The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-03-01
In Reply to: Cyndiee, why can't you just say - No, no, no.
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.
You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.
Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.
And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.
They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).
So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.
Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated
is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied. He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.
John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?
Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.
People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.
As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.
Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
you missed the point of the original post
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
I meant to post this link in the original message
Really connects the dots
http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/
Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
Big Macs and shampoo......sm
No, they weren't in your original post, but they were used as examples to try to illustrate the concept that if mininum wage was raised, which includes the wage for the teenager who serves you at McDonalds and the stocker who puts the shampoo on the shelf, that the cost of those items, as well as every other thing you buy, would go up and would cause the price of these goods to still be basically out of reach for minimum wage earners which would still cause them to prefer welfare over working and struggling to feed their families.
I think one solution might be the old commodities system. We used to have it in Texas and I remember one aunt who received commodities back in the early 70s. She would receive beans, rice, cheese, peanut butter, oatmeal, powdered milk, etc. instead of food stamps. These were all good nutritional foods, but they weren't the most exciting foods and didn't offer much variety. Perhaps if welfare recipients received those instead of a card where they could buy steak and whatever food they chose, then there might be more of an incentive to get out and get a job.
I applaud you for being a budget-minded person who pays her bills and provides for her family, even when it is hard in this economy. I'm a single parent, raising 2 teenagers (which are basically bottomless pits) on my salary of about $23,000 a year and about $230 child support a month. I am still paying for my home and a vehicle as well. No, it's not easy and there are months when Peter is pretty tired of getting robbed to pay Paul, but I keep plugging along. Eating out is a luxury for me as well. I cook at home. We generally get clothes for Christmas and birthdays and I try to take care of them so they will last. I don't know the last time I actually bought anything new for myself in the way of clothes. I'm certainly not on the cutting edge of fashion, but at least I'm clothed. I think I may live in a less expensive area of the country than you, though, and I was raised in a very monetarily poor family but, like you, am rich in the love of friends and family. Hang in there, Cyndiee.
if you want to be scared, go the the mcdonalds at walmart....nm
x
I just cannot grasp the fact that you can't buy shampoo
or basic needs if you are both working and working overtime. You must be in serious debt....
Number one, less peole SHOULD eat at McDonalds, some of the most unhealthy eating habits...sm
of this country, contributing to the obesity problem and the rising cost of healthcare. Come on, EVERYONE deserves an honest living wage where they can feed, clothe, and house their families, and that is just not happening, in the NorthEast I see it every day, most families are working two or three jobs, really good for the children and marriages, I respectfully think that is Bull (which it tastes like McDonald's and other fast food places put in their burgers). JMHO
Wow! The price has certainly gone up......... sm
last time I checked, a hammer was going for $65!! LOL
And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?sm
As if there was a crisis in the travel department under Clinton.
Whatever gets you through this.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
We're all Americans and we've all contributed in some way. I'm not into oneupmanship.
price viagra
price viagra discount viagra purchase viagra prescription viagra pharmacy viagra
Gas Price Reduction Act.
Gas Price Reduction Act.
  
At what price? There's no such thing as a
x
What's that got to do with the price of eggs?
Nobel peace price
Is not a popularity contest. It is a privately funded award bestowed by the esteemed leaders in the field. To question their choice based on brain-washing political propaganda is ridiculous. Their choice does not need to be defended. Attacks are s-o-o-o-o transparent.
Half price sale on gas
It has been surprisingly pleasant lately at the pump.
Consumer Price Index. sm
Discussion? Are prices falling in your area yet? 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/business/economy/20econ.html
Same thing Bush has to do with the price of eggs.
Nothing! Bush is not controlling the price of eggs or food or anything for that matter. The poster was referring to the OPs message about the "evil Bush regime". I agree with the reply. The OP post was disgusting and if she/he thinks the Bush regime is "evil" she/he should try living in Russia. Or even Cuba for that matter.
And since we don't know what it's going to be like under an Obama regime I think we should all wait. By the looks of the people he is picking for his cabinet well, we might as well live in Russia or Cuba. Let's wait and see if this regime becomes an "evil regime". I've been reading some articles by surviors of WWII and Hitler's reign, and they are all saying just wait, we feel bad for what you will be going through.
Senator Sold Stock Before Price Dropped
Martha Stewart comes to mind.
Shares Fell Two Weeks Later
By Jonathan M. Katz Associated Press
Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A03
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sold all his stock in his family's hospital corporation about two weeks before it issued a disappointing earnings report and the price fell nearly 15 percent.
Frist held an undisclosed amount of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain. On June 13, he instructed the trustee managing the assets to sell his HCA shares and those of his wife and children, said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Frist.
Frist's shares were sold by July 1 and those of his wife and children by July 8, Call said. The trustee decided when to sell the shares, and the Tennessee Republican had no control over the exact time they were sold, she said.
HCA shares peaked at midyear, climbing to $58.22 a share on June 22. After slipping slightly for two weeks, the price fell to $49.90 on July 13 after the company announced its quarterly earnings would not meet analysts' expectations. On Tuesday, the shares closed at $48.76.
The value of Frist's stock at the time of the sale was not disclosed. Earlier this year, he reported holding blind trusts valued at $7 million to $35 million.
Blind trusts are used to avoid conflicts of interest. Assets are turned over to a trustee who manages them without divulging any purchases or sales and reports only the total value and income earned to the owner.
To keep the trust blind, Frist was not allowed to know how much HCA stock he owned, Call said, but he was allowed to ask for all of it to be sold.
Frist, a surgeon first elected to the Senate in 1994, had been criticized for maintaining the holdings while dealing with legislation affecting the medical industry and managed care. Call said the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has found nothing wrong with Frist's holdings in the company in a blind trust.
To avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, Senator Frist went beyond what ethics requires and sold the stock, Call said. Asked why he had not done so before, she said, I don't know that he's been worried about it in the past.
An HCA spokesman said the company had no part in Frist's decision.
Frist's father, Thomas, founded the company, and his brother, Thomas Jr., is a director and leading stockholder. The family is worth $1.1 billion, according to Forbes magazine.
HCA -- formerly known as Columbia HCA Healthcare Corp. -- has been a top contributor to the senator's campaigns, donating $83,450 since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The sale of the shares was first reported by Congressional Quarterly.
Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity...
Is Barack Obama a U.S. citizen?"
Of course he is, dummy..
"But how do you know?"
Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website. Not to mention, the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . Also, factcheck.org (a non-partisan and highly credible political fact checking website) investigated it heavily and validated, beyond doubt, that the birth certificate he posted was real. Did I mention that if there were an actual conspiracy surrounding this...it would have to be 47 years in the making? That's right, read it and weep: his birth announcement was posted in a Hawaii newspaper way back in 1961! But if you're really not sure, just remember there have been court cases challenging his citizenship, and every one of them was laughed off the docket.
"That's all pretty compelling. But I got this email that said...."
The email you got is just a crazy, internet-born rumor. It's nothing but a desperate attempt to discredit him. Trust me.
"Yeah, I'm sure you're right...."
Sound familiar? I've personally had a similar conversation several times, but mine ends differently.
"Well for starters, he posted his birth certificate on his website."
Really? Well humor me, because I think this is important enough for us to get our facts straight. So let's explore that. Hawaii doesn't issue "birth certificates". The state offers "Certificates of Live Birth" and "Certifications of Live Birth." What Barack Obama has posted on his website is a "Certification of Live Birth." So let's talk about the difference between the two documents. As you probably know, the document we commonly refer to as a "birth certificate" (more formally called a Certificate of Live Birth) is packed with detail. Detail like the hospital you were born in, the doctor who delivered you along with his/her signature, etc. It looks like a tax form with all the boxes and everything. The Certification of Live Birth is really just a snapshot of that. So which one is more credible? Which one does the state of Hawaii give the "last word" to? Based on information that existed long before this issue came up, let's take a look at one example of what the state of Hawaii has to say on it:
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." ( http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl ).
So if the state of Hawaii itself doesn't accept "Certifications of Live Birth" as a last leg of verification, it's safe to say there's a pretty solid distinction we too can make when comparing a Certificate to a Certification. What Barack Obama posted, was a Certification. What people want to see, is the Certificate. When you say he "posted his birth certificate" on his website, the truth (painful as it may be to hear) is that he posted a much different document that if accurately described, would be a "birth certification" - which is far less credible and far easier to alter.
"That's pretty lean. It's not really a big deal to me because I know it's just a rumor. But still, if you're going to insist there's a question here, I have to tell you....the state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born in Hawaii . They have the 'Certificate' you're talking about, and they proved it was authentic. Are you saying they're in on this crazy conspiracy?"
I'm not saying they're involved in a conspiracy, or even that one exists. But I'm not sure you can honestly say you actually read that statement. Here, take a look:
Director of Health for the State of Hawaii , Chiyome Fukino: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i."
Now you tell me, where in that statement does it say anything about where he was born? Public officials are very careful when they release these statements. They carve their words out precisely and check and double check to make sure what they release is accurate and viable. I have to be honest, it wasn't until this statement came out that I became more concerned by the citizenship question. If you actually read it, it's plain to see that as it relates to his birth, the statement really only "proves" 3 things: 1) Barack Obama was born, 2) proof of that birth exists on paper, and 3) their office is in receipt of that paper. An official statement with a lot of affirmatives about requirements and procedures means nothing if they can't find the words, "originating from Hawaii " or "was born in Honolulu " or "as documented in the Certification he has already released". Now maybe it was an accident that Dr. Fukino was able to authenticate virtually every scrap of it's existence - except the part everyone is asking about. However, pressed on this, there has been ample opportunity for her to revise or expand her statement, and she still to this day has not done so.
"Wait a minute, Hank. Didn't factcheck.org already investigate this whole thing. You're just grasping at straws. What do you know, that they don't?!"
I guess the first thing I'd tell you is that, on this particular subject, factcheck has already missed a lot of "facts", and even created a few of their own. You know that statement we just read from Hawaii 's Director of Health? Well this is what factcheck had to say about it: "Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu " ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ). Did you see that in the statement? I didn't. If this site's only claim is to report facts in a non-partisan manner, how much credibility can we really give them when they start making up their own, very partisan and very inaccurate facts? They also failed to make the distinction between the Certificate and the Certification. And to be fair, factcheck.org is a product of the Annenberg Foundation. You may remember, Barack Obama worked for Annenberg as a spoke in their umbrella. If you look at the actual facts, this is a slight conflict of interest on factcheck.org's part - which might help to explain their not having met their own obligation of getting the facts right. An accident on their part? Maybe. But they too have had plenty of time to correct it, but chose instead to close the book on this one...fabricated facts and all.
"Look....if there was any truth to this, it would have meant that Barack's parents and a Hawaiian newspaper were in on it too. And they were in on it 47 years ago! There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper for crying out loud."
Okay now this is one of my favorites. So now rather than authenticating citizenship by way of formal, long-form, vault copies of actual Certificates of Live Birth - we are relying on birth announcements in newspapers? Let me ask you something: If you and your wife live in Ohio , but you gave birth while visiting Florida , is there a legal or logical premise that says you're bound to put that birth announcement in a Floridian newspaper? Or, would you likely send news of the birth back home, to your town-of-residence, where more friends and family would see the good news? If Barack Obama was born outside of the U.S. , there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy" for his family to have sent word of that birth back to their hometown newspaper.
"Hmm. Okay. Well newsflash Hank. This has already been challenged in court and the judges dismissed it as frivolous and ridiculous."
Actually, this has been heard in a handful of courts. The judges by-in-large dismissed the cases, you're right. But the majorative reason was not merit, but rather standing. "Standing", as an act of dismissal in the courts, is a technicality. The judges said that individual citizens did not have standing to ask that the Constitution be upheld. This raises a pretty clear question: If "We The People" don't have standing to ask that the contract we hold with our government be upheld (ie the Constitution), who does? There are several other cases still pending; at least 12 confirmed. One of those is actually active on the Supreme Court's docket, as we speak. Another has been brought in California by 2008 candidate for the Presidency, Alan Keyes...and several of California 's electors (members of the electoral college who will officially vote our President in on December 15, 2008).
I don't think too many grounded people could say, "I know the answer." For instance, I am not saying Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. I'm not saying he was born in Kenya . I'm not saying he renounced his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia and attended school there (a right reserved only to Indonesian citizens - in a country that didn't recognize any dual citizenship.) I'm not saying that due to his father's citizenship at a time when Kenya was still part of the British empire , Barack, as a son, was automatically and exclusively afforded British citizenship. I'm not saying the video footage of his Kenyan grandmother claiming to have been in the delivery room, in Kenya , when he was born, is necessarily "evidence." I'm also not saying he was born in Hawaii . What I'm saying is, none of us have these answers. I'm saying, there is an outstanding question here - that only Barack Obama can answer. And rather than answer it, having promised a new sense of transparency throughout his campaign, his course of action has been to spend time, money and the resources of at least 3 separate law firms....fighting to keep any and all documentation off the discovery table and out of the courtroom. It is a well known legal fact that if you have documentation/evidence that will help you - you are quick to produce it. If that documentation will hurt you, however, you fight to keep it out of court. Let's be fair. He was quick and happy to give documentation he claimed validated and authenticated his citizenship to a website - but is fighting to keep that same documentation out of the courts. If that document really does authenticate and validate everything, why not just hand it over? Why fight?
"Alright Hank. Well MY question is, if there was any validity to this, why isn't the media covering it?"
I have no idea.
As an Independent and initial Barack Obama supporter, I can safely say that contrary to what many think, asking these questions is not an attempt by Republicans to win a technicality-laden seat in the White House. Republicans lost. They were due the loss. Most know that. The seat will ultimately go to a Democrat. But if there is truth to Barack Obama not being able to formally prove his a) natural born, and/or b) properly maintained citizenship statuses - we as Americans must not gloss past it. If there is truth to it, this will represent the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and our most coveted process of democracy. If there is truth to it, this will demonstrate a wanton and relentless pursuit for power which left President-Elect Obama trapsing all over our Constitution - in pursuit of a position that ironically and foremost swears him to uphold and protect that same document.
There is much unanswered here. I know it is very embarassing for the Democratic party to have allowed what might be such an incredibly elementary oversight to occur - but nothing good that Barack Obama might do in the next 4-8 years, will be able to repair the damage done by setting a precedent that affords anyone in our Country the room and right to trample the contract "We The People" hold with our government, let alone a person who is asking to be our next President.
"Everyone will riot if they kick him out." We can't be intimidated by that. The people of our country elected a black man for the Presidency. Nothing can change that. If it turns out his entire campaign and effort were based on fraud, that reality is still 100% independent of the color-blind lenses our nation took to the polls. So if we bow down to the potential for race riots - recognizing that we did in fact (perhaps ignorantly relating to his eligibility) initially vote for him, we are only fostering a new evolution of racism that is nurtured by intimidation and complicit with failing to incite accountability over a man, people and process - simply based on color.
Very few people know any of this is even occurring. Those who do are greatly divided. Some are sure Barack Obama has acted fraudulently, some are sure he hasn't. Neither group can be sure of anything though, until Barack Obama himself answers the question for us. We all show our "birth certificates" (Certificates of Live Birth) several times over the course of our lives. Why should someone running for the Presidency be an exeption to that expectation, or even a more fiercely vetted recipient of it? More questionably, how can we as a government, media and nation - allow someone running for the Presidency to be an exception to that expectation?
The behavior, mostly (to my personal dismay) for his part, has only fueled speculation. Why factcheck.org? Why not a governing body like the Federal Election Commission, Board of Elections or even the DNC? When a governing body did finally inject itself in to this matter, why were they only able to do so vaguely...leaving the real question entirely untouched and unanswered? Why spend more than $800K fighting this in court, at a time when our nation is in economic crisis and that money could be better spent in far more charitable ways; when it could ultimately and universally be resolved for the small $12.00 fee required by Hawaii for a copy of the actual Certificate of Live Birth? In the spirit of transparency, why refuse to release this basic document for inspection? In the spirit of unity, why leave so many Americans alienated and debating the matter - when all most of them want is affirmation so that people on both sides of the debate can move to more healthy and productive lines of communication?
It was opinionated that he had left this door open prior to the election, so that those who opposed him would be led down a blind and pointless alley. The general election is over though. And still, he offers nothing to end the speculation.
By the time I am done with the conversation I outlined above, those I am speaking with inevitably return to what I have typically found to be their first and last refutation....
"He must have been properly vetted. Right....?"
I don't know. And without support for that contention coming directly from the Federal Election Commission, the Board of Elections or (ideally) Barack Obama himself, neither does anyone else.
"This is ridiculous" doesn't count as a refutation. Simply, answer the question with the simple documentation that is being asked of you in double digit numbers of court rooms across the country, including the Supreme Court. It may go away. It may be dismissed again based on standing. But President-Elect Obama's refusal to quell what have become very real questions about this, will only serve to leave many good Americans who hope to vigorously support their President...with far too much doubt to be able to do so. Production of a Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price to pay for unity.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-156768
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
I did see the original s/m
and he didn't appear to be to be joking. If he was, I didn't see the humor in it when so many are losing their homes and can't afford to fill up their vehicles to get to work.
No that was original.
I have my original
birth certificate and I have my son's as well. I also have my step son's and my husband's and they are all locked in our fire proof gun safe along with our social security cards.
You thought so....what....exactly....anything original?
.....I thought so......
the original settlers
She said, and I quote "the original settlers"
Yes, he did. And it was in the original bill as well...
don't know if it is still in the 850 billion one. I would imagine it is. Because the Dems want to hold onto their voting base.
The only mandated CS in his original
platform (Blueprint for Change) was for the Opportunity Tax Credit for college students to receive the $4000 college tuition assistance. It states he has a goal for middle school and high school students to do 50 hours, but it never says it is required. (I printed this out during the primary, so it may be out of date.)
FYI, it's not a forgery. It's the original one
on file at the courthouse. I WELCOME a Supreme Court decision so this nonsense will end, although I'm sure then the tin-foil-hatters will swear the current republican-biased Supreme Court was in on the scam too... LOL.
And yet another one makes the Original
For the original package...(sm)
but unsure if it will help as it stands. The popularity of the against vote for the bill has been fascilitated by some keen advertising on the pub side. I'm hoping Obama will call the pubs out on tonight's address and point out exactly what it is that pubs want in the bill (more tax breaks for the wealthy that we can't afford), and in particular, which pubs want it. If he does that keep your eye on the polls. People will be outraged.
In defense of the original poster...
Although I am not one to cross party lines; I will vote democratic no matter who, I am going to help defend the original posters statement. The only reason I say this is because when it comes down to it, if Hillary gets the nom, we are going to have a very conservative democratic president. She is pretty much at the same level of conservatism as McCain, and I don't see much difference between the two of them. However, if it comes down between Clinton and McCain, vote Hillary. We need to start a trend of more women in high politics and she will break the way for those to come who will be smarter and better than she is. :o)
original message regarded
the myth that the poor little christian conservations are constantly being abused by the powerful liberal media. Yet if the liberal media is so almightly powerful, why can't even one liberal radio network survive? you can't have it both ways.
Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.
|
