posted
Originally posted by smitty195: I've been losing sleep over this--literally. I'm looking forward to an outcome the way I want it to be, but I'm also looking forward to this being OVER. I've had politics on my brain 24/7 for the last year. It will be nice to take a breather from all of this. At least for four more years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand why, Mr. Smith.
It is not so much who you have clearly stated you want to win, but rather that you believe you have placed more effort into your research than have many professional pollsters, and especially the one The New York Times places much faith with - namely Nate Silver and his "538" opinions.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Ocala Mike: Right now, I am dealing with a lot of harassment at my workplace, a small pharmacy that I deliver for, since I am the only Obama supporter there. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Mike, you ARE on the wrong side of "the I-4 DMZ".
Must be "sport' should you have to make deliveries down at The Villages.
I am now "decided" and plan to vote at about 10AM; may the best man win.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to wonder to what extent the "Three R's" Romney/Ryan/Rand consider a person that obtained marketable skills, held or sought employment throughout an entire 40 year working life, yet now chooses to "do what they want to do when they want to do it" - and part of what makes that possible is publicly administered pension income and health care benefits - both of which was prepaid during one's working life. Is such a person really a taker?
Somehow, I think I just described myself, and likely most anyone else around here as well.
It would appear that the "takers" are those who choose to "slack" around doing nothing they don't have to, relying upon others (public and private sources) for handouts. I think the TV comedy-drama series such as "Girls' portrays such a cult of young, able bodied, college educated (thanks Mom and Dad), people that could easily be described as "takers".
Likewise, "takers" include those who simply choose not to have health insurance knowing that family or the public trough will care for them. This is why I am in favor of PPACA '10 - even though I voted for Romney.
Simply because Willard Romney is a highly motivated and driven personality - Type A if you will - contemplating his next move (New York Times reports today possibly an executive level position with the LDS church) does not mean everybody else fits that model. The great majority are Type B's who know they have an obligation to provide for themselves and any dependents they choose to have. But I think it harsh to think of a Type B as part of that 47%, or otherwise the takers.
GBN - white, male, retired, Type B - and Railroad Retirement annuitant and Medicare beneficiary.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Mr. Twin Star or anyone, assume Married taxpayers who elect to file Jointly, both 65 or older that each received during 2011 the maximum Social Security Benefit of $2513/mo, or $30156/yr. They also had Interest Income of $14630, but no other income.
That's $74942 of income; what was their 2011 Federal Income Tax liability?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
In fact, had the Interest income been $1844 or less, this couple would not even been required to file a Federal Return.
But my point has been made; you can be retired and "doing OK" and not pay any Federal income tax.
These folk would have been in the "Romney 47%".
Mike, be it assured everything needed to compute the tax is there (Married, election to file joint, both 65 or over; if they had Itemized Deductions in excess of the Standard, I would have said so). That is just the kind of "trickie" than can be asked on the CPA exam - and with one of the choices E) Insufficient information.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it was too much to hope for that the Obama administration would avoid any kind of scandal, but I guess now it has joined as good as any other coming to mind. Now that The New York Times has reported that there was knowledge of the affair within official circles that report to the president during late summer, I can "smell the meat a cookin'".
At least this one involves two highly driven and accomplished "personae" who intended to act discretly and not some "scantily clad Bimbette" chasing Senator Gasbag around the Reflecting Pool.
But the result is the same when any of these episodes move forth - who is in power makes no difference.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, I think that the "I" for impeachment is a bit much. The opposition has learned from the Clinton episode that they can discredit themselves absent having a case solid enough to result in removal from office. The case against Nixon was rock solid and had it run its course, he would have been convicted and removed. Those involved with exposing Watergate, living or dead, are regarded as national heroes.
I don't think same can be said to the "dramatis personae" of the Clinton affair. The "blubbery Bimbette" of that one has proven to be quite unmarketable, "Javert" (Kenneth Starr) is largely removed from the public eye, and Bill today has rock star standing (I'll always hold that had the people arose in unison "repeal the 22nd Amendment", Bill would have won a third term by a landslide).
But all told, this matter, even if no compromise of national security is found but considering the election-timed disclosure of such, will bring severe discredit to the second term and hamper any initiatives the Administration wishes to bring forth - even if it is old news by the '14 mid-term cycle.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
And now that it's "after"....this has been on my mind constantly. I've run so many scenarios through my mind, and all I can come up with is destruction of the country.
I have to wonder something, though. At the end of Obama's 8 years, when the economy is still terrible, fuel prices are sky high, we are in a crisis or new war somewhere in the world, unemployment remains sky high, we most likely will have either gone through or will be in a depression, and things will be rotten for everybody----here is my question: Will Obama supporters continue to say that this president "did everything he can" and he just needs four more years, because eight just isn't enough due to the damage caused by George Bush? I'm serious---what will the excuse(s) be in four years? Because if you approach this with logic and facts, Obama said that in three years he will have this fixed, and if not, then it is a "one term proposition". He failed miserably at fixing things in three years. He also stated that he would cut the deficit in half, but instead he added six trillion dollars to it. He said that his stimulus package would lower unemployment to 5.5%, yet we are above 14% currently and it's not getting any better. Those are the facts--that's no my opinion. So even with these facts, Obama supporters continue to cover for him and make up excuses for things that he himself said. So I'm wondering, what will be said in eight years when everything has gone possibly beyond the point of no return and he has done unimaginable harm to this Republic? What will you all say? I would like to know if it's still Bush's fault after eight years of Obama? I would like to know if he needs 12 years instead of 8? Will you be supporting a change to the Constitution to allow a president to run for a third term, because Obama is such a great guy and we need to give him a chance?
I'd like to hear your answers. Thanks.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
First, I don't think it was a meltdown in this sense. Rather the discourse was quite civil, but nevertheless Mr. Rove was openly questioning an editorial call of his employer, Fox News.
That would get you and me fired; Mr. Rove, we shall see.
Since one of Mr. Rove's side gigs has been to shake down zillionaires for a little "message money" and those he was shaking down were Romney supporters, he has got a little "'planin'" to do to some boys who are used to having "bang for the megabuck". So I guess I can understand why he was so much of thought that the ball game isn't over until the last man is out.
I think the "pans" that all networks were offering of the Romney HQ in Boston suggest that there was a whole camp far wider than our Smith Brothers here. who were holding all through Election Day that "he's got it". I thought this was analogous to the 2009 frenzy around these parts regarding the 2016 Olympic Games bid. Here was the big downtown rally, here were the celebs such as Oprah with strong Chicago roots, and then....Chicago was eliminated on the first round of balloting. Even watching on TV, you could hear the "whoosh", and when I got out to O'Hare that day for an afternoon flight to KHPN, the place resembled a funeral wake - all those visions of handling VIP, the big tips, the extra hours....gone.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I think it's hilarious for the New York Times, of all institutions, to snicker at Fox News for being in the Romney camp. The New York Times?? That's funny.
I watched Fox News on election night, and I watched Karl Rove as well. (I can't stand the man). I didn't think he had a meltdown; instead, he was simply pointing out the facts--the numbers, if you will. He was right to hold off on calling the election based on Ohio's small numbers that they had at that moment. But, with that said, KARL ROVE NEEDS TO GO AWAY. He is a pain in the a**, and he is NOT what the GOP needs. We need to get rid of people like him, Boehner, McConnell, McCain, Lindsay Graham, etc, etc, etc. There is some real in-fighting going on right now within the Party. On a GOP conference call the other day that was put on by Boehner, he spoke like a loser and did NOTHING to indicate that the GOP still has the House, and that the GOP is still able to get A LOT done with that power. But nooooo, his conference call was to tell everybody "We lost, so let's raise taxes and oh by the way, Obamacare is the law of the land". I've got news for you, Mr. Speaker, the CONSTITUTION is the law of the land--NOT OBAMACARE. These establishment-Republicans are our problem!!
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am still numb and in disbelief over the election. Will I ever get over it? Mmmmmm.....maybe. Only if conservatives (*real* conservatives---not a Romney or a McCain) can take back the White House and both chambers of Congress. Words can not express or explain how confused I am over the election results. I wish I could articulate it in a way that others can understand, but thus far I am totally incapable of doing so. I just don't understand how so many seemingly good people can vote for someone with a proven record of being an absolute disaster. What's the saying about getting to the truth, and no matter how ridiculous the only explanation remaining is, it must be the truth? All I can come up with is massive brainwashing. Yes, it sounds loony-tunes. But it's all I can come up with.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe we have a lot more clueless and ignorant people operating on their emotions and feelings in our Nation than anyone could anticipate. The lack of logic and analytical abilities exhibited by millions of people goes beyond shear ignorance or lack of an adequate education. I realize we have been dumbing down our education system to give the lower IQ children something to "feel good" about, but this is only hurting our society. We have to recognize that all people are not equal when it comes to intelligence/logic/common sense/analytical abilities/critical thought processes.
Some people will operate on their emotions and feelings for their entire lives, instead of developing their logic and analytical abilities.
It is what it is. Let's get Sarah Palin elected in 2016!
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palin sounds good to me! How about Rubio/Palin or Palin/Rubio? Whoever the GOP nominates for 2016, it MUST MUST MUST be a very powerful, strong, full of fight and energy duo. Why? Because Hillary Clinton is going to run, and NEVER EVER underestimate a Clinton. Never! They made one mistake by being taken by total surprise by Obama (as did most of us)---but they won't let that happen again, I am certain of that. The masses will vote for her, and she WILL win...unless the GOP can find someone with a clear, articulate, strong conservative message. Too many non-conservatives out there have an incorrect and skewed view of what a conservative is (even though most people in America live conservative lives and don't even know it). We need someone who can articulate what it is and why it is superior to anything else out there. We need someone to explain liberty, and why it's so important and how the left has been chipping away at liberty for decades, with a very rapid pace in the last four years especially. Someone has to be able to do this, and NOT back down because they want to "be friends" with the media. There's no such thing as being friends with them if you are a conservative, so they need to acknowledge that UP FRONT and just brush them aside and do what you need to do to take care of business. Too many people in the GOP want to be liked--loved, even--and will say and do almost anything to keep themselves on the invite list for DC cocktail parties. Our side really needs to be gutted and revamped.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did a lot for Ohio when they said it couldn't be done! (And since the left hates him, that means he's okay in my book).
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much as I love Palin and think she would be good at the job, I do not think she is masochistic enough to run for the office. The obvious spite that was shown toward her in 2008 would be carried an order of magnitude higher if she were to be running for President rather than VP.
It was interesting to see how much of the comparing between candidates done by the media was done between Palin and Obama, not between McCain and Obama or Palin and Biden. Also interesting how much McCain tended to fade into teh background after Palin came on board, and also how much enthusiasm increased for the Republicans after she came on board.
At the risk of opening myself to ridicule, I still am a "birther". I did not start out that way. In fact, I gave the subject no thought at all until the start of and continuation of strong resistance to producing a long form birth certificate by the Obama camp.
If I want a certified copy of my "long form" birth certificate, I can either walk into the proper office in Nashville plunk down the money and pick it up after a short wait, or send them a check for the appropriate amount and wait about two weeks. If anybody wants to question when and where I was born, getting an answer is dead easy. Second: Having worked overseas, in order to get my children in the country on a resident visa, I had to prove that they were my children, and that meant having a copy of their long form birth certificate for each one of them so the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could see me listed as father on it.
This all comes under the general heading of, if you hear someone give a long and complex answer to a simple question it usually, in fact almost always, means that they are lying.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am in complete agreement with you, George. I never considered myself a "birther"--just like you. I thought it was silly. However, when Sheriff Joe Arpaio formed the "Cold Case Posse" (which consisted of veteran police detectives), and they laid everything out in a VERY detailed, crystal clear analysis of what they found, my jaw was on the floor. They concluded that probable cause DOES exist that the document (the alleged birth certificate) is fraudulent.
I watched both news conferences live (they were streamed online). There is NO doubt in my mind that the document that Obama produced is not real or legitimate. And believe me, I totally "get it" that people laugh at something like this and call it nutty. After all, it IS pretty far out there. I mean, how could it even be possible that POTUS is lying about when/where he was born?? However, as the saying goes, if it talks like a duck......
What I can't figure out is what the reason is for the forgery. Is it because he is not Constitutionally eligible to be president? Or.....is it because his real father is Frank Marshal Davis? I sort of lean towards the latter, because if his father is indeed FMD, then it shows that his mentor was an open Communist who hated America. It is astonishing to me that, now that so much evidence has been brought forth about this matter, that the majority of folks still laugh it off as being some type of fringe-kook theory. I have always said that I'm a facts guy. In other words, I don't care where the facts lead to or who the facts lead to----if it's factually accurate, then that's just the way it is. In this case, it is quite clear to me that a fraud has been committed, because that document (the long form birth certificate) is phony baloney---it ain't real!
But think about this also: Let's suppose for a moment that it was proven to EVERYONE's satisfaction that Obama's birth certificate is phony, and as a matter of fact, lets suppose that Obama came out and admitted it on live, national TV! So if everybody knew AND the man admitted it himself, then what? Nothing---absolutely nothing would happen. He would say that he did it because of his skin color or some such thing, and the media would back him 100%. There would be some sort of special Congressional something-or-other where they would declare that in this case, there is a "waiver" for Barack Obama and all is hunky-dory. I know this is what would happen. This stuff is so predictable.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: But think about this also: Let's suppose for a moment that it was proven to EVERYONE's satisfaction that Obama's birth certificate is phony, and as a matter of fact, lets suppose that Obama came out and admitted it on live, national TV! So if everybody knew AND the man admitted it himself, then what? Nothing---absolutely nothing would happen. He would say that he did it because of his skin color or some such thing, and the media would back him 100%. There would be some sort of special Congressional something-or-other where they would declare that in this case, there is a "waiver" for Barack Obama and all is hunky-dory. I know this is what would happen. This stuff is so predictable.
This should go to the Supreme Court, and it should, but are they so in the pocket of Obama will they ignore the Constitution? Very likely, I am afraid, as that has happened on quite a few other issues.
Never forget, Hitler was initially elected.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed! Our SCOTUS is poisoned. When votes are straight down party lines, then their purpose is no longer valid. They are supposed to adhere to the Constitution, and they have now proven time and time again that they have no interest in doing such a thing, and instead, they would prefer to legislate from the bench. Our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves. They wrote the Constitution and set up our Republic for the specific purpose of keeping a person like Obama out of power. However, what the Founders did not count on was a dumbed-down, stupid, brainwashed electorate. I'm afraid that's what we have now. Am I saying that people who voted for Obama are stupid? Yes--that's precisely what I'm saying. You can be a liberal, and I'm okay with that. A difference of opinion is welcome, and is necessary! But this guy is different. Obama is NOT a liberal. He is a pure Marxist who is following Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to a 't". Sorry, Obama voters, I don't mean to be disrespecting you---however, you REALLY need to rethink your position on things. You can hate conservatives, you can hate Romney, you can hate the GOP---that's all fine and dandy and you won't get a challenge from me. But to support a lying Marxist who is as phony as they come? Not only that, but to vote for him TWICE?? What is wrong with you?
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: I believe we have a lot more clueless and ignorant people operating on their emotions and feelings in our Nation than anyone could anticipate. The lack of logic and analytical abilities exhibited by millions of people goes beyond shear ignorance or lack of an adequate education. I realize we have been dumbing down our education system to give the lower IQ children something to "feel good" about, but this is only hurting our society. We have to recognize that all people are not equal when it comes to intelligence/logic/common sense/analytical abilities/critical thought processes.
Some people will operate on their emotions and feelings for their entire lives, instead of developing their logic and analytical abilities.
It is what it is. Let's get Sarah Palin elected in 2016!
" Oh, Puh-LEEEEZ don't nominate Sarah Palin! We Democrats have NO chance against her!" Said Br'er Rabbit! Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if it happens, I can think of one positive thing right off the bat---Saturday Night Live will at least be funny again.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And liberals would go into full melt-down mode as they try to remember all the lies they previously spread about Sarah. That would be entertaining!
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes it would! Not many people know just how far the media went to destroy her. They blanketed Wasila with "reporters" paying bribe money to get any dirt they possibly could. And what did they do to vet Obama? Absolutely nothing.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest problem with Sarah Palin the media/liberals (isn't that redundant) had with Sarah Palin was that she walked the talk. She had a Down's sydrome baby instead of an abortion. She had a husband with an actual job that entailed physical work. She had a daughter with an out-of-wedlock baby and did not throw her out like the media/liberals imagined that a person would do who was both politically conservative and sincere in her religious practices. I am sure that there were quite a few more things that could be said. The "I can almost see Russia from my house" attributed to her was not actually said by her but by a person mocking her.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: The biggest problem with Sarah Palin the media/liberals (isn't that redundant) had with Sarah Palin was that she walked the talk. She had a Down's sydrome baby instead of an abortion. She had a husband with an actual job that entailed physical work. She had a daughter with an out-of-wedlock baby and did not throw her out like the media/liberals imagined that a person would do who was both politically conservative and sincere in her religious practices. I am sure that there were quite a few more things that could be said. The "I can almost see Russia from my house" attributed to her was not actually said by her but by a person mocking her.
Oh, I'm trembling at the prospect of political combat with her! She'll surely wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton or anyone else the GOP puts forward! Maybe that's why she only appears on False Noise and than only on Sean Hannity's show, where he spoon - feeds her softball questions that she responds to with her word salad! I agree Tina Fey misrepresented her on "SNL" - by portraying her as actually putting coherent sentences together! In fact, the funniest Palin sketch of all was one in which Fey repeated verbatim the exact words Palin spoke to Katie Kouric. You say Todd Palin had a job? Where? Doing what? i don't recall. And what has he, or anyone else in that family, done since but be on "reality shows"? Fine preparation for public office. And your mention of Bristol Palin's pregnancy shows the hypocrisy rampant in your Party. Like when serial adulterer Bill Clinton was impeached by a congress led by serial adulterer Newt Gingrich. If one of the Obama girls was a little older, and, God forbid, pregnant out of wedlock, you and False Noise would have been up in arms about how poor parenting led to this tragedy. And Limbaugh would be calling her a "slut"! Republican family values are on a sliding scale.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Oracles of Delphi spoke to me last night.
For the 2014 gubernatorial cycle, Chris Christie will have become a Democrat and will still easily win re-election in NJ.
Chris, while sitting as Governor, becomes a contestant on "The Biggest Loser". Hillary speaks out on world issues (and checks into the body shop for a little nip and tuck).
2016; Chris is on the ticket as Hillary's VP; the Repuclicans run a sacrifical lamb.
Not too much doubt who will be the 45th POTUS.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now to redirect, I am at loss to understand why anyone continues to address the birthing matter, i.e. was Barack Obama born on sovereign US soil?
Really, Obama won and cannot run again. Do the birthers believe that Obama can be removed from office on the grounds of fraud?
If I properly recall, the birthing provision in the US Constitution got in there because one or more of the Fathers (I think it was mostly Jefferson) feared Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis. Hamilton was unquestionably the smartest cookie in the jar; hence fear of him.
Why that provision has not been repealed through an Amendment escapes me, but at this time it is MOOT. But then, I guess it brings Rush and Sean ratings - and for that matter Madcow as she and her gang rebut the positions.
Finally, to the birthers and others who are grasping at straws to have Obama removed from office prior to the expiration of his final term, and who likewise hold he is evil incarnate, have trust that our Republic will survive. Look at the band of hacks and weaklings "we" elected between our seventh and sixteenth presidents (roundly first half nineteenth century) - or for that matter amongst our seventeenth and twenty fourth. I think Millard Fillmore (13th) is most remembered for the SNL skits in which he is portrayed than much of anything else. Buchanan (15th) is universally regarded by historians as our worst president.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew, sooooo many things to comment upon here. I'll try and go through them as quickly as I can:
-Christie on The Biggest Loser, now that is funny! The news cameras don't often show his entire body, but when they do, WOW, he is severely obese. His butt is HUGE.
-Nothing would surprise me about Christie, including him being a VP running mate with Hillary. I think he's pretty shady, but that's just my opinion.
-If Hillary runs (and I firmly believe that she will), the GOP has all but lost already. If the GOP remains in its current state, with very poor leadership, no vision, no goals, and all of the in-fighting, then it's a slam-dunk for a Hillary win.
-Clinton impeachment compared to Newt Gingrich "womanizing": Yes, I have heard this argument many times, but it's all phony baloney. Clinton was not impeached for having an affair, contrary to what liberals always say. He was impeached for committing a FELONY. He lied under oath. Big difference between "an affair" and perjuring oneself. Try to remember this, because history is constantly trying to be rewritten. Clinton was impeached for PERJURY---he was not impeached for an affair.
-Limbaugh did not call Fluke a "slut" because she got pregnant out of wedlock. Contrary to what Media Matters and MSNBC spoon-feed their drones, Limbaugh made an analogy to Fluke being a "slut" because she wanted the taxpayers to fund her birth control. He then made a comment by saying something along the lines of, "What do you call a person who wants to get paid for having ***? Isn't that a slut?". If you're going to refer to this, then you need to put it into the correct context.
-The whole "birther" theory. I guess you could say I'm a "birther", although I'm not as rabid as most of them. My angle is very simple---I follow the facts. No matter where the facts lead me to, that's where I will go. If the facts show that Obama's birth certificate is a valid document, then I will agree with those facts and you won't hear a peep from me. However, this is NOT what the facts show. Sheriff Joe Arpaio formed a "cold case possee" that consisted of veteran police detectives. Those veteran detectives conducted an extremely thorough investigation into this whole thing, and they concluded that enough probable cause exists to determine that the long-form birth certificate presented by Obama is a fraudulent document. I watched the news conferences live via internet streaming, and their evidence is OVERWHELMING. Absolutely overwhelming. If you stick to the mainstream reporting of this, or read USA Today, the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, PBS, etc, you will NEVER EVER learn the truth about this document. I watch ALL sides of news, and I can absolutely guarantee you that those media outlets are covering for Obama on purpose, and they are purposely NOT reporting all of the facts that make the pieces fit together. Instead, they are brilliantly reporting only little things here and there so as to make the whole topic look "Cuckoo"! And they report it in such a way that anyone who believes in this stuff must be equally cuckoo. Well, I'm not cuckoo and I am a very reasonable human being. The facts that were presented are actually breathtaking. Once you see how incredibly phony the long-form birth certificate is, you will be absolutely stunned. I have the same questions as others: "Why did the president spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep the public from seeing his birth certificate, and why did he release a forgery?". I think that's a fair question---there is nothing "nutty" or "kooky" about it. Wouldn't you agree with that? I'm not stating there is a conspiracy. I am simply asking a very reasonable question that is based upon the facts in evidence---that's all. Why should I be labeled as a "birther", which implies that i'm some type of whacko or conspiracy nut-job? I am simply following the facts, and asking extremely appropriate questions. These are questions that the mainstream media SHOULD be asking, but they are not. They are corrupt, complicit, and have been actively involved in doing everything possible to cover for Obama. Not just on this issue, but on pretty much everything.
One of the facts that came out during the second "cold case possee" press conference is something that I don't hear anybody talking about, and that is Obama's selective service registration card. But the investigation showed something absolutely shocking, and that is the fact that Obama's selective service is an absolute 100% forgery. It is PHONY---not real! Any person who is even half-reasonable can look at the evidence and say, "Wow, this thing really is phony!". Everything about the card is fake--the number is years out of sequence, the font is wrong, the wording is wrong---it's a very poorly made counterfeit document. Why did Obama have someone create a fraudulent selective service registration document? Don't you think this deserves an answer? I sure do!
So then, what is my opinion on this whole "birther" topic? Well, I believe that in all likelihood, Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. So if that's the case, then why would he have a phony birth certificate? I believe the answer is because his REAL father is Frank Marshall Davis, a known communist and America-hater. Having a father like that did not fit the template for the phony man that the media created. Prior to being president, Obama had achieved absolutely NOTHING in life, other than having mysterious preferential treatment because of his skin color at universities, where he received even more mysterious funding for his very expensive college tuition bills. But since he has paid millions to keep all of these records sealed, we don't know how his education was funded. We don't even know what type of student he was, but based upon the teeny-tiny that we do know, he was a below-average student who did not excel in anything. But again, this does not fit the template that was created for this phony man.
I could write much, much more....but it still comes back to one thing for me. I just can't figure out how anyone who is sane could possibly vote for Obama. As I've said before, he is NOT a liberal. If he was liberal and you are liberal, okay, I get it---no argument from me. But this guy is a Marxist who very much dislikes the way America was formed and run, and he desperately wants to "fundamentally transform America", which translates to: "I want to put American its place for being so greedy". That's why he wants to punish success, and that's why he wants a non-powerful, large group of "middle class" (that is a Marxist term, BTW) people who rely on the government and its handouts in order to survive. Unfortunately, Obama is succeeding in his "fundamental transformation" of this country. It's very sad to watch this happen, as so many idiots sit back and smile and think he's doing a great job.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow Smitty, your immediate posting resulted in my taking quite a tour through the world of alternative media and its "All The News That Is Not Necessarily Fit To Print".
Well, from the source of "All The News That's Fit To Print", Frank Marshall Davis appears in one article printed during the election cycle:
And a new anti-Obama DVD is dropping into voters’ mailboxes, claiming that the president is the love child of an illicit relationship between his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party loyalist. The back story of the DVD offers the latest example of how secretive forces outside the presidential campaigns can sweep into battleground states days before the election.
This summer, a group of well-financed conservative activists had an idea for what they hoped would be a last-minute game changer in the presidential race. They would put out a DVD that made a compelling case against Mr. Obama in battleground states, sending it to voters through a carefully targeted direct mail campaign or as an insert in Sunday newspapers in the weeks before Election Day.
They went to the unusual length of arranging a focus group to test anti-Obama films. Conducted by Frank Luntz, the well-known Republican research analyst, a 30-person focus group looked at three choices: Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016: Obama’s America,” which theorizes that the president’s political beliefs were shaped by the radical “anticolonial” views of his Kenyan father; “The Hope and the Change,” a softer critique of the president that features interviews with disaffected former Obama supporters; and “Dreams From My Real Father,” which posits the implausible theory that the president’s real father is Mr. Davis, and that Mr. Davis indoctrinated him with Marxist views early on.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frank Luntz is a joke. I've never cared for the guy, and my first "encounter" with him was about five years ago. There is a TV show on Showtime that is called, "Bullshit with Penn and Teller". They expose frauds, phonies, liars, and con artists. One of their episodes dealt with Luntz---and the guy is a flim-flam man. He has suckered Fox News and Sean Hannity into believing he is some sort of magician when it comes to crowds and their perception of commercials and political ads. I don't place ANY weight onto anything that comes from Luntz.
As far as the Frank Marshall Davis theory, that's been out there for at least four to five years. It's nothing new. It was around during the 2008 election as well.
If you want to read some news sources that are accurate and trustworthy, start here:
Both are admittedly "conservative" organizations. However, they back up their columns with proof. They point out all of the lies of the NY Times and other mainstream media sources. It's quite eye-opening.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
