BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

[Jacques Ottawa]

Noway Duh wrote:

<quoted text>
What a libtard! For four years they have been talking about how Oshite has spent double of what Bush did with nothing to show for it! What did that buy, four years of higher unemployment and a failed economy. But then again that is Libtard math it doesn't have to add up!

As bad as that might sound, one would be tempted to take what you falsely label as four years of higher unemployment and a failed economy over 9 years of Afghan - Iraq war which put the US in hock with the Chinese, the Japanese and the Saudis, killed over 6,000 Americans, 30 times the number of Afghans and Iraqis, unsettled the total middle east situation, as Iraq, the sworn enemy of Iran and buffer between Iran and the west, hasbecome Iran's trusted ally. And infrastructure in those two countries half destroyed and oil as expensive as ever (thank you for nothing, Iraq), as indeed to thank the US for its "assistance", just signed a huge exploration deal with... Russia. Fabulous. Good work, GWB. Pile on top of that the worst recession since 1929, thank you GWB. Hmm, Obama's 4 years of so-called higher unemployment and failed ecomomy look mighty good. Oh, btw, do you suppose it's better to be unemployed than dead in some far-off country that you could not even find on a map?

[Grand Birther]

Christie-Palin2012 wrote:

Christie-Palin2012 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, 1.6% of the popular vote is NOT a landslide.
A landslide was in 1984 when Ronald Reagan won a 18.2% difference in the popular vote over, ah over, ah, ah, yea, what's his name!
<quoted text>
My source is Wiki. What is your's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pr...

The guy who handed you your arse last Tuesday.

"Those votes could be enough to push Mr. Obama’s margin of victory in the national popular vote, reported at 2.7 percent as of Monday morning, to slightly higher than 3 percent."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Jacques Ottawa]

Learn to Read wrote:

<quoted text>
Deluged?
Official response "hahahah"

20 states, and not even 25,000 signatures yet. How many is that per state? What just plain fools.

[NO more American Lady]

Will Texas secede? Petition reaches 25,000 signatures, triggering White House review

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/will-texas-...

[Grand Birther]

Christie-Palin2012 wrote:

Now I have asked this question over and over again and not one Libtards has had the gonads to take the question on.
I understand workman's comp but I do not understand why any business should have to contribute to any employees health care much less his spouse and children.
Let's say I go out hunting, fall out of a tree and break my leg. What does the people I work for have to do with it?
Come on now, any of you have half a brain?

Rogue, do you like your government funded health care and pension?

All evidence points to you being too dumb to take care of yourself, and you most likely would not have lived this long had your employer not invested in your health.

[The Truth]

The colossal failure of National Organization for Marriage

Tuesday was great.
After the bittersweet result of 2008 election with the joy of Obama's win being mitigated by the passage of Prop 8, 2012 was just a flat-out incredible night for the LGBT community. From the top of the ticket, to the smallest local races, conventional wisdom that gay is political kryptonite can finally be set out on the curb for pick up.

In the biggest race of the night, the gay friendliest president ever handily won reelection. Just a year ago it was very widely believed that a marriage equality supportive candidate could not win the swing states. And then, President Obama and his team bet against that and publicly endorsed the idea, and then went on to sweep all the swing states.

Come January, we'll have our first out LGB United States senator. The House will have at least six LGBT members including a second gay dad and the first gay person of color. In Colorado, an out gay man will serve as House Speaker, and a lesbian will be Senate pro-tem, the number two position in that chamber. Hundreds of out members of the gay community won in state and local races, including Stacie Laughton who in contrast to Obama's 58M-some, garnered just 1,588 votes but in New Hampshire that's enough to send her to the state House where she will be the first open transgender to serve.

"This wasn't incremental progress. This was a breathtaking leap forward," said Chuck Wolfe, president and CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, dedicated to electing out politicians.

With the defeat of Minnesota's ban on marriage equality and a resurgent Democratic majority, talk has already turned to moving forward legislatively with marriage equality there. Conservatives may rue they picked that fight last year and activated a community, and their network of friends and family, to fight back.



But let's pause and reflect that rarely has a political movement, organization or candidate for all their spending and efforts emerged with so much egg on their face as National Organization for Marriage (NOM) did this cycle. Calling this "The Marriage Election," they tried their best, up and down the ticket to make it a national referendum on gay people's right to marry.
It was, of course, very literally a referendum on LGBT people's right to marry in four states, all four opposition campaigns NOM largely funded and controlled and all of which NOM lost.

But NOM's ambition was bigger than just the ballot initiatives, and they may have bitten off more than they could chew.

They sought to punish the four marriage equality supportive Republicans in the New York senate and had at best mixed results. One retired, one was reelected, one lost in a primary, and one lost in the general—to a Democrat who supports marriage equality "without hesitation" in his own words. So, it's unclear how that helps them, or proves their point voters hate gay-friendly politicians. Moreover, if they take credit for Republican Sen. Saland's defeat, we can also thank them for finally swaying the New York state Senate back into Democratic control, a rarity in that state. So thanks for that, and good luck on your fanciful New York repeal plan, now that you've helped the LGBT community and their allies return control both state chambers to Democrats again.

They attempted to unseat an Iowa Supreme Court Justice that ruled for marriage equality there, but again, the tactic that succeeded in the past failed in 2012 and Justice Wiggins was retained. This despite NOM spending $465,000 to unseat him.

[Jacques Ottawa]

American Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Economists Supporting Mitt Romney for President
Signed (affiliations listed for identification purposes only),
Gary Becker, Nobel laureate
James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
Robert Lucas, Nobel laureate
Robert Mundell, Nobel laureate
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Myron Scholes, Nobel laureate
Burton Abrams, University of Delaware
James D. Adams, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Richard Adams, Oregon State University
Douglas Adie, Ohio University
Lee C. Adkins, Oklahoma State University
Richard Agnello, University of Delaware
James Ahiakpor, California State University, East Bay
Francis Ahking, University of Connecticut
William Albrecht, University of Iowa
Michael J. Alderson, Saint Louis University
Donald L. Alexander, Western Michigan University
John W. Allen, Texas A&M University
William Allen, University of California, Los Angeles
Fernando Alvarez, University of Chicago
Wayne Angell, Former Member, Federal Reserve Board
Joe Antos, American Enterprise Institute
J. J. Arias, Georgia College
Richard K. Armey, FreedomWorks
Nathan Ashby, University of Texas at El Paso
Christopher Azevedo, University of Central Missouri
Scott Baier, Clemson University
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Eric Baklanoff, The University of Alabama
Spencer Banzhaf, Georgia State University
Christopher C. Barnekov, Ph.D., Chicago
Robert J. Barro, Harvard University
William Beach, Alexandria, VA
Howard Beales, George Washington University
Stacie Beck, University of Delaware
Larry Belcher, Taylor University
Don Bellante, University of South Florida
Bruce Bender, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Lee Benham, Washington University in St. Louis
Michael Bennett, Curry College
Bill Beranek, University of Georgia
M. Douglas Berg, Sam Houston State University
Richard Bernstein, Temple University
Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado
Andrew Biggs, American Enterprise Institute
Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
Michael Block, University of Arizona
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michael Bond, University of Arizona
Carlos Bonilla, Airline Forecasts
Donald Booth, Chapman University
G. Geoffrey Booth, Michigan State University
Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
George Borts, Brown Universiy
Michael Boskin, Stanford University
Edward H. Boss, Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability Illinois State Legislature
John Boyce, University of Calgary
John Boyd, University of Minnesota
Edward Boyer, Temple University
Gordon Brady, glbradygroup.com
Daniel Brandt, Chevy Chase, MD
Ike Brannon, American Action Forum
David Brat, Randolph-Macon College
Charles Breeden, Marquette University
Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
Alex Brill, American Enterprise Institute
Roger Brinner, The Parthenon Group
Wayne T. Brough, FreedomWorks
James Armistead Brown, Jr., Arlington, VA
James N. Brown, Rice University
Jeffrey Brown, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
David P. Brown, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Edgar Browning, Texas A&M University
Eric Brucker, Widener University
Lawrence Brunner, Central Michigan University
Peter Brust, University of Tampa
Phillip Bryson, Brigham Young University
William K. Buchanan, Valdosta State University
Todd Buchholz, Sproglit, LLC
M. Northrup Buechner, St. John’s University
Van Bullock, New Mexico State University
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
Andrew Busch, BMO Capital Markets
James Butkiewicz, University of Delaware
Henry Butler, George Mason University School of Law
William Butos, Trinity College
Frank Caliendo, Utah State University
Charles Calomiris, Columbia University
Colin Campbell, Dartmouth College
William Campbell, Louisiana State University
http://economistsforromney.com/
HELL of a LOT more than I can LIST here !!!!!

Most of the above are made up. 6 Nobel laureates backing a voodoo economy plan that any undergrad economics student would get a failing mark for? Ha ha.

[Jacques Ottawa]

LRS wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, now...let's not forget all the damn indoctrination crap that Omammie started!

Are you really that ignorant? Obama, far as I know, was not teaching grammar school. He was teaching dolts like YOU and you of course did not get it. HE WAS ELECTED. HE WON. DO YOU COMPREHEND THAT?

[The Truth]

Mourning in America

By now, most of you have probably seen the Tumblr page entirely dedicated to pictures of white people mourning the Republican defeat last Tuesday.

I realize how easy it is to make fun of those people (our those people), but for me the images posted there call up -- somewhat to my surprise -- decidedly mixed emotions. Spite and sympathy, it seems, can co-exist, and even lay the groundwork for something that begins to resemble empathy.

It's an involuntary reflex, to be sure, after the bile, racism, and sheer deranged hatred those people have flung at us these past four years -- not to mention their cocksure arrogance (up until about 10:00 pm Tuesday night) that "real" Americans were going to rise as one and send the Kenyan usurper packing.

But looking at those woeful faces -- hopes smashed, the awful truth finally revealed -- it's hard not to remember election night 2004, when it became clear that lies and war crimes notwithstanding, President Cheney and his sidekick were going to be reelected despite our best efforts.

It's devastating to believe that your country has looked evil full in the face and decided to embrace it, and feel completely helpless to stop it. And if even one-twentieth of the things those people believe about President Obama, and about us, were true, they would be right to despair, just as we did eight years ago.

In the end, though, what really makes it hard for me to dine with gusto at the schadenfreude buffet is that the grieving faces on the other side of the partisan divide aren't those people, they're my people -- the middle-class neighbors of my Southern childhood, the kids I went to school with, my redneck uncles and cousins, my own mother and father.

The sagging chins and pot bellies, the crew cuts and blue hair, the bad make up and worse fashion sense -- these are all as familiar to me as the lines on my own face. I know these people too intimately, their pasts are too intertwined with mine, for me to look at them and see only the despised Other, even though I have no doubt that's how many, if not most, of them would look at me.

I also know that they have been lied to, with ferocious intensity and relentless dedication, by the conservative propaganda machine and its political masters. If we must have demons to hate, better to seek them among the con artists who have turned Rwandan-style hate speech into an industry profitable enough to rival the porn business.

I know it's customary at times such as these for victors to speak of reconciliation -- to remind the defeated, as President Obama never seems to get tired of repeating, that there are no red states, no blue states, just the United States of America. But that's not what I'm trying to do here. I have no particular interest in offering any olive branches. We've gone too far, traveling in opposite directions, to meet halfway now. One side must rule and the other must grind its teeth in rage. That being the case, I'd much rather it was them than us wearing down the enamel.

All that said, though, there is still something poignant, even tragic, about those faces of red America, something worthy of a eulogy. Their America -- Bill O'Reilly's "traditional America" -- is fading away. Whatever the future holds, it's not likely to look like them, or think like them, or live like them.

And in a way I can't quite explain, that fact lends a measure of dignity to their grief -- to the point where their faces almost begin to resemble old photos of Geronimo in captivity, his sad eyes looking past the camera to a vanished world that no white man can conquer.

And so, in that same spirit, let me offer this semi-affectionate and almost respectful tribute to our defeated enemies and their blasted hopes:

Mourning in America

[The Truth]

Mourning in America

By now, most of you have probably seen the Tumblr page entirely dedicated to pictures of white people mourning the Republican defeat last Tuesday.

I realize how easy it is to make fun of those people (our those people), but for me the images posted there call up -- somewhat to my surprise -- decidedly mixed emotions. Spite and sympathy, it seems, can co-exist, and even lay the groundwork for something that begins to resemble empathy.

It's an involuntary reflex, to be sure, after the bile, racism, and sheer deranged hatred those people have flung at us these past four years -- not to mention their cocksure arrogance (up until about 10:00 pm Tuesday night) that "real" Americans were going to rise as one and send the Kenyan usurper packing.

But looking at those woeful faces -- hopes smashed, the awful truth finally revealed -- it's hard not to remember election night 2004, when it became clear that lies and war crimes notwithstanding, President Cheney and his sidekick were going to be reelected despite our best efforts.

It's devastating to believe that your country has looked evil full in the face and decided to embrace it, and feel completely helpless to stop it. And if even one-twentieth of the things those people believe about President Obama, and about us, were true, they would be right to despair, just as we did eight years ago.

In the end, though, what really makes it hard for me to dine with gusto at the schadenfreude buffet is that the grieving faces on the other side of the partisan divide aren't those people, they're my people -- the middle-class neighbors of my Southern childhood, the kids I went to school with, my redneck uncles and cousins, my own mother and father.

The sagging chins and pot bellies, the crew cuts and blue hair, the bad make up and worse fashion sense -- these are all as familiar to me as the lines on my own face. I know these people too intimately, their pasts are too intertwined with mine, for me to look at them and see only the despised Other, even though I have no doubt that's how many, if not most, of them would look at me.

I also know that they have been lied to, with ferocious intensity and relentless dedication, by the conservative propaganda machine and its political masters. If we must have demons to hate, better to seek them among the con artists who have turned Rwandan-style hate speech into an industry profitable enough to rival the porn business.

I know it's customary at times such as these for victors to speak of reconciliation -- to remind the defeated, as President Obama never seems to get tired of repeating, that there are no red states, no blue states, just the United States of America. But that's not what I'm trying to do here. I have no particular interest in offering any olive branches. We've gone too far, traveling in opposite directions, to meet halfway now. One side must rule and the other must grind its teeth in rage. That being the case, I'd much rather it was them than us wearing down the enamel.

All that said, though, there is still something poignant, even tragic, about those faces of red America, something worthy of a eulogy. Their America -- Bill O'Reilly's "traditional America" -- is fading away. Whatever the future holds, it's not likely to look like them, or think like them, or live like them.

[Jacques Ottawa]

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
And you live in a country that elected and supports Obama. Get over it. You lost big time.
You want to talk about broke - every red state except Utah and Texas get more back from the Federal government than they pay in.
Or to put it in simpler terms for simpler minds, the blue states support the red states.

I thought Texas was on the dole also. When did that change?

[Jacques Ottawa]

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Your story is from October 21st. Since then both Fiat and Chrysler have come out multiple times and said that this story is completely false.
You know that and you post it anyway.
That makes you a god damned liar. Isn't lying a sin in your religion? If it is, you are going to hell, where you belong, for posting all the lies that you post.

And Bloomberg immediately corrected itself.

[The Truth]

Bush, Cheney back Obama's mandate on taxes

In the aftermath of Barack Obama's reelection victory, voices across the political spectrum were quick to deny that the President had earned a mandate from voters. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus warned that a Democratic claim to a mandate was a "delusion." The National Journal's Ron Fournier agreed, adding that the absence of a mandate was "thanks in part to his own small-bore and brutish campaign."

Regardless, when it comes to the issue of increasing taxes for the wealthiest Americans, President Obama has very a strong case in asserting he's earned voters' blessing to proceed. After all, that key pillar of his "balanced approach" to deficit reduction wasn't merely a centerpiece of both his 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Ending the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 enjoyed majority support on Election Day, just as it has since before Obama vanquished John McCain four years ago. And as it turns out, President Obama can point to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who after the disputed 2000 election claimed a mandate to bulldoze their $1.3 trillion package of tax cuts through Congress.

After he dispatched John Kerry in 2004 by a smaller margin (286 electoral votes to 262, 51 to 48 percent popular vote edge) than Obama compiled on Tuesday, President Bush nevertheless boasted that "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." (That capital investment in his wildly unpopular Social Security privatization scheme came to nothing in 2005.) But within days of their anointing by the Supreme Court four years earlier, President-Elect Bush and Vice President-Elect Cheney claimed a mandate just the same.

Following the disputed 2000 election, the Bush-Cheney transition team prepared to assume the White House without either a popular vote mandate or dominant majorities in Congress. But while the mainstream media consensus concluded that a "weakened" President Bush would have to govern from the center and "build bridges to the opposition," Dick Cheney had a different idea.

As Barton Gellman details in his book, Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, Dick Cheney made it abundantly clear that the Bush administration would put pedal to the metal in pursuit of its radical agenda. In a series of media appearances that December, Cheney proceeded as if the Florida recount and Bush v. Gore had never happened.

His December 3, 2000 exchange with the late Tim Russert on Meet the Press is particularly telling:


RUSSERT: Governor Bush and you campaigned on a platform of a $1.3 trillion tax cut. Now that the Senate is 50-50, Democrats-Republicans, and the Republicans control the House by eight or nine votes, won't you have to scale down your tax cut in order to pass it?[...] But, in reality, with a 50-50 Senate and a close, close, small majority in the House, you're going to have to have a moderate, mainstream, centrist governance, aren't you?
CHENEY: Oh, I think so.[...] But I think there's no reason in the world why we can't do exactly what Governor Bush campaigned on.
Two weeks later, following the controversial Supreme Court decision which made George W. Bush the 43rd President, Cheney made his case even more forcefully on Face the Nation:

"As President-elect Bush has made very clear, he ran on a particular platform that was very carefully developed. It's his program, it's his agenda, and we have no intention at all of backing off of it.

[LRS]

Grand Birther wrote:

<quoted text>
Rogue, do you like your government funded health care and pension?
All evidence points to you being too dumb to take care of yourself, and you most likely would not have lived this long had your employer not invested in your health.

Bladder Spatter leaks again. LMAO Got Depends?

[Jacques Ottawa]

Christie-Palin2012 wrote:

Christie-Palin2012 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, 1.6% of the popular vote is NOT a landslide.
A landslide was in 1984 when Ronald Reagan won a 18.2% difference in the popular vote over, ah over, ah, ah, yea, what's his name!
<quoted text>
Okay, so you'd rather go by electoral college vote. No problemeau.
Reagan won 525 to, ah, er, ah, what's his name who got only 13!!!
Check Mate!!!!!!!
Oh, and Democrats only win fairly and never buy races?!?

Rogue . Who cares? Obama won. In a few years, no one will recall who his defeated contender was. Repeat after me, rogue : Congratulation Mr President. Now, SALUTE your c in c.

[LarrySinclair]

Most of Obama's lectures as a Community Organizer started out with "You don't have to have been born here to help your community. I was born in Kenya."
He was always very proud of that fact until the powerful-elite picked him as their chosen one.
www.worldviewweekend.com

[Jacques Ottawa]

Johannes wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm amazed that you can type. What with one finger in your nose and another in your ass. Southern trash...it just never seems to go away.

Yes, he plays switch. Switches fingers.

[America Got Stupid]

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

Want to keep it up?

I thought you always kept it up, YOUR ASS!

[NO more American Lady]

RWYoung • 2 hours ago
At this rate there may be no union, to speak of. Does anybody in the DNC think this is a fluke?
15 •Reply•Share ›

stratus99 RWYoung • 29 minutes ago &#8722;
No this is what they want...They never wanted a United States of America...They wanted a Socialist States of America...The original Democratic party was more soviet socialist in the beginning and that is still at its core.
0 •Reply•Share ›

Melissa Frost • 2 hours ago
Interesting. Hate to see it come to this.
11 •Reply•Share ›

[The Truth]

The Emerging Pro-Choice Majority

Abortion rights, we’re told, are our Great Divider. America is cleaved in two. Fifty unremitting percent on either side. There is no United States of America, only pro and anti choice America.

But what if that’s not true? Or, more precisely, what if that won’t be true for much longer?

The 2012 election has been touted as a watershed moment for the Democratic Party, but it may have been one for the pro-choice cause as well. And it’s not because the would-be rape caucus was defeated or that pro-choice candidates won big, though those help. Rather, it’s that there’s good reasons to believe the coalition Obama has built is not only durable, but also staunchly pro-choice. If that’s true, it could signify the start of a major shift on what had previously been thought to have been a fundamental fault line in American politics.

Let’s start with the exit polling. The 2012 electorate was overwhelmingly pro-choice; 59 percent said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while only 36 percent said the reverse. The critical swing states followed the pattern, with some like Virginia falling to the left of the national average. Exit polls should be taken with a grain of salt, of course, but these numbers undeniably suggest American voters are more pro-choice than previously thought, especially in the states up for grabs in Presidential and Senatorial elections.

These data throw a monkey wrench in the conventional wisdom about abortion rights — namely, that it’s an issue that the GOP could use to make inroads with the new Obama coalition. Young voters, women, African-Americans, and Latinos have average-to-conservative views on choice, we’re told. But many identified as pro-choice in 2012. What gives?

Part of the answer is that the general picture is wrong: these key Democratic groups generally track the national average on abortion or tilt left. Though some polls suggest young voters are likely to support restricting abortion rights, the most systematic evidence suggests Milllenials are as, if not more, likely to support keeping abortion legal in all or most cases as the general population. Ditto with women. While African-Americans used to lean right, the most recent polling suggests a decisive pro-choice shift.

Even Latinos, who generally (though not always) tend to oppose abortion rights, have more complicated views than pundits generally let on. While first and second generation Latino-Americans tend to oppose abortion in most or all cases, third generation and higher Latinos support abortion rights by a 19 point margin. Since the Latino population boom is currently being fueled by birth rather than immigration, the third generation cohort seems likely to grow over time. Not incidentally, Latinos who voted in the 2012 election supported keeping abortion legal by a 2:1 margin (though, for it’s worth, the poll didn’t include Texas).