 7178
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:41 pm
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada

Postby Superluminal » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:26 am

KLA2 wrote:
Dragon Star wrote:Frankly I don't give a rats ass where he's from, he's already bent the USA over, told it to grab it's ankles while he plants his 10' debt penis all the way into to her small intestine.

People are focused on the wrong thing. Where he was born? That's nothing...what him and the administration have done with their fiscal irresponsibility? Thats everything.

.02


Not sure exactly what you are referring to, but he inherited TARP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_A ... ef_Program

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

Originally expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion ...


I am no expert on US politics or economics. Still, perhaps you should provide some specific example before making sweeping defamatory accusations.

{10"? How you know dat, you his tailor, or his bitch?} :P

:lol: {No offence, DS, going for the joke.}


Obama was a Senator then, did he vote fer it or agin it or present?
As for as I'm concerned the birther issue is dead. He should have done it three years ago, and we could have seperated the wacko's from the people who had questions about a legitamite eligability issue.
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org
User avatar
Superluminal
Puppet Master
Puppet Master
 
Posts: 3255
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:26 am
Location: +33.6690 94.1755

Postby Dragon Star » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:01 am

Bush did sign TARP, and Obama has continued spending into it so I'm not sure of your point here. The idea of TARP is to give loans to be paid back under profit (and with Bush I recall that these were paid back with interest as well?) TARP is a minuscule fraction of the national debt and considered a success at this point by most.

Interesting visual about the debt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIin7nWYdsc

Also I thought this guy did his homework well, this is now 10 months old however.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogi…

This will give you the amount of national debt that has been added on a daily basis since January 1993

Trust me, I have done this and have figured out how much each president has added starting on the day he entered office and assumed full responsibility.

George Bush added a total of $4,899,100,310,608.46 ( $4.9 trillion) in his 8 year term,

an annual average of $612,387,538,826.06 ($612.4 billion)

Obama has added a total of $2,583,677,092,649.90 ($2.58 trillion ) in 1 1/2 years

an annual average of $1,722,451,395,099.93. ($1.72 trillion)

This total for Obama is $698,238,218,626.17 ($698 billion) more than Bush added in his first 4 year term as President

The wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, stimulus, bail outs etc.. will all fall down to the national debt so there is no real need to calculate each item. If you spend money you don't have in hand then it will show up as a deficit.

I have done a spending analysis of each presidential administration broken down by political party in control of congress. I started with Bill Clinton because democrat had control the previous 40 years.

This is what I have found.

In 5 1/2 years that the democrats controlled congress, this was the first 2 years of the Clinton administration, the final 2 years of the Bush administration up to the first 1 1/2 years of the Obama administration. During that time frame the democrats while controlling congress have added

$5,144,200,382,251.96 ($5.14 trillion) to the national debt, an annual average of $935,309,160,409.45
($935 billion)
In the 12 years that the republicans controlled congress, which was the last 6 years of the Clinton administration and the first 6 years of the Bush administration, they added

$3,878,547,148,941.88 ($3.88 trillion) to the national debt, an annual average of $348,983,884,197.43
($349 billion)
I really wanted to see how this compared to other administrations of the past so using the same website and the historical data available back to 1791 I looked at each administration from 1901 thru the present.

It did not seem fair to look a $1 in 1901 and compare it to $1 in 2009 so I used this web site
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ to convert those dollars into 2009 equivalents, giving a more fair representation of how much was spent.

In terms of pure dollars, F.D.R. added an equivalent of $15 trillion to the national debt and his annual average was $1,258,333,333,333 ($1.26 trillion) , Obama is already exceeding this average so it is apparent that Obama has outspent every previous administration of the last 110 years and is on average nearly $500 billion a year ahead of F.D.R.


I placed my analysis on my website for anyone that wishes to see it, just be aware that the last number you see for Obama is a little out of date and is short about $120 billion

http://justgetitright.weebly.com/

No partisanship in these numbers, they are just plain old facts that are easily verifiable.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100716104309AAv0a3v

Also this was the last outlook analysis I saw, don't know if their is a newer one or not:

Are President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spending the country into bankruptcy? Well, Brian Reidl at the Heritage Foundation took a close look at the new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) budget baseline projection and came up with these startling facts:

* Even as war spending phases out and the economy recovers, the projected budget deficit never drops below $1 trillion, and reaches nearly $2 trillion by 2020.

* The national debt held by the public is set to surpass 100 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2020.

* By 2020, half of all income tax revenues will go toward paying interest on a $23 trillion national debt.

* Federal spending per household, which has risen from $25,000 to nearly $30,000 over the past three years, would top $38,000 by 2020. The national debt per household, which was $52,000 before the recession, would approach $150,000 by 2020 (all adjusted for inflation).

* Even if all tax cuts are extended, revenues will still surpass the 18.0 percent of GDP historical average by 2020. The reason the deficit will surge 6 percent of GDP above its average is because spending will surge to 6 percent of GDP above its average.

And for more happy news this bright Monday morning, check out the rest of Reidl's analysis here. As today's Examiner editorial says, the spending madness has got to stop.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... z1Kn4X10rA
User avatar
Dragon Star
Enlightened One
Enlightened One
 
Posts: 12588
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: Islamorada, FL

Postby Dragon Star » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:04 am

Oh yea:

KLA2 wrote:{10"? How you know dat, you his tailor, or his bitch?} :P


Read again, that was in FEET, not INCHES. :P :P :P

Superluminal wrote:Obama was a Senator then, did he vote fer it or agin it or present?


Obama did vote for TARP, even though he openly criticized Bush for his spending and inheritance of the program, he then went about expanding it. Interesting how he flip flops whenever he finds it appropriate. I focking hate politicians. :?
User avatar
Dragon Star
Enlightened One
Enlightened One
 
Posts: 12588
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: Islamorada, FL


Return to Current Events and Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests