Re: US court grants asylum to Obama's African aunt
brad herschel
> Whoever wudda thunk it ?
>
> US court grants asylum to Obama's African aunt
>
> May 17 05:02 PM US/Eastern
> By MEGHAN BARR
> Associated Press Writer
>
> CLEVELAND (AP) - A U.S. immigration court has granted asylum to President Barack Obama's African aunt,
> allowing her to stay in the country and setting her on the road to citizenship after years of legal
> wrangling, her attorneys announced Monday.
>
> The decision was made by a judge in U.S. Immigration Court in Boston and mailed out Friday. It comes
> three months after Kenya native Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father, testified at
> a closed hearing in Boston.
>
> People who seek asylum must show that they face persecution in their homeland on the basis of
> religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group.
>
> The basis for Onyango's asylum request was never made public, but her lawyer Margaret Wong said last
> year that Onyango first applied for asylum "due to violence in Kenya." The East African nation is
> fractured by cycles of electoral violence every five years.
>
> Medical issues also could have played a role. In a November interview with The Associated Press,
> Onyango said she was disabled and was learning to walk again after being paralyzed from Guillain-Barre
> syndrome, an autoimmune disorder. At her hearing in Boston earlier this year, she arrived in a
> wheelchair and two doctors testified in support of her case.
>
> Her lawyers would not comment on Onyango's medical troubles.
>
> "She doesn't want people to feel sorry for her," said Scott Bratton, another of her attorneys.
>
> Onyango's efforts to win asylum have lasted more than a decade, Wong said.
>
> "She was ecstatic," Wong said at a news conference in Cleveland on Monday, describing Onyango's
> reaction to the news. "She was very, very happy."
>
> Wong said the White House was not informed of the ruling. Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said Monday
> that the White House had no involvement in the case at any point in the process.
>
> Onyango didn't immediately respond to telephone messages left by The Associated Press and didn't
> answer her door in Boston. Two police cars were stationed outside her apartment building trying to
> keep reporters away.
>
> "She really does give people hope," Wong said. "Because if someone like her who was in the spotlight,
> in the limelight—and it was all negative—could make it in our land of the law, I think other people
> could, too."
>
> Onyango will now apply for a work permit, which would provide some documentation that she is permitted
> to stay in the country and allow her to travel again, Wong said. A year from now, she will be eligible
> to apply for a green card, which is given to people who are granted legal permanent residency in the
> U.S., Wong said. Five years after receving her green card, she can apply to become a U.S. citizen.
>
> "There are hundreds and thousands of people like her who really need help to stay here," Wong said.
> "When they first come to this country, they don't know what they are doing."
>
> The media's portrayal of Onyango in recent years has not been entirely fair, Wong said.
>
> "She may not be photogenic, but she's very much a smart, thoughtful, regal woman," Wong said.
>
> Onyango initially came to the U.S. in 2000 just for a visit, Wong said. Her first request for
> political asylum in 2002 was rejected, and she was ordered deported in 2004. But she didn't leave the
> country and continued to live in public housing in Boston.
>
> Onyango's status as an illegal immigrant was revealed just days before Obama was elected in November
> 2008. Obama said he did not know his aunt was living here illegally and believes laws covering the
> situation should be followed. To escape the media attention, Onyango came to Cleveland for a couple of
> months in 2008, where she has many friends in the city's Kenyan community, Wong said. At that time, a
> family member in Cleveland contacted Wong.
>
> A judge later agreed to suspend her deportation order and reopen her asylum case.
>
> Wong has said that Obama wasn't involved in the Boston hearing. The White House also said it was not
> helping Onyango with legal fees.
>
> In his memoir, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," Obama affectionately referred
> to Onyango as "Auntie Zeituni" and described meeting her during his 1988 trip to Kenya.
>
> Onyango helped care for the president's half brothers and sister while living with Barack Obama Sr. in
> Kenya.
>
> ___
>
> Associated Press writer Rodrique Ngowi in Boston contributed to this report.
> Copyright 2010 The Associated Press
She came to the USA in 2000. She was ordered deported in 2005. She
disappeared from "offical" view.
She lived in public housing. She can now get back on the dole with
government blessing.
She's a laaaaaaaaaaaaady.
brad
http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices World News
CS
news:537f0b01-d4fe-42dc...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...<snip>
>> Wong said the White House was not informed of the ruling. Obama spokesman
>> Nick Shapiro said Monday
>> that the White House had no involvement in the case at any point in the
>> process.
There's a good reason for that.
Immigration "judges" are nothing more than regular government workers. They
are hired, paid (a lot!), and retire just like anybody else.
I'd like to meet the government worker with the balls to deport a family
member of the President.
As for her claim, "violence in Kenya" isn't good enough. There's violence
all over the world, yet people still get deported. It has to be directed at
her, specifically, for specific reasons, by specific organizations. A bunch
of maniacs hacking each other up every couple years is nothing new.
Ironically, being a family member of the President 'could' be used
successfully as an asylum claim. She faces a very real danger of kidnapping
for ransom and threats of violence.
CS
Thanatos
"CS" <dontshop@sears> wrote:
> "brad herschel" <bradhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:537f0b01-d4fe-42dc...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 17, 5:43 pm, Oingo Boingo <nos...@privacy.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Wong said the White House was not informed of the ruling. Obama spokesman
> >> Nick Shapiro said Monday
> >> that the White House had no involvement in the case at any point in the
> >> process.
>
> There's a good reason for that.
>
> Immigration "judges" are nothing more than regular government workers. They
> are hired, paid (a lot!), and retire just like anybody else.
>
> I'd like to meet the government worker with the balls to deport a family
> member of the President.
It's actually not nearly as ballsy as you might think. Civil service
employees are protected from firing and retaliation by a whole host of
laws and regulations. The president would have a hard time doing
anything to one of these immigration judges merely for issuing an
unfavorable ruling. And that doesn't even get to the political firestorm
he'd endure for using his office to try to improperly influence a
government proceeding. He'd be roasted alive in the press.
CS
news:atropos-5C77E6...@news-wc.giganews.com...<snip>
>> I'd like to meet the government worker with the balls to deport a family
>> member of the President.
>
> It's actually not nearly as ballsy as you might think. Civil service
> employees are protected from firing and retaliation by a whole host of
> laws and regulations.
The Constitution forbids messing with religion, yet bigamy is still illegal.
Same with guns, yet there are plenty of gun laws on the books. US citizens
held without bail or trial. Warrantless wiretaps and Email snooping.
Failure to protect our sovereignty. The list of violations of law by the
President and Congress is long and depressing.
Point is, if they don't give a damn about the Constitution, which they swore
an oath to uphold and honor, they certainly don't give half a damn about an
administrative manual or some memo.
Sure, said ballsy employee could fight to get their job back, but until then
they lose their pay, their house, their next meal... If they do get their
job back, they can forget ever getting a promotion.
> The president would have a hard time doing
> anything to one of these immigration judges merely for issuing an
> unfavorable ruling. And that doesn't even get to the political firestorm
> he'd endure for using his office to try to improperly influence a
> government proceeding. He'd be roasted alive in the press.
Um, no.
The press are indeed irked at Obama over his administration's refusal to
allow his nominations to talk to the press. In fact, I noticed their
worship of Obama was starting to lose steam after the underwear bomber and
the lockout of FOX news.
However, they are still slobbering over him. When the story broke of his
aunt, I noticed no major news outlet mentioned it. In fact, they didn't
mention it until yesterday, when she was given asylum.
Nobody took him to task for trying to get religious organizations to preach
his policies, nor did they call him out on his idea of creating an American
version of a Secret Police agency.
One of the few places to get actual news is the Drudge Report, and the media
are doing their best to discredit them.
CS
Thanatos
"CS" <dontshop@sears> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-5C77E6...@news-wc.giganews.com...
> > In article <-oudnTlCSc8JnW7W...@linkline.com>,
> > "CS" <dontshop@sears> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> I'd like to meet the government worker with the balls to deport a family
> >> member of the President.
> >
> > It's actually not nearly as ballsy as you might think. Civil service
> > employees are protected from firing and retaliation by a whole host of
> > laws and regulations.
>
> The Constitution forbids messing with religion, yet bigamy is still illegal.
> Same with guns, yet there are plenty of gun laws on the books. US citizens
> held without bail or trial. Warrantless wiretaps and Email snooping.
> Failure to protect our sovereignty. The list of violations of law by the
> President and Congress is long and depressing.
>
> Point is, if they don't give a damn about the Constitution, which they swore
> an oath to uphold and honor, they certainly don't give half a damn about an
> administrative manual or some memo.
>
> Sure, said ballsy employee could fight to get their job back but until then
> they lose their pay, their house, their next meal... If they do get their
> job back, they can forget ever getting a promotion.
You can think what you want but the reality is that it's easier to
invent cold fusion that is to get rid of government employees, even
those who are grossly incompetent, dangerous or who have even committed
criminal acts.
Merely rendering a judicial opinion that the president doesn't like
would hardly rate.
> > The president would have a hard time doing
> > anything to one of these immigration judges merely for issuing an
> > unfavorable ruling. And that doesn't even get to the political firestorm
> > he'd endure for using his office to try to improperly influence a
> > government proceeding. He'd be roasted alive in the press.
>
> Um, no.
>
> The press are indeed irked at Obama over his administration's refusal to
> allow his nominations to talk to the press. In fact, I noticed their
> worship of Obama was starting to lose steam after the underwear bomber and
> the lockout of FOX news.
>
> However, they are still slobbering over him.
The press may favor him, but they couldn't resist a corruption story of
that magnitude no matter who it is.
BryanUT
alt.california, tx.guns, rec.autos.sport.nascar, rec.motorcycles,
rec.arts.tv
What a pathetic cross-post. Lumping reeky with nascar and rec.arts.tv
and tx.guns? SRSLY?
walt tonne
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, hey, mabye Auntie sucked-off a motorcycle mechanic.
sing along !!
"She's got style,
She's got class.
Lady likes it up the ass."
"She's a lady".
S'mee
SRSLY! I think he's got this problem....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvNO0BfBecc&feature=related
He just needs to let it go and quit being such a fag.
S'mee
So what you are saying is...she's a better woman than you or your
mother? I can believe that. I suggest you take 2 dozen fleet enemas
and get over your white trash self.
<george jefferson>
dumb ass white trash...ought to be a law against them!
</gj>
John Gilmer
>>
>> However, they are still slobbering over him.
>
> The press may favor him, but they couldn't resist a corruption story of
> that magnitude no matter who it is.
Ah, but they can!
The media has a strong bias and routined puffs up stories that serve their
purposes and downplay the others.
All that said, it does make sense to let BO's aunt (actually, isn't it more
like a "half aunt?") stay under US protection while BO remains as POTUS.
She shouldn't get given a leg up on becoming a citizen, however. Trouble
is that the law may not permit the 1/2 way common sense approach.
WTF: we already have some 10 to 15 MILLION illegals. With BO's aunt made
legal the numbers have changed to 9.999999 to 14.999999 MILLION illegals.
A similar argument can be made for her being on welfare.
Stephan Rothstein
So how many of those US attorneys that got fired by Bush for political
reasons are employed by the government now? And he got roasted in the
press also. It does nothing to stop the political payback if the
politician wants to do it.
Steve Rothstein
Thanatos
"John Gilmer" <jlgi...@localnet.com> wrote:
The welfare bit is the most ridiculous thing. Obama is so big on
redistributing my wealth and your wealth but he made $5 million last
year and his aunt is on welfare and living in public housing on the
backs of the taxpayer? Why doesn't he redistribute some of that five-mil
and buy her a house and relieve the rest of us from having to foot the
bill?
Thanatos
Stephan Rothstein <sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Those are political appointees. There's a huge legal difference between
political appointees and civil service employees.
Twibil
>
>
> > The press may favor him, but they couldn't resist a corruption story of
> > that magnitude no matter who it is.
>
> Ah, but they can!
>
> The media has a strong bias and routined puffs up stories that serve their
> purposes and downplay the others.
Ah yes! We *all* know that the media has a strong bias, and we know
that this is true because Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox
News, Mike Huckabee, G. Gordon Liddy, Mike Medved, Mark Levin, Neil
Board, Lew Dobbs, Laura Ingram, Neil Cabuto, John Stossel, David
Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, Jonah Goldberg, John Fund, Brent
Bozell, Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Sarah Palin,
Matt Drudge, Armstrong Williams, Thomas Sowell, Star Parker, Victor
Davis Hanson, and Michelle Malkin all tell us so...
Tim Crowley
>
>
> As for her claim, "violence in Kenya" isn't good enough.
hint: you have no say in the matter.
Tim Crowley
>
>
> The Constitution forbids messing with religion, yet bigamy is still illegal.
That has nothing to do with religion and again, you have no say in the
matter.
Tim Crowley
>
>
> As for her claim, "violence in Kenya" isn't good enough.
hint: you have no say in the matter.
Rob Kleinschmidt
DUHHHH !!! "Bias" is when the media doesn't see it my way.
What part of this don't you understand ? :-)
David Johnston
Why would he? He doesn't even know the woman.
Twibil
>
>
> The welfare bit is the most ridiculous thing. Obama is so big on
> redistributing my wealth and your wealth but he made $5 million last
> year and his aunt is on welfare and living in public housing on the
> backs of the taxpayer?
Here we go, folks! Another fruitcake replay of the "Obama wants to
redistribute your wealth" bit: as if every single government in
history hadn't done exactly the same thing in one way or another.
Tapping the taxpayer's pocketbooks and spending the proceeds on
various government projects is what governments *do*; and trying to
pretend that Obama invented the idea ignores the 5000 year + history
of taxation and spending which has resulted in such normally-difficult-
to-ignore items as the Pyramids, the Parthenon, and the Great Wall of
China.
(Free hint: If you want to make Obama look bad, try attacking him for
some of the things that he's actually done rather than attempting to
blame him for inventing the concept of taxation.)
Thanatos
<6762de27-ed85-4327...@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 7:52�pm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The welfare bit is the most ridiculous thing. Obama is so big on
> > redistributing my wealth and your wealth but he made $5 million last
> > year and his aunt is on welfare and living in public housing on the
> > backs of the taxpayer?
>
> Here we go, folks! Another fruitcake replay of the "Obama wants to
> redistribute your wealth" bit: as if every single government in
> history hadn't done exactly the same thing in one way or another.
The difference is that he outright said that's what he wants to do.
Liberals are always quite generous with other people's money but when it
comes to their own, they let their family live on welfare before giving
anyone "a hand up".
Thanatos
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 22:52:21 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <BI-dnVUOSsaB1W7W...@posted.localnet>,
> > "John Gilmer" <jlgi...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> A similar argument can be made for her being on welfare.
> >
> >The welfare bit is the most ridiculous thing. Obama is so big on
> >redistributing my wealth and your wealth but he made $5 million last
> >year and his aunt is on welfare and living in public housing on the
> >backs of the taxpayer. Why doesn't he redistribute some of that five-mil
> >and buy her a house and relieve the rest of us from having to foot the
> >bill?
>
> Why would he? He doesn't even know the woman.
You mean that's a criteria? Great! I don't know all the people to whom
he wants to redistribute my money, either, so I guess that exempts me,
huh?
She's at least his relative, whether he knows her or not.
Thanatos
<7e73fa65-d882-4b46...@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsc...@aol.com> wrote:
The media shouldn't see it anyone's way. Their job isn't to take sides
(theoretically).
Steve Bartman
Maybe she denied his help.
Steve
David Johnston
What are you babbling about?
Bob Myers
> In article
> <6762de27-ed85-4327...@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Twibil<noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On May 18, 7:52 pm, Thanatos<atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The welfare bit is the most ridiculous thing. Obama is so big on
>>> redistributing my wealth and your wealth but he made $5 million last
>>> year and his aunt is on welfare and living in public housing on the
>>> backs of the taxpayer?
>>>
>> Here we go, folks! Another fruitcake replay of the "Obama wants to
>> redistribute your wealth" bit: as if every single government in
>> history hadn't done exactly the same thing in one way or another.
>>
> The difference is that he outright said that's what he wants to do.
>
Y'know, that would be a whole lot more effective claim if you'd actually
provide a quote or at least a reference to one.
Bob M.
Anim8rFSK
Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <HI6dnQUabpf0iG7W...@linkline.com>,
> "CS" <dontshop@sears> wrote:
>
> > "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:atropos-5C77E6...@news-wc.giganews.com...
> > > In article <-oudnTlCSc8JnW7W...@linkline.com>,
> > > "CS" <dontshop@sears> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >> I'd like to meet the government worker with the balls to deport a family
> > >> member of the President.
> > >
> > > It's actually not nearly as ballsy as you might think. Civil service
> > > employees are protected from firing and retaliation by a whole host of
> > > laws and regulations.
> >
> > The Constitution forbids messing with religion, yet bigamy is still
> > illegal.
> > Same with guns, yet there are plenty of gun laws on the books. US citizens
> > held without bail or trial. Warrantless wiretaps and Email snooping.
> > Failure to protect our sovereignty. The list of violations of law by the
> > President and Congress is long and depressing.
> >
> > Point is, if they don't give a damn about the Constitution, which they
> > swore
> > an oath to uphold and honor, they certainly don't give half a damn about an
> > administrative manual or some memo.
> >
> > Sure, said ballsy employee could fight to get their job back but until then
> > they lose their pay, their house, their next meal... If they do get their
> > job back, they can forget ever getting a promotion.
>
> You can think what you want but the reality is that it's easier to
> invent cold fusion that is to get rid of government employees, even
> those who are grossly incompetent, dangerous or who have even committed
> criminal acts.
>
> Merely rendering a judicial opinion that the president doesn't like
> would hardly rate.
>
> > > The president would have a hard time doing
> > > anything to one of these immigration judges merely for issuing an
> > > unfavorable ruling. And that doesn't even get to the political firestorm
> > > he'd endure for using his office to try to improperly influence a
> > > government proceeding. He'd be roasted alive in the press.
> >
> > Um, no.
> >
> > The press are indeed irked at Obama over his administration's refusal to
> > allow his nominations to talk to the press. In fact, I noticed their
> > worship of Obama was starting to lose steam after the underwear bomber and
> > the lockout of FOX news.
> >
> > However, they are still slobbering over him.
>
> The press may favor him, but they couldn't resist a corruption story of
> that magnitude no matter who it is.
You really think so? I think Obama could raise poison produce on the
White House grounds and try to feed it to the judges on Iron Chef and it
wouldn't get mentioned in the mainstream press.
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a terrible way to go-go"
Anim8rFSK
<f032862a-36c6-4839...@42g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Tim Crowley <timmyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow. Nothing to do with religion? You aren't paying attention at all,
are you?
Benj
> The media shouldn't see it anyone's way. Their job isn't to take sides
> (theoretically).
Yeah. And since this is America "theoretically" we all should be rich
too!
Bob Myers
True, but then, people such as those in the above list, along with their
"liberal"
counterparts, are routinely cited in any such discussion of supposed "media
bias." Even though these people are, of course, NOT reporters but at best
commentators (if not, in some cases, simply "entertainers").
And similarly, accusations of "bias" in one direction or the other are
routinely
made on the groups of just which commentator(s) a given outlet has, rather
than the specifics of their news reporting.
Bob M.
Benj
> >> Here we go, folks! Another fruitcake replay of the "Obama wants to
> >> redistribute your wealth" bit: as if every single government in
> >> history hadn't done exactly the same thing in one way or another.
>
> > The difference is that he outright said that's what he wants to do.
>
> Y'know, that would be a whole lot more effective claim if you'd actually
> provide a quote or at least a reference to one.
As if this needs proof! I take it you haven't read anything about the
so-called "health care reform" bill?
Lessee. It provides that the government comes to everybody's house
(unless you are an illegal alien, then your "contributions" are paid
for you) and puts a gun to your head and demands a substantial amount
of your money (health care premiums), and then takes it and stores it
in a money pool (insurance companies... for now) and then gives it
back out to those who need it most (the sick). This isn't "take from
the rich and give to the poor" it's take from EVERYBODY and give it to
those who we think deserve it! If that isn't "redistribution of
wealth" nothing is! And Oh, did I mention that if you choose to not
be part of this redistribution scheme, you go to jail?
Rob Kleinschmidt
> In article
> <7e73fa65-d882-4b46-a2ea-066042cf3...@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com> wrote:
> > DUHHHH !!! "Bias" is when the media doesn't see it my way.
> > What part of this don't you understand ? :-)
>
> The media shouldn't see it anyone's way. Their job isn't to take sides
> (theoretically).
You're saying that when they claim to be "fair and
balanced", maybe they're not ?
If somebody's letting their prejudices and preconceptions
influence them, how would they know ? Also, what's a good
litmus test for "objective" reporting ?
Like I said, I figure the best test of objectivity is whether or
not somebody sees it my way.
Bob Myers
> On May 19, 11:36 am, Bob Myers<nospample...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Here we go, folks! Another fruitcake replay of the "Obama wants to
>>>> redistribute your wealth" bit: as if every single government in
>>>> history hadn't done exactly the same thing in one way or another.
>>>>
>>
>>> The difference is that he outright said that's what he wants to do.
>>>
>> Y'know, that would be a whole lot more effective claim if you'd actually
>> provide a quote or at least a reference to one.
>>
> As if this needs proof! I take it you haven't read anything about the
> so-called "health care reform" bill?
>
Look, it's really, really simple. The claim was made that President Obama
"outright said that that's what he wants to do" (re "redistributing your
wealth").
If that's really the case, then it should be a simple matter to cite a
quotation
of such a remark by Obama. If that can't be done, then the claim is
incorrect,
period. What a given bill says or does not say is irrelevant in terms
of this
question, unless Obama personally authored the bill or at least a
portion that
would explicitly state that "redistribution of wealth" is his goal. Or was
something else intended by the phrase "outright said"?
Bob M.
Thanatos
<2f7581e4-d083-4553...@r21g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsc...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 3:45�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7e73fa65-d882-4b46-a2ea-066042cf3...@s4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Rob Kleinschmidt <Rkleinsch1216...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > DUHHHH !!! "Bias" is when the media doesn't see it my way.
> > > What part of this don't you understand ? :-)
> >
> > The media shouldn't see it anyone's way. Their job isn't
> > to take sides (theoretically).
>
> You're saying that when they claim to be "fair and
> balanced", maybe they're not ?
No, and neither are the others. I suppose if we're going to have the
MSNBCs and CNNs of the world, it is good to have Fox to balance it out.
Maybe that's what they mean by "balanced".
Thanatos
<9df7a703-4ce0-48bb...@q13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
Why do you think that?
Thanatos
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
You need me to use smaller words or something?
Thanatos
Thanatos
Bob Myers <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
> or at least a portion that would explicitly state that "redistribution
> of wealth" is his goal. Or was something else intended by the phrase
> "outright said"?
Thanatos
Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
And maybe monkeys will fly out of your ass.
Bob Myers
> Here we go, folks! Another fruitcake replay of the "Obama wants to
>>>> redistribute your wealth" bit: as if every single government in
>>>> history hadn't done exactly the same thing in one way or another.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The difference is that he outright said that's what he wants to do.
>>>
>>>
>> Y'know, that would be a whole lot more effective claim if you'd actually
>> provide a quote or at least a reference to one.
>>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o
>
So where in that do you think Obama says "I want to redistribute your
wealth?" The closest he comes is a mention of restoring a slightly-
higher tax rate on businesses making over $250K/year. But as already
noted, that's just a return to a situation that was in effect for years
before Obama came on the scene.
Or are you of the opinion that ANY taxation is a bad thing?
Bob M.
Thanatos
Bob Myers <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On 5/19/2010 3:51 PM, Thanatos wrote:
> > Here we go, folks! Another fruitcake replay of the "Obama wants to
> >>>> redistribute your wealth" bit: as if every single government in
> >>>> history hadn't done exactly the same thing in one way or another.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> The difference is that he outright said that's what he wants to do.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Y'know, that would be a whole lot more effective claim if you'd actually
> >> provide a quote or at least a reference to one.
> >>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o
> >
>
> So where in that do you think Obama says "I want to redistribute your
> wealth?"
2:05 - "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for
everybody."
Bob Myers
>
>> So where in that do you think Obama says "I want to redistribute your
>> wealth?"
>>
> 2:05 - "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for
> everybody."
>
Which is NOT equivalent to "I want to redistribute YOUR wealth."
Bob M.
clouddreamer
Living in a rich nation comes with a cost. If you don't want your money
to help make your nation a better place for all then move to Somalia. No
government there to bother you or take your "wealth."
Go ahead. Go live there for a year then come back home. I guarantee you
will never ever again complain about spending a single cent in taxes.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
Stephan Rothstein
If I had wealth, it is the same. If I don't have wealth, it is someone
saying they will give me someone else's.
Yep, it is the same as him saying he wants to redistribute the wealth.
Steve Rothstein
Thanatos
Bob Myers <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
My wealth is part of "the wealth".
Steve Bartman
IOW you don't know either. Thanks for clearing that up, while making
yourself look like an idiot.
Steve
CS
news:b371d115-326a-49f2...@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 2:03 pm, "CS" <dontshop@sears> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> As for her claim, "violence in Kenya" isn't good enough.
>
> hint: you have no say in the matter.
As you can see, I certainly DO have a say.
I wasn't giving my opinion. Feel free to look it up.
CS
David Johnston
You need to say what you are talking about.
Thanatos
Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 17:52:39 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <lqp7v5h21qjh6j59c...@4ax.com>,
> > Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:42:16 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article
> >> ><6762de27-ed85-4327...@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On May 18, 7:52�pm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The welfare bit is the most ridiculous thing. Obama is so big on
> >> >> > redistributing my wealth and your wealth but he made $5 million last
> >> >> > year and his aunt is on welfare and living in public housing on the
> >> >> > backs of the taxpayer?
> >> >>
> >> >> Here we go, folks! Another fruitcake replay of the "Obama wants to
> >> >> redistribute your wealth" bit: as if every single government in
> >> >> history hadn't done exactly the same thing in one way or another.
> >> >
> >> >The difference is that he outright said that's what he wants to do.
> >> >
> >> >Liberals are always quite generous with other people's money but when it
> >> >comes to their own, they let their family live on welfare before giving
> >> >anyone "a hand up".
> >>
> >> Maybe she denied his help.
> >
> >And maybe monkeys will fly out of your ass.
>
> IOW you don't know either.
Yeah, I don't know for sure that the sun won't go red giant tomorrow
morning and swallow the earth, either. I'm not betting on it, though.
Tim Crowley
> "Tim Crowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b371d115-326a-49f2...@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 18, 2:03 pm, "CS" <dontshop@sears> wrote:
>
> >> As for her claim, "violence in Kenya" isn't good enough.
>
> > hint: you have no say in the matter.
>
> As you can see, I certainly DO have a say.
No, actually - you have no say. Oh yeah, you can scream in impotent
pain, but you have no say in the matter.
> I wasn't giving my opinion. Feel free to look it up.
You have no say in the matter child. These things are decided by
adults.
Scream in pain some more, it amuses.
>
> CS
Buahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Thanatos
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
It can't be any clearer, chief. Try and suss it out if you can.
David Johnston
Every President redistributes money. Try again.
Thanatos
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
You're right, you apparently have no idea what's being discussed:
David Johnston
What gives you the idea that he's so big on redistributing your
wealth?
Bob Myers
> Bob Myers wrote:
>> On 5/19/2010 4:27 PM, Thanatos wrote:
>>>
>>>> So where in that do you think Obama says "I want to redistribute your
>>>> wealth?"
>>> 2:05 - "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for
>>> everybody."
>>
>> Which is NOT equivalent to "I want to redistribute YOUR wealth."
>>
>
> If I had wealth, it is the same. If I don't have wealth, it is someone
> saying they will give me someone else's.
Except that those aren't the only two possibilities. Given the context, it
was pretty clear that the statement was along the lines of "here's an
opportunity that's going to generate wealth. It's a good thing if that
wealth gets spread around rather than just going to a few." In other
words, he's talking about wealth that neither potential group of
recipients actually HAS yet. Distribution is not RE-distribution.
Bob M.
Stephan Rothstein
You could be correct, but I did not hear anything about any creation of
wealth. I heard him say he was going to tax some people and not others.
That is re-distribution.
Where did you get the context of creation of wealth from? I might have
missed something and been blaming him incorrectly.
Steve Rothstein
Twibil
wrote:
>
>
I heard him say he was going to tax some people and not others.
> That is re-distribution.
Uh, yes, in a manner of speaking.
It's also how pretty much all taxes work.
Stephan Rothstein
Yep, it sure is. So, you agree then that Obama is in favor of
redistribution of the wealth? That was the only claim under debate.
Steve Rothstein
BryanUT
Are you fucking kidding me? We've been redistributing wealth from the
from the poor to the rich for decades. Fuck, honest labor is taxed
higher than dividends. What the fuck?
Get a clue, the income gap grows every year. One percent of the
population owns half the stocks. The marginal tax rate is the lowest
it has been since WWII. Don't let facts get in the way of your dogma.
Good god man do you actually work or are you a trustafarian like Paris
Hilton?
HeyBub
>
> Are you fucking kidding me? We've been redistributing wealth from the
> from the poor to the rich for decades. Fuck, honest labor is taxed
> higher than dividends. What the fuck?
>
> Get a clue, the income gap grows every year. One percent of the
> population owns half the stocks. The marginal tax rate is the lowest
> it has been since WWII. Don't let facts get in the way of your dogma.
>
> Good god man do you actually work or are you a trustafarian like Paris
> Hilton?
Yep, we've been redistributing, in one form or another, for some time. If we
ARE going to redistribute, then the poor should pay more than the rich. This
is because the poor use more government services than the well-to-do.
Oh, sure, the rich are driven on public highways and are flown in public
airspace, but they don't send their kids to government schools, don't show
up at the county hospital emergency room, get food stamps, or earned income
tax credits. In my view, you should pay for what you get.
Of course this will never fly, that's why I've been advocating the flat-flat
tax. Here's how it works.
Let's say, in round numbers, the U.S. budget is $3 trillion and there are
300 million people. Each person is responsible for $10,000. That's how much
each pays in the flat-flat tax. Period. Write a check for ten grand, send it
in. Game over.
But what about the person who doesn't HAVE $10,000? The government could
credit him with $1,000 for each unit of blood platelets per month for ten
months. Sort of a government withdrawal plan.
Ah, you say, what about the mother of four children under the age of five?
She can't give FIVE units of platelets per month and we're certainly not
going to drain blood from toddlers!
Right. She could, however, (to use the 'progressives' terminology)
"contribute" a kidney. At $100,000 fair-market-value for a kidney, she'd
have the taxes for herself and her brood paid for two full years. That,
coupled with the platelet business would keep her current for, um, about 36
months.
Balderdash! you cry. What happens THEN? Of course we're not going to ask her
to "contribute" her OTHER kidney; that would be, well, silly. But she could
contribute a cornea. Then there's skin, bone marrow, and so on. There are
even folks who'll buy her hair!
Sure, there are going to be problems with this scheme - heck, we can't even
count on voluntary compliance. But difficulties can be worked out in the
interests of fairness.
BryanUT
I think you left off the /sarcasm. God I can only hope.
Twibil
wrote:
>
>
> > I heard him say he was going to tax some people and not others.
> >> That is re-distribution.
>
> > Uh, yes, in a manner of speaking.
>
> > It's also how pretty much all taxes work.
>
> Yep, it sure is. So, you agree then that Obama is in favor of
> redistribution of the wealth?
Look up "inference" some time, Stephan. The inference in this case
being that Obama is in favor of something that practically every other
politician and 98% of the public *doesn't* favor. Used in that way -
which is how you seem to be using it- "re-distribution of wealth" is
nothing but a meaningless catch phrase.
Even Robinhood understood the concept that robbing from the poor isn't
going to get you anywhere, and robbing from the (relatively) rich is
the only possible alternative; so the concept of some sort of
"fair"system of taxation that doesn't involve redistributing money in
directions that you don't personally approve of -or taxes everyone
equally- is nothing but a silly dream.
All taxation systems involve some sort of "re-distribution of wealth",
and those who are being taxed are never all that fond of the concept
(me, for example), but it''s a fact of life; and propaganda aside
there's no way around it.
Stephan Rothstein
> On May 20, 5:30 pm, Stephan Rothstein <srothst...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>> I heard him say he was going to tax some people and not others.
>>>> That is re-distribution.
>>> Uh, yes, in a manner of speaking.
>>> It's also how pretty much all taxes work.
>> Yep, it sure is. So, you agree then that Obama is in favor of
>> redistribution of the wealth?
>
> Look up "inference" some time, Stephan. The inference in this case
> being that Obama is in favor of something that practically every other
> politician and 98% of the public *doesn't* favor. Used in that way -
> which is how you seem to be using it- "re-distribution of wealth" is
> nothing but a meaningless catch phrase.
No, you need to look at the dictionary and find the difference between
an inference and an implication. The original poster said that Obama was
in favor of redistribution of wealth and gave the video clip as his
proof. The response was the ridiculous claim ( by both your and my
standards) that this was a distribution of new wealth and not a
redistribution. I merely pointed out the ridiculousness of the claim
that it was not a redistribution. You seem to have jumped in at that
point and agreed that any tax was a redistribution.
So I posted then that you must agree with me that Obama favors
redistribution. You now claim this is not true because all politicians
favor taxes and redistribution. If all politicians favor redistribution
and Obama is a politician, he must also favor redistribution. You may
have inferred something but I certainly never implied anything other
than Obama favors redistribution of wealth, not the solely the
distribution of new wealth.
Steve Rothstein
Twibil
wrote:
>
>
> No, you need to look at the dictionary and find the difference between
> an inference and an implication.
Bullshit.
> So I posted then that you must agree with me that Obama favors
> redistribution. You now claim this is not true because all politicians
> favor taxes and redistribution.
Nope. I won't agree with you that Obama favors "redistribution"
because it's a politically-loaded and essentially meaningless term.
I wouldn't agree with you if you said "Grotsnack the feeblefarb to the
staple-right", either.