Reading the complete nonsense that you people write, jumping through hoops to justify beliefs that have no basis in any true religion and beliefs that no rational person would hold only makes me doubly proud for voting for Obama.

Sure I may complain because he caters far too much to the whacked out Tea Baggers but he's still light better than anyone on the right. Thank god he's president and not someone who would take your ideas seriously. Just remember that I did try to be reasonable but not even thinking that there's serious problems with the overly lax gun laws in some parts of this country is not something that is open to debate. Case closed.

Jeff0000 wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

..
Heavy artillery, nuclear warheads, weapons of mass destruction etc; are not protected under the 2nd admendment. Thanks,
Mark Evans

... and here I was looking forward to mounting a General Electric XM-214 Minigun to my automobile to deal with traffic congestion, parking space issues and that guy in front of me who has had his left turn signal on for the last 10 miles.
No wonder I can't find one on EBay.

Seriously though, I would have to agree with you Mark on all 3 well stated points.

That was hilarious! I like to have fell out when I read that :-)

Mark

jazzfan wrote:

Reading the complete nonsense that you people write, jumping through hoops to justify beliefs that have no basis in any true religion and beliefs that no rational person would hold only makes me doubly proud for voting for Obama.

"..you guys are scary."

That's your rebuttal to dispel the gun rights guaranteed by the 2nd admendment to the Constitution? Or could it possibly be you haven't anything to refute my statements. I think the latter.

Well, if that's the case, I'm certain you would have found Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe just as "scary' too if you would have been contemporary with them.

I'm glad your enjoying Obama's "hope and change".. unfortunately the economy and job market isn't.

You piqued my interest. What is "true religion?"

Can you define 'true religion' for me?

Thanks,
Mark

jazzfan wrote:

Reading the complete nonsense that you people write, jumping through hoops to justify beliefs that have no basis in any true religion and beliefs that no rational person would hold

I, like Mark, would sure like to read what you feel is "true religion and beliefs."

jazzfan wrote:

makes me doubly proud for voting for Obama.
Sure I may complain because he caters far too much to the whacked out Tea Baggers

So, you are doubly proud for having voted for a guy that caters far too much to folks that engage in perversive sex acts.
Wow, I can see how God and religion could complicate things for you.

jazzfan wrote:

Thank god he's president and not someone who would take your ideas seriously.

Given the current state of affairs in this country, I wonder if Obama takes anything seriously beyond, of course, his NCAA brackets.

BTW, if you are thanking the one living God that Obama is president. He gets His name capitalised.

JIMV wrote:

JoeE SP9 wrote:

I wonder who all those protesters voted for. It serves them right. Those very same people are the ones who voted the Republicans into office. They complain about the funding the unions throw at the Democrats and vote Republican.

Anti union anti middle class economic policies are alright as long as it doesn't mean you. Union members should remember who actually butter's their bread.

Nonsense...In WI the teachers union alone gave $1,900,000 to the dems in state races...

The union gave the democrats the money. I would bet a large percentage of union members objected to that. Those objectors probably voted Republican. They used to call that cutting off your nose to spite your face. I call it terminally stupid to vote for a party that doesn't have your best interest in mind.

Lamont Sanford wrote:

I would be one of those objectors. Only I'm an ex-democrat, ex-republican, current independent.

In other words: Don't blame me!

I used to respect independents but now I see them for the cowards they really are. When the Democrats screw things up the independents say "Hey, don't blame me." When the Republicans screw things up the independents say "Hey, don't blame me."

As the saying goes "if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem" and since the independents are definitely not part of the solution then they are a BIG part of the problem.

So tell me when the federal government comes grinding to a halt tomorrow night do independents who want to go to a national park just have to say "Hey I'm an independent so don't blame me" and then magically get to use the park?

At this point with the all nonsense going on in Washington and state house around the country being an independent just means that you're a coward.

jazzfan wrote:

Lamont Sanford wrote:

I would be one of those objectors. Only I'm an ex-democrat, ex-republican, current independent.

In other words: Don't blame me!

I used to respect independents but now I see them for the cowards they really are. When the Democrats screw things up the independents say "Hey, don't blame me." When the Republicans screw things up the independents say "Hey, don't blame me."

As the saying goes "if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem" and since the independents are definitely not part of the solution then they are a BIG part of the problem.

So tell me when the federal government comes grinding to a halt tomorrow night do independents who want to go to a national park just have to say "Hey I'm an independent so don't blame me" and then magically get to use the park?

At this point with the all nonsense going on in Washington and state house around the country being an independent just means that you're a coward.

I am an independent because I vote for the individual I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. It does not indicate that I am a coward it just means I make informed decisions instead of blindly pulling a party lever.
If the government shuts down tomorrow I'll blame the executive and the legislative branchs of the government. As a proud non-independent who will you blame?

Jeff

Jeff0000 wrote:

jazzfan wrote:

Lamont Sanford wrote:

I would be one of those objectors. Only I'm an ex-democrat, ex-republican, current independent.

In other words: Don't blame me!

I used to respect independents but now I see them for the cowards they really are. When the Democrats screw things up the independents say "Hey, don't blame me." When the Republicans screw things up the independents say "Hey, don't blame me."

As the saying goes "if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem" and since the independents are definitely not part of the solution then they are a BIG part of the problem.

So tell me when the federal government comes grinding to a halt tomorrow night do independents who want to go to a national park just have to say "Hey I'm an independent so don't blame me" and then magically get to use the park?

At this point with the all nonsense going on in Washington and state house around the country being an independent just means that you're a coward.

I am an independent because I vote for the individual I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. It does not indicate that I am a coward it just means I make informed decisions instead of blindly pulling a party lever.
If the government shuts down tomorrow I'll blame the executive and the legislative branchs of the government. As a proud non-independent who will you blame?

Jeff

Easy: I blame all the independents who are way too cowardly to take a stand and have a position on any issue.

My Libertarian point of view:

The govenment shut down in 1984, 1995...big deal. The government shuts down every federal holiday as well. The world will not come to an end. The military will still be funded. Social security checks will still go out. Only NON-essential government positions will be temporary laid off.

Those that still have their umbilical cords attached to the nanny-state bureaucracy may feel some pain.

Democrat Senator Harry Reid (NV) is worried about the cowboy poetry festivals funding. God forbid we should lose the cowboy poetry festival in Nevada. mindless bureaucrat.

If given the choice between saving the U.S. economy, and maintaining our AAA bond rating, OR going to a National Park. I think the choice is apparent.

jazzfan wrote:

Jeff0000 wrote:

jazzfan wrote:

Lamont Sanford wrote:

I would be one of those objectors. Only I'm an ex-democrat, ex-republican, current independent.

In other words: Don't blame me!

I used to respect independents but now I see them for the cowards they really are. When the Democrats screw things up the independents say "Hey, don't blame me." When the Republicans screw things up the independents say "Hey, don't blame me."

As the saying goes "if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem" and since the independents are definitely not part of the solution then they are a BIG part of the problem.

So tell me when the federal government comes grinding to a halt tomorrow night do independents who want to go to a national park just have to say "Hey I'm an independent so don't blame me" and then magically get to use the park?

At this point with the all nonsense going on in Washington and state house around the country being an independent just means that you're a coward.

I am an independent because I vote for the individual I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. It does not indicate that I am a coward it just means I make informed decisions instead of blindly pulling a party lever.
If the government shuts down tomorrow I'll blame the executive and the legislative branchs of the government. As a proud non-independent who will you blame?

Jeff

Easy: I blame all the independents who are way too cowardly to take a stand and have a position on any issue.

I have a position on all things I find important and vote for those candidates who support my position. Doesn't matter what party affiliation. I am an independent.
Unfortunately, there are those who vote a straight ticket simply because they are a Republican or Democrat without regard to the issues or the position of the candidate. Worse yet, there are those recalcitrant, untutored individuals who call those who understand the issues and vote for the candidates who support their position "cowardly". Those dyspeptic asses whom obsequiously follow that dogma are the real concern.

Jeff

Jeff0000 wrote:

I have a position on all things I find important and vote for those candidates who support my position. Doesn't matter what party affiliation. I am an independent.
Unfortunately, there are those who vote a straight ticket simply because they are a Republican or Democrat without regard to the issues or the position of the candidate. Worse yet, there are those recalcitrant, untutored individuals who call those who understand the issues and vote for the candidates who support their position "cowardly". Those dyspeptic asses whom obsequiously follow that dogma are the real concern.

Jeff

While I'm not trying to criticize you for being an independent and not voting along straight party lines I have an issue with people like Lamont who feel that they are somehow about the fray because they call themselves "independent" when they are for all intents and purposes aligned with one of the two major parties.

I'm fairly certain that your own voting history will show that you have voted for candidates from one of the two major parties a majority of times. So in actuality what you and most of the other so called independents are are Democrats or Republicans who don't always vote along party lines. And more importantly you share as much of the blame for the screwed up state of the US government as the rest of us.

soulful.terrain wrote:

My Libertarian point of view:

The govenment shut down in 1984, 1995...big deal. The government shuts down every federal holiday as well. The world will not come to an end. The military will still be funded. Social security checks will still go out. Only NON-essential government positions will be temporary laid off.

Those that still have their umbilical cords attached to the nanny-state bureaucracy may feel some pain.

Democrat Senator Harry Reid (NV) is worried about the cowboy poetry festivals funding. God forbid we should lose the cowboy poetry festival in Nevada. mindless bureaucrat.

If given the choice between saving the U.S. economy, and maintaining our AAA bond rating, OR going to a National Park. I think the choice is apparent.

What the fu*k is the difference between a partial government shut down of all non-essential services and the government that the Teapublican want? To answer my own question: NONE

To which I say to your libertarian BS - why don't you and the rest of the so called libertarians grow up - you don't want a real libertarian state what you want is not to have to pay for the things that you don't need but are needed nonetheless.

For example why should the government build and maintain roads when I have an SUV? Why should the government supply drinking water when I have a well? Why should the government provide public schools when I can home school my children? The list goes on and on and it's all just so much nonsense because real libertarianism DOES NOT WORK just as real socialism does not work and real capitalism does not work. In the real world the best we can get is a semi-functioning hybrid version of several system mixed together. So the US has capitalism with tons of corporate welfare and a lots of socialism.

In spite of all your eloquent prose and seemly well reasoned arguments it turns out that all you are is a selfish child. The only difference between libertarianism and communism is that communism has been discredited for being an unworkable system in the real world while libertarianism is still treated as if it's a viable system, which it is not.

jazzfan wrote:

Jeff0000 wrote:

I have a position on all things I find important and vote for those candidates who support my position. Doesn't matter what party affiliation. I am an independent.
Unfortunately, there are those who vote a straight ticket simply because they are a Republican or Democrat without regard to the issues or the position of the candidate. Worse yet, there are those recalcitrant, untutored individuals who call those who understand the issues and vote for the candidates who support their position "cowardly". Those dyspeptic asses whom obsequiously follow that dogma are the real concern.

Jeff

While I'm not trying to criticize you for being an independent and not voting along straight party lines I have an issue with people like Lamont who feel that they are somehow about the fray because they call themselves "independent" when they are for all intents and purposes aligned with one of the two major parties.

I'm fairly certain that your own voting history will show that you have voted for candidates from one of the two major parties a majority of times. So in actuality what you and most of the other so called independents are are Democrats or Republicans who don't always vote along party lines. And more importantly you share as much of the blame for the screwed up state of the US government as the rest of us.

Jazzfan: I would like to be able to say that had everyone I ever voted for won their respective election we wouldn't have such a screwed up state of government ... however, we both know better.
What we need is better candidates. When you go into the voting booth and the choices are; Shit, Crap or Poop it's difficult to feel that the country is in good hands.
As far as Lamont is concerned ... I do not think he feels like he is somehow above the fray. Lamont has always struck me as educated, intuitive and can sniff out bullshit from a mile away. He is one who speaks his mind and doesn't mince words. I think his pen is as sharp as any sword and he will not hesitate to cut your ass to ribbons if he feels that you are being closed minded or unwilling to entertain the idea that you just might be wrong and adjust accordingly.
I've never met Lamont but have enjoyed reading his posts for well over a year now. Take a step back Jazzfan, I think you'll find Lamonts posts to be well thought out and I think you'll find him to be always open to intellegent discourse ... with that said, if you choose to continue to insult him .. you'll most likely find Lamont verbally handing your ass to you.

jazzfan wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

My Libertarian point of view:

The govenment shut down in 1984, 1995...big deal. The government shuts down every federal holiday as well. The world will not come to an end. The military will still be funded. Social security checks will still go out. Only NON-essential government positions will be temporary laid off.

Those that still have their umbilical cords attached to the nanny-state bureaucracy may feel some pain.

Democrat Senator Harry Reid (NV) is worried about the cowboy poetry festivals funding. God forbid we should lose the cowboy poetry festival in Nevada. mindless bureaucrat.

If given the choice between saving the U.S. economy, and maintaining our AAA bond rating, OR going to a National Park. I think the choice is apparent.

In spite of all your eloquent prose and seemly well reasoned arguments it turns out that all you are is a selfish child. The only difference between libertarianism and communism is that communism has been discredited for being an unworkable system in the real world while libertarianism is still treated as if it's a viable system, which it is not.

Do you feel better now?

...'selfish child'.. That's laughable at best. Or are you like most progressives, name calling without any basis in fact. Better yet, unlike you and your president, I don't want my wealth to be "spread around" as Obama said he wanted to do sans teleprompter. Since you attacked me by saying I'm selfish, maybe you could explain my 'sefishness' to the tribes in Paupau, New Guinea, or the maybe the poor families in Cebu City, Phillipines. You think they would but it?

Would selfishness include your democrats Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Slaughter, and Sebelius, FORCING an unconstitutional, draconian healthcare policy that takes over 1/6th of the nations economy and gives massive power to a central bureaucratic authority, when 80% of the Country is happy with thier current healthcare provider and don't want socialized medicine.

That Constitution is a pesky little thing isn't it.

Communism has PROVEN to be an unworkable system, not simply 'discredited'. Millions of refugees from the ex-Soviet Union will testify to that.

Secondly, you nor I have ever lived under a Libertarian form of government. How do you KNOW it is not a viable system? Where is your history to prove it?

There is no perfect political ideology. But there is the best political ideology. Freedom, Liberty, and the rule of law. That is the Conservative (Libertarian) ideology and that conforms with the Founders and the Constitution. NOT the fundamental transformation of America that Obama was promoting in the primary and we now are seeing some of the fruits of that transformation attempt. 1.5 trillion dollar deficit that is up 960 billion from the 2008 deficit. The budget deficit represents 12.3 of GDP, the highest since WWII. All this in just two years and your proud of voting for Obama?? Unbelievable..

Mark

soulful.terrain wrote:

Would selfishness include your democrats Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Slaughter, and Sebelius, FORCING an unconstitutional, draconian healthcare policy that takes over 1/6th of the nations economy and gives massive power to a central bureaucratic authority, when 80% of the Country is happy with thier current healthcare provider and don't want socialized medicine.

First, we have already established that until the US Supreme Court rules otherwise the current health care reform law is CONSTITUTIONAL, regardless of you repeatedly saying it is not. Second, where exactly within the health care reform law does it call for socialized medicine, other than the EXISTING forms of socialized medicine already in effect, such as Medicare and the health care given to member of the US armed forces. IF you can not produce the requested passages than kindly stop calling the health care reform law "socialized medicine" because you are flat out wrong.

soulful.terrain wrote:

Communism has PROVEN to be an unworkable system, not simply 'discredited'. Millions of refugees from the ex-Soviet Union will testify to that.

I agree completely!!

soulful.terrain wrote:

Secondly, you nor I have ever lived under a Libertarian form of government. How do you KNOW it is not a viable system? Where is your history to prove it?

There is no perfect political ideology. But there is the best political ideology. Freedom, Liberty, and the rule of law. That is the Conservative (Libertarian) ideology and that conforms with the Founders and the Constitution. NOT the fundamental transformation of America that Obama was promoting in the primary and we now are seeing some of the fruits of that transformation attempt. 1.5 trillion dollar deficit that is up 960 billion from the 2008 deficit. The budget deficit represents 12.3 of GDP, the highest since WWII. All this in just two years and your proud of voting for Obama?? Unbelievable..

Mark

Thankfully no one is stupid enough to propose living under a Libertarian form of government and hopefully this common sense approach will continue. As far as the deficit is concerned most, if not all of the deficit, is the result of Bush's actions. Two wars and the completely UNFUNDED tax cuts. So stop blaming Obama since the facts are against you. But than when have the facts ever gotten in the way of the tea party?

jazzfan wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Would selfishness include your democrats Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Slaughter, and Sebelius, FORCING an unconstitutional, draconian healthcare policy that takes over 1/6th of the nations economy and gives massive power to a central bureaucratic authority, when 80% of the Country is happy with thier current healthcare provider and don't want socialized medicine.

First, we have already established that until the US Supreme Court rules otherwise the current health care reform law is CONSTITUTIONAL, regardless of you repeatedly saying it is not.

Wrong, once again Florida federal district court judge Roger Vinson ruled THE WHOLE health care bill unconstitutional. Under the law, this judge can order a stay, in which he did, and that PREVENTS execution of the health care bill UNTIL the supreme court rules otherwise. What part of that do you not understand? Good grief!

Second, where exactly within the health care reform law does it call for socialized medicine, other than the EXISTING forms of socialized medicine already in effect, such as Medicare and the health care given to member of the US armed forces. IF you can not produce the requested passages than kindly stop calling the health care reform law "socialized medicine" because you are flat out wrong.

soulful.terrain wrote:

Communism has PROVEN to be an unworkable system, not simply 'discredited'. Millions of refugees from the ex-Soviet Union will testify to that.

I agree completely!!

soulful.terrain wrote:

Secondly, you nor I have ever lived under a Libertarian form of government. How do you KNOW it is not a viable system? Where is your history to prove it?

There is no perfect political ideology. But there is the best political ideology. Freedom, Liberty, and the rule of law. That is the Conservative (Libertarian) ideology and that conforms with the Founders and the Constitution. NOT the fundamental transformation of America that Obama was promoting in the primary and we now are seeing some of the fruits of that transformation attempt. 1.5 trillion dollar deficit that is up 960 billion from the 2008 deficit. The budget deficit represents 12.3 of GDP, the highest since WWII. All this in just two years and your proud of voting for Obama?? Unbelievable..

Mark

if not all of the deficit, is the result of Bush's actions. Two wars and the completely UNFUNDED tax cuts. So stop blaming Obama since the facts are against you. But than when have the facts ever gotten in the way of the tea party?

jazzfan wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Would selfishness include your democrats Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Slaughter, and Sebelius, FORCING an unconstitutional, draconian healthcare policy that takes over 1/6th of the nations economy and gives massive power to a central bureaucratic authority, when 80% of the Country is happy with thier current healthcare provider and don't want socialized medicine.

First, we have already established that until the US Supreme Court rules otherwise the current health care reform law is CONSTITUTIONAL, regardless of you repeatedly saying it is not. Second, where exactly within the health care reform law does it call for socialized medicine, other than the EXISTING forms of socialized medicine already in effect, such as Medicare and the health care given to member of the US armed forces. IF you can not produce the requested passages than kindly stop calling the health care reform law "socialized medicine" because you are flat out wrong.

soulful.terrain wrote:

Communism has PROVEN to be an unworkable system, not simply 'discredited'. Millions of refugees from the ex-Soviet Union will testify to that.

I agree completely!!

soulful.terrain wrote:

Secondly, you nor I have ever lived under a Libertarian form of government. How do you KNOW it is not a viable system? Where is your history to prove it?

There is no perfect political ideology. But there is the best political ideology. Freedom, Liberty, and the rule of law. That is the Conservative (Libertarian) ideology and that conforms with the Founders and the Constitution. NOT the fundamental transformation of America that Obama was promoting in the primary and we now are seeing some of the fruits of that transformation attempt. 1.5 trillion dollar deficit that is up 960 billion from the 2008 deficit. The budget deficit represents 12.3 of GDP, the highest since WWII. All this in just two years and your proud of voting for Obama?? Unbelievable..

Mark

Thankfully no one is stupid enough to propose living under a Libertarian form of government and hopefully this common sense approach will continue. As far as the deficit is concerned most, if not all of the deficit, is the result of Bush's actions. Two wars and the completely UNFUNDED tax cuts. So stop blaming Obama since the facts are against you. But than when have the facts ever gotten in the way of the tea party?

Oh good grief!!! It's Bushs' fault...its Bushs' fault blah blah blah.. to the point of ad nauseum. Is there ANY progressive democrat out there that can find 1 single thing they oppose Obama on? No, they are all true believers. amazing.

Stop blaming George Bush for what Obama is doing now. Is it George Bushs' fault that Obama has more than quadrupled the deficit in just 2 years?? Is it Bushs' fault that Obama has set a record for spending in a presidential first year? It took Obama just 2 years to surpass Bushs' spending over 8 years. Can you do math?

So quit blaming the EX-president for spending that the CURRENT president is doing.

Unfunded tax cuts??? Its NOT the governments money in the first place!!! WE fund the government. The arrogance of Washington would have you to believe that its thier money and they can't afford to give tax cuts. IT'S OUR MONEY!! It's YOUR money!

How much money do you VOLUNTARY give the government. What! you mean you don't voluntarily give most of what you earn to the government? Whats the matter, are you greedy? Oh, you must be selfish. Don't you know that the government is broke? I thought Government knew best instead of the individual.

I could give a damn about the mating habits of barn owls, the migratory patterns of snails, or Harry Reids stupid cowboy poetry festival. etc; etc;.. or any of the thousands of government pet projects that involve millions upon millions of dollars that career bureaucrats funnel back to thier districts to buy votes. But your a good progressive democrat, you have no problem with this. I understand.

And no, we haven't already established that the health care bill is constitutional.

Let me explain for the last time. Florida Federal district court judge Roger Vinson ruled the WHOLE healthcare bill unconstitutional and issued a stay from executing the law. Under the law, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise this healthcare bill is unconstitutional for now until a final ruling from the Supreme court. What part of that do you not understand.

soulful.terrain wrote:

jazzfan wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Would selfishness include your democrats Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Slaughter, and Sebelius, FORCING an unconstitutional, draconian healthcare policy that takes over 1/6th of the nations economy and gives massive power to a central bureaucratic authority, when 80% of the Country is happy with thier current healthcare provider and don't want socialized medicine.

First, we have already established that until the US Supreme Court rules otherwise the current health care reform law is CONSTITUTIONAL, regardless of you repeatedly saying it is not. Second, where exactly within the health care reform law does it call for socialized medicine, other than the EXISTING forms of socialized medicine already in effect, such as Medicare and the health care given to member of the US armed forces. IF you can not produce the requested passages than kindly stop calling the health care reform law "socialized medicine" because you are flat out wrong.

soulful.terrain wrote:

Communism has PROVEN to be an unworkable system, not simply 'discredited'. Millions of refugees from the ex-Soviet Union will testify to that.

I agree completely!!

soulful.terrain wrote:

Secondly, you nor I have ever lived under a Libertarian form of government. How do you KNOW it is not a viable system? Where is your history to prove it?

There is no perfect political ideology. But there is the best political ideology. Freedom, Liberty, and the rule of law. That is the Conservative (Libertarian) ideology and that conforms with the Founders and the Constitution. NOT the fundamental transformation of America that Obama was promoting in the primary and we now are seeing some of the fruits of that transformation attempt. 1.5 trillion dollar deficit that is up 960 billion from the 2008 deficit. The budget deficit represents 12.3 of GDP, the highest since WWII. All this in just two years and your proud of voting for Obama?? Unbelievable..

Mark

Thankfully no one is stupid enough to propose living under a Libertarian form of government and hopefully this common sense approach will continue. As far as the deficit is concerned most, if not all of the deficit, is the result of Bush's actions. Two wars and the completely UNFUNDED tax cuts. So stop blaming Obama since the facts are against you. But than when have the facts ever gotten in the way of the tea party?

Oh good grief!!! It's Bushs' fault...its Bushs' fault blah blah blah.. to the point of ad nauseum. Is there ANY progressive democrat out there that can find 1 single thing they oppose Obama on? No, they are all true believers. amazing.

Stop blaming George Bush for what Obama is doing now. Is it George Bushs' fault that Obama has more than quadrupled the deficit in just 2 years?? Is it Bushs' fault that Obama has set a record for spending in a presidential first year? It took Obama just 2 years to surpass Bushs' spending over 8 years. Can you do math?

So quit blaming the EX-president for spending that the CURRENT president is doing.

Unfunded tax cuts??? Its NOT the governments money in the first place!!! WE fund the government. The arrogance of Washington would have you to believe that its thier money and they can't afford to give tax cuts. IT'S OUR MONEY!! It's YOUR money!

How much money do you VOLUNTARY give the government. What! you mean you don't voluntarily give most of what you earn to the government? Whats the matter, are you greedy? Oh, you must be selfish. Don't you know that the government is broke? I thought Government knew best instead of the individual.

I could give a damn about the mating habits of barn owls, the migratory patterns of snails, or Harry Reids stupid cowboy poetry festival. etc; etc;.. or any of the thousands of government pet projects that involve millions upon millions of dollars that career bureaucrats funnel back to thier districts to buy votes. But your a good progressive democrat, you have no problem with this. I understand.

And no, we haven't already established that the health care bill is constitutional.

Let me explain for the last time. Florida Federal district court judge Roger Vinson ruled the WHOLE healthcare bill unconstitutional and issued a stay from executing the law. Under the law, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise this healthcare bill is unconstitutional for now until a final ruling from the Supreme court. What part of that do you not understand.

Before I can continue this discussion it is would be helpful if you got your facts straight.

There was no stay issued regarding the health care bill. Look it up.

The Bush tax cuts were and still are UNFUNDED meaning the loss of revenue was not offset by a reduction in spending. When that happens the deficit increases. Look it up.

And by "look it up" I mean look it up using a nonpartisan source not some web site funded by the Koch Brothers or other right wing organization. After you do that and learn how misinformed you actually are then we can continue this discussion.

jazzfan wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

jazzfan wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Would selfishness include your democrats Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Slaughter, and Sebelius, FORCING an unconstitutional, draconian healthcare policy that takes over 1/6th of the nations economy and gives massive power to a central bureaucratic authority, when 80% of the Country is happy with thier current healthcare provider and don't want socialized medicine.

First, we have already established that until the US Supreme Court rules otherwise the current health care reform law is CONSTITUTIONAL, regardless of you repeatedly saying it is not. Second, where exactly within the health care reform law does it call for socialized medicine, other than the EXISTING forms of socialized medicine already in effect, such as Medicare and the health care given to member of the US armed forces. IF you can not produce the requested passages than kindly stop calling the health care reform law "socialized medicine" because you are flat out wrong.

soulful.terrain wrote:

Communism has PROVEN to be an unworkable system, not simply 'discredited'. Millions of refugees from the ex-Soviet Union will testify to that.

I agree completely!!

soulful.terrain wrote:

Secondly, you nor I have ever lived under a Libertarian form of government. How do you KNOW it is not a viable system? Where is your history to prove it?

There is no perfect political ideology. But there is the best political ideology. Freedom, Liberty, and the rule of law. That is the Conservative (Libertarian) ideology and that conforms with the Founders and the Constitution. NOT the fundamental transformation of America that Obama was promoting in the primary and we now are seeing some of the fruits of that transformation attempt. 1.5 trillion dollar deficit that is up 960 billion from the 2008 deficit. The budget deficit represents 12.3 of GDP, the highest since WWII. All this in just two years and your proud of voting for Obama?? Unbelievable..

Mark

Thankfully no one is stupid enough to propose living under a Libertarian form of government and hopefully this common sense approach will continue. As far as the deficit is concerned most, if not all of the deficit, is the result of Bush's actions. Two wars and the completely UNFUNDED tax cuts. So stop blaming Obama since the facts are against you. But than when have the facts ever gotten in the way of the tea party?

Oh good grief!!! It's Bushs' fault...its Bushs' fault blah blah blah.. to the point of ad nauseum. Is there ANY progressive democrat out there that can find 1 single thing they oppose Obama on? No, they are all true believers. amazing.

Stop blaming George Bush for what Obama is doing now. Is it George Bushs' fault that Obama has more than quadrupled the deficit in just 2 years?? Is it Bushs' fault that Obama has set a record for spending in a presidential first year? It took Obama just 2 years to surpass Bushs' spending over 8 years. Can you do math?

So quit blaming the EX-president for spending that the CURRENT president is doing.

Unfunded tax cuts??? Its NOT the governments money in the first place!!! WE fund the government. The arrogance of Washington would have you to believe that its thier money and they can't afford to give tax cuts. IT'S OUR MONEY!! It's YOUR money!

How much money do you VOLUNTARY give the government. What! you mean you don't voluntarily give most of what you earn to the government? Whats the matter, are you greedy? Oh, you must be selfish. Don't you know that the government is broke? I thought Government knew best instead of the individual.

I could give a damn about the mating habits of barn owls, the migratory patterns of snails, or Harry Reids stupid cowboy poetry festival. etc; etc;.. or any of the thousands of government pet projects that involve millions upon millions of dollars that career bureaucrats funnel back to thier districts to buy votes. But your a good progressive democrat, you have no problem with this. I understand.

And no, we haven't already established that the health care bill is constitutional.

Let me explain for the last time. Florida Federal district court judge Roger Vinson ruled the WHOLE healthcare bill unconstitutional and issued a stay from executing the law. Under the law, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise this healthcare bill is unconstitutional for now until a final ruling from the Supreme court. What part of that do you not understand.

And by "look it up" I mean look it up using a nonpartisan source not some web site funded by the Koch Brothers or other right wing organization. After you do that and learn how misinformed you actually are then we can continue this discussion.

Good grief. Let's face it, In your eyes Obama is perfect and without flaw.

Is the sky blue or is that more right-wing mis-information?

The Constitution, the rule of law, and how it is faithfully executed is obviously not one of your strong suits. But in all fairness, when it comes to Jazz, you probably have way more knowledge than I.

Lamont Sanford wrote:

"Easy: I blame all the independents who are way too cowardly to take a stand and have a position on any issue."

The various independent parties all have their own platforms just like any other political party. This is what makes them so dangerous at the ballot. And this is why candidates are careful to win their votes. Independents decide elections. Why would a candidate of either of the two main parties cater to cowards while campaigning? It appears, at least on this forum, Democrats love to attack independents. I wonder why?

That's exactly correct. Ronald Reagan won the conservative and moderate democrat voters. They were dubbed as "Reagan democrats" which were basically Independent voters in principle.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explaination from a democrat on why they attack Independents. Most of them cannot coherently explain why the voted for Obama in the first place, other than the 'change' B.S. or the fact they just hate republicans.

Mark

I've been a registered independent for 30+ years. Not because I'm a coward but because it's my way of saying I vote for the best (IMO) candidate. Neither major party has it right.

The Republicans seem to have it in for the middle class by catering to the rich. Their alliance with the Christian Right was and is solely for votes. When the major solution presented for lowering the deficit always revolves around lowering tax rates for the wealthy shouldn't that cause one to think? Everyone knows "trickle down" economics means those down on the bottom get only a trickle.

Doesn't the fact that many large very profitable corporations pay no taxes bother you?

The Democrats are just as wrong in a different way. Instead of "corporate welfare" they want "social welfare". One type of welfare is as bad as the other. The universal health care bill is a perfect example of a good idea f'd up by the Democrats.

As for the comment about sexual preferences and actions. What business is it of your's or anyone else's what way and or how someone chooses to exercise their personal sexual freedom? Gay straight or bi, I don't care what your sex life is about. If you're an elected official job performance is all I care about.

JoeE SP9 wrote:

As for the comment about sexual preferences and actions. What business is it of your's or anyone else's what way and or how someone chooses to exercise their personal sexual freedom? Gay straight or bi, I don't care what your sex life is about. If you're an elected official job performance is all I care about.

Joe, I went back and re-read every post in this thread. I cannot find any reference aimed at anyone's sexual preferences or sex life, be it an elected official or otherwise. I have no doubt that there are places on the web for that sort of thing, but not here.
I did note two posts, by Soulful Terrain and myself, that were aimed at correcting Jazzfan in his usage of the term tea-bagging for Tea-Party in his posts. Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding came from. I invite you to go back and re-read the thread, with this post in mind, and hopefully you will conclude that no one was taking a shot at an individuals preferences.

Jeff

soulful.terrain wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explaination from a democrat on why the voted for Obama in the first place, other than the 'change' B.S. or the fact they just hate republicans.

Mark

I really needed only two reasons to vote for Obama:

1. John McCain
2. Sarah Palin

Bluesbob wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explaination from a democrat on why the voted for Obama in the first place, other than the 'change' B.S. or the fact they just hate republicans.

Mark

I really needed only two reasons to vote for Obama:

1. John McCain
2. Sarah Palin

... and those, Bluesbob, are the best two reasons I've heard. Especially #2.
I, personally, couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin ... as I said in an earlier post on this thread, Shit, Crap, Poop or Manure ... what kind of choice is that?
I think America deserves better, however, we the American people are sadly getting what we deserve.

Jeff

Jeff0000 wrote:

JoeE SP9 wrote:

As for the comment about sexual preferences and actions. What business is it of your's or anyone else's what way and or how someone chooses to exercise their personal sexual freedom? Gay straight or bi, I don't care what your sex life is about. If you're an elected official job performance is all I care about.

Joe, I went back and re-read every post in this thread. I cannot find any reference aimed at anyone's sexual preferences or sex life, be it an elected official or otherwise. I have no doubt that there are places on the web for that sort of thing, but not here.
I did note two posts, by Soulful Terrain and myself, that were aimed at correcting Jazzfan in his usage of the term tea-bagging for Tea-Party in his posts. Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding came from. I invite you to go back and re-read the thread, with this post in mind, and hopefully you will conclude that no one was taking a shot at an individuals preferences.

Jeff

The quote below is from your post. It's #56 in this thread.

Please don't over react. I consider myself a little freaky. My lady friends support this assertion. Some of the things I do with them may be perversive to you. If so I don't care. It's none of your business what I or other "folks" engage in sexually.

What the hell has that got to do with performing a job?

Jeff0000 wrote:

So, you are doubly proud for having voted for a guy that caters far too much to folks that engage in perversive sex acts.
Wow, I can see how God and religion could complicate things for you.
Jeff

JoeE SP9 wrote:

Jeff0000 wrote:

JoeE SP9 wrote:

As for the comment about sexual preferences and actions. What business is it of your's or anyone else's what way and or how someone chooses to exercise their personal sexual freedom? Gay straight or bi, I don't care what your sex life is about. If you're an elected official job performance is all I care about.

Joe, I went back and re-read every post in this thread. I cannot find any reference aimed at anyone's sexual preferences or sex life, be it an elected official or otherwise. I have no doubt that there are places on the web for that sort of thing, but not here.
I did note two posts, by Soulful Terrain and myself, that were aimed at correcting Jazzfan in his usage of the term tea-bagging for Tea-Party in his posts. Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding came from. I invite you to go back and re-read the thread, with this post in mind, and hopefully you will conclude that no one was taking a shot at an individuals preferences.

Jeff

The quote below is from your post. It's #56 in this thread.

Please don't over react. I consider myself a little freaky. My lady friends support this assertion. Some of the things I do with them may be perversive to you. If so I don't care. It's none of your business what I or other "folks" engage in sexually.

What the hell has that got to do with performing a job?

Jeff0000 wrote:

So, you are doubly proud for having voted for a guy that caters far too much to folks that engage in perversive sex acts.
Wow, I can see how God and religion could complicate things for you.
Jeff

Joe, again, please go back and read the entire thread. It has nothing to do with performing a job ... as I tried to explain to you.
Again, someone made the statement that they thought Obama catered too much to "tea-baggers" where I am sure he meant to say "tea-party". Since this was the 2nd attempt to get him to use the correct term I tried to example what he was suggesting in my post. I used the descriptor "perversive sex act" because it had been used in an earlier post in this thread. Repetition in written communication helps get the point accross.
Furthermore, had you read the entire thread and took things in their proper context you would clearly see that no one was concerning themselves with what someone, including yourself, does or does not do sexually. So please drop your dyspeptic attitude, have a nice glass of wine and enjoy the music.

Jeff

I've been following this thread from the first post. I'm not dyspeptic or suffering from dsyspepsia. I think Jazzfan is deliberately using the term "tea-bagger" in place of a more pejorative description. It's after 12PM so I think I will have a drink.

JoeE SP9 wrote:

I've been following this thread from the first post. I'm not dyspeptic or suffering from dsyspepsia. I think Jazzfan is deliberately using the term "tea-bagger" in place of a more pejorative description. It's after 12PM so I think I will have a drink.

Joe, well you did seem to be getting a little irritable .. nothing a good drink won't fix though :)
On another note, I do miss flying thru Philly. I wouldn't eat for a full day before a flight so I could stuff myself with cheesesteak sandwiches ... nothing else like them in the world!

Jeff

.

Bluesbob wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explaination from a democrat on why the voted for Obama in the first place, other than the 'change' B.S. or the fact they just hate republicans.

Mark

I really needed only two reasons to vote for Obama:

1. John McCain
2. Sarah Palin

Both Republicans, right?

Unfortunately, America got Jimmy Carter 2.0 after electing the "highly experienced" community organizer.

Seriously, McCain was a bad choice of a nominee by the RNC and the Republican Party paid for it at the polls.

McCain is a waffler on many issues. The border is a good example of his inconsistency. McCain is part of the old guard, chek-pants republicans that go along to get along, a R.I.N.O.

The Republican Party would greatly benefit from getting away from the old "its his turn" nonsense of senority being the reason for nominating candidates for the office of the presidency. They should have learned their lesson with Bob Dole.

Mark Evans

soulful.terrain wrote:

Bluesbob wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explaination from a democrat on why the voted for Obama in the first place, other than the 'change' B.S. or the fact they just hate republicans.

Mark

I really needed only two reasons to vote for Obama:

1. John McCain
2. Sarah Palin

Both Republicans, right?

Unfortunately, America got Jimmy Carter 2.0 after electing the "highly experienced" community organizer.

Seriously, McCain was a bad choice of a nominee by the RNC and the Republican Party paid for it at the polls.

McCain is a waffler on many issues. The border is a good example of his inconsistency. McCain is part of the old guard, chek-pants republicans that go along to get along, a R.I.N.O.

The Republican Party would greatly benefit from getting away from the old "its his turn" nonsense of senority being the reason for nominating candidates for the office of the presidency. They should have learned their lesson with Bob Dole.

Mark Evans

Mark, my biggest fear is that the RNC is going to give us Donald Trump! Nah, I'm just having a really bad dream, a really, really bad dream ... Surely we're not that stupid ... I hope!

Jeff

Jeff0000 wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Bluesbob wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explaination from a democrat on why the voted for Obama in the first place, other than the 'change' B.S. or the fact they just hate republicans.

Mark

I really needed only two reasons to vote for Obama:

1. John McCain
2. Sarah Palin

Both Republicans, right?

Unfortunately, America got Jimmy Carter 2.0 after electing the "highly experienced" community organizer.

Seriously, McCain was a bad choice of a nominee by the RNC and the Republican Party paid for it at the polls.

McCain is a waffler on many issues. The border is a good example of his inconsistency. McCain is part of the old guard, chek-pants republicans that go along to get along, a R.I.N.O.

The Republican Party would greatly benefit from getting away from the old "its his turn" nonsense of senority being the reason for nominating candidates for the office of the presidency. They should have learned their lesson with Bob Dole.

Mark Evans

Mark, my biggest fear is that the RNC is going to give us Donald Trump! Nah, I'm just having a really bad dream, a really, really bad dream ... Surely we're not that stupid ... I hope!

Jeff

You and me both Jeff. Donald might fit in well as an economic advisor, but president? I think not. Isn't this the same Donald Trump that dubbed G.W. Bush as the worst president back in 2004 (what happened to Carter?) and was advocating that the war was illegal and Bush should be impeached. Trump was agreeing with the nutjobs at Cindy Sheehan's 'Code Pink' group. for Christs sake! This is the same Donald Trump that sent money in support of leftist Nancy Pelosi D-CA, Chuck Schumer D-NY, and Charlie Crist R-FL. Thank God Crist lost and Marco Rubio won.

NOW, the Donald is speaking at Tea Party rallies saying Obama is the worst president. He is also touting tax cuts, when in 2003, he was against the Bush tax cuts.

Donald Trump, in my opinion, is simply in this for the exposure. I cannot support a waffler and a media hound.

Mark Evans

soulful.terrain wrote:

Jeff0000 wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Bluesbob wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explaination from a democrat on why the voted for Obama in the first place, other than the 'change' B.S. or the fact they just hate republicans.

Mark

I really needed only two reasons to vote for Obama:

1. John McCain
2. Sarah Palin

Both Republicans, right?

Unfortunately, America got Jimmy Carter 2.0 after electing the "highly experienced" community organizer.

Seriously, McCain was a bad choice of a nominee by the RNC and the Republican Party paid for it at the polls.

McCain is a waffler on many issues. The border is a good example of his inconsistency. McCain is part of the old guard, chek-pants republicans that go along to get along, a R.I.N.O.

The Republican Party would greatly benefit from getting away from the old "its his turn" nonsense of senority being the reason for nominating candidates for the office of the presidency. They should have learned their lesson with Bob Dole.

Mark Evans

Mark, my biggest fear is that the RNC is going to give us Donald Trump! Nah, I'm just having a really bad dream, a really, really bad dream ... Surely we're not that stupid ... I hope!

Jeff

You and me both Jeff. Donald might fit in well as an economic advisor, but president? I think not. Isn't this the same Donald Trump that dubbed G.W. Bush as the worst president back in 2004 (what happened to Carter?) and was advocating that the war was illegal and Bush should be impeached. Trump was agreeing with the nutjobs at Cindy Sheehan's 'Code Pink' group. for Christs sake! This is the same Donald Trump that sent money in support of leftist Nancy Pelosi D-CA, Chuck Schumer D-NY, and Charlie Crist R-FL. Thank God Crist lost and Marco Rubio won.

NOW, the Donald is speaking at Tea Party rallies saying Obama is the worst president. He is also touting tax cuts, when in 2003, he was against the Bush tax cuts.

Donald Trump, in my opinion, is simply in this for the exposure. I cannot support a waffler and a media hound.

Mark Evans

Mark, Trump is for whatever he figures will extend his 15 minutes ...
Isn't he also the guy who has had multiple bankruptcies? Additionally, if memory serves, several years ago wasn't his accounting methodology called into question as well as his business practices?
Here's a scary thought, how about Obama/Biden vs. Trump/Busey in 2012? I would need cardiovascular care 24/7.

On a more humorous note ... I saw a photo of Trump giving a speech on a windy day ... do you remember the movie "Kingpin" and Bill Murray's hair in the bowling scenes towards the end of the film? :)

Jeff

Jeff0000 wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Jeff0000 wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Bluesbob wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explaination from a democrat on why the voted for Obama in the first place, other than the 'change' B.S. or the fact they just hate republicans.

Mark

I really needed only two reasons to vote for Obama:

1. John McCain
2. Sarah Palin

Both Republicans, right?

Unfortunately, America got Jimmy Carter 2.0 after electing the "highly experienced" community organizer.

Seriously, McCain was a bad choice of a nominee by the RNC and the Republican Party paid for it at the polls.

McCain is a waffler on many issues. The border is a good example of his inconsistency. McCain is part of the old guard, chek-pants republicans that go along to get along, a R.I.N.O.

The Republican Party would greatly benefit from getting away from the old "its his turn" nonsense of senority being the reason for nominating candidates for the office of the presidency. They should have learned their lesson with Bob Dole.

Mark Evans

Mark, my biggest fear is that the RNC is going to give us Donald Trump! Nah, I'm just having a really bad dream, a really, really bad dream ... Surely we're not that stupid ... I hope!

Jeff

You and me both Jeff. Donald might fit in well as an economic advisor, but president? I think not. Isn't this the same Donald Trump that dubbed G.W. Bush as the worst president back in 2004 (what happened to Carter?) and was advocating that the war was illegal and Bush should be impeached. Trump was agreeing with the nutjobs at Cindy Sheehan's 'Code Pink' group. for Christs sake! This is the same Donald Trump that sent money in support of leftist Nancy Pelosi D-CA, Chuck Schumer D-NY, and Charlie Crist R-FL. Thank God Crist lost and Marco Rubio won.

NOW, the Donald is speaking at Tea Party rallies saying Obama is the worst president. He is also touting tax cuts, when in 2003, he was against the Bush tax cuts.

Donald Trump, in my opinion, is simply in this for the exposure. I cannot support a waffler and a media hound.

Mark Evans

Mark, Trump is for whatever he figures will extend his 15 minutes ...
Isn't he also the guy who has had multiple bankruptcies? Additionally, if memory serves, several years ago wasn't his accounting methodology called into question as well as his business practices?
Here's a scary thought, how about Obama/Biden vs. Trump/Busey in 2012? I would need cardiovascular care 24/7.

On a more humorous note ... I saw a photo of Trump giving a speech on a windy day ... do you remember the movie "Kingpin" and Bill Murray's hair in the bowling scenes towards the end of the film? :)

Jeff

LMAO!! :-) I do remember that movie! You nailed it Jeff :-)

Jeff0000 wrote:

Mark, Trump is for whatever he figures will extend his 15 minutes ...
Isn't he also the guy who has had multiple bankruptcies? Additionally, if memory serves, several years ago wasn't his accounting methodology called into question as well as his business practices?
Here's a scary thought, how about Obama/Biden vs. Trump/Busey in 2012? I would need cardiovascular care 24/7.

On a more humorous note ... I saw a photo of Trump giving a speech on a windy day ... do you remember the movie "Kingpin" and Bill Murray's hair in the bowling scenes towards the end of the film? :)

Jeff

Jeff nails it to the wall.

His claim of being rich is not particularly relevant, he's gone under at least once.

And now we have him running on the birfer ticket, and raising the nonsense that any reasonable man knows is just a total, abject pile of nonsense.

He's not that stupid, so it has to be pandering.

As to his toupee, I would genuinely love to get a couple of little model-car motors (the ones that are 1/2" thick), add some mechanism, and make it crawl around his scalp while he's blathering on.

I can't help wonder if he's not about to announce "JUST KIDDING" with the birfer nonsense. I mean, he REALLY IS NOT THAT STUPID and the pandering is obvious.

j_j wrote:

Jeff0000 wrote:

Mark, Trump is for whatever he figures will extend his 15 minutes ...
Isn't he also the guy who has had multiple bankruptcies? Additionally, if memory serves, several years ago wasn't his accounting methodology called into question as well as his business practices?
Here's a scary thought, how about Obama/Biden vs. Trump/Busey in 2012? I would need cardiovascular care 24/7.

On a more humorous note ... I saw a photo of Trump giving a speech on a windy day ... do you remember the movie "Kingpin" and Bill Murray's hair in the bowling scenes towards the end of the film? :)

Jeff

As to his toupee, I would genuinely love to get a couple of little model-car motors (the ones that are 1/2" thick), add some mechanism, and make it crawl around his scalp while he's blathering on.

LMAO!

Lamont Sanford wrote:

I don't know why Trump is obsessed with the birth issue. I thought that was a done deal a long time ago. I can't explain why an actual birth certificate hasn't been produced but I would think the administrative in-processing of a new president requires one to be placed in his file. Just because he is president doesn't mean he has to show it to the world. We're not required to show our birth certificates to everybody. On occasion we need to provide a valid copy for various reasons but we are never required to show it to just about anybody that questions it. It's no different then me buying a firearm from the Civilian Marksmanship Program and some other gun owners want me to show it to them because they think I wasn't born in the USA. Not going to happen. Trump is just looking for attention. His regular work is too boring. Anyway, Obama is such a stupid president nobody really needs to argue the birth question. It isn't really needed to show the guy is a fucking idiot unqualified for the job. He is going to be a blimp on the radar like Carter. Nobody will ever take him serious again. Even Nixon got more respect than Carter and Clinton after they were presidents. Now the Democrats have Obama. Another useless piece-of-shit that the taxpayers are going to have to financially support for the rest of his miserable life.

If Obama would release his long form birth certificate (Attending Doctor, delivery room nurses, witnesses of that live birth etc;) He could make Trump, and all the birthers look ridiculous? That would be a HUGE win/win for Obama, and certainly would help him in his 2012 bid for re-election.

Democrat governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie said he was going to get to the bottom of all this birther stuff and put it to rest once and for all. Well, were still waiting after 4 months.

Problem is, and in all honesty, no one at this point can be 100% certain that this man was born in the U.S. He may have been, he may not have been. All records have been sealed (college records, health records). Just release the $12 long form instead of hiring attorney's (paid for by taxpayers) to fight against doing it. wtf?

News article on Governor Abercrombie:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-27/news/27738132_1_barack-obama-president-obama-birth-certificate

Mark Evans

soulful.terrain wrote:

Lamont Sanford wrote:

I don't know why Trump is obsessed with the birth issue. I thought that was a done deal a long time ago. I can't explain why an actual birth certificate hasn't been produced but I would think the administrative in-processing of a new president requires one to be placed in his file. Just because he is president doesn't mean he has to show it to the world. We're not required to show our birth certificates to everybody. On occasion we need to provide a valid copy for various reasons but we are never required to show it to just about anybody that questions it. It's no different then me buying a firearm from the Civilian Marksmanship Program and some other gun owners want me to show it to them because they think I wasn't born in the USA. Not going to happen. Trump is just looking for attention. His regular work is too boring. Anyway, Obama is such a stupid president nobody really needs to argue the birth question. It isn't really needed to show the guy is a fucking idiot unqualified for the job. He is going to be a blimp on the radar like Carter. Nobody will ever take him serious again. Even Nixon got more respect than Carter and Clinton after they were presidents. Now the Democrats have Obama. Another useless piece-of-shit that the taxpayers are going to have to financially support for the rest of his miserable life.

If Obama would release his long form birth certificate (Attending Doctor, delivery room nurses, witnesses of that live birth etc;) He could make Trump, and all the birthers look ridiculous? That would be a HUGE win/win for Obama, and certainly would help him in his 2012 bid for re-election.

Remember Hawaii Governor, Democrat Neil Abercrombie said he was going to get to the bottom of all this birther stuff and put it to rest once and for all? Well, were still waiting after 4 months.

Problem is, and in all honesty, no one at this point can be 100% certain that this man was born in the U.S. He may have been, he may not have been. All records have been sealed (college records, health records). Just release a $12 form instead of hiring attorney's (paid for by taxpayers) to fight it. wtf?

News article on Governor Abercrombie:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-27/news/27738132_1_barack-obama-president-obama-birth-certificate

Mark Evans

With all the ado that's been going on since Obama took office over his birth certificate, I suspect that anything they would release at this point would be met with disbelief. Hell, I'm still in disbelief that we even elected the guy. Obama is the very definition of the "peter principal".

Jeff

Jeff0000 wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Lamont Sanford wrote:

I don't know why Trump is obsessed with the birth issue. I thought that was a done deal a long time ago. I can't explain why an actual birth certificate hasn't been produced but I would think the administrative in-processing of a new president requires one to be placed in his file. Just because he is president doesn't mean he has to show it to the world. We're not required to show our birth certificates to everybody. On occasion we need to provide a valid copy for various reasons but we are never required to show it to just about anybody that questions it. It's no different then me buying a firearm from the Civilian Marksmanship Program and some other gun owners want me to show it to them because they think I wasn't born in the USA. Not going to happen. Trump is just looking for attention. His regular work is too boring. Anyway, Obama is such a stupid president nobody really needs to argue the birth question. It isn't really needed to show the guy is a fucking idiot unqualified for the job. He is going to be a blimp on the radar like Carter. Nobody will ever take him serious again. Even Nixon got more respect than Carter and Clinton after they were presidents. Now the Democrats have Obama. Another useless piece-of-shit that the taxpayers are going to have to financially support for the rest of his miserable life.

If Obama would release his long form birth certificate (Attending Doctor, delivery room nurses, witnesses of that live birth etc;) He could make Trump, and all the birthers look ridiculous? That would be a HUGE win/win for Obama, and certainly would help him in his 2012 bid for re-election.

Remember Hawaii Governor, Democrat Neil Abercrombie said he was going to get to the bottom of all this birther stuff and put it to rest once and for all? Well, were still waiting after 4 months.

Problem is, and in all honesty, no one at this point can be 100% certain that this man was born in the U.S. He may have been, he may not have been. All records have been sealed (college records, health records). Just release a $12 form instead of hiring attorney's (paid for by taxpayers) to fight it. wtf?

News article on Governor Abercrombie:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-27/news/27738132_1_barack-obama-president-obama-birth-certificate

Mark Evans

With all the ado that's been going on since Obama took office over his birth certificate, I suspect that anything they would release at this point would be met with disbelief. Hell, I'm still in disbelief that we even elected the guy. Obama is the very definition of the "peter principal".

Jeff

Pefect analogy Jeff. Rome is burning while Obama and Michelle are jet setting around the world attending state dinners, apologizing for America, talking endlessly about himself, and of all things.. picking NCAA baketball brackets....clueless. especially without the teleprompter.

He has NO solutions, no ideas.. That's why I never bought all the 'hope and change' baloney. Obama is doing the bidding of the globalists like George Soros, the DNC, EU, IMF, UN

Obama talked about fundamentally changing America during the campaign.....just what 'fundamental change' was he speaking of? NOBODY asked that question. They were too busy celebrating, 'hope and change! hope and change! and they didn't even know what that change was.. idiots. They just ran into the voting booth like rats after the Pied Piper.

When the Republicans (Ryan's budget) put forth an idea, even one as modest as Ryan's, he attacks it by playing the class warfare card but offers NO plan of his own! Even if Ryan's 63B plan would have been accepted, the government would still have been MASSIVE in scope and reach.

Let's face it.. the democrat party as a whole have no new ideas. tax and spend, tax and spend...into oblivion. Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The democrats and some republicans DO NOT have the intestinal fortitude to make the hard choices, just whatever is politically expediant at the moment.

Hell, considering W. Bushs' lackluster presidency and approval rating once he left office, I would have to say that Obama was the best thing to happen for the Bush legacy.

Mark Evans

soulful.terrain wrote:

Jeff0000 wrote:

soulful.terrain wrote:

Lamont Sanford wrote:

I don't know why Trump is obsessed with the birth issue. I thought that was a done deal a long time ago. I can't explain why an actual birth certificate hasn't been produced but I would think the administrative in-processing of a new president requires one to be placed in his file. Just because he is president doesn't mean he has to show it to the world. We're not required to show our birth certificates to everybody. On occasion we need to provide a valid copy for various reasons but we are never required to show it to just about anybody that questions it. It's no different then me buying a firearm from the Civilian Marksmanship Program and some other gun owners want me to show it to them because they think I wasn't born in the USA. Not going to happen. Trump is just looking for attention. His regular work is too boring. Anyway, Obama is such a stupid president nobody really needs to argue the birth question. It isn't really needed to show the guy is a fucking idiot unqualified for the job. He is going to be a blimp on the radar like Carter. Nobody will ever take him serious again. Even Nixon got more respect than Carter and Clinton after they were presidents. Now the Democrats have Obama. Another useless piece-of-shit that the taxpayers are going to have to financially support for the rest of his miserable life.

If Obama would release his long form birth certificate (Attending Doctor, delivery room nurses, witnesses of that live birth etc;) He could make Trump, and all the birthers look ridiculous? That would be a HUGE win/win for Obama, and certainly would help him in his 2012 bid for re-election.

Remember Hawaii Governor, Democrat Neil Abercrombie said he was going to get to the bottom of all this birther stuff and put it to rest once and for all? Well, were still waiting after 4 months.

Problem is, and in all honesty, no one at this point can be 100% certain that this man was born in the U.S. He may have been, he may not have been. All records have been sealed (college records, health records). Just release a $12 form instead of hiring attorney's (paid for by taxpayers) to fight it. wtf?

News article on Governor Abercrombie:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-27/news/27738132_1_barack-obama-president-obama-birth-certificate

Mark Evans

With all the ado that's been going on since Obama took office over his birth certificate, I suspect that anything they would release at this point would be met with disbelief. Hell, I'm still in disbelief that we even elected the guy. Obama is the very definition of the "peter principal".

Jeff

Pefect analogy Jeff. Rome is burning while Obama and Michelle are jet setting around the world attending state dinners, apologizing for America, talking endlessly about himself, and of all things.. picking NCAA baketball brackets....clueless. especially without the teleprompter.

He has NO solutions, no ideas.. That's why I never bought all the 'hope and change' baloney. Obama is doing the bidding of the globalists like George Soros, the DNC, EU, IMF, UN

Obama talked about fundamentally changing America during the campaign.....just what 'fundamental change' was he speaking of? NOBODY asked that question. They were too busy celebrating, 'hope and change! hope and change! and they didn't even know what that change was.. idiots. They just ran into the voting booth like rats after the Pied Piper.

When the Republicans (Ryan's budget) put forth an idea, even one as modest as Ryan's, he attacks it by playing the class warfare card but offers NO plan of his own! Even if Ryan's 63B plan would have been accepted, the government would still have been MASSIVE in scope and reach.

Let's face it.. the democrat party as a whole have no new ideas. tax and spend, tax and spend...into oblivion. Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The democrats and some republicans DO NOT have the intestinal fortitude to make the hard choices, just whatever is politically expediant at the moment.

Hell, considering W. Bushs' lackluster presidency and approval rating once he left office, I would have to say that Obama was the best thing to happen for the Bush legacy.

Mark Evans

I remember a time when I thought, America has surely hit bottom when it comes to our choices for President on election day.
Then we get a befuddled George H. W. Bush, slick Willy and Ross, only Jerry Jones has a bigger ego, Perot. After 8 years of slick Willy, who forever redefined what it means to enjoy a Cigar, we the people get "W" the decider and Al the inventor of the internet. Eight crazy years later, just when you thought the bar can't possibly be set any lower, we get ... Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin. What kind of choice is that? When will America wake up? That eerie glow on the horizon that we're racing towards ... that's oblivion .. ETA?
Then, just when you start thinking the bar CAN'T be set any lower, here comes 2012 ... what do you think we the people will get?
Donald Trump/Gary Busey vs Sarah Palin/Flo the Progressive Insurance lady?
I understand Holland is a nice place to live and to recover from one too many mind blowing events.

Jeff