Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

He has never produced the original, just one that he created on a computer and is not the real COLB

Posted By: Just me on 2008-11-02
In Reply to: Why doesn't he just produce them? - sbMT

It has been found out that the document he created and submitted is not the actual birth record. The original is a typewritten birth certificate. The ones we type on a typewriter to submit to the state office (and back in 1961 there were not computers like there are today to create documents like the one Obama's camp created and put on display). Even so, at the hospital it is still a requirement this COLB be typewritten. They did find the actual typewritten birth certificate and the Obama camp has had it sealed so that nobody can see it. Has to make you wonder. And that is what the law suit is about (there is more than one lawsuit trying to get this document released).

Question that is on a lot of people's mind is - If you are a legal American born citizen, then just show the blooming original birth certificate and get on with it. Why have you taken legal measures to hide it and then create a false one and posted it on your website. Then on top of that a group (Annenberg foundation) who is supporting and doing everything they can to get Obama elected are the ones Obama chose to come out and say its real. Give me a break! Anyone with sense can see this is a cover up. An independent judge needs to sign an order that the original birth certificate to released. If we the people are voting for him then we the people have the right to see what his original type written birth certificate says. I'll give you a hint - the birth place is not going to be Hawaii.


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

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.


the list was produced

by conservatives.  You have indicated your acceptance of fisticuff diplomacy in detailing with world issues.  Typical bellicose conservative thinking.  If you can't force em to your viewpoint, punch em or threaten them with the US arm forces.


 


He produced a copy.

Not the original one.  That is why some people are questioning its authenticity.  I personally don't feel that this will be an issue since Obama's mom was an American citizen.  I think the thing that sticks out in some people's mind is that on his school records he was listed as a citizen to Indonesia....as well as his religion was listed as muslim.  Those are things that may not sit well with others.  Obviously people for Obama find it as no big deal but others do think it is worth looking at more carefully.


Like I've said before, if any other politician had the background and connections that Obama has had and still has......they wouldn't even be considered for president.  Their political career would be in the gutter.


If you really want to get technical about this, McCain wasn't born in the United States.  LOL.  He was born at a US military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone where his father was serving in the navy.  However, his parents were BOTH American citizens, so he could have been born on Mars and still been an American at birth.


He as produced "them" over and over and over again.
There is nothing to produce. He's a citizen. It has been proven. It has been accepted by the court. No amount of frivolous lawsuits is going to change the fact that Obama is an American citizen. If Hawaii in fact holds the legitimate COLB that Andy the attorney is petitioning the court to pursue, wouldn't that just serve to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii? No need for Obama to but his head up against the same brick wall that disaffected Hillary-supporting or rabid pub attorneys interested in writing future best sellers and seizing TV movie rights delude themselves into believing they are earning.
Why should he? The last time he produced a document
x
Does your mommy know you are on the computer?
Maybe you should be helping with the dishes or doing homework.
Actually, I ALSO got a computer virus from
I had to do a deep virus scan and fix to get rid of the thing. It took up almost 4 hours of my time last Sunday and I was NOT a happy camper....especially since the link led me to MORE OF THE SAME tired junk that has been dominating this forum for months.

You put WAY too much importance on yourself and the only horse hockey around here these days is the lame law suits to nowhere you keep obsessing over. We are ALL waiting for the SC to deliver the final blow to this utter stupidity. What will be even more satisfying is the crow roast that inevitably you and you ilk will all have to endure.
So much for my computer skills!

LOL!


The photo was the "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" photo of three chimps.


http://cgi.ebay.com/Hear-No-Evil-See-No-Evil-Speak-No-Evil-Chimp-Postcard_W0QQitemZ330304095759QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20090130?IMSfp=TL090130154004r33108


Huh? You think Fox created the Federal
Heaven help us, I certainly hope and pray they wanted to make the government SMALL. I cannot believe you just said what you did and do not even understand the point you made, which is government is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BIG. That is the problem!!!!!! I definitely want my government as small as possible, small enough we can drown it in the bathtub!!!!

Are you daft poster? Don't you see where BIG government has us now? They are DROWNING US!!!!!!! That's the entire point of small government, not regulating the h@ll out of me and my family.

I realize generations of people think that is what government is supposed to do....tell you how to think, what to read, how to raise our children (give them another pill if that's what the government says too),who to associate with, take away our civil rights one by one until we have nothing left of the country this was supposed to be.

Of course you want the government small. Did you think it was SUPPOSED to be big! That's what Obama wants.....MORE GOVERNMENT, BIGGER GOVERNMENT, more control of YOUR life. No thanks!!!!!!!! My life has been invaded enough by our out of control government.


This has created quite a conundrum.
It also may set up officially recognized causation for a war crime tribunal for members of the current administration.

As far as setting them free, in some of the instances so far where they have found a detainee to be innocent of claims that landed them in Gitmo in the first place they have not been able to send them home because the government of the country they were living in at the time will not take them back and no other country will accept them either. I read something regarding attempting to work out a deal with some European countries to take some the detainees who are to be released but only if we take a percentage of them also. (I can't remember where I read that and will have to do some searching.)


But...........he created homosexuals, too.
X
Adam lived ,after he produced Seth , for 800 years? What's that supposed to mean?
I am not bashing ANYBODY and ANYTHING, I just only expect the Bible to say the TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH and not being a FAIRY TALE.

Isn't it all about creation theory versus evolution theory?
The evolution theory explains in a very believable way all of God's miracles as natural happenings.

Even your answer to my question: 'Whom did Cain marry and produce children with?' takes the explanation and defence from the evolution theory, I quote your explanation:

..' and yes. Cain married and reproduced with one of his sisters. At that time, incest would not have been an issue, as DNA and blood was pure, and the risk of disease and complications or birth defects was zero.'

This is the justification by the evolution theory. What about the creation theory? Brother sleeping with sister?

I want to emphasize that it was YOU who started with the bashing in this your post:

'But it sounds to me like you are just one of those that just wants to bash, with no real search for the truth at all, so thanks for not wasting anymore of my time.
And yeah, Christians can be snippy too, sometimes.'

(BTW, I filled in some commas).

I cannot believe this. It seems that YOU are the intolerant one.
You also believe that somebody can live 8OO years?!?

I am Roman Catholic and I believe in God.




Adam lived ,after he produced Seth , for 800 years? What's that supposed to mean?
I am not bashing ANYBODY and ANYTHING, I just only expect the Bible to say the TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH and not being a FAIRY TALE.

Isn't it all about creation theory versus evolution theory?
The evolution theory explains in a very believable way all of God's miracles as natural happenings.

Even your answer to my question: 'Whom did Cain marry and produce children with?' takes the explanation and defence from the evolution theory, I quote your explanation:

..' and yes. Cain married and reproduced with one of his sisters. At that time, incest would not have been an issue, as DNA and blood was pure, and the risk of disease and complications or birth defects was zero.'

This is the justification by the evolution theory. What about the creation theory? Brother sleeping with sister?

I want to emphasize that it was YOU who started with the bashing in this your post:

'But it sounds to me like you are just one of those that just wants to bash, with no real search for the truth at all, so thanks for not wasting anymore of my time.
And yeah, Christians can be snippy too, sometimes.'

(BTW, I filled in some commas).

I cannot believe this. It seems that YOU are the intolerant one.
You also believe that somebody can live 8OO years?!?

I am Roman Catholic and I believe in God.




Adam lived ,after he produced Seth , for 800 years? What's that supposed to mean?
I am not bashing ANYBODY and ANYTHING, I just only expect the Bible to say the TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH and not being a FAIRY TALE.

Isn't it all about creation theory versus evolution theory?
The evolution theory explains in a very believable way all of God's miracles as natural happenings.

Even your answer to my question: 'Whom did Cain marry and produce children with?' takes the explanation and defence from the evolution theory, I quote your explanation:

..' and yes. Cain married and reproduced with one of his sisters. At that time, incest would not have been an issue, as DNA and blood was pure, and the risk of disease and complications or birth defects was zero.'

This is the justification by the evolution theory. What about the creation theory? Brother sleeping with sister?

I want to emphasize that it was YOU who started with the bashing in this your post:

'But it sounds to me like you are just one of those that just wants to bash, with no real search for the truth at all, so thanks for not wasting anymore of my time.
And yeah, Christians can be snippy too, sometimes.'

(BTW, I filled in some commas).

I cannot believe this. It seems that YOU are the intolerant one.
You also believe that somebody can live 8OO years?!?

I am Roman Catholic and I believe in God.




Beware of new computer virus...sm

I got this email from a friend today and thought I would share it with you all.


*Emails with pictures of Osama Bin-Laden hanged are being sent, and the moment that you open these emails your computer will crash, and you will not be able to fix it!!!

This e-mail is being distributed through countries around the globe, but mainly in theUS and Israel.

Don't be inconsiderate; send this warning to whomever you know.

Confirmed at: http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/osama.asp


Origins: There are few headlines that would grab the attention of more computer users around the world than Osama bin Laden Captured, and that's exactly what whoever created this lure was counting on to snare unsuspecting victims who use Microsoft platforms.

Osama bin Laden Captured isn't a virus in itself; it's the text of a message that includes a link to a file called EXPLOIT.EXE. When a message recipient clicks on this link to view what he thinks are pictures of Osama bin Laden's capture, he can end up downloading an executable Trojan known as Backdoor-AZU, BKDR_LARSLP.A, Download. Trojan, TrojanProxy.Win32.Small.b,or Win32.Slarp.

Clicking the embedded link in the Osama bin Laden Captured message auto-executes a file called EXPLOIT.EXE, which exploits a known security hole to download the Trojan.

According to McAfee Security:   The Trojan opens a random port on the victim's machine. It sends the Port information to a webpage at IP address 66.139.77.145. The Trojan listens on the open port for instructions and redirects traffic to other IP addresses.

Spammers and hackers can take advantage of compromised systems by using the infected computer as a middleman, allowing them to pass information through it and remain anonymous.*


Yes. Computer virus happened
the birth certificate boobs would be "highly doubtful." I'm not trying to get anyone to believe anything. I'm simply stating fact. The virus occured IMMEDIATELY after following one of these lame BC links and yes, dear, it took nearly 4 hours to get rid of it. Only wish it were that easy to purge this board of all the ignorance that surrounds these paranoid BC delusions.
what a mess bush has created
 Iraq's Fig Leaf Constitution
    By Robert Scheer
    The Los Angeles Times

    Tuesday 30 August 2005


    Who lost Iraq? Someday, as a fragmented Iraq spirals further into religious madness, terrorism and civil war, there will be a bipartisan inquiry into this blundering intrusion into another people's history.


    The crucial question will be why a preemptive American invasion - which has led to the deaths of nearly 2,000 Americans, roughly 10 times as many Iraqis, the expenditure of about $200 billion and incalculable damage to the United States' global reputation - has had exactly the opposite effect predicted by its neoconservative sponsors. No amount of crowing over a fig leaf Iraqi constitution by President Bush can hide the fact that the hand of the region's autocrats, theocrats and terrorists is stronger than ever.


    The U.S. now has to recognize that [it] overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state, said regional expert Peter W. Galbraith, the former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and an advisor to the Iraqi Kurds. And, he could have added, a pro-Iranian state that will be repressive and unstable.


    Think this is an exaggeration? Consider that arguably the most powerful Shiite political party and militia in today's Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its affiliated paramilitary force, the Badr Brigade, was not only based in Iran but was set up by Washington's old arch-foe, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It also fought on the side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and was recognized by Tehran as the government in exile of Iraq.


    Or that former exile Ahmad Chalabi is now one of Iraq's deputy prime ministers. The consummate political operator managed to maintain ties to Iran while gaining the devoted support of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, charming and manipulating Beltway policymakers and leading U.S. journalists into believing that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction.


    Chalabi is thrilled with the draft constitution, which, if passed, will probably exponentially increase tension and violence between Sunnis and Shiites. It is an excellent document, said Chalabi, who has been accused by U.S. intelligence of being a spy for Iran, where he keeps a vacation home.


    What an absurd outcome for a war designed to create a compliant, unified and stable client state that would be pro-American, laissez-faire capitalist and unallied with the hated Iran. Of course, Bush tells us again, this is progress and an inspiration. Yet his relentless spinning of manure into silk has worn thin on the American public and sent his approval ratings tumbling.


    Even supporters of the war are starting to realize that rather than strengthening the United States' position in the world, the invasion and occupation have led to abject humiliation: from the Abu Ghraib scandal, to the guerrilla insurgency exposing the limits of military power, to an election in which our guy - Iyad Allawi - was defeated by radicals and religious extremists.


    In a new low, the U.S. president felt obliged to call and plead with the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, Abdelaziz Hakim, to make concessions to gain Sunni support. Even worse, he was summarily rebuffed. Nevertheless, Bush had no choice but to eat crow and like it.


    This is a document of which the Iraqis, and the rest of the world, can be proud, he said Sunday, through what must have been gritted teeth. After all, this document includes such democratic gems as Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation, and No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam, as well as socialist-style pronouncements that work and a decent standard of living are a right guaranteed by the state. But the fact is, it could establish Khomeini's ghost as the patron saint of Iraq and Bush would have little choice but to endorse it.


    Even many in his own party are rebelling. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur, said Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel last week, one of a growing number of Republicans who get that we should start figuring out how we get out of there.


    Not that our what-me-worry? president is the least bit troubled by all this adverse blowback from the huge, unnecessary gamble he took in invading the heart of the Arab and Muslim worlds. What is important is that the Iraqis are now addressing these issues through debate and discussion, not at the barrel of a gun, Bush said.


    Wrong again, George. It was the barrel of your gun that midwifed the new Iraq, which threatens to combine the instability of Lebanon with the religious fanaticism of Iran.


A pile of ca-ca created by Palin! (nm)
:)
Bush Created The Deficit
You should at least give the new president the opportunity to try to change things. He has to take a radical approach as the "business-as-usual" attitude in Washington would rather sit around and watch our economy and nation crumble than come up with any real, workable solutions.

Bush was handed a surplus when he took office and look how he managed to get us deep into debt. He left this legacy to the current administration to try to straighten out.

Republicans should put partisanship behind them and do what is right for this country - not themselves. When they were elected, they were supposed to represent all the people...
Nevermind. I did get to the site. I was having a computer glitch.
nm

I must be deaf, can't hear my computer - see message
I guess you didn't "hear" my question. I said what will it be like living in a socialist country if Obama is elected.

No matter what you want to believe, we will be living in a socialist country if Obama becomes president. What part of that statement don't you understand?
World Bank computer hacked
I don't believe for one minute the computers were hacked by some kids just trying to do it.  I find it very disturbing this originated in China.  Why haven't we been told about this before now, a year later?   This is China's government doing this.... When will we ever learn our lessons and stop doing business with communists countries.  We buy all their crap, because we are indebted to them to the tune of trillions of dollars, and they buy nothing from us.  Now there's fair trade at its best!!  Of course, what happens when you are indebted to someone/somthing?  You kiss their butts!!!!!!
Does your parole office know you're at the computer again?
xx
Can your computer monitor grow fingers?

Bought a Dell computer straight from sm
the company a year ago and no way would I buy another one that way! I might go to Best Buy where they have the Geek Squad right on the premises. If you call Geek Squad on the phone, you get somebody in India or better yet I got someone over in Japan!!!!!!!!!!! Couldn't understand a thing he was saying. The tech support is rude and nasty. Only if I could go through Best Buy and get my service at GS right in the store, would I buy another Dell Other than that, forget it!!!!!!!!!!
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
    By Jennifer Schultz
    UPI

    Thursday 10 November 2005


The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
















The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
(Photo: spacewar.com)
    The United States created the myth around Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and reality followed, terrorism expert Loretta Napoleoni said.


    Al-Zarqawi was born Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh in October 1966 in the crime and poverty-ridden Jordanian city of Zarqa. But his myth was born Feb. 5, 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations the case for war with Iraq.


    Napoleoni, the author of Insurgent Iraq, told reporters last week that Powell's argument falsely exploited Zarqawi to prove a link between then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. She said that through fabrications of Zarqawi's status, influence and connections the myth became the reality - a self-fulfilling prophecy.


    He became what we wanted him to be. We put him there, not the jihadists, Napoleoni said.


    Iraq's most notorious insurgent, Napoleoni argues, accomplished what bin Laden could not: spread the message of jihad into Iraq.


    In an article of Napoleoni's in the current November/December issue of Foreign Policy, she said, In a sense, it is the very things that make Zarqawi seem most ordinary - his humble upbringing, misspent youth and early failures - that make him most frightening. Because, although he may have some gifts as a leader of men, it is also likely that there are many more 'al-Zarqawis' capable of filling his place.


    The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.


    Al-Zarqawi became the icon of a new generation of anti-imperialist jihadists, she said.


    The grand claim that al-Zarqawi provided the vital link between Saddam and al-Qaida lost its significance after it became known that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden did not forge a partnership until after the war's start. The two are believed to have met sometime in 2000, but al-Zarqawi - similar to a group of dissenting al-Qaida members -rebuffed bin Laden's anti-American brand of jihad.


    He did not have a global vision like Osama, said Napoleoni, who interviewed primary and secondary sources close to al-Zarqawi and his network.


    A former member of al-Zarqawi's camp in Herat told her, I never heard him praise anyone apart from the Prophet [Muhammad]; this was Abu Musab's character. He never followed anyone.


    Al-Zarqawi's scope before the Iraq war, she continued, did not extend past corrupt Arab regimes, particularly Jordan's. Between 2000 and early 2002, he operated the training camp in Herat with Taliban funds; the fighters bound for Jordan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to Iraqi Kurdistan and set up shop.


    In 2001, Kurdish officials enlightened the United States about the uninvited Jordanian, said Napoleoni. Jordanian officials, who had still unsolved terrorist attacks, were eager to implicate al-Zarqawi, she claimed. The little-known militant instantly had fingerprints on most major terrorist attacks after Sept. 11, 2001. He was depicted in Powell's speech as a key player in the al-Qaida network.


    By perpetuating a terrifying myth of al-Zarqawi, the author said, The United States, Kurds, and Jordanians all won ... but jihad gained momentum, after in-group dissension and U.S. coalition operations had left the core of al-Qaida crippled.


    In her article, Napoleoni says, [Zarqawi] had finally managed to grasp bin Laden's definition of the faraway enemy, the United States. Adding that, Its presence in Iraq as an occupying power made it clear to him that the United States was as important a target as any of the Arab regimes he had grown to hate.


    ... The myth constructed around him is at the root of his transformation into a political leader. With bin Laden trapped somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Zarqawi fast became the new symbolic leader in the fight against America and a manager for whoever was looking to be part of that struggle, she wrote.


    The author points to letters between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden that have surfaced over the past two years, indicating the evolution in their relationship, most notably a shift in al-Zarqawi which led to his seeking additional legitimacy among Sunnis that bin Laden could help bestow.


    In late December 2004 - shortly after the fall of Fallujah - the pan-Arab network Al-Jazeera aired a video of what was bin Laden's first public embrace of Zarqawi and his fight in Iraq.


    ... We in al-Qaida welcome your union with us ... and so that it be known, the brother mujahid Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the emir of the al Qaida organization [in Iraq], bin Laden declared.


    Napoleoni believes that al-Zarqawi, however, is still largely driven by the romantic vision of a restored Caliphate, and that his motives still are less political than some other factions participating in the Iraq resistance.


    She questions whether he has actually devised a plan for what he will do, if and when, he wins.


How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis....sm

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett



Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.









http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
And we bail out Wall St. who created this mess.....
Didja watch House of Cards? That spelled it out pretty succinctly. People were sucked into mortgages they couldn't afford, they were told they could refinance in 1-5 years and keep the mortgage payments they could afford - THEY WERE LIED TO. The bankers and Wall St. had to keep that Ponzi scheme going.......pizza delivery drivers were selling mortgages!! The more they sold, the more money they made - upwards $20,000 per month - they sucked people into refinancing to put cash in their pockets because housing values were skyrocketing.......and it all crashed down. So who did we bail out first? The banks and Wall St.............not the people who got screwed by con men. And these people were not POOR - they just got sucked into buying more house than they could afford. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
It is an agency created by Congress, but is privately owned. sm
The stocks are owned by member banks, and they are private corporations. Every penny of income tax collected goes to private lenders for interest only on the national debt.

Quote from the Grace Commission report: "100% of what is collected is absorbed
solely by interest on the Federal Debt ...
all individual income tax revenues are gone
before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
Nazi Germany was created during a long cold winter
when unemployment was high. People was literally starving and freezing. Leadership had failed to keep the citizens fed and sheltered. Rogue leadership, Hitler, arrives announcing he will bring an end to the suffering. War employs. When there are no jobs, war is the alternative for a country. And pillaging, which is what basically happened, and the attempt at extinctousing an undesirable (to Hitler) nationality. Desperation in a country is a ticket to the empowerment of leadership which could potentially change the course of history. Or maybe we know that as it has just happened to us.
Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.

The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.

And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!

I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!

Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).

I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
No, goofy. Republicans are REAL people, real
nm
If the real folks, with real hope, faith, and
and for our country's future who participate here on this forum were just a tad as healthy, wealthy and wise as this poster considers herself, we probably wouldn't be sitting in front of these silly computers trying to make a living!! Can't figure why she is here other than tell us how healthy, wealthy and wise she is and we are not!
So you're saying the left controls the media? I thought the media produced the story.
I haven't seen or heard one thing blaming Obama's crew for this. Where can I read about the right aligning to attack the left? Where did you find this information? Or is this just your observation and opinion of things?
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.
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 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.


 


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.


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.

oh please like Bush EVER had an original thought
x
Oldtimer was the original poster
You would have probably gotten that had you not been in such a hurry to jump my post. I have nothing to hide, nothing to get away with and see no real reason to dumb down the phrasology, tone or content of my posts. I respond in kind to to folks who have no real interest in viable political issues, are constantly in attack mode, have pronounced adversions to logic, reason and facts and who haul out the holier-than-thou, pious, elite accusations when trying to avoid any sort of intelligent discourse.

There will always be opposition around who can be as in-your-face as the you choose to be...or not. If I "bother" you somehow, so be it. Right wingers bother me too, but you don't see me going around trying to kick them off the board or telling them they post more than they should.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Give respect and get respect. That's the way it works in the grown-up world. It's your choice.