# Is Barack Obama qualified to be President of the U.S.? Natural Born Citizen?



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

Let's here you thoughts. 
Is he legally qualified, as per the Constitution, to be POTUS?


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Why would he not be?


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

Faceman said:


> Why would he not be?


Because in the Constitution it states that only a Natural Born Citizen is eligible to become POTUS. Is Obama considered a Natural Born Citizen?


----------



## myhorsesonador (Jun 21, 2009)

yes he was. Just because his parents wern't, doesn't mean that he should be born in the states.

I dislike Obama for meny reasons, but that doesn't change that he is leagal.


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

myhorsesonador said:


> yes he was. Just because his parents wern't, doesn't mean that he should be born in the states.
> 
> I dislike Obama for meny reasons, but that doesn't change that he is leagal.


I also dislike Obama for many reason. I actually wish he was the best President ever. But that still does not warrant him to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, which is required under the Constitution.
Please provide me with a document that states he is a Natural Born Citizen.

What is a Natural Born Citizen?


----------



## BaileyJo (Aug 23, 2011)

I think natural born citizen is something that is easily looked up on the internet. It's also something that has been perused to death. Where have you been? 

I don't get your question. ? Yes, he is legally qualified to be the President. Like it or not.


----------



## myhorsesonador (Jun 21, 2009)

elky said:


> i also dislike obama for many reason. I actually wish he was the best president ever. But that still does not warrant him to be considered a natural born citizen, which is required under the constitution.
> Please provide me with a document that states he is a natural born citizen.
> 
> What is a natural born citizen?


??? He was born in america, he is a natural born citizen!!!! His parents are us citizens, just because they were not born here doesn't mean they arn't citizens of the us!!! 

Can you understand that!!!


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

BaileyJo said:


> I think natural born citizen is something that is easily looked up on the internet. It's also something that has been perused to death. Where have you been?
> 
> I don't get your question. ? Yes, he is legally qualified to be the President. Like it or not.


I thought the question was pretty easy. *What is a Natural Born Citizen?*
You just saying he is legal, does not necessarily make it so. I have spent countless hours searching this and have different thoughts on it than you do. Was John McCain a Natural Born citizen also? Was Chester Arthur a Natural Born Citizen? 
This is not because I dislike Obama, this is about our Constitution, and the requirement made in that document to be eligible for holding the office of POTUS , nothing more and nothing less.
Yes it has been hashed out and persued, but not persued to death. There is very little on the internet to define what a Natural Born Citizen truly is, and why has the SCOTUS refused to clarify the meaning of Natural Born Citizen?


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

myhorsesonador said:


> ??? He was born in america, he is a natural born citizen!!!! His parents are us citizens, just because they were not born here doesn't mean they arn't citizens of the us!!!
> 
> Can you understand that!!!


Oh, but I can understand that. His mother was a US citizen, he was born in Hawaii, but please show me the documentation of how that makes Obama a Natural Born Citizen. 

Here are some Supreme Court rulings on the definition. The Constitution does indeed use the term citizen and natural born citizen which makes a distinction of the two. If it did not make a definite distinction, there would be no need for the mention of a natural born citizen as a requirement to be POTUS. That term was indeed put into the Constitution as a requirement to be POTUS and is the only time it is mentioned in the Constitution.

*His father was not a US citizen.*

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, *or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens*." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856)

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all *children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."* Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168 (1874). 

Please take note of the one word above that makes all the difference. That word is parents, with an s, meaning plural, meaning both parents.

Can you understand that?


----------



## myhorsesonador (Jun 21, 2009)

is this a joke?


----------



## BaileyJo (Aug 23, 2011)

Elky said:


> Oh, but I can understand that. His mother was a US citizen, he was born in Hawaii, but please show me the documentation of how that makes Obama a Natural Born Citizen.
> 
> Here are some Supreme Court rulings on the definition. The Constitution does indeed use the term citizen and natural born citizen which makes a distinction of the two. If it did not make a definite distinction, there would be no need for the mention of a natural born citizen as a requirement to be POTUS. That term was indeed put into the Constitution as a requirement to be POTUS and is the only time it is mentioned in the Constitution.
> 
> ...


I think you need to read up on the Fourteenth Amendment. Might help.


----------



## tempest (Jan 26, 2009)

Elky said:


> Oh, but I can understand that. His mother was a US citizen, he was born in Hawaii, but please show me the documentation of how that makes Obama a Natural Born Citizen.


So according to your logic, my dad is not a Natural Born citizen in the US because his mom was not born in the US even though he was? The only thing I have is a birth ceritifcate that states the circumstances in which I was born and who my birth parents are, does that mean I'm not a US citizen even though I was born in the US? No person, except immigrants, receives documentation to show they are a US citizen, not even Natural Born citizens. Well, except maybe a passport...

Anyone born in the US is a Natural Born US citizen no matter who their parents were or where they were born. Anyone born from a US citizen who is in the US military is a US citizen even if they were born out of country. That's how it works. Why? Because at least one of their parents was a US citizen. 

And besides, why does this matter anymore? The Commander in Chief is almost done with his term as President, which means that there is no point in discussing whether or not he was "fit" or it was legal for him to be the President. What's done is done, he is and was elected to be the President and now he's almost done with his term as President so as I said before: What's the point of trying to prove that he isn't a Natural Born citizen? There's nothing anyone can do about it now. Seems like a waste of energy to keep worrying about this.


----------



## Sharpie (May 24, 2009)

Maybe someone could correct the title to spell the sitting president's name correctly? There's only one 'r' I think. I'm with everyone on the done is done side. For better or worse the supreme court refused to see the case and he is and has been CIC for a while.


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

No it is not a joke. Do you think the Constitution of the United States is a joke?

I have asked a simple question, and have yet to get an answer to it. 
Apparently, by some of the replies on here, some claim to know the answer, yet decline to give proof or legal documentation.
It was stated that it has been perused endlessly on the internet, yet no one has given proof.
It was stated that his parents were US citizens, which was not true, because his father was not a citizen of the US at the time of his birth. And again no proof , link or documentation.
Is everyone in denial or just stating hearsay from the media and what they hear from friends.

Apparently you all know the answer, yet fail to back up your claims with proof.


The *Fourteenth Amendment*, adopted in 1868, *does not use the phrase natural-born citizen*. It does provide that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

_John Bingham, _the principal framer of the *Fourteenth Amendment* to the Constitution in 1866 states “*Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen*; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.”

Throughout the Constitution there is references to citizens and naturalized citizens, but only once is the term Natural Born Citizen mention, and that is for the requirement to hold office of the President. With no mention of Natural Born Citizen in the 14th, how can one reason that the requirement of Natural Born Citizen has changed with the 14th Amendment? There is no logic that the requirement would have changed when it was not even mentioned.
We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”. It does not use the words “natural born citizen”. And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US. Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals. The 14th Amendment certainly does _not_ state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Note that the founding fathers carefully used the words a *natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution*, and special note to at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Without this, they would not have been eligible to be President of the US. Anyone becoming a citizen after the adoption of the Constitution, would have had to be a Natural Born Citizen.


----------



## farmpony84 (Apr 21, 2008)

I have a hard time believing he would be in the position that he is in with the clearances that he has if he weren't. Why he won't produce the documents is beyond me. 

What I do believe is that he was a creation of a richer party. By that I mean, he isn't very bright and does not have the ettiquette or the presence that I personally believe an American president should have. I don't think he "earned" any of his political spots on his own, I think all of his endeavors were handled by some other party but that is completely my own personal opinion. I did not vote for him nor have I been happy about him. He is, however, the American President and the position I respect.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Elky said:


> I thought the question was pretty easy. *What is a Natural Born Citizen?*
> You just saying he is legal, does not necessarily make it so. I have spent countless hours searching this and have different thoughts on it than you do. Was John McCain a Natural Born citizen also? Was Chester Arthur a Natural Born Citizen?
> This is not because I dislike Obama, this is about our Constitution, and the requirement made in that document to be eligible for holding the office of POTUS , nothing more and nothing less.
> Yes it has been hashed out and persued, but not persued to death. There is very little on the internet to define what a Natural Born Citizen truly is, and why has the SCOTUS refused to clarify the meaning of Natural Born Citizen?


You evidently haven't been looking in the right places. Title 8 of the United States Code clearly defines citizenship. 8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth | LII / Legal Information Institute

As might be expected, the very first qualifier is birth on American soil...


> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof


The red is my emphasis. "At birth" obviously is "natural born".

The Constitution does not, and was never intended to supply details to cover evey contingency...if it did, it would fill a library, and there would be no need for a Supreme Court or any interpretation, because interpretation would not be necessary. It provides succinct "bullets" if you will, with specifics covered by interpretation through the Code of Federal Regulations, constitutional court findings, and so on.

While I am a conservative Republican, and am *vehemently* opposed to Obama, this whole citizenship thing is absurd. He was born on American soil and is therefor a natural born U.S. citizen, and eligible to be U.S. President...pure and simple...


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Elky said:


> No it is not a joke. Do you think the Constitution of the United States is a joke?
> 
> It was stated that his parents were US citizens, which was not true, because his father was not a citizen of the US at the time of his birth. And again no proof , link or documentation.
> Is everyone in denial or just stating hearsay from the media and what they hear from friends.


(Quote merely trimmed for space constraint)

Um, so now I am curious……

Instead of repeatedly engaging folks in a debate on a horse forum about such a supposedly grievous err and … um… (searching for the right word)… uh… breach of the constitution and perhaps your perception of an insult to a US citizen, why not take your argument to someone/something/organization who can actually do something about it?

I'm just saying.....


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Lockwood asks a really good question there, as far as I can see Elky has 55 posts, 1 is horse related, the rest are on political threads, very odd.


----------



## tlkng1 (Dec 14, 2011)

Anyone born in the US, or on a US military base outside of the US itself, is considered a natural born citizen; that is one of the major arguments being tossed around due to illegal immigrants coming in from other nations and having children in the US; the children are considered natrual born with all the rights that entails.

President Obama was born in Hawaii..that makes him a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency. I can't imagine that if there was even a small smidgeon of doubt that the Republican party would have let the matter "die." Remember that John McCain's eligibility was also questioned when it was announced he was born in Panama, on a US military base, of US parents..he only had a "Certificate of Birth Abroad" and not a standard US birth cert. Any US military base, whether in the US itself or located elsewhere, is considered US "soil" for purposes of citizenship.

As an aside, I am not exactly fond of President Obama's policies either but I don't question his eligibility, only his overall competency, for the position. As another aside, the republican pool currently running doesn't give me any giant warm fuzzies either.


----------



## Elky (Apr 17, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> Lockwood asks a really good question there, as far as I can see Elky has 55 posts, 1 is horse related, the rest are on political threads, very odd.


Well maybe you need to learn how to count. And I suppose all of your posts are horse related. Not.

Pot meet kettle.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Yup my bad, something like 14 out of your 56 posts are horse related.

If you have the patience you can go back through mine I would guess that 80% or more are horse related, because this is like a horse forum:wink:


----------



## myhorsesonador (Jun 21, 2009)

Elky said:


> Well maybe you need to learn how to count. And I suppose all of your posts are horse related. Not.
> 
> Pot meet kettle.


What is the point you are trying to make. We have told you over and over what a Natural born citizen is, yet you keep reapeating your self. Just so you know, most of us hear really dont give a horses fanny about "is he, or isn't he."


----------



## BaileyJo (Aug 23, 2011)

We are all free to post in any thread and open up new discussions. But some post in political threads more than others. 

While I did appreciate your spin, it just seems to me that you are not absorbing any of our responses. It's like you are putting your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalala.....I can't hear you.....


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

this is another case of not being able to defeat him so we will discredit him. Any way we can. By any means we can. This whole debate about the man being a US citizen is absurd.
Such things distract from the real issues. 
They also insult the intelligence of the american voter.
Elky get over it. Your time would be better spent volunteering for the republican party to help defeat him.
Such post discredit the party. Most intelligent people can see it for what it is a stupid distraction. Shalom


----------



## DrumRunner (Jan 26, 2011)

Wow..just wow..Besides darabians making a great point..What does it matter? I'm pretty darn sure he will be booted out of the WH soon..So who cares?.. I am NO BAMA all the way but Lord..What are you trying to accomplish here?.... Playing Pete and Repeat isn't getting you anywhere. I'm sure there is a MUCH better topic to talk about than the president who will be forever known as the president who ran the country into the ground with a smile on his face..Laugh, I'd rather waste my time arguing about Parelli, at least he has some sense..


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

If you think these politcal threads are tiresome for republican voters, you can imagine how tiresome they are for me, who voted for Obama in "08 and will do so again.

HOwever, a person has the right to play primarily in this playground, if they so desire. Just play fair and it wont be a problem.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

tinyliny said:


> If you think these politcal threads are tiresome for republican voters, you can imagine how tiresome they are for me, who voted for Obama in "08 and will do so again.
> 
> HOwever, a person has the right to play primarily in this playground, if they so desire. Just play fair and it wont be a problem.


Setting aside the main topic of the thread, which is silly, I really don't understand why anyone would vote for Obama again. Politics aside because we are all of different political views, why would anyone vote for an incumbent President that has run up the debt out of sight, put us deeper into the recession with high unemployment and record food stamp participation, lowered our country's credit rating for the first time in history, greatly increased government's footprint and involvement in our daily lives, greatly increased regulations, and I could obviously go on and on.

I am a moderately conservative Republican, and voted for Bush the first time, but after experiencing him for 4 years and seeing exactly what his policies were, I didn't vote for him the second time.

I just can't understand it...do liberals actually LIKE a deep recession? Do liberals really LIKE half the country on food stamps and a national debt that is killing us economically? Do liberals simply not understand the implications of the debt?

This whole thing doesn't make sense to me at all. Politicians campaign for office, you listen to what they say, pick the one that fits your political philosophy the best, and elect them. But doggone, when a President is a failure and the entire country suffers, why in the world would you re-elect him? I was just as critical when we re-elected Bush. Are Democrats so blind that they actually think Obama has done a good job? 

I can understand the lazy entitlement segment of society supporting him because they can sit around doing nothing and get their liberal welfare, but I just don't understand how intelligent regular people can support a person that has failed...whether Republican or Democrat is not really the issue.

I sort of liken it to being from a Chevy family, so you go out and buy a Chev, it ends up being a POS and falls apart, and you go right out and buy another one instead of going with a Ford or Honda or something...makes no sense to me...


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Faceman said:


> Setting aside the main topic of the thread, which is silly, I really don't understand why anyone would vote for Obama again. Politics aside because we are all of different political views, why would anyone vote for an incumbent President that has run up the debt out of sight, put us deeper into the recession with high unemployment and record food stamp participation, lowered our country's credit rating for the first time in history, greatly increased government's footprint and involvement in our daily lives, greatly increased regulations, and I could obviously go on and on.
> 
> I am a moderately conservative Republican, and voted for Bush the first time, but after experiencing him for 4 years and seeing exactly what his policies were, I didn't vote for him the second time.
> 
> ...


(I bolded the part I am referring to)

I'm generally not one to get into political discussions, but I do often read/listen to them and try to see the views from all sides. Nor do I "peg" myself with any kind of political label and have lived/been surrounded by utra conservative Rs and at other times lived/been surrounded by uber liberal Ds. And everything in between.

So far, since I have joined this forum, the political discussions here seem to rely heavily on people's perceptions of what failure or sucess means to them individually.
Some people think this administration is not a failure, others think it is a downright mess. And still others may not be happy with where things are, but the upcoming alternatives are far scarier.

To me, it is an easy read and I can certainly understand why some people will vote for him again, and why others will not.
Just my $.02 this morning while running low on caffeine. 

As an aside.... I've hauled with a POS Chevy (doesn't mean all Chevys are POS) but I won't own another one and have converted to being a Dodge fan, but it was based upon performance alone. :thumbsup:


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman, we all don't think Obama is a failure.
Plus with the candidates the Republicans have running this election cycle are far scarrier to us.
The republicans have moved farther to the right than the democrats have moved to the left.
You posted that you listen to the candidates make a decision and vote for the one that fits your image of the bgetter candidate. We are.
Those werent you exact words sorry about that.
Plus the infighting during the primaries has shown that the candidates are willing to placate the social conservatives at any cost.
Most voters do not think that abortion, gay marriage, birth control, or cutting taxes are more important than jobs, the deficit, or the economy.
Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman, we all don't think Obama is a failure.


Honestly, and I mean this in a friendly way, that is not even a rational statement.

I can list scores of reasons why he is a failure, from those I mentioned above to the ridiculous failures of his cabinet members and other appointees, the waste, fraud and abuse in federal agencies under his watch and so on and so on.

If you think he has been a success, then tell me why you think so. List his successes. Be objective as I am, and make a fair asssessment - don't fall prey to the liberal media and water cooler talk. No "inherited" bunk - every President inherits garbage. Three years, with 2 of them having a Democrat House and Senate, is plenty of time to turn things around. Instead things have (obvioiusly) gotten worse.

And because you don't like the competition is no reason to support a failed President. Do you think I liked voting for John Kerry in 2004, the second Bush election? I had worked with Kerry several times as he was on the Senate Small Business Committee, and he is a nice enough guy, but waaaay too liberal for me. But Bush was a failure in both his economic and foreign policies, had his chance, and there was no way I could support him for re-election. And I am not the only one...there were a lot of Republicans that didn't vote for Bush the second time.

I just can't seem to get past the fact that so many people can vote for a failed President - and although I will await your assessment of his successes, by any reasonable measure, he is a failure. Obama may win the election this Fall, and if he doesn't it almost certainly will be very close, so millions and millions of people will vote for him, and I just don't understand why people want 4 more years under a failed leadership.

Got to head out of town, so will check in later this PM...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman Ifelt the same way about Bush on 04. How could so many people vote for a man that was IMO unqualified to be President.
The economy is improving.
The bailouts worked. The auto industry is now hiring thousands of workers.
Banks and the stock market have recovered.
Unemployment is down.
Foriegn Policy and our image has improved from the our way or the highway mentality.
More people have access to healthcare and millions more will soon.
Obama did promise more than he or anyone else could deliver. Don't they all?
The biggest reason I will support him is because the Republicans IMO have not offered any policies that are not a change from those offered by Bush.
At least not any that are viable or able to pass even in a republican controlled congress.
If you touch Medicare, Social Security, or unemployment you willo sign a political death warrant. Shalom


----------



## muumi (Oct 17, 2011)

DrumRunner said:


> Wow..just wow..Besides darabians making a great point..What does it matter? I'm pretty darn sure he will be booted out of the WH soon..So who cares?.. I am NO BAMA all the way but Lord..What are you trying to accomplish here?.... Playing Pete and Repeat isn't getting you anywhere. I'm sure there is a MUCH better topic to talk about than the president who will be forever known as the president who ran the country into the ground with a smile on his face..Laugh, I'd rather waste my time arguing about Parelli, at least he has some sense..


I think you may be mistaking him for somebody else.
The US was already run into the ground before he got there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

I don't think Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because I don't think he was born in the US at all. 
His grandmother has said, more than once, that she was there for his birth, NOT in the US, but in KENYA. People just choose to ignore that little tidbit coming from his own flesh and blood.


----------



## muumi (Oct 17, 2011)

Whisper22 said:


> I don't think Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because I don't think he was born in the US at all.
> His grandmother has said, more than once, that she was there for his birth, NOT in the US, but in KENYA. People just choose to ignore that little tidbit coming from his own flesh and blood.


Come on! He showed his birth certificate! Born in the US of A! Ask Donald Trump.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## myhorsesonador (Jun 21, 2009)

I come from a military family, that alone should tell you what I think of obama.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I am a retired military Officer so was my father. I support the President.
I gather that you support him then? Shalom


----------



## myhorsesonador (Jun 21, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> I am a retired military Officer so was my father. I support the President.
> I gather that you support him then? Shalom


No I don't, he has screwed the military over more than once. My father almost lost his retirement, along with every one else in the military.


----------



## myhorsesonador (Jun 21, 2009)

double post sorry


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

I am proudly dual nationality, English and Canadian, so I have no interest in, as in no vested interest, in American politics.

I have to say though that I think it is incredible that people are still asking about his nationality, it just astounds me that you guys have so little faith in your own system that this wasn't fully checked out in the first place. 

Would this question even of been asked if he had turned out white rather than black?


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

I really don't care if he was born here or not anymore, moot point. He's in office.
The "is he qualified" question is the greater debate. No, he was not qualified to be President. I've said it before, it would take longer for a person to rise through the ranks of McDonald's to be manager than the time it took him to become the President of the United States, AKA manager of the Country. THAT is a fact.
I'm not saying several prior Presidents were any more qualified, so don't jump down my throat on that. GW Bush was a joke but at least he was compassionate and TRIED to keep the country united.

Obama is a snarky, jerk of a man. He believes in Unions and taking from those that have more to be "fair". It's a joke and un-American. He fuels the flames of racism and class warfare. I have come to this conclusion BY LISTENING to the man speak. Not the media nor the press who are all a bunch of biased idiots themselves. 

As far as my background, most would think I would HAVE to be a liberal. An artist, a promoter, music loving hippy of sorts. Nothing could be further from today's truth, a REAL hippy believes the GOV can shove it. They have nothing more to offer society and prove it every day. They (he) has not done his job to protect our borders, protect trade, and encourage a thriving economy. So therefore he is NOT qualified to be President. The unemployment numbers are a joke, the stock market is thriving and RISING due to the higher gas prices, costs more to provide a commodity = higher stock cost. Healthcare is now easily affordable to the "needy" because it's funded by the taxpayer and from loans from China, my private healthcare costs are now unbearable. I do agree with some reform to that system, the GOV needs to STAY OUT OF IT.

Now, off the soapbox and on to tend the farm. Hopefully I'll be able to keep it.


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

muumi said:


> Come on! He showed his birth certificate! Born in the US of A! Ask Donald Trump.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is just as much evidence supporting that the documents he showed were fake as there is that they were not. It's a never ending battle over who can prove what. What tips the scale for me is the evidence, coupled with the words that came out of his grandmothers mouth.


----------



## BaileyJo (Aug 23, 2011)

Whisper22 said:


> I don't think Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because I don't think he was born in the US at all.
> His grandmother has said, more than once, that she was there for his birth, NOT in the US, but in KENYA. People just choose to ignore that little tidbit coming from his own flesh and blood.


Sorry but that is so bogus. Her words were mistranslated. They corrected the interviewer over and over. 

Here is the first part of that interview. 





 
Start at 4:25. What they don't do is continue the conversation. Usually happens when someone tells people what they only want you to hear. 

*Here is the continuance of the conversation. *

MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?

OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.

MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Sorry to differ as a retired officer I have not ever been in danger of losing my retirement. I may not have gotten a raise for a couple of years. That claim about losing military retirement is as bogus as claiming the man is not a citizen of the USA.
Once again these are distractions. the only thing they accomplish is making those that repeat them look as ridiculous as the claims.
Our economu has grown for the last 2 years not as much as some would like but it is improving.
Sales of homes are up, jobs ARE being created, banks are now lending more, the stock market HAS rebounded to levels before 2009.
The stock market rebounding is a good indicator that people have more money to invest and are more confident in the economy.
If these things continue Obama is almost assured a second term.
Shalom


----------



## muumi (Oct 17, 2011)

dbarabians said:


> Sorry to differ as a retired officer I have not ever been in danger of losing my retirement. I may not have gotten a raise for a couple of years. That claim about losing military retirement is as bogus as claiming the man is not a citizen of the USA.
> Once again these are distractions. the only thing they accomplish is making those that repeat them look as ridiculous as the claims.
> Our economu has grown for the last 2 years not as much as some would like but it is improving.
> Sales of homes are up, jobs ARE being created, banks are now lending more, the stock market HAS rebounded to levels before 2009.
> ...


Amen.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BaileyJo (Aug 23, 2011)

And just to further prove my point here is the FULL audio of that conversation.





#!

Start this one from 5:45.


----------



## tlkng1 (Dec 14, 2011)

PRes Obama will more than likely get elected again for two reasons...first, there is always the old "better the devil you know than the one you don't" attitude and second, I dont think the Republican ticket can ever be made strong enough to sway the public..there are too many things going on with fanatic conservatives that are not helping the Republican ticket cause.

People just can/t get it through their overly thick skulls that we can't have a straight liberal or straight conservative in the White House, or even in congress...it doesn't work and will never work. 

Until we get to the point wherethe decision makers are able and willing to actually work together to compromise and find the best middle of the road solution, this country will never be truly whole again.

As an aside, it wasn't PRes Obama who "decided" on the lack of pay raises for retirees...he had nothing to do with it. It was due to the fact that the CPI was low for two years.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

OP-I come to HF to read horse stuff, not polical BS. So, it you would like to take this argument to someone, try it here.
SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network - Powered by vBulletin
Good luck with that. I can hear the black helps circling now. THey will chew you up and spit you out, and FYI-they are the guys who defend that freedom of speech you are using. I will guarantee that just by reading there you will get an education in what is real and what is not. I highly recommend you read more, post less.
Most are well credentialed and BTDT (been there, done that) type folks. They are for real. Don't mess with them. Seriously. But they will teach you.
And no, I did not read this whole thread......like I said-I come here for horse stuff. If I want politics or to know what is really happening-that is where I go.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Agree with tlkng1.

Political debate generally = 
*a*. I'm XYZ
*b*. Well, I'm ABC
*a*. Hey, you're wrong!
*b*. No, you are the one who is wrong!
*a*. No no, friend, I assure you , you are the mistaken one...
*b.* Sorry to say, pal, you are the one who is wrong....
... and ad nauseum...

Wouldn't it be nice if things went this way....
*a*. I'm XYZ and here is what I would like to change...
*b*. Well, I'm ABC and here is what I would like to see different.... 

*both*. Hey, this country is headed in a direction that may not be very good for both of us. How can we all pull together and work cohesively to figure out an viable answer?

Yeah, rainbows and butterflies I suppose because most people are more interested in shoving their opinions down other people's throats (or stirring the pot) on how they are right and others are wrong, than working together for a solution. 
It is disappointing.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman Ifelt the same way about Bush on 04. How could so many people vote for a man that was IMO unqualified to be President.
> The economy is improving. According to who? Unemployment is still way too high, gas is high, interest rates are low, the housing market is still on the decline, the debt is continuing to skyrocket, our country's credit rating is down - you have been listening to Tim Geithner too much...he is the President's man, you know.
> The bailouts worked. The auto industry is now hiring thousands of workers. The bailouts have partially worked - not completely, and not without cost. Sadly, the stimulus has been a joke and almost a total waste of our taxpayer dollars.
> Banks and the stock market have recovered. Just a slight problem with your statement. The banks that have survived are, for the most part either recovered or on their way to recovery...what you have forgotten is the record number of banks that have failed, and will fail, and the number that are being purposely kept open by FDIC or OCC, their regulators, to help make the situation look better than it is. As a recently retired senior corporate bank executive, I know of what I speak when it comes to the banking industry.
> ...





Some of your points are arguable, but honestly with some of them a person would have to be grasping at straws to spin any kind of "improvement" out of a declining situation. Speculation is speculation, and facts are facts. A couple of those points are speculation - by both you and I, but others are demonstrable by facts...


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Soooooo Over it...and him, and his wife....and his kids....and his policies...and his blah blah blah.........
Living in the metro DC area-we seem to get more of his BS than the rest of the country. If only we could harness that hot air......


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman I hope your trip went well.
I have seen many charts on unemployment and yes it is too high but those figures are going down and have been.
Jobs are being created and that is due to an improving economy.
We the people are already paying for healthcare for those that are uninsured. The cost are being passed on to those of us that have insurance and that cn pay. In the long run this will cut the governments cost.
I too have heard from friends that are in the finacial business that some banks are still on shaky ground. I defer to your expertise on this one.
However the auto industry is booming right now.
Houses are being built and purchased.
Faceman I think GW Bush was a man who was long on conviction and short on critical thinking. His father was the last republican I voted for and an honorable man. I don't think his presidency was a failure.
As for foreign policy I have spent some time overseas and have family members that live in other countries. The policies of the Neo Cons in the bush administration and his my way or the highway style did damage our standing in the world. Hillary Clinton has done an excellent job as Sec of State and has regained the trust of most world leaders.
The policies othe Obama Administration has been the same regarding Irsael as the past 30 years. Bush turned a blind eye to the problems in the Mideast in favor of Israel. alienating the Arabs therfore allowing Hamas and Hizbollah to gain political clout.
Good debating with you again. You bring up some valid points. Thanks for reading mine. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman I hope your trip went well.
> I have seen many charts on unemployment and yes it is too high but those figures are going down and have been.
> Jobs are being created and that is due to an improving economy.
> We the people are already paying for healthcare for those that are uninsured. The cost are being passed on to those of us that have insurance and that cn pay. In the long run this will cut the governments cost.
> ...


The only point I will argue with you here is on the health care. The other points have had both sides presented. Yes, we are already paying for the healthcare of those that don't have insurance out of our taxes. However, under Obamacare, there will (obviously) be far more people on government run healthcare than now. Hopefully you understand how incredibly inefficient the government is. There are many reasons for that inefficiency, which I won't go into here - that is another topic. Mrs. Face works for the VA healthcare system, and has for 15 years in several capacities. Although there are a handful of bright spots in the system, overall it is a black hole for tax dollars, waste fraud and abuse abounds, and the overall healthcare is mediocre at best - and then only at some facilities. Government is not as efficient as the private sector - that should be one of those "everyone knows" axioms. The more governmenet is involved, the less efficient and cost effective something is... that is not opinion, it is a simple fact - again, there are reasons for that that are another topic. So the bottom line is the more people on government assisted health care, the more the cost. Have you not seen the new numbers on Obamacare? The cost is far higher than originally "estimated" by the liberals that pushed it through - duh...big surprise. If you want to compare other features of Obamacare vs. the private sector, I will debate them with you, but the cost is not really debatable. It will be a higher cost to the taxpayer, and that is a fact. So it is absolutely invalid to use the argument that we are already paying for healthcare for those that don't have access to it. To intimate that the cost would be the same or less is like saying you can move a mountain with a shovel just because you moved a small mound of dirt with it...sorry, but you need a much bigger shovel....


----------



## Lunarflowermaiden (Aug 17, 2010)

tlkng1 said:


> PRes Obama will more than likely get elected again for two reasons...first, there is always the old "better the devil you know than the one you don't" attitude and second, I dont think the Republican ticket can ever be made strong enough to sway the public..there are too many things going on with fanatic conservatives that are not helping the Republican ticket cause.


That and the thought of President Romney, is enough to either make me laugh, or curl up and weep. Largely depending on the latest loony/terrifying thing he has said that day.

And honestly I'd say that about all of the republican candidates that were running.


----------



## NdAppy (Apr 8, 2009)

Being the spouse of an Active duty military member.. the fact that you (dbarabians) are saying that your retirement was not in jeopardy is a joke. When a budget couldn't get passed the my husband's paycheck had already be cut with the expectation that the budget would not pass and we were scrambling trying to figure out how to pay for him to get to an from work with him not having a paycheck... As the military and government weren't going to let the service members not work... they just weren't going to pay them for the work they were doing. Not only was that money earmarked for current salaries but for the retirement pay as well. Between my husband and I, we do not know of any active duty (and ADOS/NG) military members who have any respect for Obama and who wouldn't be glad to see the last of him in office.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

NdAppy said:


> Being the spouse of an Active duty military member.. the fact that you (dbarabians) are saying that your retirement was not in jeopardy is a joke. When a budget couldn't get passed the my husband's paycheck had already be cut with the expectation that the budget would not pass and we were scrambling trying to figure out how to pay for him to get to an from work with him not having a paycheck... As the military and government weren't going to let the service members not work... they just weren't going to pay them for the work they were doing. Not only was that money earmarked for current salaries but for the retirement pay as well. Between my husband and I, we do not know of any active duty (and ADOS/NG) military members who have any respect for Obama and who wouldn't be glad to see the last of him in office.


Yeah, that kind of stuff makes me sick - especially when you actually LOOK at the budget. When we don't have a budget, that doesn't mean tax and other revenues don't keep coming in - it just means there has been no agreement on how to spend it. There is always sufficient money to pay for the things we really need. And some things, like Social Security, are self funded, so don't need any money out of the general revenue fund. So what does Obama do? Threatens that without a budget, Social Security checks will stop - OUT OF A SELF FUNDED PROGRAM! He used it as a scare tactic, which honestly is BS. As you say, both civilian and military personnel were threatened with furloughs, which is par for the course, and retirees were also threatened.

But as I said, there is sufficient money to pay all the necessities. The only reason we need a budget is to find ways to spend the money we don't have, and to decide how much to fund descretionary (spelled...N.O.T. N.E.E.D.E.D.) programs. Did you hear him threaten to shut off welfare? Heck no - the liberals would never do that. Their obvious preference is to pay the people that refuse to work and don't pay the people that work or have retired from working.

All liberals don't feel that way of course, and we should remember that. There is nothing wrong about being liberal and conservatives shouldn't intimate there is or belittle them. But that is certainly the philosophy of the wacko radical liberals, and sadly, that is what is in power. I feel relatively certain that most liberals are opposed to many of the philosophies espoused by Obama and Pelosi and their kind - but still vote Democrat because Republican philosophy is too far removed from their own to support the Republican party.

This points out what, in my opinion, is one of the two basic failures of our political system, and that is the nomination process. In this specific case, it is obvious Obama does not really represent his constituency. He wasn't in office for 6 months before he was at war with his own party if you remember. Hilary was/is far more representative of the majority of Democrats than Obama could ever be, but Obama obviously won the nomination, and he won it for personality reasons - looks, public speaking ability, and the likeability factor.

Folks, and I am talking to you liberals, you need to someday come to the realization that electing a President for those reasons is like buying a horse for its color, mane, tail, and "kind eye", and those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with the horse's ability to do the job...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

NDappy all military and retired military would have been paid in full if the government was to shut down, when the funding was restored. That was not the same as having your retirement cut off or reduced.
That would never happen and it was the republicans especially those who claim Tea Party Affiliation that were refusing to negotiate the budget.
If you can remember the government was shut down in the 90's. People were paid. One of the reasons the republicans lost the midterm elections. Bill Clinton won that round and presided over 8 years of economic growth.
Faceman your right the far right of the republican party has far too much control and they are the reason most moderates and liberals have not supported the republican party.
If you ask me I think if Jeb Bush wanted to run and distanced himself from his brother it might have been his election to lose.
I like Micheal Bloomberg but he would not get the nomination because of his religion and his stance on social issues.
Faceman you are not argueing with me this is a debate. we are not enemies we just have different views. Shalom


----------



## NdAppy (Apr 8, 2009)

DB - what happened in the 90's has no bearing on this time around as they service members are no longer protected in that regard... 

The service members paychecks had already been reduced in the expectation that the budget would not go through the service members were informed that they still had to continue working for no current pay... I can probably dig up my husband's LES from from if you don't believe me, but it is true. Service members were not/are not protected/do not get paid if a budget is not decided.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

NDappy your husband was paid in full once the budget was passed. Am I not correct? That reduction only applied to active duty military not retirees as the person that I was responding to claimed.
I have a problem with the new policy and have voiced my opinionwith every one of my elected officials in Washington. I also am vocal about veteran benefits and volunteer at the Dallas VA.
My mother was the wife of a military officer I know first hand how much support she gave my father.
Americans not only owe those that serve they owe you and every spouse of a service member also. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> That would never happen and it was the republicans especially those who claim Tea Party Affiliation that were refusing to negotiate the budget.


Now, now. That depends upon which side of the fence you are on. I can make the same argument from the right. Come on, you are intelligent - you should be able to perceive the Dems just don't want to cut government spending, which is an absolute necessity under ANY budget scenario - whether taxes are cut via the Republicans, or increased via the Dems.

Some things are not negotiable. Cutting the rampant increase in debt is one of them. And neither is raising taxes that will further stifle the economy...that is pretty elementary economics.

I am not much on mantras, but the Republican mantra in this particular case (certainly not in all cases), is exactly correct:* We don't have a tax problem - we have a spending problem*. Believe me - I don't agree with some of the stuff the far right Republicans are coming up with...some of it is just as scary as what you hear from the far left. But on this, I fully concur, and fail to see how any reasonable person could be on board with runaway spending. While ignorant people take the ignorant position that the government can just print more money, you and I both know that is not true...the money has to come from somewhere...


ETA: It's a bit off topic, but I just want to add that if the government and politicians would put their "stop the waste, fraud, and abuse" rhetoric into action, we wouldn't have a budget problem to begin with. As you, I was in the military, my father was a lifer so I was raised with the military, I was a federal civil service employee for 15 years, and Mrs. Face has been a civil service employee for 15 years, and despite the rhetoric I can tell you from direct experience that our government could probably be run MORE efficiently on 20% less budget with the right changes. You do the math and see how many sheckles that 20% represents...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman, I'm glad you think I'm inteligent I was beginning to wonder. LOL
I agree spending must be cut. Where do we start? How many people and or programs are we willing to eliminate from the federal dole?
That is a hard question and it cannot happen overnight.
No matter what happens some deserving individuals will go without.
Some programs that are worthy will be drastically cut or eliminated.
Faceman I work with a organization that provides assistance for the homeless.
Once we help you secure employment and housing we start to ease you into full independence. If you are physically and mentally able to enter the program.
For the first 3 months we pay 100% of you housing. Next 3 months 75%, then50% then 25% for 1 year.
That program was working well and transitioning people into full members of soceity. Our funding was cut drastically.
i think this program could be implemented for all individuals on assistance.
This is a program that was working and IMO deserved not only to be fully funded but increased. We now have a waiting list over a year.
Certain pr0grams WORK.
I do not think education nor healthcare should ever be cut. 
The benefits of both are important to the long term health of our economy.
As for the Tea Party the rhetoric they have voiced here in Texas and nationally about defunding the entire government is absurd.
Let me remind you that here in Texas the republicans are far more conservative than most of those nationally. They cloud my judgement I will admit.
Good day Shalom


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

By the way I enjoyed the reference about Shekels. Made me grin. Shalom


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

There for a bit things seemed to get a little snippy, however, instead of turning ugly this thread has come around which has been nice to see.

Db and Faceman, I'm enjoing reading the responses back and fourth and seeing your views and thinking process.
Thank you both for being civil and presenting them in a digestable way.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman, I'm glad you think I'm inteligent I was beginning to wonder. LOL
> I agree spending must be cut. Where do we start? How many people and or programs are we willing to eliminate from the federal dole?
> That is a hard question and it cannot happen overnight.
> No matter what happens some deserving individuals will go without.
> ...


Well, you know very well we are intrinsically more intelligent than the other 50% of the population...:rofl:

Some programs do work - no question. I worked for the SBA for 15 years, and the number of REAL new jobs created generated far more tax and social security revenues than the agency costs - one of the few government programs that actually makes money. Companies like Intel, Nike, Apple Computer and others that have received SBA assistance in their start-up phase, EACH generate more revenues from the company and its employees every year than SBA's annual budget. So yes, some programs do work. At the opposite end, "Welfare to Work" under the Clinton/Gore administration (but also pushed by Republicans)did not work...hired employees didn't show up, wouldn't work, couldn't work, didn't produce - you name it. It was a dismal failure.

In my experience the only programs that work are those that coerce independence. "Giveaway" programs not only don't work but are counterproductive. I've done a lot of work in the Mississippi Delta region, and the area and its people are no better off than they were billions of tax dollars ago. Also, If you have worked in the area of social and economic empowerment for long, you know very well that there is only a segment of that population that can be helped. Some go for the brass ring when it is made available, but it is very frustrating when some don't even reach out to grab it, and others grab it but then simply let go. I've been around the block enough to fullly understand the reasons some people feel so hopeless they don't put forth the effort, but that does not alter the facct that all too often we throw tax dollars at a population that squanders them. That is the intrinsic problem with giveaways - they are counterproductive because they foster and nuture an entitlement attitude and suppress ambition and motivation. There are always individual success stories with any program, of course, but I know of no giveaway program with no provisional and motivational strings attached that has achieved any degree of overall success.

In short, there is a segment of society that cannot be helped, no matter how much money is thrown to them. Then there is a segment of society that can be helped temporarily, but never make the transition from dependency to being independent. Then there is a segnent that does make the transition, and lastly there are those that have always been, and always will be, independent. While the liberal philosophy to help everyone cross the bridge to self sufficiency is by all means noble, it is unrealistic. There always have been, and always will be, grasshoppers, and no matter how much the ants produce and give to them, they will remain grasshoppers. Our job should be as the Republicans believe - help those that can undergo the metamorphosis, and provide enough for the remainder to survive - our mission should not be to provide them with cell phones, big screen TV's, nice homes, nice cars, incomes, and everything else the ants work so hard to achieve. That is socialism, and socialism has never worked and never will. Economic production is essential to the survival of a civilization, and socialism is counterproductive to production - as has been proven over and over again, and as is currently being proven in Europe under their great socialism experiment...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Thanks Lockwood. If I disagree with anyone it does not give me the right to attack them or their beliefs.
That only distracts from the issues and kills the debate. Debates are important to forming and implementing policy.
Faceman this might be scary but we agree on the problems. Most people do.
What do we do with those that cannot be independent or won't attempt to become a funtioning member of soceity?
Those that cannot will always be dependent on the rest of us for. They are worthy of the programs the rest of us fund.
This is the hard part. Removing others from the programs will leave many women and children vulnerable to homelessness and hunger.
There is no politician alive or in the future that wants to be known for allowing millions of hungry children to suffer.
Politicans may talk about reform but the reality may be a hard pill to swallow.
Faceman I must disagree with you on one point my children will swear that I am in the bottom 10%. That I can assure you. LOL Shalom


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

I feel pretty strongly about "welfare".
If it wasn't an option how could it become a problem?
My brother seems to be a grasshopper like guru Faceman put it, LOL!
He was living in a tent out in the woods with his wife. They managed to feed themselves and one or the other usually had some sort of employment. Guess what? They procreated. Guess what they have now? A house, food, healthcare, cellphones, and no job. "Welfare" supports the lazy, the incompetent, and those who would rather live in a tent than hold a steady job and become a contributing member of society. As for all the mothers with children... there are hundreds of thousands of single parents who make it work. We shouldn't have to support the ones who won't. I agree with programs that feed the children at school (paid for by local taxes) and there are THOUSANDS of community programs that send food home with poor children. Having the taxpayer pay for it is insanity.

Also... According to our income we actually QUALIFY for foodstamps!?!?!? Have you looked into the qualifications for receiving assistance? Of course we have assets and things set up in a way that we are doing really well, but we live off a fraction of what most people would consider poverty! It's all in the priorities.
We do not eat out, drive needless miles, go to the movies, shop high end stores, eat crap food and snacks, buy tons of meaningless items for the home, etc. We live within our means and quite comfortably. I can't say the same for those I know getting all the "handouts".


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Thanks Lockwood. If I disagree with anyone it does not give me the right to attack them or their beliefs.
> That only distracts from the issues and kills the debate. Debates are important to forming and implementing policy.
> Faceman this might be scary but we agree on the problems. Most people do.
> What do we do with those that cannot be independent or won't attempt to become a funtioning member of soceity?
> ...


Re-read what I posted. We have to take care of the segment that can't take cre of themselves...that goes without saying. I personally don't know of anyone that would just let them starve, although there may be some wacko out there somewhere that would. But here is the problem - because of liberals, we that work for a living are taking care of FAR more than that last segment. We are also taking care of the segment that WON'T be self sufficient - call them lazy, unmotivated or whatever - the entitlement society that seeks and is content with the government taking care of them. Let's be realistic here...we now have OVER 46 MILLION people on food stamps. If there were a country with 46 million people, it would rank 26th among the world's 266 countries. We have more people on food stamps than are in the entire countries of Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Argentina, Canada, or Australia, among the hundreds of others. 

Look at the chart below - sorry the numbers are small, but the chart is by President for the number of people added or subtracted, from food stamp assistance. Obama is red, needless to say. Now we could talk about recessions but we have had them before, we could talk about "inheriting" problems, but if you do thatthen you have to look at how quickly Reagan turned things around after inheriting Jimmy Carter's disastrous legacy, but the bottom line is the Obama administration is an entitlement-happy administration. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone - his background is as a community planner, whose objective was to obtain as much welfare and aid for his community as possible. Everyone knew what his background was - it was no secret 



I keep presenting both rhetoric and facts, but you are only presenting rhetoric. I try to be as open minded as possible, but am still awaiting some actual facts that support your contention that Obama has done a good job.

I know why, of course - because Obama has been a failure. That is why he CANNOT (and is not and will not) run on his record and CANNOT ask the question "are you better off than you were 4 years ago"? 



TO LOCKWOOD: People can discuss political ideologies without slinging mud...you would never know it by watching TV election ads, though. All it takes is understanding that although you have your own opinions and beliefs, there are other valid opinions and beliefs. Most people, excepting the radical left and radical right, want the same things - they just disagree on how to attain them. 

Also, neither db nor I are trying to change the other's mind, which is where the mud slinging comes in. The purpose of a debate is not to change the other person's mind, but to present your case in front of the audience and judges. In a venue like this, the hope is that people that don't see anything about political ideology beyond talking heads on TV, which are primarily just sound bites, or from around the water cooler, can actually read real issues and ideologies being presented and be better informed - no matter which side of the fence they are on. Or at least that is my hope. I would rather see 100 million people participate and vote and re-elect Obama than 50 million people participate and vote and elect my Republican candidate - whoever that will be. The majority should rule, but can't if a majority don't participate...


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Faceman said:


> TO LOCKWOOD: People can discuss political ideologies without slinging mud...you would never know it by watching TV election ads, though. *I dunno about that. I don't take my political ideas from tv election ads or water cooler talk. I haven't always been CEO of my own business of 1. My employment has included the medical field and local and state government (of sorts) and I have been immersed on a different level than typical people have. My experiences with people in general who like "talking" politics is where I have been dissapointed. And the mudslinging... and of course the assinine behavior of election ads as well.*
> All it takes is understanding that although you have your own opinions and beliefs, there are other valid opinions and beliefs. *Agree 100% and cannot cannot understand why most people aren't capable of presenting themselves with respect towards others. *Most people, excepting the radical left and radical right, want the same things *(Are you sure about that??)* - they just disagree on how to attain them.
> 
> Also, neither db nor I are trying to change the other's mind, which is where the mud slinging comes in. The purpose of a debate is not to change the other person's mind, but to present your case in front of the audience and judges. *Thanks, I debated in college and beyond and know what is supposed to be about, although I didn't and still don't much care for participating in it. *
> In a venue like this, the hope is that people that don't see anything about political ideology beyond talking heads on TV, which are primarily just sound bites, or from around the water cooler, can actually read real issues and ideologies being presented and be better informed - no matter which side of the fence they are on. Or at least that is my hope. I would rather see 100 million people participate and vote and re-elect Obama than 50 million people participate and vote and elect my Republican candidate - whoever that will be. The majority should rule, but can't if a majority don't participate....


Faceman- my replies are in bold.


dbarabians wrote: "If I disagree with anyone it does not give me the right to attack them or their beliefs. That only distracts from the issues and kills the debate."
Agree with you 100%.


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

Faceman and Dbarabians,
The keystone pipeline was "derailed" by Obama due to the fact that there wasn't enough "time" to study the effects of it crossing Nebraska. Now there are several pipelines running through Nebraska already. Now they say that they want to run the oil on the rail system... with diesel engines, hmmm real environmental right?

Well guess who owns the rail system? In Nebraska? The great American Warren Buffet. Who is funding the environmental groups that do not support the pipelines, Mr. Buffet. "Business as usual?"

I've been going over the polls and seen some pretty tight %'s. Most of the polls are a joke, the only one with any merit would be the gallup poll taken recently. All the others I've gone over have had overwhelmingly larger margins of one particular group or another. Thing is NO presidential race in history has been won by an incumbent who is trailing in the polls especially at this time. Unless something incredible happens this slightly trailing incumbent could be in trouble. Or else again we will be witnessing "history".
Not exactly stoked about Romney, we shall see.

Faceman: I'm curious with that food stamp graph the age demographics and how many are disabled, or families with major medical issues? I support some of it, I'm just curious how many 20-40 something able bodied citizens are utilizing. Hmmm?


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

FlyGap said:


> Faceman and Dbarabians,
> The keystone pipeline was "derailed" by Obama due to the fact that there wasn't enough "time" to study the effects of it crossing Nebraska. Now there are several pipelines running through Nebraska already. Now they say that they want to run the oil on the rail system... with diesel engines, hmmm real environmental right?
> 
> Well guess who owns the rail system? In Nebraska? The great American Warren Buffet. Who is funding the environmental groups that do not support the pipelines, Mr. Buffet. "Business as usual?"
> ...


Don't know about the 20-40 something "able bodied" ones, although the age, gender, race, and ethnicity demographics are probably out there somewhere.

It's funny - I was reading a Capitol Hill article just this aftennoon, and the House Republicans are working on a budget bill that includes a cut in the food stamp program. I knew the program carried a big price tag, but honestly didn't know just how big it is...46 million people and *$80 billion* a year now. The other thing that jumped out at me was the amount they get - the average benefit for a family of 4 is an incredible $500/month. I thought it was a supplement - not paying the whole food bill. I've had kids and know how expensive it is to feed them, but holy criminy - Mrs. Face and I spend about $300/month on food alone at the grocery without the household items.

Anyway, the Republican proposal cuts the recipients from 46 million to 43 million (only 6 1/2%) just by tweaking the eligibility rules, and reduce the average benefit from $500 to $440. It would save a whopping $8 billion a year. Of course the Dems are screaming bloody heck...they just don't want to cut government spending a single bit. There are those, although I can't bring myself to count myself among them, that believe the huge increase in welfare recipients is an effort to buy liberal Democrat votes. That is of course possible, but my rose colored glasses just don't permit me to believe they would stoop that low. The article also mentioned that the 46 million foodstamp recipients is up from 33 million just 2 1/2 years ago...:shock:

As to the Keystone Pipeline, I honestly can't even talk about that without getting a bit nasty...it is perhaps the most absurd self serving political blunder I can remember - maybe with the exception of Bush's personal holy crusade against Sadaam, bearing the cross before him...


----------



## NdAppy (Apr 8, 2009)

Heck face that would cover our food bill... six people... three kids and three adults. With household necessities we spend about 600 a month.


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

I HATE going to our small town grocery store. There is a running tally of how much food stamps would cover. Usually I could buy a weeks worth of groceries for under $8. Argh!!!!

Face those stats are mind boggling!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman, most of the 46 million are children the disabled and the elderly.
Those numbers also increased due to umemployment.
How is Obama a success? He ended the war in Iraq and is winding down the one in Afganistan.
Retail sales are up and have been. Salkes rose 8.2 % for the first Quater
Unemployment is down. The decline has slowed in March the first time in 3 months.
Factories are hiring. becuase demand is up
Businesses are restocking shelves.
Housing sales have slowed for the first time in 7 months.
All these are indicators that the economy is improving.
Obama promised and signed into law the Affordable Healthcare Act. Giving millions more access to healthcare now and in the future.
I am aware that people that can work take advantage of the programs and it has become a way of life for some. It is frustrating.
Good debate everyone and I have read everyones post. Some points I agree with other not. Everyones are important.
perhaps we need to start another party and really shake things up. Shalom


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.
Where to begin....lol..

Affordable Healthcare?, 20 million may lose their current Healthcare

At worst, 20M may lose employer insurance - UPI.com

The Stimulus..... 447 Billion for supposedly 1.9 million jobs, that is 235,263.00 per Job... wish I could make that much? Great use of our Tax money....

Wars? Obama stopped one 2 years later than promised, btw he started two wars/conflicts, one without Congressional support. Libya and Yemen, if memory serves me correct

National Debt ... Increased more in 3 years than 8 years of Bush 
National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I could post a dozen more with documentation ....

I will not post them all and wait for documented proof of Obama's accomplishments..... 




.


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

Golden Horse said:


> Would this question even of been asked if he had turned out white rather than black?


Absolutely…and it was. McCain went through the same thing because of his birth abroad (Panama).


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

…and unemployment is not down. When Obama took office in January, 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.8. It has NEVER been that low since. That, to me, is a failure.

resource referrence: data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> .
> Where to begin....lol..
> 
> 
> The Stimulus..... 447 Billion for supposedly 1.9 million jobs, that is 235,263.00 per Job... wish I could make that much? Great use of our Tax money....


Sadly, it is far worse than that...:shock:

Having worked for a federal agency, SBA, that is there for job creation, I can tell you that the government doesn't statistically "create" jobs - it statistically "creates or saves" jobs...it is a sad game that is played to convince the public that government programs are doing more than they actually are.

For example...whenever I made a small business loan to a company, the number of employees is part of the application. That number is "counted" as "jobs saved" - EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY MIGHT NOT BE IN TROUBLE. I approved about 3,000 SBA loans in my 15 years with SBA, and of those about 1,000 were for start-up businesses. The rest were for existing businesses, and I doubt that even 10% of those were under any threat of closing.

Then...of the start-up businesses, more than 50% fail within 3 - 5 years.

Then...of the jobs actually created, a substantial percentage would have been created anyway - SBA loans are just one financing option.

It is all a big game...believe me, as a retired SBA Loan Officer and Public Information Officer, I know - I played the game the same as everyone else - didn't have any choice.

I get sort of a chuckle out of it because the Republicans are challenging the number of jobs crated by the stimulus, but heck, it is not a party thing - I did contractc work with SBA under the Reagan administration and worked for SBA under the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations, and they all do the same thing. Of course there was no mammoth $447 billion stimulus package under the others.

The bottom line is I assure you (objectively) that the cost per job of jobs truly created by the stimulus package was well over $1 million/job, and more likely in the $1.5 million area. And to top it all off, many of those jobs were temporary jobs like construction contracts.

It is a shame that this kind of information is not available to the average Joe on the street. Government should really be more transparent so that you don't have to know someone on the inside or have to dig and dig and dig to find the truth. Many years ago when the media was less biased there was a lot more (relatively) objective investigative reporting. Today, all you get from the media is sarcastic men and big boobed news babes that do nothing more than parrot the liberal or conservative leanings of whoever owns the media company they work for. The media have always been biased, but nothing like today. Fox is virtually a campaign aide for Republicans, just as CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and PBS are for Democrats. I'm more of a Jack Webb ("Just the facts, ma'am) type of guy, but you never get the facts without the spin today...


----------



## Whisper22 (Jan 2, 2011)

BaileyJo said:


> And just to further prove my point here is the FULL audio of that conversation.
> 
> Obama Not Born In Kenya - McRae / Berg Full Clip of Grandmother - YouTube#!
> 
> Start this one from 5:45.


 




Or how about straight from the horses mouth





How about his wife's mouth


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.
What I want to know is why it took Obama 3 years to finally produce a Birth Certificate ..... If I was accused of not being born in the USA, I would have produced my BC on day one and shoved it in front of everyone's noses....

Also, why does he seal all his College Records and why has no one come forward saying the remember him at Harvard.

Was he Qualified to become President.... NO... as a State Senator and his limited time in Congress, he had one of the worst voting records in the history of Politics, unless of course you count his normal vote cast "present" as accomplishing anything .....


.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman, I agree with you about the spin. It distracts totally from the problems this country faces.
When the news becomes the news we need to look at the underlying problem of who can convince the most viewers to tune in,
It is all about ratings and making money.
They allow anybody to become an expert as long as you agree with me, and sound and look good on TV.
Both parties are guilty of reckless spending and placing party before politics. Both have been hijacked by the extreme or at least those that are the most vocal. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Yeah, it is pretty disgusting. The broadcast media was mildly liberally biased for a long time, with the print media on both sides, but two things happened - Fox came along, and the public started demonstrating a National Inquirer mentality. While I think it is good to have a conservative broadcast news source, Fox took it past the mild stage and forced a polarization in the media, which is getting worse and worse every year. Yellow journalism prevails, and the "news" today consists primarily of biased sound bites. Thank God for the internet - I just wish more people recognized subtle bias when they see it...


----------

