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

The myth of the Clinton surplus...I'm a libertarian but I am sick of hearing this..SM

Posted By: Dems and Repubs, Beast 1 and 2 on 2008-09-19
In Reply to: Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt - Heaven Help Us All

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16


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 myth of the Clinton surplus - been disproved -sm
A lot of democrats keep pushing this bogus claim that there was a surplus when in fact there never was. This has been discussed on this board, so by this message I'm assuming you never saw the message or went the the US Treasury website to check it out. Below is a link to it and explains what really happened.

The US National Debt proves there was never a surplus, and the article explains why people claim otherwise for political reasons. - good read. Even my most conservatives friends bought into this surplus craze, and said they were glad their eyes were opened.

I'll credit another poster for origianlly posting this (it's been so long I forget who now).

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Clinton had a surplus because he had a...sm
Republican Congress. Left to his own devices, he would have put us belly up, have no fear.

Bush, has a Democratic Congress at the end of his term, who have really jacked up the national debt, all on their own (war not included, thank you very much).
sick of hearing he was
only 8 years old when Ayers was making bombs. I was about 8 when Charles Manson and his goons killed Sharon Tate and others. I don't feel like sending old Charley a birthday card let alone sitting in his living room or jailcell in his case.As far as I am concerned Ayers should be in jail too!
I am so sick and tired of hearing...

how republicans are at fault for everything.  Yes, President Bush is republican but don't we have a democrat congress?  What have then done to help better things?


I'm neither republican or democrat.  I always try to pick the person I feel is best for the job.  However, I learned a long time ago that a politician will say almost anything to get elected.  Yes, Obama has many plans, but realistically how many of these plans will actually work, be put into works if he is elected, or just a bunch of smoke he is blowing up our rear ends to get elected. 


I was watching a show on TV the other night that showed politicians during an election year and one of the things consistently brought up by many was the need to decrease our dependency on oil.  This went all the way back to even before Carter was president.  After these politicians were elected, not one of them did anything about decreasing our dependency on oil.  Politicians will bring up any subject worth bringing up during an election year to get the backing of people, but once they win.....they don't have to do half of what they promised to do.


I am sooo sick of hearing...
that Obama will do things "because he's black."  What kind of reasoning is this?  Did we forget that he's just as much white as he is black?  What makes him more black than he is white?  Did anyone notice that he was raised in a white environment, with little contact with his father?  Is he not a product of his environment?  Calling this man black OR white discredits his heritage and does nothing but show the racism that is so obviously alive and well in the US! 
I too am sick of hearing all this - see message
Okay, I'll be the first to admit. This is important (I don't consider it historic - it is just basically important. Well now that I think of it I don't think it's important, it is just that its the first time a black man has been given (no not voted in...given) the job). Okay, so...this is notable that we have a soon to be (tomorrow) black president. Should there be a celebration. Yes. Should there be a celebration each time a new president is elected. Yes. Should Obama be treated differently than a white man who would take office. No he should not. That's where it should stop. The disgust that I feel when our country is in a recession (soon to be depression) and he's spending what? 170 million on his coronation. This is outrageous and a disgusting display of self-indulgence.

On Thursday I started seeing stations reporting on the coronation. Then Friday more and more stations. Even HBO has the corononation of Obama.

So here you have it. A country full of people who have lost their jobs, are in the process of losing their jobs, states (California in particular) that can't afford to pay the citizens their tax refunds and are sending them I.O.U.'s, people losing houses, people who can't even afford to buy food or medicine they need and here comes along our newly appointed president who is supposed to be for the people and he's spending over $170 million on himself. If he cared about the country at all he would say, hey, let's keep it to $100 million and take the other $70 million and put it back into the economy. At least it would feed a lot of people in the soup kitchens, help people stay in their houses a little bit longer, etc, etc, etc. (Can't he have a decent coronation on $100 million?) No instead he's sitting back revelling in the fact that everyone is making a big deal about his race.

Excuse me, but when he was campaigning against Hillary and John he kept saying, it's not about race, it's not about race. It's about you. He kept trying to take the focus off his race and put the focus on us. Now he's elected and all I hear is race, race, race, and it's all about me. Me, me, me. I'm the first black man, this is historic, my black ancestors, black, black, black, me, me, me. Every single speech he has given he's talked about his race.

Can you tell I am just sick, sick, sick of it.

This is supposed to be an inaugeration (not a coronation), and this "inaugeration" should be the same as any other newly incoming president. Would we have seen this if Hillary was elected. No. Well we would have to some extend but not like this. Would we have seen it if McCain/Palin (the first woman ever to become VP) - Do you even have to ask. That would be a big NO! Heck they'd probably even make her pay for everything herself.

I didn't vote for either. I voted for Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party). So I was not happy with either choice and it's not like I wanted one over the other. I knew Chuck Baldwin had no chance whatsoever of winning, but I didn't want either so it was a vote against both of them.

However, back to the original point. I am so sick of the constant coverage invading the TV set that the TV is not even going on. I've got lots of books I want to catch up on and I've got a good library of DVDs to watch.

So, we're in a recession/depression. People losing jobs, home, can't eat and here we have Mr. Obama spending $170 million. The most expensive inaugeration in history. Which means we will now have increased our deficit by at least $170 million. That's right who's going to pay for this. Who else - the taxpayers. Way to go Mr. Obama, haven't stepped foot in and you've already increased our deficit. But I know, I know....it's Bush's fault.
I'm sick to death of hearing the unfairness
When the majority of crimes committed in our community are by the black population, what should we do? Say, oh my goodness, you're black....we'll just pretend you didn't just kill someone on the corner in a driveby shooting or enter your elderly neighbor's house and shoot them dead cause you want what ain't yours....or a real good one....hide in the bushes of my neighbor's house, he drives up from work, and has a gun put to his temple and forced back into his car to the nearest ATM, where he was so fortunate to escape and run into a nearby store. To which, our black police chief hid the information and the local TV/paper didn't even know this happened until another neighbor call the TV/newspaper and gave them the details.

Or the AT&T cell phone center that just opened only to have OVER $20000 worth of phone stolen by several black men, who were seen running from the store by other blacks who reported them to the police. No, I'll just put my head in the sand and pretend I don't know the facts simply because we now have a black president. BTW, when many blacks attending COLLEGE were asked who they think would have the greatest influence on the young blacks would be, Obama or a black rapper, guess what their answer was? Clue: It WASN'T Obama. Yea, Obama will just turn those folks right around and show the bad ones the correct way to live. IN YOUR DREAMS!
Doesn't this belong on the racism board? Sick of hearing it. nm
x
Sorry, but we're sick of hearing about your Sarah phobia and hatred. nm

And we're sick of hearing about your Barack phobia and hatred
You betcha!
btw i am a libertarian
and did not vote dem or rep because they are pretty much the same party except for the image...
I am more libertarian/conservative.sm
The conservatives in office now are too extreme for me in many areas.
While I agree with some Libertarian

principles, they just get too weird on others.  You really can't bring all the troops home from everywhere, all at once.  Much as you'd like to, you really can't shut down the IRS on Monday, the FBI on Tuesday, the CIA on Wednesday, etc.  What has taken a century to evolve cannot just be abolished with the stroke of a pen.  And phasing-out does not seem to be in the Libertarian lexicon.  (cool alliteration??)


Having said that, I will add that I like the concept of everyone taking responsibility for themselves.  I like the idea of government doing only what government constitutionally must do and leaving us the H alone otherwise. 


We really have such a strange  way of going about things.  You may not shoot up drugs;  here's a nice free clean needle.  Marijuana is a gateway drug; pass the bourbon.  You may not learn about abstinence in school.  Instead, we will teach contraception (yeah, that's working out great)  here's a free condom, or an abortion, or we'll pay for you to raise your kids - forever.  Firearms should be banned; think the criminals will obey?  Does the government REALLY want everyone to stop smoking, considering all the taxes it reaps on cigarettes?


Am I the only one that thinks government sticks its nose way too far into our personal business?   And that with all these mixed messages it is creating really schizzy generations who have no clue what is expected of them?


What's Ron calling himself today? Libertarian? Republican? Or has he moved on to something else
and, puh-leeze, LewRockwell.com as a source of anything but lunatic fringe "news"? LOL
So much for that myth...sm
I can only speak for my interpretation, but I'm for gay equality, i.e. in housing, employment, etc.

I don't love the gay way of life, but to each his own.


Did anybody every tell you that urban myth
su
The Myth of Foreign Fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq feed the myth that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the incurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent). CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence services in the Gulf region.

The CSIS report says: The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.

The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology.

The report also gives credit to the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.

The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not Saddam Hussein loyalists but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are wary of a Shiite-led government.

TheLos Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals.

Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].

Extremists in Iraq are exposed to international networks from around the world, said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play.

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and in establishing a politically viable state.

Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border – a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.

Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make, Bush said. 'They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace.

The president's speech, however, was overshadowed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. I doubt he would last a day, al-Faisal said.

Finally, The Guardian reports that ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along, the source said.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
Yes. That the media liberal is a myth.sm
We have a state media and they speak for the corporations who pay them who are ______ (fill in the blank).

The so-called faces of the liberal media:

The Beltway Boys: Your daily dose of liberalism out of Washington, DC.

Sean Hannity: A progressive Christian who likes to speak his mind.

Chris Matthews: A Clinton apologist.

Robert Novak: Champion of the poor and spokesman for social justice.

Tony Snow: Cutting through the GOP spin.

Paul Zahn: On the edge of progressive journalism.

John Stossel: Holding corporations accountable for greed and exploitation and pollution.

Bill O'Reilly: Notorious left-wing muckracker.

Brit Hume: Always fair and balanced.

Rush Limbaugh: The Master of Extreme Left Talk Radio.

Pat Buchanan: Pro choice, gay rights activist, part-time CNN pundit.

MSNBCs Alan Keyes: They do not come anymore liberal than Alan Keyes.

Larry King: Progressive intellectual feared by conservatives for tough follow-up questions.

Tim Russert: Never one to let Republicans get away with softball questions.

Coulter/Malkin: Not worth commenting on, they belong in a cage together.
Exposed urban myth. nm
.
Already proven but the myth continues. nm
.
You and Myth make sense
I had forgotten to look at it that way, but on reflecting on it, that does make sense. Heck, I even voted for Jimmy Carter when I was a young wild-child. I, too, have grown a bit more conservative, but I'm somewhere in the middle. It also does make sense about the celebs. Much like back during the red scare when McCarthy had anyone with suspected communist sympathies blacklisted, the pendulum has swung to where anyone with a conservative viewpoint would probably have a hard time finding work.

Thanks for 'splaining, Lucy!
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.


and came in with a huge surplus!

I repeat....there was no surplus...
that was just clever use of word. It was a "projected" surplus, and it was contingent upon a cap on federal spending for 15 years, and no added federal programs. There was no real "surplus" sitting around.

Mea culpa on the borrowing. I have already said Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Spending needs to be curbed. Neither candidate is willing to say what I think needs to be done...no more new programs and stop the ones that are not working. When we get back in the "black" again, then we can look at increasing programs. Throwing more money at stuff is obviously not the answer.
The budget surplus from BC was a ...
PROJECTED surplus that would happen over 10 years IF no added spending, IF no added programs. Even if the war in Iraq had not happened, Congress could not go 10 years without adding spending and added programs. You act as if there was 559 billion dollars laying around. There wasn't.

I realize that you have bought into the whole socialist class warfare thing. Like O's hero Alinsky said...it doesn't matter if it is the truth or not...it just matters if you can make them believe it.

And they darned sure have made sure you believe it.


Not that old surplus crud again....lol
do the research...there was no "surplus." It was a surplus that COULD be IF spending was not increased over like 10 years. Like Congress could go 10 years without increasing spending. Clinton did NOT leave a surplus.

Surplus-Are we forgetting 9-11
Are you all forgetting that 9 months after being elected we were attacked on our own soil, with thousands of people losing their lives and NY City a disaster?  What do you think that did to the surplus and the need to protect our country.  How short your memory is until the next time it happens and they you will be begging for a stronger president than we have now.
There was no surplus. That was debunked years ago.
And the Democrats are largely responsible for the shape we are in. John McCain tried to pass legislation in 2005 to regulate Fannie/Freddie. However, Chris Dodd (head of banking and commerce committee, and largest recipient of Fannie/Freddie contributions) and the Democrats blocked it. Fannie/Freddie started this freefall in the economy. Obama is #2 on the contributions list. John McCain is wayyyyy on down the list. Then the democrats (the ones sitting now) pushed by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in turn pushed fannie/freddie to give all those subprime loans to minorities and lower income folks, to people with either no credit or bad credit, knowing full well most of them didn't have a hope in heck of paying it back...it is THOSE mortgages we are going in hock to pick up.

Franklin Raines, James Johnson, Jamie Gorelick, Timothy Howard...all Democrats, two of them Obama advisors...ALL walked away from Fannie with golden parachute of MILLIONS after cooking the books.

And WE are picking up the tab.

NOBAMA, NODEMOCRAT, NO WAY, NO HOW!!
The surplus also followed him out eh? We know because it's now in the bank accounts of the rich.
A lot of people made a lot of money during the Clinton years - that's real money, honey, and they're still rich, accounting for our current revenues. Without the Clinton boom years your president's buds (and your president himself, let us remind you) wouldn't have gotten their 100,000 tax break checks. Sure, the boom couldn't hold, but the point is that the favorable conditions created by a sounder Democratic fiscal policy allowed that boom to come about.

Now all we have is empty coffers, slashed public spending, and China owns us. Big improvement huh? Oops, but people like Frist are still getting over big time on their big time stock trades - all's clear in the upper 1% But since you likely aren't in it, it's hard to see what you find so appealing about being a credit slave one paycheck away from poverty. Is that working out good for you?
Democratic = surplus - Republican = debt
Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion.

After 8 years of Bush...As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion.
Like all those years of prosperity, budget surplus
scorched earth administration?
Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
Bush inherited a 559 billion surplus nuff said? NM
x
hearing a lot
Reporters do hear a lot. What they don't do is think a lot. A corporation, lobbyist or politican speaks, and they faithfully write it down without ever questioning the truth or intent of the information they've been given (scrunching up your brow to look like you're "asking the tough questions" doesn't count). They're the best transcriptionists in the business!
One of the reasons you are not hearing as much sm
about the Republicans, especially the current administration, is that they have been very effective at almost completely shutting up any voices of dissent. When Clinton was in office we heard about him nonstop.
I'm hearing that a lot today
I've been all over the internet today and everywhere I go I'm seeing woman who feel like McCain is being condescending to women by throwing out this nobody who is ruby red as they come and expecting to get women voters just because of it, especially Hillary followers. These women are insulted and now finally have both feet firmly on the Obama train.
I read this too after hearing that he had...sm
orchestrated the negative ads this last week, now he is saying he disapproves? Maybe this is a tactic to deflect our attention? Very suspicous. Since when does he have a consious?
Well, instead of hearing why don't you read
xx
Actually, what I remember hearing about was ....sm
that it would be like our own personal savings account. I would much rather have that, than have the govt have their hands in my SS pocket, using my SS as they have been doing, and putting the IOU away in a drawer somewhere.

Not sure what his current plan is or if it has changed, but if I get to control my own SS money, I'm all for it.





http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/17/mccain-social-security/
There is no hearing today.
Your statement here is patently inaccurate. The SC is not taking the case. For the sake of not wasting too much time on this fairy tale, I am posting this article link that can explain that better than I can.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/supreme-court-not-considering-obamas-birth-certificate-case/

You will notice that the article clearly states that the merits of the claims will not be heard (essentially because there are no merits).

For an excellent explanation on the Supreme courts porn king/sexually harassing above-the-law judge's motivations for his "lone wolf" move to attempt to shove this nonsense down the throats of his fellow jurists, read this:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/83953

Here is an excellent article that discussed the underlying pathology of conspiracy theorists:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/

You are mistaken about the timing of this "knowledge." Unfortunately, the citizens of this country learned of this lunacy long before the Nausea or vomiting 4 election. In fact, Berg's lawsuit emerged the minute it became apparent that Hillary was not going to win in the primaries (08/22/2008). Andy Martin's failed action occurred 10/17/2008. Steven Marquis' impotent attempt occurred on 10/18/2008. David Neal's action fell flat on its face 10/24/2008. Your delusional statement about "many people" is a fabrication that I notice you have not backed up with any sort of credible source.

There is no truth to fight for, fool. The conspiracy theorists who are the driving force behind this abomination are scam bags who are picking your pockets to keep this stupidity alive....and you are marching lock-step alongside one another and coughing up.

The rest of the stuff you have included in your post is nothing more that regurgitation of garbage that has been answered at least a thousand times already. My advice to you is not to hold your breath waiting for the SC justices to show the same sort of self-serving interest in usurping clean and legitimate election results as Clarence the porn king Thomas has in these actions. Out of 842 cases in the last 8 years, they have dismissed 782 of them and heard only 60....and not all of those heard succeeded.

If that was true then there would be no hearing
"The Supreme Court does not want to touch this with a 10 foot pole"??????

Hellooooooo, are you keeping up on current events. They are taking this case on. They are listening to the people who have the lawsuits in action. They are demanding that Barry show his original vault BC (which he has sealed so nobody can see it) and he is defying the Supreme Court.

The citizens of this country did not find out about all this stuff until the election was over, and a lot are saying if we knew this back then, we would not have voted for the guy.

It's time to wake up, just because you don't want anything to happen and want your god in there there are others who don't. Others who are fighting to find out the truth.

All they keep saying is "If you are legal and were born in Hawaii SHOW US YOUR CERTIFICATE". He has not done so and he had it (along with school records and other stuff) legally sealed. That speaks volumes in telling the public there is something seriously wrong here.

I myself will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court. BTW, just in case you haven't heard the news, they are meeting about it and listening to the cases. And if a certain number of the justices believe there is validity to it then the electorates will not be allowed to vote until the issue is resolved.
I have been hearing that O plan

of sharing the wealth will put us in the GREAT DEPRESSION just like back when Hoover was in office, exept this time, it will be worse because many more people make more than 100,000 a year than they did years ago.  So basically it will be spreading the wellfare around.


I"m hearing it and why shouldn't they

get money for a bailout? Wall Street and the banks did, but WS and the banks are HOLDING ONTO the money for BONUSES, not to bail themselves out. GM and Chryler need it to KEEP JOBS.


The bailout was wrong in the first place because everyone would want money, but that's the only thing they could come up with at the time. What's done is done but I don't think we ought to keep throwing money out there. NP and Barney Fife are too free with money that's not theirs and they should be thrown out of office. 


I'm tired of hearing about this.

It was brought to a vote and that is that.  We come from a place where it was once taboo to be gay.  You had to hide your sexual orientation.  Now you can go out with your partner and live your life for all to see.  I don't agree with that kind of lifestyle, but they are free to choose what kind of lifestyle they wish to live and who am I to judge.  However, I feel that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman.  To redefine marriage, I think, is wrong.  If they want to be life partners and have a small ceremony joining them in some sort of civil union.....go ahead but marriage should be left alone as a man and a woman.  I am sick and tired of redefining everything to make it politically correct so every minority group is happy.  You can't make everyone happy.  I personally feel that redefining marriage to include marrying anyone whether it be same or opposite sex could be confusing to children in general and I don't agree with it.


I don't have a problem with them protesting their viewpoint, but when I see them rip a cross out of an old woman's hands and stomp on the cross as she was protesting her opinion.....that is just wrong.  First of all, you don't go after an old woman and secondly....she was sharing her opinion just like they were....so don't get mad at us for our opinion because we are entitled to it as well.


I'm tired of hearing about it too.
If gays want to marry, have at it.  I personally don't care what they do.  We had a vote in Arkansas whether to allow unmarried couples to adopt or foster children )meaning gays although it wasn't p.c. to word it exactly that way.  I voted against it as did the majority. I guess it would solve  the abortion issue over time.  If George marries Carl and Sue marries Edith pretty soon there wouldn't be any unwanted pregnancies, in fact, no pregnancies at all.  Kids imitate what they see, if they have a mother and father BOTH of whom are male or female, what do you think they are going to end up thinking is "normal."  We sure don't need to redefine marriage IMHO.
Where are you hearing this mess? It's
absolutely not true. What, 1 or 2 whackjob republican electorates are nervous about it? LOL.

The BC is a NON-ISSUE, he won by a large margin, and he will be inaugurated. This has all gotten so SILLY.
They obviously are hearing voices.....
their take on the President's speech last night had some pretty funky twists......
Personally....I'm tried of hearing it from
both sides.  I'm tired of the name calling from both sides.  This debate is getting nowhere and yet some of you people just cannot let it go and just agree to disagree.  There will never be a middle ground found on this discussion.  So let's just drop it and stop all the vicious attacks.
First I'm hearing of a divorce. What's your source? And, sm
if her protesting is ending her marriage, there wasn't much there to begin with.


Bush's hearing problem.sm

THE DIAGNOSIS


Maybe it’s the newly appointed speech writer. Maybe Peter Feaver has been locked away in some windowless sub basement of the White House, without access to the outer world. Maybe he can do little more than recycle earlier speeches about the war in Iraq. Maybe he and everyone else in this administration have become trapped in a bizarre and crippling time warp. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s that George Bush is hard of hearing.


That has to be the explanation. After listening to his delirious portrayal of progress today and of victory tomorrow in war-torn Iraq, there is only one conclusion: the President of the Untied States is nothing more than a deaf man, talking.


It’s not as if anyone in this administration has ever listened with a discerning ear.  Standard operating practice at the White House has been to listen only to those who furthered their agenda, and to absolutely no one else.


But this time, the man at the helm of a sinking nation has gone a bit too far. This time he has gone stone, cold, deaf.


George W. Bush and his handlers have a lengthy history of hearing problems.  For more than five years, they selectively closed their ears to those who knew things they chose to ignore. For more than five years, they dismissed the advice of the experienced, and the knowledgeable. They heard nothing that was critical or challenging. They heard nothing that questioned their ill fated policies or their inaccurate conclusions.  They heard nothing but their own applause.


George Bush developed a severe hearing malady early in his presidency. From day one, he turned a deaf ear to warnings that his policies were dangerous and destructive. Fortunately for the administration, the corporate media under-reported or simply ignored the advice of experts with as much disdain as the White House.


Just think about how the President absolutely and intractably refused to listen when:




  • Scientists warned about teaching Intelligent Design


  • Educators warned about serious flaws in No Child Left Behind


  • Environmentalists warned about pollution and global warming


  • Health experts warned about the dangers mercury levels


  • Economists warned about an inquitable tax policy


  • Researchers warned about cutting stem cell projects


  • Ecologists warned about deforestation


  • Engineers warned about New Orleans levees


  • Civil libertarians warned about the Patriot Act


  • AIDS organizations warned about ignoring condom education

And yet, George Bush chose to hear the words of the most extreme voices on the religious right and the most self indulgent arguments of corporate America. His selective hearing set the standard for every one of his regressive and injurious domestic policies.


No matter. George Bush was president and he knew better even without his hearing. He had the answers before the questions were ever raised. He was right. Everyone else was wrong. He had no reason to listen.


It was an outrage for the President and his henchmen to totally ignore the advice and expertise of anyone who disagreed with their self-serving agenda. It was, in effect, an irresponsible surrender to special interests and supporters who would help keep George Bush in power. But, perhaps, it was politics as usual.


Perhaps it was.  Domestic policies often deteriorate into partisan food fights, regardless of the toll on the people at large.


But in the wake of 9/11, George Bush’s hearing took a far more serious turn for the worse. His festering malady became a chronic affliction.  In time, his condition became more and more noticeable and more and more debilitating.


Looking back, we now can see that 9/11 was the prelude to a long planned war against Iraq, When it came to the attacks or to the march to his war, George Bush found himself unable to hear a great many voices.  Once again, the media were cooperative and complicit by selectively underreporting the warnings as well.


Consequently, among the voices that went unheeded by the President were:




  • Intelligence sources who warned about impending attacks on US soil, using hijacked airliners


  • CIA insiders who warned of the increased ‘chatter’ in the summer of 2001 that  signaled that something was brewing among Al Qaeda operatives


  • Families of 9/11 victims who demanded an independent investigation into the attacks


  • Intelligence reports discounting any connection between Saddam  Hussein and Al Qaeda


  • Weapons Inspectors in Iraq who insisted there were no WMD’s, but begged for more time to complete their mission


  • Experts who knew the Middle East and warned that a war against Iraq would foment civil war and instability in the entire region


  • The major nations of the world, with the exception of the UK and the bribed coalition of the billing, who warned about the consequences of an illegal preemptive or preventive war against a non belligerent nation.


  • Millions of people around the world who marched in protest to the impending invasion


  • A bipartisan group of US Military and Diplomatic experts who warned about the recklessness of a war against the people of Iraq


  • The Army War College experts who warned that GW Bus was “…on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States. 


  • Experienced military men such as Generals Shinzeki and Zinni, who openly criticized the poorly laid plans for invasion and the horrific management of the occupation.


  • Any an all voices in opposition to the Bush/PNAC dream of global domination.

Instead, George Bush listened intently to the words of his PNAC partners who had waited so patiently for the chance to invade Iraq. And yet, he listened to Ahmed Chalabi, a felon convicted of embezzling millions in absentia, who said that an invasion of Iraq would be a cake walk. Instead, he listened to people who had no clue as to the realities of war, or the cultural and tribal entanglements of the Iraqi people.


Instead, he went to war. And the war became a quagmire. And the quagmire became a nightmare. And the nightmare began to show in the polls.


And so, something had to be done.  That something was another series of speeches by the President to shore up support for his war. That is why George Bush came before the American people once again to introduce a redundant and meaningless National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.


When George Bush gave the first of his scheduled speeches, his otic infirmity could no longer be hidden.  Sadly, his second address to the nation simply reinforced the obvious: the President of the United States is completely and totally deaf.


No matter how he tried, there was no way to conceal it.  In his effort to regain public support for his invasion and occupation of Iraq, George Bush made it perfectly clear that he was incapable of hearing anything even remotely related to reality. In order to distort his failed war policy, he turned a deaf ear to the devastation and chaos that define his war of choice. He closed off any and all warnings that a military victory in Iraq is not possible.


But, in a really bad move, he also turned a deaf ear to the American people.


The American people are asking questions, and George Bush refuses to hear them.  Instead, he offers public relations sound bites to a nation that is beginning to demand the truth.


So far he has refused to give the nation any explanations about what is really happening in Iraq. So far, George Bush has refused to address:




  • the failure to plan for our role as occupiers in Iraq


  • the chaos and bloodshed that intensify every day


  • the lack of water and electricity for the people


  • the failure of any significant reconstruction


  • the daily kidnappings and rampant crime


  • the mass exodus of doctors and other professionals


  • the use of torture by both Americans and the new Iraqi regime.


  • the widespread corruption and missing billions


  • the terrible effects of depleted uranium


  • the illegal and devastating use of white phosphorus


  • the fundamentalist government that is now in charge


  • the lack of body and vehicle armor for our troops


  • the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died at his hand


  • the claim by his own man, Ayad Allawi, that things are worse in Iraq now than under Saddam.


  • the five billion dollars a month being spent on the war

And George Bush refused, above all, to present a cohesive and specific strategy for ending the terrible war he began.


People all across this nation wanted to know what went wrong and why. And they wanted to know how their President planned to fix it. But George Bush has closed his ears to the growing concerns of a majority of Americans. He simply refuses to hear them.


He has chosen, instead, to revert to type. He has chosen, instead, to remain deaf to facts that had been revealed about his war.  He has chosen, instead, to ignore the truth about the tragic and deadly catastrophe that was the war in Iraq.  He has chosen, once again, to lie.


George Bush speaks only before courteous audiences.  Assured of applause at appropriate intervals, he can comfortably hold both hands over his ears and refuse to acknowledge that he had led the nation into an endless morass.


He cannot tell the truth, we know that. So he did what he does best. He lied. But, the irony of it all is that more and more Americans are on to the lies by now. Just for starters, they know that:




  • There is no connection whatever between the invasion of Iraq and his trumped up war on terror. And yet, George Bush opted to use the word “terror” FIFTY TIMES his first strategy speech, and continued to the same harangue in the second.  


  • The insurgency in Iraq is composed of dozens, possibly as many as 100 cells working independently. And yet, George Bush identified only three sources of insurgent activity – and placed much of the blame on “the brutal terrorist, Zarqawi – al Qaeda’s leading operative in Iraq.”


  • American marines, not Iraqi security forces, led the incursion into Tal Afar. And yet, to make them appear battle-ready, George Bush gave full credit to the Iraqi security forces for leading the attack.


  • Former supporters of the war, such as Vietnam veteran John Murtha, are convinced that a military victory in Iraq is not possible. And yet, George Bush repeated his old, weathered war cry, “There will be no withdrawal without victory.”


  • General William Odom has called the war in Iraq a failure. And yet, George Bush touts the “amazing progress” of the occupation.


  • More than 2130 Americans and 200 coalition troops have died for his illegal and immoral war of choice, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead as well. And yet, George Bush still insists that he has “taken the fight to the terrorists,” and that his bloody war will “lay the foundation of peace for generations to come.”


  • Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of buildings being rebuilt after being destroyed by US bombs. Instead, that is exactly what George Bush insists is so.


  • Progress in Iraq cannot be measured by the number of cell phones being used. And yet, that is how George Bush measures it.


  • Oil revenues are not going to the Iraqi people, but to foreign oil companies.  And yet, George Bush claims that increased oil production was a sign of progress.


  • There is no definable victory possible.  And yet, George Bush insists there is.

But George Bush has no clue about what the public knows. The man is as deaf as a door post. But his impairment is one of choice, not affliction. He believes he can use his hearing loss as a cover for his ineptitude and his obstinacy.  In his world apart from reality, George Bush continues to believe that he can fool all of the people all of the time.


But this time, the American people are not buying it.


THE REMEDY


We are approaching day 1,000 of this outrageous war, and the mood of the nation is changing.  The winds of opposition are gaining strength across the vast expanse that is America. George Bush and his PNAC handlers are pretending not to hear the calls for an end to this terrible war. But they hear it.  They really do.


The turning point, of course, was triggered by Congressman John Murtha, whose opinions can no longer be countered by the usual rhetoric from the White House.  Murtha spoke with the tacit encouragement of his close friends in the Pentagon who cannot speak out personally, but who fully understand the hopelessness of ‘staying the course,’ His message clearly signaled the beginning of the end.


But it won’t be easy.  There will be distractions in the form of token withdrawals, and the war will go on.  More people will die.  The mayhem will continue.   But the voices of protest will get louder and louder.


And George Bush will continue to make speeches.  He will recite the words of his new speech writer with gusto and sincerity.  He will continue to sell his war as if it were a product on the open market.  And he will remain deaf to those who oppose and those who criticize and those who demand that the war must end.


He can do this because the voices of protest are still muted.  They will only be heard if they become loud enough to penetrate the ears of the deaf man who is in charge.  George Bush is the Commander in Chief. He calls the shots.  He sits in the safety of the Oval Office and sends people to their death.


The tragedy is that right this minute, as he still dreams of a glorious victory in Iraq, he doesn’t hear a thing.


Maybe one day soon, before thousands more die, if their outcry is loud enough, George Bush will hear the voices of the people he once swore to serve; then again, maybe not.


Me too...I thought I had lost my hearing or..
my mind, but a while back I started to find myself agreeing with Buchanan as well.  I have put a link at the top of the page that I think is explanatory of this aberration of all kinds of un-like-minded people suddenly (not really, probably more slowly over time) becoming like minded.  I even agreed with Newt Gingrich the other day on a couple of points and what was even more weird, he and Biden were on Meet The Press and saying pretty much the same thing. Myabe there is a silver lining in this fiasco after all; maybe this administration will alienate so many people that we find ourselves banding TOGETHER (what a concept!!!) to try to take our country back and bring it back to the status of  a knowledgeable and compassionate super power who truly have the well being of all its citizens as its first priority and who respect  and appreciate our friends and allies abroad. Anyway...check it out.