OT Trump
DW
proof that Trump graduated from any math class?
Considering he went bankrupt three times that tells
me Trump failed to pass a single math classs.
Maybe we need legistation barring those who declare bankrupcy from
running for president.
Maybe we should mandate that he pay all those
creditors before his name can appear on any ballot.
cloud dreamer
Did Palin ever release her transcript?
Oh wait. Transcripts.
From what...four or five colleges in three states for a BA?
Trump is lunatic. The American public needs to stop being afraid of the
government and start being afraid of a government run by corporations
whose only goal is profit.
..
C.S.E.B.S.
cloud dreamer <dont....@the.messengers> wrote:
>
> On 27/04/2011 9:16 PM, DW wrote:
> > Now that Trump wants Obamas college history revealed where is the
> > proof that Trump graduated from any math class?
> >
> > Considering he went bankrupt three times that tells
> > me Trump failed to pass a single math classs.
> >
> > Maybe we need legistation barring those who declare bankrupcy from
> > running for president.
> >
> > Maybe we should mandate that he pay all those
> > creditors before his name can appear on any ballot.
Perhaps we should mandate that all politicians, cabinet members,
and czars have a record of paying taxes on time while they hold
any public office. There is absolutely no excuse for an
overpaid American politican to have delinquent taxes. Ever.
None.
> Did Palin ever release her transcript?
Why? What for? There is no question about her graduation from
college with a degree. Everyone including the MSM has confirmed
that she did. There are even old articles and photos of Sara
Palin throughout her collegiate travels on the Internet. Where
are Obama's?
Like plagiarist Martin Luther King, there is no proof Obama ever
successfully completed any requirements for a degree of any
type. King was a serial plagiarist from his middle school days
forward. The white liberal apologists at Boston University
caught him stealing nearly half his doctoral thesis verbatim,
yet he was still handed his worthless doctorate. A white
student caught doing the same thing would have been dismissed in
disgrace with zero credit.
Obama's questionable collegiate "accomplishments" didn't even
show up on the Internet until he made a run for the Senate in
Illinois. He was the total invisible student nobody remembers.
> Oh wait. Transcripts.
>
> From what...four or five colleges in three states for a BA?
Your point is? Some of us pursued a college degree while
serving in the armed forces. We earned transferable credits
from a half dozen different colleges in as many states or
countries. We had enough motivation to focus and complete what
we started. The multiple college experience is superior to
sitting in the same lecture halls for four years in one place.
You seem to hate Sara Palin because she has succeeded in life
far beyond anything you have accomplished. The difference
between you and her, is that you're a quitter. All one has to
do is google up your bitter old posts to figure it out. You
have no standing to offer criticism of anyone.
> Trump is lunatic. The American public needs to stop being afraid of the
> government and start being afraid of a government run by corporations
> whose only goal is profit.
>
> ..
Wouldn't that be better than the deficits liberals have run the
world governments into? Every single country in the world with
economic problems was put there by flawed liberal economic
strategies. Liberals don't seem to understand the simple
concept of preserving the seed corn, and only spending the
excess fruits of the current year's harvest.
If liberals were suddenly farmers, they'd all starve to death in
one winter.
cloud dreamer
It continues to amaze me what you will believe and continue to
perpetuate. It's proven that the economy always does better with
Democrats in power. You conveniently forget that and pound on Obama for
having no choice but to pay for BUSH'S MISMANAGEMENT. You're so blinded
by ideology, you can't see simple facts.
That's why they call Liberals "free thinkers."
You're stagnant and rigid. And need to stop watching Fox news.
First the bullshit about no one remembering him from Harvard:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16224.html
One of many sites that prove historically that the economy fares better
under Democrats:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001233.htm
And if you think Palin didn't move from college to college because she
kept failing courses then you're too stunned for words. The woman
doesn't have a clue about anything. She's a mouthpiece with the
intelligence to go with it.
Not that I expect you to read those sites or listen to anything I have
to say. You can't think for yourself. That's why the Right likes people
like you. You'll drink the kool-aid and never ask why. It's people like
you that will bring down your country. Bush has already started the job
by mortgaging your kid's future to the Chinese. Funny that you didn't
have a problem with that....but hey, try to use some funds to INVEST
INSIDE the country and you're up in arms.
Predictable.
Oh, and I know how to farm just fine.
<plonk>
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
PatsSox
"C.S.E.B.S." <ne...@ucsb.edu> wrote in message ...
> Obama's questionable collegiate "accomplishments" didn't even
> show up on the Internet until he made a run for the Senate in
> Illinois. He was the total invisible student nobody remembers.
Wow. All you have to do is go to google images and type in "obama
as student". You will find pictures of him from a very young age... right
through college. You will also find articles from friends and professors
who remember him quite well.
Why do you think Obama's accomplishments should have shown up on the
internet before he became a public figure? Oh wait... the most notable
one did, there was a NY Times article written in 1990 about the first black
elected to head the Harvard Law Review.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
69ingch...@park.com
69ingch...@park.com
wrote:
you hit the nail right on the head
" FREE " thinkers
A1...@gmail.com
wrote:
>In article <GP2dnayjFJ4MMCXQ...@supernews.com>
>cloud dreamer <dont....@the.messengers> wrote:
>>
>> On 27/04/2011 9:16 PM, DW wrote:
>> > Now that Trump wants Obamas college history revealed where is the
>> > proof that Trump graduated from any math class?
>> >
>> > Considering he went bankrupt three times that tells
>> > me Trump failed to pass a single math classs.
>> >
>> > Maybe we need legistation barring those who declare bankrupcy from
>> > running for president.
>> >
>> > Maybe we should mandate that he pay all those
>> > creditors before his name can appear on any ballot.
>
>Perhaps we should mandate that all politicians, cabinet members,
>and czars have a record of paying taxes on time while they hold
>any public office. There is absolutely no excuse for an
>overpaid American politican to have delinquent taxes. Ever.
>None.
Maybe we should make it illegal for a politician to mention they
were in the national guard when they were AWOL to avoid
drug testing.
Maybe we should mandate that politicians who shoot people
go to jail.
>
>> Did Palin ever release her transcript?
>
>Why? What for? There is no question about her graduation from
>college with a degree. Everyone including the MSM has confirmed
>that she did. There are even old articles and photos of Sara
>Palin throughout her collegiate travels on the Internet. Where
>are Obama's?
I still doubt she graduated from Kindergarden.
I corrected your post...........no need to thank me.
>Like plagiarist Martin Luther King, there is no proof Palin ever
>successfully completed any requirements for a degree of any
>type.
>
>Obama's questionable collegiate "accomplishments" didn't even
>show up on the Internet until he made a run for the Senate in
>Illinois. He was the total invisible student nobody remembers.
>
Millions of people don't show up on the inetenet.
So what?
>You seem to hate Sara Palin because she has succeeded in life
>far beyond anything you have accomplished. .
Palin is a stupid moron incapable of passing kindergarden test.
Seymour T. Greenfield
news:A6udnegvkc8JeSfQ...@supernews.com:
>
> It continues to amaze me what you will believe and continue to
> perpetuate. It's proven that the economy always does better with
> Democrats in power. You conveniently forget that and pound on Obama
> for having no choice but to pay for BUSH'S MISMANAGEMENT. You're so
> blinded by ideology, you can't see simple facts.
I've often wondered how Bush managed to do that with a majority Democrat
Congress in place for most of his two terms. Perhaps you could elaborate.
A wise old professor of economics from Stanford once pointed out the
fallacy of Democrat claims where the economy typically does better
when they are in office. He called it a shameless canard and political
snake oil word bandying. He also pointed out that the dumber you are,
the more likely you were to fall for it. "That's one of the reasons why
you're in this class, so you can learn the difference."
The Democrats, or Republicans, are using the policies, for better for
worse, implemented by their predecessor(s) from as far back as 100 years
ago. Just because they suddenly find themselves in office, doesn't mean
that all economic policy laws and executive orders in force, change at
the stroke of midnight when they assume office. It doesn't happen. It
cannot happen.
Policies are in effect as the result of laws, which a president has no
power to change or ignore on his own authority. He must comply with
those laws and execute those policies to the best of his ability, or if
in disagreement, ask Congress to change them. As we all know, the
wheels of Congress move forwards and backwards many times before
anything at all is ever accomplished.
It's easy to point at current realtime data and claim credit when good
things happen in an economy. A president taking credit for a good day
on the stock exchange is as silly as a railroad engineer taking credit
for a successful space shuttle launch.
Intellectually challenged citizens might buy that sort of bunk, because
the factors that affect and contribute to the bouyancy of an economy are
not part of their daily scope of understanding. They're just giddy
bandwagon cheerleaders for the party in power.
> That's why they call Liberals "free thinkers."
That's highly debatable. Loose cannons is more appropriate.
cloud dreamer
> On 29 Apr 2011, cloud dreamer<Sa...@Resources.now> posted some
> news:A6udnegvkc8JeSfQ...@supernews.com:
>
>
>>
>> It continues to amaze me what you will believe and continue to
>> perpetuate. It's proven that the economy always does better with
>> Democrats in power. You conveniently forget that and pound on Obama
>> for having no choice but to pay for BUSH'S MISMANAGEMENT. You're so
>> blinded by ideology, you can't see simple facts.
>
> I've often wondered how Bush managed to do that with a majority Democrat
> Congress in place for most of his two terms. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Typical. Every time someone points to Bush's ineptitude, they bring up
Congress. It's as though you're saying he could do nothing without their
approval 100% of the time.
So who is leading the country? The President or Congress???
D'uh.
The simple fact of the matter is the system is broken. The forefathers
were so paranoid about government, they created a system that simply
does not work.
<plonk>
..
PatsSox
"Seymour T. Greenfield" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message ...
> I've often wondered how Bush managed to do that with a majority Democrat
> Congress in place for most of his two terms. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "most of his two terms".
D/
"cloud dreamer" <dont....@the.messengers> wrote in message
news:Vb6dnVkrMN7k0SbQ...@supernews.com...
> On 29/04/2011 9:00 PM, Seymour T. Greenfield wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2011, cloud dreamer<Sa...@Resources.now> posted some
>> news:A6udnegvkc8JeSfQ...@supernews.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It continues to amaze me what you will believe and continue to
>>> perpetuate. It's proven that the economy always does better with
>>> Democrats in power. You conveniently forget that and pound on Obama
>>> for having no choice but to pay for BUSH'S MISMANAGEMENT. You're so
>>> blinded by ideology, you can't see simple facts.
>>
>> I've often wondered how Bush managed to do that with a majority Democrat
>> Congress in place for most of his two terms. Perhaps you could
>> elaborate.
>
>
> Typical. Every time someone points to Bush's ineptitude, they bring up
> Congress. It's as though you're saying he could do nothing without their
> approval 100% of the time.
>
> So who is leading the country? The President or Congress???
It's called "separation of powers." Quite a revolutionary idea, actually.
You might study it.
"The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution call for the powers of
the federal government to be divided among three separate branches: the
legislative, the executive, and the judiciary branch. Under the separation
of powers, each branch is independent, has a separate function, and may not
usurp the functions of another branch."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Balance+of+powers.
> D'uh.
Homer, is that you???
> The simple fact of the matter is the system is broken. The forefathers
> were so paranoid about government, they created a system that simply does
> not work.
The founding fathers had very real and justified reasons to fear overbearing
government. They worked out a system of limited government that was able to
last for nearly 200 years before the politicians and progressives figured
out how to break it down. Quite an accomplishment. If you had a clue,
you'd appreciate that. However, you have shown yourself to be a witless
twit.
<PLONK>
>
> <plonk>
> ..
eric
> there is no proof Obama ever
> successfully completed any requirements for a degree of any
> type.
Teabagger bullshit.
Ray O'Hara
"Seymour T. Greenfield" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> On 29 Apr 2011, cloud dreamer <Sa...@Resources.now> posted some
> news:A6udnegvkc8JeSfQ...@supernews.com:
>
>
>>
>> It continues to amaze me what you will believe and continue to
>> perpetuate. It's proven that the economy always does better with
>> Democrats in power. You conveniently forget that and pound on Obama
>> for having no choice but to pay for BUSH'S MISMANAGEMENT. You're so
>> blinded by ideology, you can't see simple facts.
>
> I've often wondered how Bush managed to do that with a majority Democrat
> Congress in place for most of his two terms. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Bush had a republican controlled Senate and Republican controlled house for
the first 6 years he was President .
and he had a veto sustaining amount in both bodies the final two years.
now maybe I only know the old math but I do believe 6 out of 8 is more than
2 out of 8 but maybe math is different in teabagger land.
Ray O'Hara
"D/" <iveg...@fish.net> wrote in message news:ipfrd0$r1l$1...@pyrite.mv.net...
It is not a "limited government" it is a very powerful federal government.
there are checks and balances against any signle part dominating but all are
part of the federal Govt.. a bill has to pass two bodies, then get
Presidential approval and even then it can be challenged to the supreme
court. but when all those bars are hurdled the laws are powerful and all
emcompassing.
states can't nulify or ignore them.
a weak central government was tried, it was called the Articles of
Confederation, it gave power to the states. it was unworkable and soon
replaced in less than 15 years {1777-1789}.
Congress was meant to be the main power, it is article one of the CONUS and
it has the power of the purse.
but the Federal Govt is the supreme govt of the land
see article VI of the U.S.Constitution.
Ray O'Hara
"PatsSox" <Pat...@NErawks.com> wrote in message
news:ipflct$rnu$1...@dont-email.me...
he meant that for 2 out of 8 years Dems controlled Congress, that's "most"
in teabaggerland
D/
"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipin2l$cko$1...@dont-email.me...
Of course it's a limited government. To argue otherwise simply shows a
fundamental lack of understanding of our Constitution. Consider (and
identify, if you can):
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."
You conveniently leave out one essential aspect of a bill that is passed
into law. It must follow the guidelines established by the Constitution.
If a law is unconstitutional, it cannot, by oath and by law, be enacted.
Unfortunately, progressives have managed to abuse the "general welfare"
clause to enact laws and policies that bypass Constitutional limits.
> a weak central government was tried, it was called the Articles of
> Confederation, it gave power to the states. it was unworkable and soon
> replaced in less than 15 years {1777-1789}.
Ah, I see. You confuse limited with weak. Try
http://dictionary.reference.com/ before you use big words that confuse you.
> Congress was meant to be the main power, it is article one of the CONUS
> and it has the power of the purse.
Nonsense. Read the Constitution. Do a search on "balance of powers."
Control of the "purse" does not infer "main power."
> but the Federal Govt is the supreme govt of the land
> see article VI of the U.S.Constitution.
From Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Where does it say the "Federal Government is the supreme govt of the land"?
69ingch...@park.com
congress had to agree to it all. Any bill was sent by them to Bush .
Ray O'Hara
clearly you have never read the CONUS.
you just quoted where it says the Federal Govt is the supreme law.can you
comprehend what you read?
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the **supreme Law of the Land;**"
and the next bit binds to states.
I'll explain.
" under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, **any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.**"
the part highlight states no state law can override a Federal law.
see "anything to the contrary NOT WITHSTANDING"
that means no matter what a state might put in its own constitution it is
still subordinate to Federal law.
and these is this, something teabagger/Libertarians always get wrong.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and
excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general
welfare of the United States;"
see the punctuation? it's a SEMI COLON a ;, a semi colon seperates and
delineates seperate complete thoughts. so the above is a full power, the
right to pass laws "for the general welfare" that is an entire power and a
very expansive power. one that basically allows Congress to pass any laws
needed.
you libertarian teabaggers seem to confuse a semi colon ; with a colon:.
you should look up the difference as confusing them makes for a big mistake.
the 10 Amendment is meaningless. all it says is states can rule where the
Federal Government hasn't. but it doesn't say states can pass laws that
dispute the Feds nor that a state law stays in power after a new federal law
is passed.
a good example of this is the DOMA {defense of marriage act}. Marriage has
always been a state issue until some states started with allowing same sex
marriage. so the Republican/Conservative movement decided to try to pass a
Federal law banning gay marriage. a law that should be unconstitutional
because it violates the IVth Article of the CONUS , the full faith and
credit part that requires states to recognize each others contracts and the
like, it's why a massachusetts drivers licence is legal in New York.
the United States has a very strong Federal Government, it was meant to be
so. read the Federalist papers..
and an aside, the repubs love to declare the "Estate Tax" as
unconstitutional., funny but one of the first taxes passed under the CONUS
was an estate tax that was near confiscatory, it was used to fund the
construction of the U.S.Navy.
Canadian Border Inspector 9
cloud dreamer <dont....@the.messengers> wrote:
>
> On 29/04/2011 9:00 PM, Seymour T. Greenfield wrote:
> > On 29 Apr 2011, cloud dreamer<Sa...@Resources.now> posted some
> > news:A6udnegvkc8JeSfQ...@supernews.com:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> It continues to amaze me what you will believe and continue to
> >> perpetuate. It's proven that the economy always does better with
> >> Democrats in power. You conveniently forget that and pound on Obama
> >> for having no choice but to pay for BUSH'S MISMANAGEMENT. You're so
> >> blinded by ideology, you can't see simple facts.
> >
> > I've often wondered how Bush managed to do that with a majority Democrat
> > Congress in place for most of his two terms. Perhaps you could elaborate.
>
>
> Typical. Every time someone points to Bush's ineptitude, they bring up
> Congress. It's as though you're saying he could do nothing without their
> approval 100% of the time.
Ha! I suppose you think that moron Obama is some sort of
improvement? The narcissistic SOB is a lying crook! He's far
worse than Bush ever was.
That's how major changes work in America you dumb Canadian cunt.
It ain't like Soviet Canada.
> So who is leading the country? The President or Congress???
>
> D'uh.
The President leads, Congress guides, checks and prevents.
Voters have input and they have decided that Democrats suck hind
tit. Don't even say it hasn't been fair. Nobody has shot Obama
yet and Congress is checking the balance of power as it should.
> The simple fact of the matter is the system is broken. The forefathers
> were so paranoid about government, they created a system that simply
> does not work.
Don't compare our government to your broken ass socialist piece
of shit utopia. Unlike you pussies, we still have guns and
ammo. When we've had enough, you'll see what the fuck change
really means.
> <plonk>
> ..
plonk your fat goldbricking ass you dumb bitch. The Communist
Democrats are preparing to take over your country. Liberals are
about to become extinct in Canada. They're dead last in 4th
place. You pinheads can't do a damned thing about it because
you gave up your gun rights and your votes don't mean squat.
cloud dreamer
Blah blah blah.
Insults and rhetoric. When that's all you have, you have nothing. Says
more about you than it can ever say about me.
<plonk>
..
PatsSox
"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
Bush had a Republican house for 6 of his 8 years... and a Republican
Senate for 4 of his 8 years. This new teabagger math makes about as much
sense as anything else the lunatics say or do.
69ingch...@park.com
wrote:
so if we use that then he had a democrat control on him for 6 of his 8
years . 2 years house and 4 years senate = 6 years of democrats
controlling something .
thanks for clearing that up
PatsSox
<69ingch...@park.com> wrote in message ...
You are clearly a moron. There are many sites available that will
explain the basics to you. You might start with www.senate.gov where you
can find much info that you apparently have never been made aware of.
Good luck.