Re: And this clown Romney wants to be president.

no hope or change

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 2:31:59 PM9/16/12

to

On 9/16/2012 5:43 AM, ? wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:54:00 -0600, no hope or change<em...@suit.wh>
> wrote:
>
>>> Romney has falsely accused Obama of apologizing for
>>> America many times before.
> Posting with you is like an arguement

The one you will always lose:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-apologizes-for-america-s-existence

Obama apologizes for America's existence

Middle East terrorists murdered the United States Ambassador to Libya
Christopher Stevens and three other Americans yesterday in Benghazi.
Conflicting reports have surfaced concerning the exact methods utilized
to perpetrate this egregious act. Obama with his usual apologetic style
initiated his response to this tragedy noting he rejects any denigration
of others religious beliefs but there is no justification for this
assault on Americans or American values. Amazing as it may be Obama and
his minions were apologizing for a movie the terrorists claim was
offensive to their religion and produced in the United States. The
latter statement has not been verified, yet knowing Obama his
irrationality has room for the sensitivities of terrorists not for the
America that gave him his present pulpit. Most recently Obama turned
down a request by Israelï¿½s Prime Minister for a meeting in New York City
where the United Nations General Assembly is meeting. Violence is
flaring up across the Middle East and Israel has a set of concerns which
apparently are not shared by Obama. The reason given for the rejection
was scheduling problems believe it or not. Obama was scheduling himself
to be on Letterman and had no time for affairs of state.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 3:25:35 PM9/16/12

to

On 9/16/12 1:31 PM, no hope or change wrote:
> On 9/16/2012 5:43 AM, ? wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:54:00 -0600, no hope or change<em...@suit.wh>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Romney has falsely accused Obama of apologizing for
>>>> America many times before.
>> Posting with you is like an arguement
>
>
> The one you will always lose:
>
> http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-apologizes-for-america-s-existence
>
> Obama apologizes for America's existence

The usual rightard lies. The statement that was supposed to be so
terrible was issued by the US embassy in Egypt as it confronted an
assault on its premises. There was no apology, just a statement that
began "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing
efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of
Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
No apology, just an attempt by US officialdom to separate itself from
hateful anti-Muslim propaganda in an attempt to quite an angry mob of
people who don't make the distinction between public positions and
private speech.

But maybe you're in favor of attacking the religion of others. Which is
OK under the 1st Amendment. The US Embassy in Cairo doesn't have to
adopt your benighted views.

lib_o_matic

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 3:36:47 PM9/16/12

to

On 9/16/2012 1:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 9/16/12 1:31 PM, no hope or change wrote:
>> On 9/16/2012 5:43 AM, ? wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:54:00 -0600, no hope or change<em...@suit.wh>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Romney has falsely accused Obama of apologizing for
>>>>> America many times before.
>>> Posting with you is like an arguement
>>
>>
>> The one you will always lose:
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-apologizes-for-america-s-existence
>>
>> Obama apologizes for America's existence
>
> The usual rightard lies. The statement

It's true, it's so very true!

deadrat

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 4:04:38 PM9/16/12

to

On 9/16/12 2:36 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
> On 9/16/2012 1:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 9/16/12 1:31 PM, no hope or change wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2012 5:43 AM, ? wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:54:00 -0600, no hope or change<em...@suit.wh>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Romney has falsely accused Obama of apologizing for
>>>>>> America many times before.
>>>> Posting with you is like an arguement
>>>
>>>
>>> The one you will always lose:
>>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-apologizes-for-america-s-existence
>>>
>>> Obama apologizes for America's existence
>>
>> The usual rightard lies. The statement
>
> It's true, it's so very true!

Of course it's true that rightards lie.

shovel-ready

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 4:21:59 PM9/16/12

to

I know, Obama had to get ready to be on Letterman, foreign crises are so
damned inconvenient!

deadrat

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 4:56:58 PM9/16/12

to

Maybe he was worried about Osama bin Laden.

Oh, wait, ....

shovel-ready

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 5:14:01 PM9/16/12

to

But not so worried he didn't get Bidenesque loose lips and ID the
members of SEAL Team 6 who were later:

http://coupmedia.org/middle-east-unrest/nato-helicopter-crash-cover-up-0808

The LAST ï¿½Deathï¿½ of bin Laden

What the world has been told about the recent ï¿½Death of Usama bin Ladenï¿½
is pitiful and laughably absurd (especially the parts about no forensic
tests having been performed, and the body quickly dumped into the sea.
That last doctored photo was the clincher).

Truth is, bin Ladenï¿½s bin dead a long time.

The charade in Abbottabad was one massive a psyop to provide soothing
peace of mind for the American public subject to full-throttle media
propaganda, while continuing, unabatedly, one of the greatest,
deadliest, and most expensive hoaxes of all time: 9/11 and "The War on
Terror."

And now, every single SEAL Team 6 member who was involved in the
ï¿½assassinationï¿½ psyop is dead.

Incidentally, I had to smile when I saw one particularly amusing
headline re Usamaï¿½s latest death, in the US publication Business
Insider: ï¿½Meet The 'Seal Team 6', The Bad-Asses Who Killed Osama Bin Ladenï¿½

Well, all those hapless ï¿½bad assesï¿½ are now dead.

And dead men donï¿½t talk.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 5:36:12 PM9/16/12

to

On 9/16/12 4:14 PM, shovel-ready wrote:
> On 9/16/2012 2:56 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 9/16/12 3:21 PM, shovel-ready wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2012 2:04 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 9/16/12 2:36 PM, lib_o_matic wrote:
>>>>> On 9/16/2012 1:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/16/12 1:31 PM, no hope or change wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/16/2012 5:43 AM, ? wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:54:00 -0600, no hope or
>>>>>>>> change<em...@suit.wh>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Romney has falsely accused Obama of apologizing for
>>>>>>>>>> America many times before.
>>>>>>>> Posting with you is like an arguement
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The one you will always lose:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-apologizes-for-america-s-existence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obama apologizes for America's existence
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The usual rightard lies. The statement
>>>>>
>>>>> It's true, it's so very true!
>>>>
>>>> Of course it's true
>>>
>>> I know, Obama had to get ready to be on Letterman, foreign crises are so
>>> damned inconvenient!
>>
>> Maybe he was worried about Osama bin Laden.
>>
>> Oh, wait, ....
>>

> But not so worried <snipped: paranoid rant/>

Oh, look! Nothing left.

shovel-ready

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 5:48:50 PM9/16/12

to

Oh look, it's back:

Bill Graham

unread,

Sep 17, 2012, 10:00:09 PM9/17/12

to

> present pulpit. Most recently Obama turned down a request by Israel’s

> Prime Minister for a meeting in New York City where the United
> Nations General Assembly is meeting. Violence is flaring up across
> the Middle East and Israel has a set of concerns which apparently are
> not shared by Obama. The reason given for the rejection was
> scheduling problems believe it or not. Obama was scheduling himself
> to be on Letterman and had no time for affairs of state.

Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy. He tries to appease
the Arabs, and I have been watching Arabs for over 70 years now, and if
there is only one thing I know about them is there is no way you can appease
them. They take any act of kindness as a sign of weakness on your part. I
have yet to find even one of them that is friendly to me, noi matter how I
treat them. I do not even think they are friendly to their own brothers and
sisters. I hate to act so prejudicial toward them, and I will keep trying to
befriend any of them I find in the hopes that I will find even one
exception, but so far, all that I have said above is true.

shovel-ready

unread,

Sep 20, 2012, 12:20:10 PM9/20/12

to

On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.

Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies are?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-says-egypt-neither-ally-nor-enemy/

President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian
government an ally, ï¿½but we donï¿½t consider them an enemy.ï¿½
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

His State Department seems to:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/13/state_department_egypt_is_an_ally.html

September 13, 2012. During the State Department Press Briefing, the
State Department reaffirms Egypt as an ally even though President Obama
said that was not the case.

REPORTER: Egypt is an ally. It is a major non-NATO allyï¿½

STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't President Obama even use wikipedia?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally

Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) is a designation given by the United States
government to close allies who have strategic working relationships with
US Armed Forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). While the MNNA status does not automatically
include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a
variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not
obtainable by non-NATO countries.

Named by George H. W. Bush

Egypt (1989)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shouldn't the PRESIDENT of the United states of America know these things???

Did we elect an empty suit?

Are we foolhardy enough to re-elect an empty suit?

Think about it.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 20, 2012, 12:29:27 PM9/20/12

to

On 9/20/12 11:20 AM, shovel-ready wrote:
> On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.
>
>
>
> Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies are?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-says-egypt-neither-ally-nor-enemy/

That the best ya got? A quibble about the vernacular use of a word and
its technical meaning in appropriations for foreign military aid?

Really?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 20, 2012, 2:30:11 PM9/20/12

to

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-14/egypt-s-new-defense-chief-unwavering-ally-panetta-says

Egyptï¿½s new defense minister has pledged his ï¿½unwavering commitmentï¿½ to
the American-Egyptian military alliance, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta said.

General Abdelfatah al-Seesi also ï¿½stressed that he takes seriously
Egyptï¿½s obligations under the Camp David Treatyï¿½ with Israel, Panetta
said, recounting at a Pentagon news conference yesterday a phone
conversation with the general.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Graham

unread,

Sep 20, 2012, 3:41:53 PM9/20/12

to

shovel-ready wrote:
> On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.
>
>
>
> Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies
> are?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-says-egypt-neither-ally-nor-enemy/
>
> President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian

> government an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> His State Department seems to:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/13/state_department_egypt_is_an_ally.html
>
> September 13, 2012. During the State Department Press Briefing, the
> State Department reaffirms Egypt as an ally even though President
> Obama said that was not the case.
>

> REPORTER: Egypt is an ally. It is a major non-NATO ally…

>
> STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Correct.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Can't President Obama even use wikipedia?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
>
> Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) is a designation given by the United States
> government to close allies who have strategic working relationships
> with US Armed Forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty
> Organization (NATO). While the MNNA status does not automatically
> include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a
> variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not
> obtainable by non-NATO countries.
>
> Named by George H. W. Bush
>
> Egypt (1989)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Shouldn't the PRESIDENT of the United states of America know these
> things???
> Did we elect an empty suit?
>
> Are we foolhardy enough to re-elect an empty suit?
>
> Think about it.

What I wouls really like to know, is who decides to give these unfriendly
countries billions of dollars every year, and how can we stop this. You may
not decide to go over to your enemies house and knock his teeth in, but do
you still have to write him a check every year? - Give me a break!!

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 20, 2012, 4:06:11 PM9/20/12

to

On 9/20/2012 1:41 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> shovel-ready wrote:
>> On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies
>> are?
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-says-egypt-neither-ally-nor-enemy/
>>
>>
>> President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian

>> government an ally, ï¿½but we donï¿½t consider them an enemy.ï¿½

>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> His State Department seems to:
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/13/state_department_egypt_is_an_ally.html
>>
>>
>> September 13, 2012. During the State Department Press Briefing, the
>> State Department reaffirms Egypt as an ally even though President
>> Obama said that was not the case.
>>

>> REPORTER: Egypt is an ally. It is a major non-NATO allyï¿½

>>
>> STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Correct.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Can't President Obama even use wikipedia?
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
>>
>> Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) is a designation given by the United States
>> government to close allies who have strategic working relationships
>> with US Armed Forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty
>> Organization (NATO). While the MNNA status does not automatically
>> include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a
>> variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not
>> obtainable by non-NATO countries.
>>
>> Named by George H. W. Bush
>>
>> Egypt (1989)
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Shouldn't the PRESIDENT of the United states of America know these
>> things???
>> Did we elect an empty suit?
>>
>> Are we foolhardy enough to re-elect an empty suit?
>>
>> Think about it.
>
> What I wouls really like to know, is who decides to give these
> unfriendly countries billions of dollars every year, and how can we stop
> this.

Ok, sure, well the President is the one who makes these decisions, so he
can reverse them, if he chooses to.

I kind of doubt Obama has any intention of losing a major military ally
like Egypt though...

> You may not decide to go over to your enemies house and knock his
> teeth in, but do you still have to write him a check every year? - Give
> me a break!!

I hear you, I hear you.

Message has been deleted

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 21, 2012, 12:12:22 PM9/21/12

to

On 9/21/2012 2:17 AM, K Wills wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:20:10 -0600, shovel-ready<wasn't...@shovel.ready>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.
>>
>>
>> Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies are?
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-says-egypt-neither-ally-nor-enemy/
>>
>> President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian

>> government an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.”
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>

> I would argue that the Egyptian government isn't an enemy.

I would too, but that hardly is the point, is it?

Are they officially an ally or not?

If not, can we stop sending them 1.3 billion $$ a year?

>
>> His State Department seems to:
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/13/state_department_egypt_is_an_ally.html
>>
>> September 13, 2012. During the State Department Press Briefing, the
>> State Department reaffirms Egypt as an ally even though President Obama
>> said that was not the case.
>>

>> REPORTER: Egypt is an ally. It is a major non-NATO ally…

>>
>> STATE DEPT. OFFICIAL: Correct.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Can't President Obama even use wikipedia?
>>
>

> Wikipedia might be a good starting point, but only a fool would
> use it as a definitive source for anything.

>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
>>
>> Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) is a designation given by the United States
>> government to close allies who have strategic working relationships with
>> US Armed Forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty
>> Organization (NATO).
>

> Like Egypt?

>
>> While the MNNA status does not automatically
>> include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a
>> variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not
>> obtainable by non-NATO countries.
>>
>> Named by George H. W. Bush
>>
>> Egypt (1989)
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Shouldn't the PRESIDENT of the United states of America know these things???
>>
>

> Odds are he does.

>
>> Did we elect an empty suit?
>>
>> Are we foolhardy enough to re-elect an empty suit?
>>
>> Think about it.
>

> If you want people to vote for someone other than Obama, you'll
> need to come up with something better.

Easily done:

http://www.mittromney.com/collection/smaller-smarter-simpler-government

The mission to restore America to health begins with reducing the size
of the federal government and getting our fiscal house in order.
President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending
is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb
Washington’s appetite for spending, the national debt will only continue
to grow.

As president, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and regulation, and
bring much-needed reforms to Medicare and Social Security. Mitt will
work toward balancing the budget, reducing the size and reach of the
federal government, and returning power to the states and the people.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 21, 2012, 12:49:04 PM9/21/12

to

As President, Mitt Romney will cut the government services you rely on
and raise your taxes, assuming you're not already so strapped that
you're in the 47% of those who are too poor to pay federal income tax.

Why would you support someone who isn't shy about telling you he's going
to pick your pocket? Stockholm Syndrome?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 21, 2012, 1:54:28 PM9/21/12

to

Ah nope, I'm not relying on foreign aid or bloated government waste.

> and raise your taxes,

Nope:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing
life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the
nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s
tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate
entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the
revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The
principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates
on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and
entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of
private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual
rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower
marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax
reform.
•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest,
dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in
the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to
compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By
limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also
hurts U.S. wages.
•Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
•Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
•Switch to a territorial tax system
•Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

> assuming you're not already so strapped that
> you're in the 47% of those who are too poor to pay federal income tax.

Another lie, facts:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/07/27/why-do-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2/

Much has been made of TPC’s estimate that fully 46 percent of Americans
will pay no federal individual income tax this year. Commentators have
often misinterpreted that percentage as indicating that nearly half of
Americans pay no taxes. In fact, however, many of those who don’t pay
income tax do pay other taxes—federal payroll and excise taxes as well
as state and local income, sales, and property taxes.

The large percentage of people not paying income tax is often blamed on
tax breaks that zero out many households’ income tax bills and can even
result in net payments from the government. While that’s the case for
many households, a new TPC paper shows that about half of people who
don’t owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage
of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes. For example, a
couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal
income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four
exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic
structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income
from tax.

What about the rest of the untaxed households, the 23 percent of
households who don’t pay income tax because of particular tax breaks? We
divided tax expenditures (special provisions in the tax code that
benefit particular taxpayers or activities) into eight categories and
asked which ones made the most people nontaxable. The conclusion:
Three-fourths of those households pay no income tax because of
provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families
with children. Those provisions include the exclusion of some Social
Security benefits from taxable income, the tax credit and extra standard
deduction for the elderly, and the child, earned income, and childcare
tax credits that primarily help low-income workers with children (see
graph). Extending the example offered above, the couple could earn an
additional $19,375 without paying income tax because their pre-credit
tax liability of $2,056 would be wiped out by a $2,000 child tax credit
and $57 of EITC.

> Why would you support someone who isn't shy about telling you he's going
> to pick your pocket?

I don't know why ANYONE supports Obama the BIG tax and spender.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html

Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the
fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last
year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released
yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a
trillion-dollar deficit—an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP,
which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.

But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's major contribution to
deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the
recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009
expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall
federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion
reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the
overall spending increase was 22%.

In one year.

CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and
higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an
estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%,
and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the
1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce
defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s.

This means that one of every four dollars produced by the sweat of
American private labor is now taxed and redistributed by 535 men and
women in Congress.

> Stockholm Syndrome?

That might be the reason, sure...

deadrat

unread,

Sep 21, 2012, 3:24:05 PM9/21/12

to

On 9/21/12 12:54 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/21/2012 10:49 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 9/21/12 11:12 AM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2012 2:17 AM, K Wills wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:20:10 -0600, shovel-ready<wasn't...@shovel.ready>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies
>>>>> are?
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-says-egypt-neither-ally-nor-enemy/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian

>>>>> government an ally, ï¿½but we donï¿½t consider them an enemy.ï¿½

>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the Egyptian government isn't an enemy.
>>>
>>> I would too, but that hardly is the point, is it?
>>>
>>> Are they officially an ally or not?
>>>
>>> If not, can we stop sending them 1.3 billion $$ a year?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> His State Department seems to:
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/13/state_department_egypt_is_an_ally.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> September 13, 2012. During the State Department Press Briefing, the
>>>>> State Department reaffirms Egypt as an ally even though President
>>>>> Obama
>>>>> said that was not the case.
>>>>>

>>>>> REPORTER: Egypt is an ally. It is a major non-NATO allyï¿½

>>> Washingtonï¿½s appetite for spending, the national debt will only continue

>>> to grow.
>>>
>>> As president, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and regulation, and
>>> bring much-needed reforms to Medicare and Social Security. Mitt will
>>> work toward balancing the budget, reducing the size and reach of the
>>> federal government, and returning power to the states and the people.
>>
>> As President, Mitt Romney will cut the government services you rely on
>
> Ah nope, I'm not relying on foreign aid or bloated government waste.

Keep telling yourself that a guy worth $250M who wants to cut his taxes
below what he's paying now (which is a lower percentage than you pay) is
looking out for your interests.

>
>> and raise your taxes,
>
> Nope:
>
> http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

I don't think we need take Rmoney's propaganda at face value.

<snipped: propaganda/

>
>> Why would you support someone who isn't shy about telling you he's going
>> to pick your pocket?
>
> I don't know why ANYONE supports Obama

Don't get out much?

> the BIG tax and spender.

Er, Sparky? Taxes have gone down under Obama. And where were you when
the WPE was putting his two losing wars on the country's credit card?

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html

The Wall Street Journal! Bwahahahahahaha!
>
>
<snipped: "journalism"/>

>
>> Stockholm Syndrome?
>
> That might be the reason, sure...

Snap out of it.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 21, 2012, 6:50:48 PM9/21/12

to

Keep begging for higher taxes, Obama WILL deliver that to you!

>>
>>> and raise your taxes,
>>
>> Nope:
>>
>> http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
>
> I don't think we need take Rmoney's propaganda at face value.
>
> <snipped: propaganda/

restored:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing
life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the

nationï¿½s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nationï¿½s

tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate
entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the
revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The
principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

Americaï¿½s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates

on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and
entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of
private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual
rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower
marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax
reform.

ï¿½Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
ï¿½Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
ï¿½Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest,
dividends, and capital gains
ï¿½Eliminate the Death Tax
ï¿½Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economyï¿½s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in
the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nationï¿½s businesses to

compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By
limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also
hurts U.S. wages.

ï¿½Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
ï¿½Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
ï¿½Switch to a territorial tax system
ï¿½Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

>
>>
>>> Why would you support someone who isn't shy about telling you he's going
>>> to pick your pocket?
>>
>> I don't know why ANYONE supports Obama
>
> Don't get out much?

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/080312-620954-barack-obama-heads-for-a-loss-in-november.htm?p=full

The social experiment that was Barack Obama's election and presidency is
over. Way over. As one who was born in the heart of Boston and worked
the political world of Washington for 20 years, I know quite a few
Democrats. Some are family, and many are close friends. Most voted for
Obama in 2008. None at this point is inclined to vote for him in 2012.
Why? Because they view him as an abject failure .

>> the BIG tax and spender.
>
> Er, Sparky? Taxes have gone down under Obama.

Nope, not for a moment:

http://nation.foxnews.com/middle-class/2012/09/21/editorial-its-official-obama-raises-taxes-middle-class

On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed what we've been
saying for years now: President Obama has broken his pledge not to raise
taxes on the middle class. During his 2008 campaign, Obama promised
Americans that he wouldn't raise taxes on anybody making less than
$250,000 a year. Technically, he broke that pledge weeks after taking
office, when he signed an increase in cigarette taxes, which fall
disproportionately on those with lower incomes. Now, the CBO has
released updated estimates showing that Obamacare's insurance mandate --
which the Supreme Court ruled to be a tax -- will hit millions of
middle-class Americans.

In its report, the CBO determined the mandate tax would cost 6 million
Americans a total of $7 billion in 2016, with a minimum payment of $695
apiece. The annual cost will then average about $8 billion from 2017
through 2022. The health care law requires Americans either to purchase
government-approved insurance or to pay a penalty. The CBO estimates 30
million will be uninsured by that year, but most will be exempted from
the mandate because they are unauthorized immigrants, members of Indian
tribes or don't earn enough income to file taxes, among other reasons.

Read more:
http://nation.foxnews.com/middle-class/2012/09/21/editorial-its-official-obama-raises-taxes-middle-class#ixzz279CIt8xf

> And where were you when
> the WPE was putting his two losing wars on the country's credit card?
>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html
>>
>
> The Wall Street Journal! Bwahahahahahaha!

Epic fail, even for a mouth-breather like you...

restored:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html

Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the
fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last
year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released
yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a

trillion-dollar deficitï¿½an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP,

which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.

But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's major contribution to
deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the
recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009
expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall
federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion
reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the
overall spending increase was 22%.

In one year.

CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and
higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an
estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%,
and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the
1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce
defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s.

This means that one of every four dollars produced by the sweat of
American private labor is now taxed and redistributed by 535 men and
women in Congress.

>>

> <snipped: "journalism"/>
>>
>>> Stockholm Syndrome?
>>
>> That might be the reason, sure...
>
> Snap out of it.
>

Snap our economy free from this:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama_the_big_spender_who_knew/

Christopher Buckley, who announced to great fanfare last October that he
was voting for Obama, took to the same forum yesterday to announce his
misgivings about Obamaï¿½s spending.

Government is getting bigger and will stay bigger. Just remember the
apothegm that a government that is big enough to give you everything you
want is also big enough to take it all away.And remember what de
Tocqueville told us about a bureaucracy that grows so profuse that not
even the most original mind can penetrate it.

If this is what the American people want, so be it, but they ought to
have no illusions about the perils of this approach. Mr. Obama is
proposing among everything else $1 trillion in new entitlements, and
entitlement programs never go away, or in the oddly poetic bureaucratic
jargon, ï¿½sunset.ï¿½ He is proposing $1.4 trillion in new taxes, an
appetite for which was largely was whetted by the shameful excesses of
American CEO corporate culture. And finally, he has proposed $5 trillion
in new debt, one-half the total accumulated national debt in all US
history. All in one fell swoop.

Message has been deleted

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 2:02:44 PM9/22/12

to

On 9/22/2012 2:37 AM, K Wills wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:12:22 -0600, you didn't build that
> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2012 2:17 AM, K Wills wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:20:10 -0600, shovel-ready<wasn't...@shovel.ready>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies are?
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-says-egypt-neither-ally-nor-enemy/
>>>>
>>>> President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian

>>>> government an ally, ï¿½but we donï¿½t consider them an enemy.ï¿½

>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would argue that the Egyptian government isn't an enemy.
>>
>> I would too, but that hardly is the point, is it?
>>
>> Are they officially an ally or not?
>>
>> If not, can we stop sending them 1.3 billion $$ a year?
>>
>

> We can, but I don't think we will.
>
> [...]

So by saying "we can" are you announcing a formal change in Egypt's MNNA
status which can not be found upon the State Department's website or lips?

Please cite it here:____________________________________________________.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the PRESIDENT of the United states of America know these things???
>>>>
>>>
>>> Odds are he does.
>>>
>>>> Did we elect an empty suit?
>>>>
>>>> Are we foolhardy enough to re-elect an empty suit?
>>>>
>>>> Think about it.
>>>
>>> If you want people to vote for someone other than Obama, you'll
>>> need to come up with something better.
>>
>> Easily done:
>>
>

> I know.

>
>> http://www.mittromney.com/collection/smaller-smarter-simpler-government
>>
>> The mission to restore America to health begins with reducing the size
>> of the federal government and getting our fiscal house in order.
>> President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending
>> is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb

>> Washingtonï¿½s appetite for spending, the national debt will only continue
>> to grow.
>>
>
> The debt Bush amassed in eight years, Obama was able to double in
> slightly less than four. That's some serious spending!

No kidding.

>> As president, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and regulation, and
>> bring much-needed reforms to Medicare and Social Security. Mitt will
>> work toward balancing the budget, reducing the size and reach of the
>> federal government, and returning power to the states and the people.
>>
>

> Sadly, I've heard the "I'll reform Medicare and Social Security"
> so often from candidates, I blow off such claims as untrue.

As you wish, do you also "blow off" the "fiscal cliff"?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 2:07:41 PM9/22/12

to

On 9/22/12 3:37 AM, K Wills wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:12:22 -0600, you didn't build that
> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>

<snip/>

>> http://www.mittromney.com/collection/smaller-smarter-simpler-government
>>
>> The mission to restore America to health begins with reducing the size
>> of the federal government and getting our fiscal house in order.
>> President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending
>> is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb
>> Washington’s appetite for spending, the national debt will only continue
>> to grow.
>>
>

> The debt Bush amassed in eight years, Obama was able to double in
> slightly less than four. That's some serious spending!

<snip/>

Only a fool thinks this kind of factoid has any meaning. There's a
tendency in both parties to calculate things from January 20, XXXX to
January 20, XXXX+4, but this often makes little sense. For starters, in
his first year in office a new President operates on his predecessor's
budget.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 2:12:59 PM9/22/12

to

On 9/22/2012 12:07 PM, deadrat wrote:
> For starters, in his first year in office a new President operates on
> his predecessor's budget.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19042196/arpaio-zullo-to-give

PHOENIX (AP) -- Investigators for an Arizona sheriff's volunteer posse
have declared that President Barack Obama's birth certificate is
definitely fraudulent.

Members of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse said in March that
there was probable cause that Obama's long-form birth certificate
released by the White House in April 2011 was a computer-generated forgery.

Now, Arpaio says investigators are positive it's fraudulent.

Mike Zullo, the posse's chief investigator, said numeric codes on
certain parts of the birth certificate indicate that those parts weren't
filled out, yet those sections asking for the race of Obama's father and
his field of work or study were completed.

Zullo said investigators previously didn't know the meaning of codes but
they were explained by a 95-year-old former state worker who signed the
president's birth certificate. Zullo said a writer who published a book
about Obama's birth certificate and was aiding investigators let them
listen in on an interview he conducted of the former state worker.

Message has been deleted

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 6:59:22 PM9/22/12

to

On 9/22/2012 4:28 PM, K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:02:44 -0600, you didn't build that

> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2012 2:37 AM, K Wills wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:12:22 -0600, you didn't build that
>>> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/21/2012 2:17 AM, K Wills wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:20:10 -0600, shovel-ready<wasn't...@shovel.ready>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies are?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-says-egypt-neither-ally-nor-enemy/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> President Obama says the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian

>>>>>> government an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would argue that the Egyptian government isn't an enemy.
>>>>
>>>> I would too, but that hardly is the point, is it?
>>>>
>>>> Are they officially an ally or not?
>>>>
>>>> If not, can we stop sending them 1.3 billion $$ a year?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can, but I don't think we will.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> So by saying "we can" are you announcing a formal change in Egypt's MNNA
>> status which can not be found upon the State Department's website or lips?
>>
>> Please cite it here:____________________________________________________.
>>
>

> No. I'm saying we can cease sending them aide. The United States
> has this ability. I also state I don't think we will.
> I am of the opinion that doing so would be a mistake, but that is
> my opinion.

And for now I share your opinion, we need the regional stability a bit
more than the 1.3 billion, for now...

>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shouldn't the PRESIDENT of the United states of America know these things???
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Odds are he does.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did we elect an empty suit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we foolhardy enough to re-elect an empty suit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want people to vote for someone other than Obama, you'll
>>>>> need to come up with something better.
>>>>
>>>> Easily done:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know.
>>>
>>>> http://www.mittromney.com/collection/smaller-smarter-simpler-government
>>>>
>>>> The mission to restore America to health begins with reducing the size
>>>> of the federal government and getting our fiscal house in order.
>>>> President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending
>>>> is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb

>>>> Washington’s appetite for spending, the national debt will only continue

>>>> to grow.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The debt Bush amassed in eight years, Obama was able to double in
>>> slightly less than four. That's some serious spending!
>>
>> No kidding.
>>
>>>> As president, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and regulation, and
>>>> bring much-needed reforms to Medicare and Social Security. Mitt will
>>>> work toward balancing the budget, reducing the size and reach of the
>>>> federal government, and returning power to the states and the people.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sadly, I've heard the "I'll reform Medicare and Social Security"
>>> so often from candidates, I blow off such claims as untrue.
>>
>> As you wish, do you also "blow off" the "fiscal cliff"?
>>
>

> No.

That's encouraging as many Americans are simply ignoring it.

> I expect more stop-gaps to be implemented. There aren't many
> other choices. And the others that exist aren't very good.

Iow, ,ore political kick the can down the road.

I suspect you are correct in that assessment too.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 7:00:56 PM9/22/12

to

On 9/22/12 5:29 PM, K Wills wrote:

> So Obama doubled it in a little under three years. I can accept
> this.

And you thus admit to being a fool.

Well played!

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 7:02:12 PM9/22/12

to

On 9/22/2012 4:29 PM, K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:07:41 -0500, deadrat<a...@b.com> wrote:
>

>> On 9/22/12 3:37 AM, K Wills wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:12:22 -0600, you didn't build that
>>> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>>> http://www.mittromney.com/collection/smaller-smarter-simpler-government
>>>>
>>>> The mission to restore America to health begins with reducing the size
>>>> of the federal government and getting our fiscal house in order.
>>>> President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending
>>>> is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb

>>>> Washingtonï¿½s appetite for spending, the national debt will only continue

>>>> to grow.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The debt Bush amassed in eight years, Obama was able to double in
>>> slightly less than four. That's some serious spending!
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Only a fool thinks this kind of factoid has any meaning. There's a
>> tendency in both parties to calculate things from January 20, XXXX to
>> January 20, XXXX+4, but this often makes little sense. For starters, in
>> his first year in office a new President operates on his predecessor's
>> budget.
>

> So Obama doubled it in a little under three years. I can accept
> this.
>

Accept, or acknowledge? There is a difference.

None of us should accept his out of control spending.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 7:18:04 PM9/22/12

to

On 9/22/2012 4:31 PM, K Wills wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:12:59 -0600, you didn't build that
> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2012 12:07 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> For starters, in his first year in office a new President operates on
>>> his predecessor's budget.
>>
>>
>> http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19042196/arpaio-zullo-to-give
>>
>> PHOENIX (AP) -- Investigators for an Arizona sheriff's volunteer posse
>> have declared that President Barack Obama's birth certificate is
>> definitely fraudulent.
>>
>

> While this has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed, I'll
> play along.
> Can you explain Arpaio's claim that the records are missing AND
> they are fake, at the same time? The claims appear to be in direct
> opposition to each other.

Not for a moment.

THE WH released to the media a badly forged birth certificate.

The state of Hawaii has been tight-fisted in releasing the original so
it is hard to determine if it is "missing". However they do claim that
they have it.

I saw no claim from Arpaio that it is "missing".

Can you cite him saying so?

>> Members of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse said in March that
>> there was probable cause that Obama's long-form birth certificate
>> released by the White House in April 2011 was a computer-generated forgery.
>>
>

> It may have been computer generated. Such would make sense now.

It was photoshopped in as many as 14 different layers.

> I don't know how it's actually done in Hawaii, but in Iowa nearly
> all records are on computer. If a person wants a copy of their birth
> certificate, the scan is printed out, a raised seal is affixed with a
> signed declaration that it's a true and accurate copy of the original,
> and given or mailed to the person.
> It's not unreasonable to think the same, or similar, occurs in
> Hawaii.

True.

> This doesn't make it a forgery.

No, the multiple and inconsistent type fonts however do.

There are exhaustive analyses of this on the net that you can google.

>> Now, Arpaio says investigators are positive it's fraudulent.
>

> Yet the state of Hawaii, where President Obama was born, claims
> it's valid.

They do, but without an original to compare it with we can never know.

>
>>
>> Mike Zullo, the posse's chief investigator, said numeric codes on
>> certain parts of the birth certificate indicate that those parts weren't
>> filled out, yet those sections asking for the race of Obama's father and
>> his field of work or study were completed.
>>
>

> Can you link to something that explains in detail how the
> numbering works?

http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis

http://wireupdate.com/video/2011/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf-has-layers/

>
>> Zullo said investigators previously didn't know the meaning of codes but
>> they were explained by a 95-year-old former state worker who signed the
>> president's birth certificate. Zullo said a writer who published a book
>> about Obama's birth certificate and was aiding investigators let them
>> listen in on an interview he conducted of the former state worker.
>

> Who is this 95-year-old former state worker? Without a name that
> can be verified, I'm suspicious of the claim.
>
I am too.

Therefore:

http://factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_9.jpg

Alvin T. Onaka?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 22, 2012, 11:59:12 PM9/22/12

to

On 9/22/12 6:18 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/22/2012 4:31 PM, K Wills wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:12:59 -0600, you didn't build that
>> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>>

<snip/>

>>> Members of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse said in March that
>>> there was probable cause that Obama's long-form birth certificate
>>> released by the White House in April 2011 was a computer-generated
>>> forgery.
>>>
>>
>> It may have been computer generated. Such would make sense now.
>
> It was photoshopped in as many as 14 different layers.

Another birther loser weighs in. The "long-form" birth certificate
wasn't "photoshopped." It is a paper document, and it was scanned to
make a digital copy for distribution. The various layers are
characteristic of the OCR software used by scanners.

<snip/>

>> Who is this 95-year-old former state worker? Without a name that
>> can be verified, I'm suspicious of the claim.
>>
> I am too.
>
> Therefore:
>
> http://factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_9.jpg
>
>
> Alvin T. Onaka?

Alvin T. Onaka is the Registrar of Vital Statistics for the State of
Hawaii.

Barack Obama is still President of the United States of America.

And you're still a birther loser.

Go figure.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:38:14 AM9/23/12

to

On 9/22/2012 9:59 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> It was photoshopped in as many as 14 different layers.
>
> Another birther loser weighs in.

Another photoshop agnostic lies in...

Facts:

http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis

http://wireupdate.com/video/2011/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf-has-layers/

Understand this, do NOT fuck with me again on this, capisce?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:34:31 AM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 12:38 AM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/22/2012 9:59 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> It was photoshopped in as many as 14 different layers.
>>
>> Another birther loser weighs in.
>
> Another photoshop agnostic lies in...

No, no. I truly believe that Photoshop exists.

> Facts:
>
> http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis
>
>
> http://wireupdate.com/video/2011/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf-has-layers/

OK, I'm confused -- not an uncommon occurrence, to be sure. Are you a
birther-loser or not? Because your first source is about the COLB,
which doesn't matter now that the "long form" has been released. And
both your sources claim that the images *not* cobbled-together forgeries.

So if you're not a birther, I apologize. If you are a birther, then I
issue my traditional response: "Obama is still President, and you're
still a loser. Go figure."

> Understand this, do NOT fuck with me again on this, capisce?

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Or what, genius? You gonna cross-post a severe
rebuke on nc.fayetteville?

Message has been deleted

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:41:27 AM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 3:19 AM, K Wills wrote:

> It's your possition. You can't honestly deny the debt has doubled
> under his watch. You pointed out the first year was Bush's budget,
> which can only mean Obama doubled it a little less than three years.

First of all, if it was Bush's budget in the first year, whatever debt
accrued that year is on Bush's tab. Did you do the recalculation?

Don't bother, because only a fool looks at the numbers between two dates
and draws conclusions from that data alone. Bush put two losing wars
and Medicare Part D straight to the national debt, no funding, no
budgeting. The country will pay interest on that debt for years. Is
that on Obama's tab? Bush's? Both? Neither? The country entered a
depression on Bush's watch in the fall of 2008. Unemployment and its
attendant costs soared and government revenues dropped. Whose tab do
those costs go on?

Certainly there are cogent arguments to be made that the spending bills
that Obama signed were unwise or that a different tax policy would have
been better. But as I say only a fool subtracts two debt numbers and
decides that difference automatically has some significance.

From your post, I'm guessing that's you.

>
>> Well played!
>
> You were caught with your own claim. No point in trying to be
> cute about it now.
>

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:44:29 AM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 3:20 AM, K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:02:12 -0600, you didn't build that

> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2012 4:29 PM, K Wills wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:07:41 -0500, deadrat<a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/22/12 3:37 AM, K Wills wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:12:22 -0600, you didn't build that
>>>>> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.mittromney.com/collection/smaller-smarter-simpler-government
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mission to restore America to health begins with reducing the size
>>>>>> of the federal government and getting our fiscal house in order.
>>>>>> President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending
>>>>>> is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb

>>>>>> Washington’s appetite for spending, the national debt will only continue

>>>>>> to grow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The debt Bush amassed in eight years, Obama was able to double in
>>>>> slightly less than four. That's some serious spending!
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>> Only a fool thinks this kind of factoid has any meaning. There's a
>>>> tendency in both parties to calculate things from January 20, XXXX to
>>>> January 20, XXXX+4, but this often makes little sense. For starters, in
>>>> his first year in office a new President operates on his predecessor's
>>>> budget.
>>>
>>> So Obama doubled it in a little under three years. I can accept
>>> this.
>>>
>> Accept, or acknowledge? There is a difference.
>>
>> None of us should accept his out of control spending.
>

> I can accept that Deadrat's possition about Obama only having
> spent three years in doubling the debt is accurate. If his claim
> about using the previous administration's budget the first year is
> true, and it actually is, then DR is claiming Obama doubled the debt
> in slightly less than three years.
> I acknowledge that Deadrat's possition is accurate.

But, of course, you didn't do the recalculation from 2009. You just
took the doubling from 2008 and attributed it to three years of Obama's
term. But it doesn't really matter, since only a fool subtracts two
debt numbers and decides that on its own is significant.

And that would be you, now wouldn't it?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:54:39 AM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 3:23 AM, K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:18:04 -0600, you didn't build that

> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2012 4:31 PM, K Wills wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:12:59 -0600, you didn't build that
>>> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/22/2012 12:07 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> For starters, in his first year in office a new President operates on
>>>>> his predecessor's budget.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19042196/arpaio-zullo-to-give
>>>>
>>>> PHOENIX (AP) -- Investigators for an Arizona sheriff's volunteer posse
>>>> have declared that President Barack Obama's birth certificate is
>>>> definitely fraudulent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While this has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed, I'll
>>> play along.
>>> Can you explain Arpaio's claim that the records are missing AND
>>> they are fake, at the same time? The claims appear to be in direct
>>> opposition to each other.
>>
>> Not for a moment.
>>
>> THE WH released to the media a badly forged birth certificate.
>>
>> The state of Hawaii has been tight-fisted in releasing the original so
>> it is hard to determine if it is "missing". However they do claim that
>> they have it.
>>
>> I saw no claim from Arpaio that it is "missing".
>>
>> Can you cite him saying so?
>>
>

> http://www.infowars.com/sheriff-arpaio-obamas-records-are-missing/

>
>>>> Members of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse said in March that
>>>> there was probable cause that Obama's long-form birth certificate
>>>> released by the White House in April 2011 was a computer-generated forgery.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may have been computer generated. Such would make sense now.
>>
>> It was photoshopped in as many as 14 different layers.
>>
>

> Your own cites below state it's not a forgery.

>
>>> I don't know how it's actually done in Hawaii, but in Iowa nearly
>>> all records are on computer. If a person wants a copy of their birth
>>> certificate, the scan is printed out, a raised seal is affixed with a
>>> signed declaration that it's a true and accurate copy of the original,
>>> and given or mailed to the person.
>>> It's not unreasonable to think the same, or similar, occurs in
>>> Hawaii.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> This doesn't make it a forgery.
>>
>> No, the multiple and inconsistent type fonts however do.
>>
>> There are exhaustive analyses of this on the net that you can google.
>>
>

> And they all state no forgery. Your own cites confirm this.

>
>>>> Now, Arpaio says investigators are positive it's fraudulent.
>>>
>>> Yet the state of Hawaii, where President Obama was born, claims
>>> it's valid.
>>
>> They do, but without an original to compare it with we can never know.
>>
>

> Presumably when the copy was made, it was compared to the
> original. If you have something that would impeach the credibility of
> the person who claimed to have done the comparison, please present it.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Zullo, the posse's chief investigator, said numeric codes on
>>>> certain parts of the birth certificate indicate that those parts weren't
>>>> filled out, yet those sections asking for the race of Obama's father and
>>>> his field of work or study were completed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you link to something that explains in detail how the
>>> numbering works?
>>
>> http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis
>>
>> http://wireupdate.com/video/2011/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf-has-layers/
>

> Neither deal with the numeric code you mentioned. And each claim
> the COLB and the Long Form, respectively, are authentic.
> I'm confused now. Which side are you on? I was under the
> impression that you thought Obama was not a natural born citizen, but
> your own cites help to show that he is.

>
>>>
>>>> Zullo said investigators previously didn't know the meaning of codes but
>>>> they were explained by a 95-year-old former state worker who signed the
>>>> president's birth certificate. Zullo said a writer who published a book
>>>> about Obama's birth certificate and was aiding investigators let them
>>>> listen in on an interview he conducted of the former state worker.
>>>
>>> Who is this 95-year-old former state worker? Without a name that
>>> can be verified, I'm suspicious of the claim.
>>>
>> I am too.
>>
>> Therefore:
>>
>> http://factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_9.jpg
>>
>> Alvin T. Onaka?
>>
>

> That's the name of the person who verified the COLB was and is a
> true and accurate abstract of the long form. If he's now claiming it
> is not, then he will need to explain the contrary claims.

Onaka is the Registrar of Hawaii's Bureau of Vital Statistics. It's
unclear why his signature on the birth certificate should be suspicious.
Wouldn't the absence of his signature be suspicious? But then the
whole post is unclear. YDBT seems to quote Arpaio's "investigation"
favorably. The "investigation" claims fraud although none of the
"investigators" could possibly have gotten access to any information not
already public. But then YDBT cites sources that say that both the COLB
and the "long form" certificate are likely authentic.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:23:15 PM9/23/12

to

Sounds like a plan.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:24:27 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 2:19 AM, K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 16:59:22 -0600, you didn't build that
> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>
> [...]

>
>>>>>> If not, can we stop sending them 1.3 billion $$ a year?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We can, but I don't think we will.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> So by saying "we can" are you announcing a formal change in Egypt's MNNA
>>>> status which can not be found upon the State Department's website or lips?
>>>>
>>>> Please cite it here:____________________________________________________.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. I'm saying we can cease sending them aide. The United States
>>> has this ability. I also state I don't think we will.
>>> I am of the opinion that doing so would be a mistake, but that is
>>> my opinion.
>>
>> And for now I share your opinion, we need the regional stability a bit
>> more than the 1.3 billion, for now...
>>
>

> Agreed.
>
> [...]

>
>>>>> The debt Bush amassed in eight years, Obama was able to double in
>>>>> slightly less than four. That's some serious spending!
>>>>
>>>> No kidding.
>>>>
>>>>>> As president, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and regulation, and
>>>>>> bring much-needed reforms to Medicare and Social Security. Mitt will
>>>>>> work toward balancing the budget, reducing the size and reach of the
>>>>>> federal government, and returning power to the states and the people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, I've heard the "I'll reform Medicare and Social Security"
>>>>> so often from candidates, I blow off such claims as untrue.
>>>>
>>>> As you wish, do you also "blow off" the "fiscal cliff"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> That's encouraging as many Americans are simply ignoring it.
>>
>

> Many probably don't care. They can't, or won't, see beyond the
> end of their front yard in regards to how they are effected and
> affected.

This is a fact.

But when interest rates climb, they will feel the burn.

>>> I expect more stop-gaps to be implemented. There aren't many
>>> other choices. And the others that exist aren't very good.
>>
>> Iow, ,ore political kick the can down the road.
>>
>

> Pretty much.

>
>> I suspect you are correct in that assessment too.
>

> I would be pleasantly surprised if I were made wrong on this.
>

Ditto that.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:25:00 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 2:20 AM, K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:02:12 -0600, you didn't build that

> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2012 4:29 PM, K Wills wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:07:41 -0500, deadrat<a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/22/12 3:37 AM, K Wills wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:12:22 -0600, you didn't build that
>>>>> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.mittromney.com/collection/smaller-smarter-simpler-government
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mission to restore America to health begins with reducing the size
>>>>>> of the federal government and getting our fiscal house in order.
>>>>>> President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending
>>>>>> is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb

>>>>>> Washington’s appetite for spending, the national debt will only continue

>>>>>> to grow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The debt Bush amassed in eight years, Obama was able to double in
>>>>> slightly less than four. That's some serious spending!
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>> Only a fool thinks this kind of factoid has any meaning. There's a
>>>> tendency in both parties to calculate things from January 20, XXXX to
>>>> January 20, XXXX+4, but this often makes little sense. For starters, in
>>>> his first year in office a new President operates on his predecessor's
>>>> budget.
>>>
>>> So Obama doubled it in a little under three years. I can accept
>>> this.
>>>
>> Accept, or acknowledge? There is a difference.
>>
>> None of us should accept his out of control spending.
>

> I can accept that Deadrat's possition about Obama only having
> spent three years in doubling the debt is accurate.

Yes.

> If his claim
> about using the previous administration's budget the first year is
> true, and it actually is, then DR is claiming Obama doubled the debt
> in slightly less than three years.

Also true.

> I acknowledge that Deadrat's possition is accurate.
>

Ok.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:31:16 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 2:23 AM, K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:18:04 -0600, you didn't build that

> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2012 4:31 PM, K Wills wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:12:59 -0600, you didn't build that
>>> <gov...@ment.did> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/22/2012 12:07 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> For starters, in his first year in office a new President operates on
>>>>> his predecessor's budget.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19042196/arpaio-zullo-to-give
>>>>
>>>> PHOENIX (AP) -- Investigators for an Arizona sheriff's volunteer posse
>>>> have declared that President Barack Obama's birth certificate is
>>>> definitely fraudulent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While this has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed, I'll
>>> play along.
>>> Can you explain Arpaio's claim that the records are missing AND
>>> they are fake, at the same time? The claims appear to be in direct
>>> opposition to each other.
>>
>> Not for a moment.
>>
>> THE WH released to the media a badly forged birth certificate.
>>
>> The state of Hawaii has been tight-fisted in releasing the original so
>> it is hard to determine if it is "missing". However they do claim that
>> they have it.
>>
>> I saw no claim from Arpaio that it is "missing".
>>
>> Can you cite him saying so?
>>
>

> http://www.infowars.com/sheriff-arpaio-obamas-records-are-missing/

Good cite, thank you.

Apparently there is a lot more missing than his original certificate of
birth.

>
>>>> Members of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse said in March that
>>>> there was probable cause that Obama's long-form birth certificate
>>>> released by the White House in April 2011 was a computer-generated forgery.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may have been computer generated. Such would make sense now.
>>
>> It was photoshopped in as many as 14 different layers.
>>
>

> Your own cites below state it's not a forgery.
>

>>> I don't know how it's actually done in Hawaii, but in Iowa nearly
>>> all records are on computer. If a person wants a copy of their birth
>>> certificate, the scan is printed out, a raised seal is affixed with a
>>> signed declaration that it's a true and accurate copy of the original,
>>> and given or mailed to the person.
>>> It's not unreasonable to think the same, or similar, occurs in
>>> Hawaii.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> This doesn't make it a forgery.
>>
>> No, the multiple and inconsistent type fonts however do.
>>
>> There are exhaustive analyses of this on the net that you can google.
>>
>

> And they all state no forgery. Your own cites confirm this.
>

>>>> Now, Arpaio says investigators are positive it's fraudulent.
>>>
>>> Yet the state of Hawaii, where President Obama was born, claims
>>> it's valid.
>>
>> They do, but without an original to compare it with we can never know.
>>
>

> Presumably when the copy was made, it was compared to the
> original. If you have something that would impeach the credibility of
> the person who claimed to have done the comparison, please present it.

I have not found that data.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike Zullo, the posse's chief investigator, said numeric codes on
>>>> certain parts of the birth certificate indicate that those parts weren't
>>>> filled out, yet those sections asking for the race of Obama's father and
>>>> his field of work or study were completed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you link to something that explains in detail how the
>>> numbering works?
>>
>> http://xenon.arcticus.com/barack-obama-birth-certificate-image-tampering-analysis
>>
>> http://wireupdate.com/video/2011/04/president-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf-has-layers/
>

> Neither deal with the numeric code you mentioned. And each claim
> the COLB and the Long Form, respectively, are authentic.
> I'm confused now. Which side are you on? I was under the
> impression that you thought Obama was not a natural born citizen, but
> your own cites help to show that he is.

I'm presenting ALL the data out there, the most likely conclusion we can
reach about what the WH released is that it was badly altered to INVITE
controversy.

Ergo it is quite possible Obama is Hawaii-born and using this to muddy
the waters.

It is also true that other family members have been interviewed and
state he was Kenyan born.

For all practical purposes it seems unlikely that we can prove either
scenario to 100% certainty, therefore he profits from the controversy -
it fuels his persecution complex and gives his followers ammunition to
use against the right.

>>>
>>>> Zullo said investigators previously didn't know the meaning of codes but
>>>> they were explained by a 95-year-old former state worker who signed the
>>>> president's birth certificate. Zullo said a writer who published a book
>>>> about Obama's birth certificate and was aiding investigators let them
>>>> listen in on an interview he conducted of the former state worker.
>>>
>>> Who is this 95-year-old former state worker? Without a name that
>>> can be verified, I'm suspicious of the claim.
>>>
>> I am too.
>>
>> Therefore:
>>
>> http://factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_9.jpg
>>
>> Alvin T. Onaka?
>>
>

> That's the name of the person who verified the COLB was and is a
> true and accurate abstract of the long form. If he's now claiming it
> is not, then he will need to explain the contrary claims.
>

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/

More than a month before Donald Trump began his media blitzkrieg over
the issue of President Obama's birth certificate, the document was
quietly moved to a more secure location within a dual combination-key
lock safe inside the state's health department vault.

The certificate was moved there by Alvin Onaka, Hawaii's State
Registrar, in response to what had already become an increasing number
of media requests by FoxNews.com and others, according to sources.

"It is my understanding that the book has been placed in a smaller
locked container in the same secure safe," Chiyome Fukino, who served as
Hawaii's health department director for eight years until last December,
told FoxNews.com in late February. "The safe is still in the department."

Fukino and others claim the additional security measure reduces the
number of people with access to the much-sought-after document from a
handful to just one: Onaka himself.

Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/#ixzz27JakHVaH

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:32:39 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 2:41 AM, deadrat wrote:
> Is that on Obama's tab? Bush's? Both? Neither?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html

Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the
fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last
year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released
yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a
trillion-dollar deficit—an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP,
which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.

Mr. Obama did inherit a recession, which is partly responsible for this
ocean of red ink. The slow pace of economic recovery has contributed to
a collapse in revenues, down to 14.8% of GDP in 2009 and an estimated
14.9% this year. That's well below the modern historical average of
about 18.1%, and it is a reminder that economic growth is the most
important contributor to smaller deficits. Had last year's "stimulus"
worked half as well as the White House advertised, these deficits
wouldn't be as large.

But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's major contribution to
deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the
recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009
expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall
federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion
reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the
overall spending increase was 22%.

In one year.

CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and
higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an
estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%,
and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the
1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce
defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s.

This means that one of every four dollars produced by the sweat of
American private labor is now taxed and redistributed by 535 men and
women in Congress.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:33:12 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 2:44 AM, deadrat wrote:
> You just took the doubling from 2008 and attributed it to three years of
> Obama's
> term. But it doesn't really matter,

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:33:59 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 2:54 AM, deadrat wrote:
> Onaka is the Registrar of Hawaii's Bureau of Vital Statistics. It's
> unclear why his signature on the birth certificate should be suspicious.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:45:09 PM9/23/12

to

None of his "family members" have ever said this. In fact, in the
interviews, they say the opposite.

>
> For all practical purposes it seems unlikely that we can prove either
> scenario to 100% certainty, therefore he profits from the controversy -
> it fuels his persecution complex and gives his followers ammunition to
> use against the right.

Project much, birther-loser?

>>>>
>>>>> Zullo said investigators previously didn't know the meaning of
>>>>> codes but
>>>>> they were explained by a 95-year-old former state worker who signed
>>>>> the
>>>>> president's birth certificate. Zullo said a writer who published a
>>>>> book
>>>>> about Obama's birth certificate and was aiding investigators let them
>>>>> listen in on an interview he conducted of the former state worker.
>>>>
>>>> Who is this 95-year-old former state worker? Without a name
>>>> that
>>>> can be verified, I'm suspicious of the claim.
>>>>
>>> I am too.
>>>
>>> Therefore:
>>>
>>> http://factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_9.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> Alvin T. Onaka?
>>>
>>
>> That's the name of the person who verified the COLB was and is a
>> true and accurate abstract of the long form. If he's now claiming it
>> is not, then he will need to explain the contrary claims.
>>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/

I think we can disregard Faux News as any kind of reliable source. And
if the certificate was moved, so what?

<snip/>

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:50:40 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 12:32 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 2:41 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> Is that on Obama's tab? Bush's? Both? Neither?
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html
>
>
> Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the
> fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last
> year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released
> yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a
> trillion-dollar deficit—an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP,
> which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.
>
> Mr. Obama did inherit a recession, which is partly responsible for this
> ocean of red ink. The slow pace of economic recovery has contributed to
> a collapse in revenues, down to 14.8% of GDP in 2009 and an estimated
> 14.9% this year. That's well below the modern historical average of
> about 18.1%, and it is a reminder that economic growth is the most
> important contributor to smaller deficits. Had last year's "stimulus"
> worked half as well as the White House advertised, these deficits
> wouldn't be as large.

And had there been no stimulus, the economy would be in worse shape.
What's your point? Other than confirming what I said.

>
> But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's major contribution to
> deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the
> recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009
> expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall
> federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion
> reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the
> overall spending increase was 22%.

2009 is on Bush's tab. That's the way the budget process works.

>
> In one year.
>
> CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and
> higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an
> estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%,
> and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the
> 1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce
> defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s.

So if you exclude the data that invalidates your thesis, then you're
correct?

> This means that one of every four dollars produced by the sweat of
> American private labor is now taxed and redistributed by 535 men and
> women in Congress.

I thought you claimed everything was Obama's fault. Now it's Congress?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 1:51:52 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 12:33 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 2:54 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> Onaka is the Registrar of Hawaii's Bureau of Vital Statistics. It's
>> unclear why his signature on the birth certificate should be suspicious.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/
>
>

> More than a month before Donald Trump <snip/>

Donald Trump and Faux News.

Truly pathetic.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:06:10 PM9/23/12

to

LOL!

Does bending over backwards to kiss Obama's ass hurt much?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:06:42 PM9/23/12

to

Did the concept of complicity not resonate with you?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:06:59 PM9/23/12

to

Yes, snip and deny, all you Dem shills can do.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:23:44 PM9/23/12

to

You can actually go online to listen to the interview in which people
say the exact opposite of what your source claims, and you accuse me of
bending over backwards?

Here's the bottom line:

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:25:05 PM9/23/12

to

So everybody is against you?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:31:20 PM9/23/12

to

If all you've got is Donald Trump and Faux News, then you're the shill.
I know it must be difficult, but try thinking for yourself. That
would include evaluating your sources.

In any case, the story you quote merely says that the original documents
were moved to a more secure location. So what?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:51:15 PM9/23/12

to

No kidding, you mean you're not the only one lying for Obama?

wow.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 2:57:06 PM9/23/12

to

So everyone in Congress has our best interests at heart in running up
unsustainable debt?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 3:00:36 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 12:31 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 9/23/12 1:06 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>> On 9/23/2012 11:51 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 9/23/12 12:33 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2012 2:54 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> Onaka is the Registrar of Hawaii's Bureau of Vital Statistics. It's
>>>>> unclear why his signature on the birth certificate should be
>>>>> suspicious.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/
>>>>
>
>>>> More than a month before Donald Trump <snip/>
>>>
>>> Donald Trump and Faux News.
>>>
>>> Truly pathetic.
>
>> Yes, snip and deny, all you Dem shills can do.
>
> If all you've got is Donald Trump and Faux News, then you're the shill.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_n.htm

Klein wrote that CNN researchers determined that Obama's 1961 birth
certificate no longer exists because Hawaiian officials had discarded
paper documents in 2001 — a claim denied Monday by Hawaiian health
officials.

In 2001, Hawaii's paper documents were reproduced in electronic format,
but "any paper data prior to that still exists," Health Department
spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.

Okubo would not say where Obama's original birth certificate is but
said, "We have backups for all of our backups."

Lol...suuuure they do, lol.....

http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?cat=14227

DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative
Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of
Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has
said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS
338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of
vital records, and the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -would
allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on
the ballot to receive a certified copy.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 3:23:34 PM9/23/12

to

The best counter to right-wing bullshit isn't left-wing bullshit. The
best argument against conspiracy bullshit isn't naive bullshit.
Sensible people don't can dispute idiotic arguments against Obama
without supporting Obama on every policy issue or indeed on any policy
issue.

See how that works?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 3:30:48 PM9/23/12

to

That's not an answer - predictably...

Bill Graham

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 3:44:40 PM9/23/12

to

K Wills wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:20:10 -0600, shovel-ready <wasn't...@shovel.ready>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.
>>
>>
>> Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies
>> are?

He's too busy giving billions of dollars every year to our enemies.....

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 3:48:00 PM9/23/12

to

Your personal incredulity isn't evidence of anything but your gullibility.

> http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?cat=14227

This is the archive site of the "Oath Keepers." They believe that "[i]t
has been proven that a majority of men holding the offices of
Representatives and Senators in Congress, and a majority of men holding
the offices of Justices of the Supreme Court are all in league together
in a conspiracy of usurpation and tyranny."

Is there any right-wing bullshit you won't quote or believe?

> DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative
> Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of
> Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has
> said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS
> 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of
> vital records, and the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -would
> allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on
> the ballot to receive a certified copy.

And, no surprise, this isn't true, as a check of HRS 338-18(a) shows.
The department is prohibited from disclosing records except to those
with a "direct and tangible" interest in the records. Those with a
direct and tangible interest are defined in the statute as the
registrant or someone closely connected to the registrant -- spouse,
parent, descendant, blood relative, guardian, agent, executor. Or
someone with a court order. (The records are also available to those
who need them for deciding issues of alimony, joint tenancy, or life
insurance proceeds.)

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 3:50:44 PM9/23/12

to

Now, really, am I typing too fast for you to follow? Shall I slow it down?

No, denying your bullshit does not mean that I think that everyone in
Congress therefore has my best interests at heart on the debt or
anything else.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 3:52:27 PM9/23/12

to

That's right, you ignoramus, the President can just go to the treasury
and withdraw money to give to anyone he wants. It's in the Constitution
somewhere, isn't it?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:06:16 PM9/23/12

to

The hard copy is available for us to view, or not?

>> http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?cat=14227
>
> This is the archive site of the "Oath Keepers." They believe that "[i]t
> has been proven that a majority of men holding the offices of
> Representatives and Senators in Congress, and a majority of men holding
> the offices of Justices of the Supreme Court are all in league together
> in a conspiracy of usurpation and tyranny."
>
> Is there any right-wing bullshit you won't quote or believe?

Is there any evidence you can rebut factually. or is it all "shoot the
messenger"?

>> DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative
>> Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of
>> Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has
>> said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS
>> 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of
>> vital records, and the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -would
>> allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on
>> the ballot to receive a certified copy.
>
> And, no surprise, this isn't true, as a check of HRS 338-18(a) shows.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified
copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied
that the applicant requesting a verification is:

(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record
but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate
government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of
persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;

(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or
organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such
record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital
event relating to any such record and contained in an official
application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or
organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with,
entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm
information about a vital event relating to any such record which was
acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a
governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who
seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such
record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or
organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22;
RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS
§338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305,
§5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:07:05 PM9/23/12

to

Iow, you ADMIT that congress AND the President are complicit in our debt
bomb, thank you.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:07:55 PM9/23/12

to

Do you know who determines and names our major non nato allies?

That's right - the President.

next.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:18:20 PM9/23/12

to

And, of course, no one has requested "a verification in lieu of a
certified copy." It's all been about certified copies and "long forms."

> g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified
> copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied
> that the applicant requesting a verification is:
>
> (1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record
> but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

The registrant, basically. Not applicable.

> (2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate
> government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of
> persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's
> activities;

"Legitimate government purpose." Demanding birth records may or may not
be a legitimate government purpose for election boards. The courts will
have to decide. Note that some voter ID laws have been struck down.

>
> (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or
> organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such
> record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital
> event relating to any such record and contained in an official
> application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or
> organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with,
> entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
>

Employment. Not applicable.

> (4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm
> information about a vital event relating to any such record which was
> acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

Confirming a record obtained in a court case. Not applicable.

> (5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a
> governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who
> seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such
> record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or
> organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22;
> RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS
> §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305,
> §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]

Research and education. Not applicable.

Congratulations! A total fail on your part. You're not very good at
this, are you?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:20:35 PM9/23/12

to

I really can't type any slower so that you can follow. You claim some
vague conspiracy over the debt. I can deride that as foolish without
claiming that Congress and the President do everything in my best interests.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:23:04 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 3:07 PM, you didn't build that wrote:

Congress must authorize every expenditure. The President isn't giving
billions to our "enemies." He can't pay money without a law authorizing
the expenditure.

> next.

Ready to go on another failure so soon?

Bill Graham

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:25:16 PM9/23/12

to

you didn't build that wrote:

Exactly how and who determines which country we give money to, and how much
we give, I don't know. All I know that these bastards are not our friends.
They support the terroriswts who do us harm. They housed O.B.L. in a mansion
for ten years , and treated him like a king, while they were spending our 2
Billion dollars every year... I wonder how much of that 20 billion dollars
went to wining and dining OBL? This makes me sick, and it makes me hate
whatever governmental system that made it possible. You may be fine with it,
but I am definitely not fine with it..... If I were running things, we would
attack that government, and take that 20 billion dollars out of their
hides.....

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:36:46 PM9/23/12

to

No, "a person"....

>> (2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate
>> government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of
>> persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's
>> activities;
>
> "Legitimate government purpose." Demanding birth records may or may not
> be a legitimate government purpose for election boards.

Oh, why is that?

> The courts will have to decide.

Nope, the purpose of determining his legitimacy is estanblished.

> Note that some voter ID laws have been struck down.

Non sequitur.

>>
>> (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or
>> organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such
>> record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital
>> event relating to any such record and contained in an official
>> application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or
>> organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with,
>> entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
>>
> Employment. Not applicable.

He's not employed by the United Sates government?

>> (4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm
>> information about a vital event relating to any such record which was
>> acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
>
> Confirming a record obtained in a court case. Not applicable.

There were not court cases filed by Berg, et al to get his records?

>> (5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a
>> governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who
>> seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such
>> record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or
>> organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22;
>> RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS
>> §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305,
>> §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
>
> Research and education. Not applicable.

There is vital research being done in to his background.

> Congratulations! A total fail on your part. You're not very good at
> this, are you?
>

http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf

It's right there, read it and weep.

You know, when I posted the cite it was because the links were embedded.

You likely read them and decided denial was the bst course.

It wasn't, lol.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:38:22 PM9/23/12

to

You can't possibly type as slowly as you think, can you?

> You claim some
> vague conspiracy over the debt.

There's nothing "vague" about our budgets, they're public record.

> I can deride that as foolish

You can burn your straw an, true.

But in the and, you LOSE again.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 4:41:57 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 2:23 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 9/23/12 3:07 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>> On 9/23/2012 1:52 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 9/23/12 2:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> K Wills wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:20:10 -0600, shovel-ready <wasn't...@shovel.ready>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/17/2012 8:00 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> Barak Obama isw particularl6y poor at foreign policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why doesn't the PRESIDENT of the United States know who our allies
>>>>>> are?
>>>>
>>>> He's too busy giving billions of dollars every year to our enemies.....
>>>
>>> That's right, you ignoramus, the President can just go to the treasury
>>> and withdraw money to give to anyone he wants. It's in the Constitution
>>> somewhere, isn't it?
>>>
>>
>> Do you know who determines and names our major non nato allies?
>>
>> That's right - the President.
>
> Congress must authorize every expenditure.

The President must make the designation, period.

> The President isn't giving
> billions to our "enemies."

Yes he is.

> He can't pay money without a law authorizing
> the expenditure.

So?

He makes the choices.

You really SHOULD read up a bit.

>> next.
>
> Ready to go on another failure so soon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally

MNNA status was first created in 1989 when section 2350a, otherwise
known as the Nunn Amendment, was added to Title 10 (Armed Forces) of the
United States Code by Congress.[1] It stipulated that cooperative
research and development agreements could be enacted with non-NATO
allies by the Secretary of Defense with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State.

Benefits

Nations named as major non-NATO allies are eligible for the following
benefits:
entry into cooperative research and development projects with the
Department of Defense (DoD) on a shared-cost basis
participation in certain counter-terrorism initiatives
purchase of depleted uranium anti-tank rounds
priority delivery of military surplus (ranging from rations to ships)
possession of War Reserve Stocks of DoD-owned equipment that are kept
outside of American military bases
loans of equipment and materials for cooperative research and
development projects and evaluations
permission to use American financing for the purchase or lease of
certain defense equipment
reciprocal training
expedited export processing of space technology
permission for the country's corporations to bid on certain DoD
contracts for the repair and maintenance of military equipment outside
the United States

List of MNNAs

The following countries have been designated as major non-NATO allies of
the United States (in order of their appointment):

Named by George H. W. Bush

Australia (1989)[3]
Egypt (1989) [3]
Israel (1989)[3]
Japan (1989)[3]
South Korea (1989)[3]

Named by Bill Clinton
Jordan (1996)[4]
New Zealand (1997)[2]
Argentina (1998) [5]

Named by George W. Bush

Bahrain (2002)[6]
Philippines (2003)[7]
Thailand (2003)[8]
Kuwait (2004)[9]
Morocco (2004)[10]
Pakistan (2004)[11]

Named by Barack Obama

Afghanistan (2012)[12][13]

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:11:57 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 3:36 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 2:18 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 9/23/12 3:06 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2012 1:48 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/12 2:00 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>>> On 9/23/2012 12:31 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/23/12 1:06 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/23/2012 11:51 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/23/12 12:33 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2012 2:54 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Onaka is the Registrar of Hawaii's Bureau of Vital Statistics.
>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>> unclear why his signature on the birth certificate should be
>>>>>>>>>> suspicious.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/27/obama-birth-certificate-moved-secure-location-months-ago/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More than a month before Donald Trump <snip/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Donald Trump and Faux News.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Truly pathetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, snip and deny, all you Dem shills can do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If all you've got is Donald Trump and Faux News, then you're the
>>>>>> shill.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_n.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Klein wrote that CNN researchers determined that Obama's 1961 birth
>>>>> certificate no longer exists because Hawaiian officials had discarded

>>>>> paper documents in 2001 ï¿½ a claim denied Monday by Hawaiian health

>>>>> officials.
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2001, Hawaii's paper documents were reproduced in electronic
>>>>> format,
>>>>> but "any paper data prior to that still exists," Health Department
>>>>> spokeswoman Janice Okubo said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okubo would not say where Obama's original birth certificate is but
>>>>> said, "We have backups for all of our backups."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lol...suuuure they do, lol.....
>>>>
>>>> Your personal incredulity isn't evidence of anything but your
>>>> gullibility.
>>>
>>> The hard copy is available for us to view, or not?
>>>
>>>>> http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?cat=14227
>>>>
>>>> This is the archive site of the "Oath Keepers." They believe that "[i]t
>>>> has been proven that a majority of men holding the offices of
>>>> Representatives and Senators in Congress, and a majority of men holding
>>>> the offices of Justices of the Supreme Court are all in league together
>>>> in a conspiracy of usurpation and tyranny."
>>>>
>>>> Is there any right-wing bullshit you won't quote or believe?
>>>
>>> Is there any evidence you can rebut factually. or is it all "shoot the
>>> messenger"?
>>>
>>>>> DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH
>>>>> Administrative
>>>>> Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of

>>>>> Obamaï¿½s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has
>>>>> said they canï¿½t release any records without Obamaï¿½s permission. But

>>>>> HRS
>>>>> 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of
>>>>> vital records, and the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -would

>>>>> allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obamaï¿½s

>>>>> name on
>>>>> the ballot to receive a certified copy.
>>>>
>>>> And, no surprise, this isn't true, as a check of HRS 338-18(a) shows.
>>>
>>> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> And, of course, no one has requested "a verification in lieu of a
>> certified copy." It's all been about certified copies and "long forms."
>>
>>> g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified
>>> copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied
>>> that the applicant requesting a verification is:
>>>
>>> (1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record
>>> but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
>>
>> The registrant, basically. Not applicable.
>
> No, "a person"....

No, the registrant or someone closely related to him, as specified in
the law. Birther-losers do not fall into any of the categories of
persons with "direct and tangible" interest. You'd know that if you
read the statute.

>>> (2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate
>>> government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of
>>> persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's
>>> activities;
>>
>> "Legitimate government purpose." Demanding birth records may or may not
>> be a legitimate government purpose for election boards.
>
> Oh, why is that?

Because that's the way it works? There have been several cases in which
courts have decided whether picture IDs are required to prove
citizenship for voting. Citizenship is the basis for trying to deny
Obama a place on the ballot. Same principle at work.

I've been assuming this about listing Obama on the Presidential ballot.
Having him declared ineligible to serve in his current term is
hopeless. Congress had the chance to invalidate his electors in 2009,
and that's the only mechanism available. They didn't use it.

>> The courts will have to decide.
>
> Nope, the purpose of determining his legitimacy is estanblished.

'Cause you say so? Only Congress can determine the President's
"legitimacy" (or rather the legitimacy of his electors). And they have
already done that.

>> Note that some voter ID laws have been struck down.
>
> Non sequitur.

<sigh>
If voter ID laws are suspect, so are demands for underlying documents
required for obtaining those IDs. If it won't work for voting, it won't
work for getting on the ballot.
</sigh>

>>>
>>> (3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or
>>> organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such
>>> record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital
>>> event relating to any such record and contained in an official
>>> application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or
>>> organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with,
>>> entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
>>>
>> Employment. Not applicable.
>
> He's not employed by the United Sates government?

Of course not. He's elected. What agency of the US government do you
suppose employs the President? The Department of Wishful Thinking?

>>> (4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm
>>> information about a vital event relating to any such record which was
>>> acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
>>
>> Confirming a record obtained in a court case. Not applicable.
>
> There were not court cases filed by Berg, et al to get his records?

None that succeeded in establishing any controversy about "a vital event
relating to any ... record acquired during ... proceedings." The
birther-losers never got that far. They were all laughed out of court,
mostly because they had no standing.

>>> (5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a
>>> governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who
>>> seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such
>>> record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or

>>> organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, ï¿½22;
>>> RL 1955, ï¿½57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, ï¿½19; am L 1967, c 30, ï¿½2; HRS
>>> ï¿½338-18; am L 1977, c 118, ï¿½1; am L 1991, c 190, ï¿½1; am L 1997, c 305,
>>> ï¿½5; am L 2001, c 246, ï¿½2]

>>
>> Research and education. Not applicable.
>
> There is vital research being done in to his background.

Not any "sponsored" by any legitimate agency for actual research. Just
politically motivated birther-losers. If the birther-losers wanted to,
I suppose they could go to the Hawaiian courts to ask judicial
recognition as agents of legitimate research or education. But I'd
guess they'd be laughed out of those courts as well. Which is probably
why they haven't tried.

>> Congratulations! A total fail on your part. You're not very good at
>> this, are you?
>>
>
> http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
>
> It's right there, read it and weep.

Why should I weep? Obama is still President, and you're still a loser.

Go figure.

> You know, when I posted the cite it was because the links were embedded.
>
> You likely read them and decided denial was the bst course.

I read it all. None of it will help birther-losers. And the best
evidence is that they still have to rely on whatever Obama releases.
The just can't seem to get the access to the records they demand,
although Obama can. Just like the law says.

> It wasn't, lol.

lol? What are you? Twelve years old?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:14:46 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 3:38 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 2:20 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 9/23/12 3:07 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2012 1:50 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/12 2:30 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>>> On 9/23/2012 1:23 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/23/12 1:57 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/23/2012 12:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/23/12 1:06 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2012 11:50 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/12 12:32 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2012 2:41 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that on Obama's tab? Bush's? Both? Neither?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no
>>>>>>>>>>> denying
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama
>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>> year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report
>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a

>>>>>>>>>>> trillion-dollar deficitï¿½an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of

Hmm. Can I possibly type as slowly as I think I can type? Maybe.

>> You claim some
>> vague conspiracy over the debt.
>
> There's nothing "vague" about our budgets, they're public record.

"Vague" modifies "conspiracy" in the sentence above.

>> I can deride that as foolish
>
> You can burn your straw an, true.
>
> But in the and, you LOSE again.

Ooh! A victory jig. I love those.

Hint: if you have to declare yourself the winner of an argument,
chances are you're not.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:19:26 PM9/23/12

to

Try to keep up. The question is about spending money.

>
> He makes the choices.
>
> You really SHOULD read up a bit.

But he doesn't make the choices about whether he can spend money. Only
Congress can do that. That's what BG's ignorant comment was about.

>
>
>>> next.
>>
>> Ready to go on another failure so soon?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
>

<snip/>

No one is denying that the President may designate allies for purpose of
making them eligible for certain perks. But Congress still has to
appropriate the money for those perks.

Is any of this getting through?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:19:57 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>
>> http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
>>
>>
>> It's right there, read it and weep.
>
> Why should I weep? Obama is still President,

Look how obsessive it makes you, you are driven to make excuses for
him...I wonder why?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:20:35 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:14 PM, deadrat wrote:
> Hint: if you have to declare yourself the winner of an argument,
> chances are you're not.

Nah, I am, so cope.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:24:54 PM9/23/12

to

Who makes the decision?

The President.

Looks like Obama thinks we need to give more US dollars to Afghanistan,
of course you agree with him, right?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:25:35 PM9/23/12

to

Excuses? I haven't defended any of Obama's policies. I've just pointed
out two facts. One of them is that Obama is still President.

> I wonder why?

Your confusion probably keeps you wondering.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:26:58 PM9/23/12

to

Fortunately for me, I'm not the one who has to worry about coping with
your delusions of adequacy.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:32:53 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 9/23/12 5:19 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>> On 9/23/2012 4:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's right there, read it and weep.
>>>
>>> Why should I weep? Obama is still President,
>>
>> Look how obsessive it makes you, you are driven to make excuses for
>> him...
>
> Excuses?

Oh yes, many.

> I haven't defended any of Obama's policies.

You do that regularly in other threads.

> I've just pointed
> out two facts. One of them is that Obama is still President.

And you think that is something that required being pointed out?

>
>> I wonder why?
>
> Your confusion probably keeps you wondering.

I'm not confused at all by your partisan shilling, just why you want to
see this nation in ruins.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:34:00 PM9/23/12

to

Fortunately the odds of you evolving to mere adequacy are low enough
that you can keep your bar set comfortably low.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:35:33 PM9/23/12

to

Whether and how to spend money? Congress.
>
> The President.

To designate allies, but that doesn't get them money. Congress has to
do that.

>
> Looks like Obama thinks we need to give more US dollars to Afghanistan,

True enough. Every dollar he spends must be appropriated by Congress.

> of course you agree with him, right?

Why would you or anyone else care about my views on Afghanistan?

And more importantly, why do you think that my views on Afghanistan are
relevant to this thread? Whether I'm for or against the war in
Afghanistan doesn't affect whether the President is giving billions to
our enemies, as BG ignorantly asserts. The President either gets to
give money to whomever he wants or he doesn't. The latter is what
actually obtains, and that fact doesn't have anything to do with me.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:37:00 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:35 PM, deadrat wrote:
> Why would you or anyone else care about my views on Afghanistan?

Why do you hide them?

> And more importantly, why do you think that my views on Afghanistan are
> relevant to this thread?

Because Obama designated them as an MNNA.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:38:11 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 5:32 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 4:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 9/23/12 5:19 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2012 4:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's right there, read it and weep.
>>>>
>>>> Why should I weep? Obama is still President,
>>>
>>> Look how obsessive it makes you, you are driven to make excuses for
>>> him...
>>
>> Excuses?
>
> Oh yes, many.

Please quote one.

>
>> I haven't defended any of Obama's policies.
>
> You do that regularly in other threads.

Please quote one.

>> I've just pointed
>> out two facts. One of them is that Obama is still President.
>
> And you think that is something that required being pointed out?

I always point that out to birther-losers like you. It amuses me.

>>> I wonder why?
>>
>> Your confusion probably keeps you wondering.
>
> I'm not confused at all by your partisan shilling, just why you want to
> see this nation in ruins.

Pretty much given up arguing the facts, eh, loser?

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:39:15 PM9/23/12

to

Did I mention how much I love victory jigs?

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:40:53 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:38 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 9/23/12 5:32 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>> On 9/23/2012 4:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 9/23/12 5:19 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2012 4:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's right there, read it and weep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should I weep? Obama is still President,
>>>>
>>>> Look how obsessive it makes you, you are driven to make excuses for
>>>> him...
>>>
>>> Excuses?
>>
>> Oh yes, many.
>
> Please quote one.

This thread is rife with them.

>>
>>> I haven't defended any of Obama's policies.
>>
>> You do that regularly in other threads.
>
> Please quote one.

Why would I need to?

>>> I've just pointed
>>> out two facts. One of them is that Obama is still President.
>>
>> And you think that is something that required being pointed out?
>
> I always point that out to birther-losers like you. It amuses me.

It's a pity the WH chose to release such a badly photoshopped document,
but that was their call.

>>>> I wonder why?
>>>
>>> Your confusion probably keeps you wondering.
>>
>> I'm not confused at all by your partisan shilling, just why you want to
>> see this nation in ruins.
>
> Pretty much given up arguing the facts, eh, loser?

The facts went up early, the rest of this was you spinning, like a dervish.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:41:09 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 5:37 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 4:35 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> Why would you or anyone else care about my views on Afghanistan?
>
> Why do you hide them?

I just can't imagine why anyone on misc.legal (or anywhere else) would
be interested in them.

>> And more importantly, why do you think that my views on Afghanistan are
>> relevant to this thread?
>
> Because Obama designated them as an MNNA.

What does that have to do with my views on Afghanistan? Obama doesn't
consult me.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:43:50 PM9/23/12

to

So does this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KanvrrV_Jnw

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:45:16 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:41 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 9/23/12 5:37 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>> On 9/23/2012 4:35 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> Why would you or anyone else care about my views on Afghanistan?
>>
>> Why do you hide them?
>
> I just can't imagine why anyone on misc.legal (or anywhere else) would
> be interested in them.

Your lack of imagination aside, nice dodge.

>
>>> And more importantly, why do you think that my views on Afghanistan are
>>> relevant to this thread?
>>
>> Because Obama designated them as an MNNA.
>
> What does that have to do with my views on Afghanistan?

It was the nation he chose, and he's the President.

> Obama doesn't consult me.

No one said he did.

deadrat

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:47:27 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/12 5:40 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 4:38 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 9/23/12 5:32 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2012 4:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/12 5:19 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>>> On 9/23/2012 4:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's right there, read it and weep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should I weep? Obama is still President,
>>>>>
>>>>> Look how obsessive it makes you, you are driven to make excuses for
>>>>> him...
>>>>
>>>> Excuses?
>>>
>>> Oh yes, many.
>>
>> Please quote one.
>
> This thread is rife with them.

So it should be easy to quote one. Please do.

>
>>>
>>>> I haven't defended any of Obama's policies.
>>>
>>> You do that regularly in other threads.
>>
>> Please quote one.
>
> Why would I need to?

Your claim; your burden of production and proof. That's the way it works.

>
>>>> I've just pointed
>>>> out two facts. One of them is that Obama is still President.
>>>
>>> And you think that is something that required being pointed out?
>>
>> I always point that out to birther-losers like you. It amuses me.
>
> It's a pity the WH chose to release such a badly photoshopped document,
> but that was their call.

It's a pity you think it was photoshopped. But that's your call.

Obama's still President despite this claim of photoshopping. And you
know what you still are.

>
>>>>> I wonder why?
>>>>
>>>> Your confusion probably keeps you wondering.
>>>
>>> I'm not confused at all by your partisan shilling, just why you want to
>>> see this nation in ruins.
>>
>> Pretty much given up arguing the facts, eh, loser?
>
> The facts went up early, the rest of this was you spinning, like a dervish.

I'll take that as a yes.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:52:37 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:47 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 9/23/12 5:40 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>> On 9/23/2012 4:38 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 9/23/12 5:32 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2012 4:25 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> On 9/23/12 5:19 PM, you didn't build that wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/23/2012 4:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's right there, read it and weep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should I weep? Obama is still President,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look how obsessive it makes you, you are driven to make excuses for
>>>>>> him...
>>>>>
>>>>> Excuses?
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes, many.
>>>
>>> Please quote one.
>>
>> This thread is rife with them.
>
> So it should be easy to quote one. Please do.

Nah, that would be a decouple from this thread.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't defended any of Obama's policies.
>>>>
>>>> You do that regularly in other threads.
>>>
>>> Please quote one.
>>
>> Why would I need to?
>
> Your claim; your burden of production and proof. That's the way it works.

Oh not at all, your record is clear, google can assist any who have doubts.

>>
>>>>> I've just pointed
>>>>> out two facts. One of them is that Obama is still President.
>>>>
>>>> And you think that is something that required being pointed out?
>>>
>>> I always point that out to birther-losers like you. It amuses me.
>>
>> It's a pity the WH chose to release such a badly photoshopped document,
>> but that was their call.
>
> It's a pity you think it was photoshopped. But that's your call.

It's not a pity at all, it's a factual observation.

Too many layers and conflicting type fonts.

> Obama's still President despite this claim of photoshopping.

It's true, yes.

> And you know what you still are.

Yes, factual.

>>
>>>>>> I wonder why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your confusion probably keeps you wondering.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not confused at all by your partisan shilling, just why you want to
>>>> see this nation in ruins.
>>>
>>> Pretty much given up arguing the facts, eh, loser?
>>
>> The facts went up early, the rest of this was you spinning, like a
>> dervish.
>
> I'll take that as a yes.

You'll misrepresent anything, as demonstrated earlier.

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:54:13 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:47 PM, deadrat wrote:

> Obama's still President despite this claim

And this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8MdzlsMEwA

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:55:09 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:47 PM, deadrat wrote:

> Obama's still President despite this claim

And this one too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo

you didn't build that

unread,

Sep 23, 2012, 6:56:16 PM9/23/12

to

On 9/23/2012 4:47 PM, deadrat wrote:

> Obama's still President despite this claim

And this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSiz49IWJH0