Ralph Berg said:Well, not the Obama-toids. They don't care if HE is from the Moon, or Karl Marx reincarnated, he got the popular vote.David Hill said:Says who? Ralph
In view of these considerations, being a “natural born Citizen,” here requires meeting both of these two criteria: 1. citizenship must be passed on by the constitutionally pertinent principle of natural law, which assumes that citizenship is inherited from one’s father’s citizenship and, 2. citizenship must be granted by means of being born in the actual territory of the United States. Accordingly, to maintain the original intention of the Constitution's framers, a U.S. President is to be free of competing allegiances with other nations, from birth onward
The stupid!!! IT burns!!!
Obama was born in Hawaii
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Read the thing
mike omalley said:
The stupid!!! IT burns!!!!!Obama was born in Hawaii
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Read the thing
There is no proof of that, if fact The Messiah is fighting tooth and nail to NOT have his Certificate Of Live Birth long form released, if available in any Hawaiian hospital, which it’s not.
“The Hawaiian statute reads, in part, “Certificates for children born out of state. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” Those who argue that a Hawaiian birth certificate undeniably proves a birth was in Hawaii have to reconcile their argument with Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8. [301,58”
“The Internet site “FactCheck.org” stated that the birth certificate provided by the Obama campaign is legitimate, but it should be noted that FactCheck.org is politically left-leaning and is affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center of Pennsylvania, which, in turn, is run by Obama supporters and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. (The Annenberg Foundation also funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, from which Obama and William Ayers distributed tens of millions of dollars to predominantly liberal and leftist organizations). …) [302,548,733,842, p. 90]”
Yes, and the Annenberg foundation was started by Walter Annenberg, a close friend of the Reagans
He was Nixon’s ambassador to England. But when you’re bandyings word with a crazy person, reality is irrelevant If anyone sane is reading this thread, which I doubt, read the link I posted above.
Mike,
Better go to decaf. I read your post and your link. Good argument for support of OBAMA’s legitimacy. Doubting the sanity of every reader or participant of LSC is a little harsh. I read what is newly posted because it clears the topic, in case something I’m interested in pops up. Now there may be a lot of people that question our sanity for being grown men and playing with trains, but I learned to live with that years ago. 
Well said all around Ric, thanks!
mike omalley said:
Yes, and the Annenberg foundation was started by Walter Annenberg, a close friend of the ReagansHe was Nixon’s ambassador to England. But when you’re bandyings word with a crazy person, reality is irrelevant If anyone sane is reading this thread, which I doubt, read the link I posted above.
Get you facts straight, or at least tell the whole truth. "In defense of FactCheck.org some point out that the Annenberg Foundation was originally funded by a wealthy Republican, the late Walter Annenberg, and therefore it could not possibly have contributed to leftist causes. That argument fails to consider the fact that wealthy benefactors often do not retain strict control over (or live long enough to control) the foundations they set up, and a grant that looks reasonable on paper does not necessarily result in a wise investment. Annenberg once donated $50 million to the United Negro College Fund and supported public television, neither of which would be considered conservative-leaning. “If it’s Annenberg it must be conservative” is not a valid argument. The Ford Foundation, for example, has distributed funds in ways which clearly would not have been advocated by Henry Ford. In fact, Henry Ford II quit the Ford Foundation in disgust in 1977. The fact that Annenberg is no longer alive to influence the spending of his foundation is not irrelevant. (The simple truth is that tax-exempt foundations frequently “lurch left” in their distribution of funds. They have also been known to be used as covers for CIA activities.) "
I think bob is running a special on tinfoil hats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat
But in the meantime, I’m really worried about this–have you checked it out? Obama is an alien–there’s clear proof here http://www.verumserum.com/?p=1754
mike omalley said:
'm really worried about this--have you checked it out? Obama is an alien--there's clear proof here
See? What did I tell you?
Mike has lost the bubble. 
I read this to see who has their blood pressure up today. I’m doing a survey. :lol:
The “war on poverty” has been lost.
Ric Golding said:Our longest running war, too, with far more spent on it than on all other US wars, combined.
The "war on poverty" has been lost.
Ecclesiastes (or the preacher)
4:13 ¶ Better is a poor and a wise child, than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished.
Are any of you guys from the Detroit area?
When I was a kid my grandparents owned a small chain of truck stops. They were called Truckers Paradise. The restaurants were broken into almost nightly. At one point my grandma said that’s it. We’re done. She locked the doors with all the equipment inside, all the food, everything. She went home and never went back to any of them. And that was the beginning of her retirement.
Even back then Detroit was nothing but a pit. The poor were poor, the homeless were homeless and the city did nothing but produce crime. What’s changed in the last 35-40 years? Nothing. It’s still a pit and I hate going back there for anything.
Jon.
Jon Foster said:
Are any of you guys from the Detroit area?When I was a kid my grandparents owned a small chain of truck stops. They were called Truckers Paradise. The restaurants were broken into almost nightly. At one point my grandma said that’s it. We’re done. She locked the doors with all the equipment inside, all the food, everything. She went home and never went back to any of them. And that was the beginning of her retirement.
Even back then Detroit was nothing but a pit. The poor were poor, the homeless were homeless and the city did nothing but produce crime. What’s changed in the last 35-40 years? Nothing. It’s still a pit and I hate going back there for anything.
Jon.
Born and raised in the Detroit area. Left when I was 18 and only returned to visit when I had to.
I remember the beautiful Aquarium on Belle Isle. I know they were talking about closing it…budget reasons.
They also had a great zoo.
Tiger Stadium was a great place to watch a ballgame.
Greektown was full of wonderful restaurants.
That’s some of the good, the bad would take too long.
Ralph
The original post claimed that democrats were poor. I posted contrary statistics that pointed out that in fact, democrats are on the whole better educated and more affluent than republican voters (though not by much) but that Obama voters were significantly better educated and more affluent that McCain voters. Please not, I’m not endorsing this or claiming that being educated or rich makes you a better person or always right. I’m just reporting the facts. Now the topic has shifted to the alleged failures of the “War On Poverty,” which was initiated by Lyndon Johnson in 1956. This is an interesting chart
(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lownote/_forumfiles/poverty.jpg)
- It’s certainly clear that the War on Poverty did not end poverty, but it significantly decreased the number of people living n poverty, and you might be interested to notice when the number of people living in poverty began to rise significantly. It’s 1980, when Reagan was elected. By the end of the Reagan/Bush years, the number of people in poverty had risen back to 1959 levels. Then under Cllnton, it fell again-and this after welfare reform, which cut the number of people on welfare. Then under Bush we started to get more poor people again. So you can’t blame it on welfare. So–Democratic administrations, number of people in poverty seems to fall. Republican administrations? It seems to go up. Just sayin’ *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty
One comparison not shown in your graph is the value of the dollar against itself (not world currencies). As inflation (maybe a better graph to compare) increases, the buying power of the dollar declines. Which it has been doing since the Federal Reserve Bank was formed in 1913 and personal income taxes, to steal citizen’s money, was legislated in the dark of the night.
Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank? I understand it is a GSA, but not owned by the citizens of the USA.
Th charts do reflect changes in the inflation rate–they are the number of people in poverty as adjusted for inflation.
The federal reserve is owned by the member banks of the federal reserve system. It’s the repository of federal funds–the govt’s bank. It’s a public/private hybrid very much in the way of its predecessors, the 1st and 2nd banks of the United States.
It was not passed under cover of darkness–the legislation authorizing it was publicly discussed and debated. Same with the personal income tax. There was plenty of public debate and notice.
Neither has anything to do with the subject at hand, which is the war on poverty
Would you agree that to raise the standard of living of the poor, they should, a. have good paying jobs and b. have affordable commodities? Earning $25 an hour is insufficient if a loaf of bread costs $14.00.
Having a job is good for the individual, have jobs that produce a product or provide a service or idea is essential for our economic health. Government jobs are merely “make work” jobs and produce nothing. GOOD jobs are created by the private sector, individuals like myself that started their own business and hired employees.
By increasing my taxes, since my gross income is (was before I retired) over $300,000, I will either hire less people, or simply pass on the additional tax in the form of overhead expenses to the poor widows. Taxing the rich, will not punish the rich as we are being told.
The new administration’s “payoff” to the Unions by now pushing to unionize Wal-Mart through the “Card Check Bill” will have the same effect of higher prices for the low and middle class shoppers.
Governments, unions and corporations GIVE you nothing. It is all earned, by your labor. By taking from one group to give to their support base is theft, pure and simple. I like to call the people that say, their union/company/government gives them “X” as suffering from “slave mentality”. Massah gonna give me stuff.
Read up on the 1911 - 1913 legislation that began the Fed and IRS. It was passed clandestinely.
Mike -
You said - “The original post claimed that democrats were poor. I posted contrary statistics that pointed out that in fact, democrats are on the whole better educated and more affluent than republican voters (though not by much) but that Obama voters were significantly better educated and more affluent that McCain voters. Please not, I’m not endorsing this or claiming that being educated or rich makes you a better person or always right. I’m just reporting the facts.”
Do you ever get a cramp patting yourself on the back for being such a good educator? Well educated and well indoctrinated seem to have become almost interchangeable words to you. What is it you want to hear? I’m happy for you that things are working out the way you wanted them. How’s the “change” working for you so far? Are you delaring that the “War on poverty” has been won? I’m not seeing it.
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005 ~~~~~
I think this guy said it right on