Obama Discussion Thread

[macattak1]

As new information is learned, it would be stupid not to change an opinion if that information presents new facts.

 

Snopes, truth or fiction, wiki, conservapedia, etc. are about reporting the truth. They are not news papers and magazines.

 

They toute themselves not as news reporting tools but as truth finders and truth repositories.

 

They can not function as both. Thus, if one is in the middle of the truth unfolding, and they claim to have the full truth, and have to continually change their story, they are no longer the latter and are now the former. Snopes is now like Fox news.

 

One can also not report the truth when the owners of that truth will not answer questions or the story is far from complete. They would make horrible lawyers going off half cocked to sue others with half or less of the story.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

Snopes, truth or fiction, wiki, conservapedia, etc. are about reporting the truth. They are not news papers and magazines.

 

They toute themselves not as news reporting tools but as truth finders and truth repositories.

 

That doesn't change the reality that new fats can come to light. People searching for the truth can't have blind faith in their original findings.

[sprinter]

More government control for the good of the people :bowdown:

 

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109969

President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves, WND has learned.

 

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

 

Until now, Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.

 

In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced."

Edited September 16, 2009 by sprinter

[Imawhosure]

History teaches all things, doesn't it Nap-) Why should we even discuss an Obama healthcare overhaul that is government funded, when everything the government has ever taken over, made a right of its citizens, etc, has balloned into a huge problem? Which party created S.S.? Do you think they said------>in the late 80s it will head towards bankruptcy? Or rather, do you think they proclaimed they could PAY FOR IT WITH SAVINGS FROM SOMEWHERE, lol. Medicare? Medicade anyone? And the list goes on, and the same type of people carry the same arguement that was carried when these failures were created.

 

I believe that one of you liberals should inform all of the board members here of 1........not 5,4,3, or 2; but 1 lousy entitlement program that our democratic friends have created in the past that does not need a cash infusion of taxpayer money to stay solvent. Also, tell them of that 1 lousy entitlement program that did NOT end up costing more to our government because of inefficiencies, then the private sector when they provided it!!!!! Tell us, please, tell us!!!!!

 

But, since I am open minded, I am willing to go 1/2 way like a good American-) Mr Obama claims he can save all of the money by squeezing inefficiencies out of Medicare/medicade. Ok, do it, then show us the money, then we will talk turkey. Nobody has been able to squeeze a dime out of either of these programs for 45 years, and to think some young guy who is just now getting his ears wet now can is almost hysterical. Still, prove us wrong. Do it, come up with the cash, and we may sing a different tune........in fact, I will join the bandwagon.

 

But then, I know, just like YOU know, just like the rest of the world knows, his talk is propaganda just to get the entitlement in, which then can not be removed. This is why he pushes so hard now, as he dare not wait till 2010 as the people are so pissed, he won't have the votes.

 

If us old people woulda known how this was going to turn out, we woulda lynched many of our past Presidents for forcing us to finance the cold war. As of this Presidency, that financing should be considered the biggest waste of money this planet has ever seen. Why in the hell did they insist that it was pure evil for a government to control banks, auto companys, healthcare, insurance companys, and then show how this control was ruining the citizens of the USSRs lives, only to stand by and watch your younger people think it is a marvelous idea to emulate the practices.

 

And then------->Mr Cap, I told you, I told you, I told you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mr Obama said change, not CHAINS. And by the by, why don't you explain to these nice people in your own words why 4/5ths of the stimulus money has yet to be spent, and we are now coming out of reccession!!!!!! Better yet, why don't you explain to the people why it hasn't been spent, when they will spend it, and it will help explain many things, lolol. (help him NAP if he falters)

 

And oh yes Mr CAP, don't forget about our friends at ACORN, lol. Who was it that put the kabosh on congress investigating them, and unfunding them before; ahem-) And who exactly was it that they were funded in the stimulus bill; double ahem-) Also, who made untold millions by sending underqualified people to banks to get homes, and who lobbied when the chairman of the Fed brought to the attention of the ways and means committee that if this practice continued, Fannie and Freddie were in deep-d00!!!! Who put the kabosh on that one-)

 

I told you long ago to follow the money, and if you follow the money on this.............and if it continues to come out as it has lately, the liberals will finally look like the big bad wolves they are, and will make GW look like little red riding hood............which in even my assessment should be almost impossible to do; but do it they will, lololololol!!!!!

[macattak1]

Motion: Judge follows 'illegitimate chain of command'

 

"...the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which plaintiff has previously protested in this case,..."

 

"...were denied meaningful access to the courts by the very fact that this court entered its September 16, 2009, ruling without reference to any of the key issues actually raised in plaintiff's complaint or TRO. The fact that the court's 14 page order does not address any actual statements in plaintiff's complaint by page or paragraph number, or any page citation to her TRO, suggests to a reasonable and objective mind that the court either did not read these documents or was summarily instructed by that same illegitimate 'chain of command'..."

 

--

 

"It is not the first time a judge and attorney have disagreed vehemently over a challenge to Obama's presidency."

 

"The judge, James Robertson, threatened the attorney, John D. Hemenway, 82, with sanctions.Hemenway responded by ripping the judge for using blog hearsay in his decision."

 

"Robertson immediately backed off, issuing only a reprimand to Hemenway, which now is on appeal."

 

Peace and Blessings

[Mark B. Morrow]

Motion: Judge follows 'illegitimate chain of command'

 

"...the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which plaintiff has previously protested in this case,..."

 

"...were denied meaningful access to the courts by the very fact that this court entered its September 16, 2009, ruling without reference to any of the key issues actually raised in plaintiff's complaint or TRO. The fact that the court's 14 page order does not address any actual statements in plaintiff's complaint by page or paragraph number, or any page citation to her TRO, suggests to a reasonable and objective mind that the court either did not read these documents or was summarily instructed by that same illegitimate 'chain of command'..."

 

 

A Court can dismiss a case on Motion where there is no factual basis on the face of the Complaint for the relief to be granted. Judge Land's Order and opinion clearly address the deficiencies in the Complaint by paragraph number (See Page 8 of the Order) http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov....77605.13.0.pdf --

 

"It is not the first time a judge and attorney have disagreed vehemently over a challenge to Obama's presidency."

 

"The judge, James Robertson, threatened the attorney, John D. Hemenway, 82, with sanctions.Hemenway responded by ripping the judge for using blog hearsay in his decision."

 

That's pretty rich considering the fact that the Plaintiff in the Rhodes case cited an AOL online poll, an affidavit that could not as a matter of law authenticate the second "Kenyan Birth certificate" (the first one submitted by Ms. Taitz having been exposed as a forgery), unsubstantiated internet rumors of multiple Social Security numbers for President Obama and "the general opinoin of the rest of the World" as "Evidence". Any second year law student half way through evidence class would know these allegations have no place in a Complaint. I hope the attorneys involved in this farce are not only repremanded but disbarred. They are an embarrasment to the practice of law.

 

"Robertson immediately backed off, issuing only a reprimand to Hemenway, which now is on appeal."

 

Normally taking on a Judge in a personal attack can be Contempt of Court which is punishable by sanctions including fines and jail.

 

It is interesting that Dr. Rhodes, whose medical education was paid for by the taxpayers as benefit of her enlistment, does not have any issue with taking orders from the command under President Obama except the Order deploying her to Iraq. She does not seek a discharge from the Army (presumably because such a discharge would require her to reimburse the Army for the costs of her education). (See pp. 10-13 of Judge Land's Order linked above).

 

Personally i would see no problem with dishonorably discharging Capt. Rhodes from the service for insubordination, requiring her to repay the government for the costs of her education and disbarring Ms. Taitz for filing frivolous suits.

Peace and Blessings

Edited September 20, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow

[stephenhawkings]

kind of reminds me of the controversy in 2000 over the Florida votes, aren't you guys going to wake up and realize your being milked by two mutually assured destructive parties?

[Bored of Pisteon]

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: THE TELEPROMPTER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 

Edited September 21, 2009 by Bored of Pisteon

[macattak1]

Big Bird grills Michelle O on birth certificate

 

Peace and Blessings