the super anti-obama thread

[outahere]

http://youtu.be/H3Az0okaHig

[outahere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5G...ature=youtu.be


With unions demanding higher wages our jobs went overseas. The only thing any company is all about is profits--naturally.

[longnecker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5G...ature=youtu.be


With unions demanding higher wages our jobs went overseas. The only thing any company is all about is profits--naturally.

How about putting SOME of the blame on the unions getting too powerful and greedy. Some of those great retirement packages they negotiated are a great expense today.

[outahere]

Approx. 60% of Americans are in the dark about this country`s state of affairs.

Trump Plans Anti-Obama SuperPAC

[outahere]

Surprising how little we know but should.

http://mrctv.org/videos/whats-news-c...or-latest-idol

[hockey]

Whoa.... You do know that the Washington Examiner is owned by one of the largest Fracking/Oil Drilling men in the world, right?

I'm sure Trumps intentions are valid but the reasons may be skewed thanks to the fine writing of that paper.

Anschutz just lost a huge battle in NY state as a judge ruled that towns can regulate their land use which means he needs the residents of these towns to agree to allow him to drill/fracking. I bet he ran in a fit of rage straight to Trump after that ruling.

He also owns The Oklahoman Newspaper which is in trouble for false reporting.

Just an FYI... sources are very important to me. <- I'm a geek

http://mediamatters.org/research/201205010007

[Joe Walther]

Whoa.... You do know that the Washington Examiner is owned by one of the largest Fracking/Oil Drilling men in the world, right?

I suspect not; it would require a much higher level of intellectual curiosity than I suspect is available.

I'm sure Trumps intentions are valid but the reasons may be skewed thanks to the fine writing of that paper.

Donald Trump is no idiot, but without a doubt, he's a world-class narcissistic, self-promoter. What's good for the Donald is good for the rest of the country has always been his creed. Of course, his personal net worth is nowhere near the amount he claims because he's self-valued his "brand" at $2.5-BILLION!

Just an FYI... sources are very important to me. <- I'm a geek

But, Hockey, you’re ignoring a primary tenet of rock-solid intellectual curiosity—which you seem to possess in spades: an overwhelming need to consider sources by thinking for yourself. I think that most of the regulars here would love to be as certain about ANYTHING as some folks seem so absolutely certain about EVERYTHING.

There are a few exceptions in this country, but most of the time, ALL of us should take it with a grain of salt whenever someone declares that "So and so" gets it.

It's more likely that "So and so" doesn't know any more about the topic than the idiots making the declaration. What such people usually mean is that they admire "So and so's" astuteness in agreeing with THEM, complete absence of thought processes notwithstanding, of course.

[outahere]

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:


"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just
pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more
than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible
for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!
The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail,
cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed
around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive
the message. Don't you think it's time?






THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

If you agree, pass it on. If not, delete.
You are one of my 20+ - Please keep it going, and thanks. unquote

[Chiefbuck]

This lack of reporting should infuriate people! It's a great example of the willful omission that is "business as usual" for the liberal media. I would estimate that 90% of the "third estate" is in the pocket of the liberal progressive democratic party. The public school system and most colleges assist in perpetuating this travesty. The two party system "evolved" as a system of checks and balances and is necessary to help prevent exactly what is happening in our country now. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth after the bottom falls out. Politics is now basically a lying contest. I recommend that everyone prepares for the worst because it could be a long, hot, violent summer when reality starts to sink in.

[hockey]

All great points as always Joe.

Since we're on the subject of skewed media...

Can you (or anyone) please explain, or give me your opinion on, the difference between the First Amendment and Slander?
When did Slander become acceptable?

It makes me insane when I see headlines and entire articles that are completely false (proven false with actual facts and evidence), all over the internet, TV "News", print media, radio and it's especially irritating when it comes directly from the mouths of candidates or famous people paid to promote something.

Is it because these adverts are not "free speech" but paid for by the brand/Corp. or Super pac?

Do the "victims" of these claims not have a right anymore? OR what if it's big Corps lying about the safety/performance/quality of a product? Isn't there any watch dog or agency that can blow a whistle? Or is it true what they say... "Money can buy you anything in America" (including the Presidency)?

When I was younger my Dad used to get mad at American shampoo commercials because they would claim to make your hair healthier, thicker or grow faster. They don't allow that in the UK...

"The ASA Advertising Codes contain wide-ranging rules designed to ensure that advertising does not mislead, harm or offend. Ads must also be socially responsible and prepared in line with the principles of fair competition. These broad principles apply regardless of the product being advertised."

The UK public actually reports adverts that they find offensive, misleading, irresponsible, etc. The public police what corporations,etc are showing them. Genius.

more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...o.uk/media/asa

GL (is this worthy of it's own thread?)

[Joe Walther]

All great points as always Joe.

Since we're on the subject of skewed media...

Can you (or anyone) please explain, or give me your opinion on, the difference between the First Amendment and Slander?
When did Slander become acceptable?

Slander and Libel are both torts involving civil charges of character defamation. The former is verbal defamation; the latter is defamation that is communicated in writing or in some other medium that tends to be permanent in nature, such as newspapers, films, TV reporting/commentary.

More states are starting to include issue-oriented radio talk shows and news reporting/commentary. And, with the prevalence of the Internet, the entire spectrum of slander/libel is in a state of flux.

And, while the laws against slander and libel are equally applied, the burden of proof—based on a preponderance of the evidence—is always on the aggrieved. Plaintiffs must prove that a), a slander or libel was intended and b), that the slander or libel did, in fact, defame.

This is difficult as hell for private citizens. It’s virtually impossible for public figures like politicians, political appointees, etc. And, TRUTH is always a defense against such lawsuits, even if the “truth” is a bit on the gray side.

Politics is a slimy business. Quoting statements out of context is a way of life because, as long as the “quotee” actually used all the words quoted, it’s next to impossible to prove contextual intent. Even if you were to requote in complete context, I can always claim my “own” contextual interpretation.

The same thing applies to private citizens. Their chances of success at suing for slander and libel are just slightly better unless a defendant can show TRUTH of claim.

Instead, private citizens should usually sue under the tort of Publication of a Private Fact (aka Invasion of Privacy). Truth is NOT a defense to this. The only way a defendant can prevail is to PROVE that there was a compelling social/legal interest for the public’s right to know.

As you know, the 1^st Amendment defines our freedoms of speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly, and redress of governmental grievances. But, none of these rights gives anyone the right to break the law.

And, even the 1^st Amendment in all its glory does not grant unlimited free speech. Among a few other things, for example, you can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded room unless there is a fire. But, no matter what, neither slander nor libel is protected by the 1^st Amendment.

But, as for politicians in the process of slinging mud at each other, not to mention using outright lies in the process, it goes with the territory. And, as bad as it is here, it’s relatively calm compared to some other “civilized” countries.

There is only one defense against this crap for the electorate: BEING INFORMED! But, good luck on this one, especially over the past 30-years or so.

We’re rapidly becoming a nation of third-rate minds that are happy ONLY when they’re echoing the populist thinking because it agrees with their own. Second-rate minds simply don’t know what to think. And first-rate minds are going the way of the dinosaurs.

A lot of people love to quote Thomas Jefferson whenever something he said seems to strike their fancy. Here’s one of my favorites. “A people who expect to be ignorant AND free, expect what never was, and never will be.”

But, the major problem in today’s politics is that NO ONE expects that they’re IGNORANT. Donald Trump is a prime example with his birther crap. He’s a colossal lying bag of low-grade fertilizer.

I don’t give a damn whether Romney calls him out on it. Like the others—including Obama—he’s a politician pandering to the lowest common denominator for votes. They ALL lie and screw each other every chance they get.

The press, on the other hand, could shut this ego-centric narcissist up in a second simply by calling him a whack-job and refusing to cover anything he does or says… ever again!

But they won’t do it because they, too—thanks to the profit motive--cater to the lowest common denominator; it’s where the high ratings are!

[Tralee]

So, what's new? Are we really surprised that the Main Stream Media is NOT talking about this? Really? It makes the sitting president look weak and out of touch, they sure aren't going to advertise it guys. I know, the usual suspects will just label it as "another attack on women's reproductive rights" or the Republican "War on Women". But the thinking group sees right through that. It's about substituting the will of the State (Obama and HHS Secretary mandates) for the tenants of the Catholic Religion. This mandate directly counters the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, against the government creating a "State Religion". This mandate is not just about the lowly birth control pill as so widely stated, it's about the entire range of "Reproductive Rights" as envisioned by the left. Abortion on demand, up to and moments away from delivery if necessary, sterilizations and various over the counter abortifacients. Apparently, according to Obama et al, Catholics can believe whatever outdated notions they want, IN CHURCH ONLY, but outside of Church they will abide by the will of the State. Hmmmmpf, oh really? No, I don't think so and any freedom OF RELIGION believer will think the same. Surprisingly, Biden a graduate of Archmere and supposedly "Devout Catholic" (one only has to witness his entrance into St. Joe's to get just how "devout" he is), would have mentioned this wee problem with the mandate. I guess not.

[outahere]

VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

AP - WASHINGTON D.C. -
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College ... Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T!
Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. ... Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.
Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008.
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won't survive much longer.
If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can,
because our country is being looted and ransacked!

[Chase]

zzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Analysis: Hoax. The original April 1, 2009 posting date suggests it may have been intended as an April Fools prank, but given that the text does little else but parrot actual tenets of the so-called "Birther" movement (those who claim Barack Obama is ineligible for the presidency due to a forged or invalid birth certificate, etc.), it barely qualifies as satire.

Is it really an AP news story?

No. The Associated Press ("AP") never published such a story. It didn't run in any real newspaper, nor on any real wire service. It can, however, be found posted and reposted on hundreds of anti-Obama blogs and websites.
Is it true that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on Obama's citizenship and eligibility?

No. The Supreme Court has refused to hear the Donofrio case, not to mention every other Obama citizenship case submitted to date.
Did a group called "Americans for Freedom of Information" release Obama's Occidental College transcripts?

No. The organization doesn't exist — or didn't at the time the above message first began circulating, at any rate. A similarly-named website went up after the fact, but there is no evident connection between that website and the fake news story.
Has anyone released Obama's Occidental College transcripts?

No, the transcripts haven't been released (federal privacy laws forbid it), nor has any court of law "ordered" them released. (Source: Occidental College)
Did Obama attend Occidental under the name "Barry Soetoro"?

No. Soetoro was the surname of his stepfather, but there's no evidence Barack Obama used it when he attended college. Fellow alumni quoted in the press remember him as "Barry Obama." According to an Occidental spokesperson quoted on FactCheck.org, the college has no records showing Obama used his stepfather's last name.
Did Obama attend Occidental under a Fulbright Scholarship for Foreign Students?

No. According to various news sources Obama did attend on a scholarship, but it wasn't a Fulbright scholarship, let alone a Fulbright scholarship for foreign students. The Fulbright Foreign Student Program accepts Master's Degree and Ph.D. candidates only. Obama, an undergraduate, was neither. He couldn't have been awarded a Fulbright scholarship for foreign students even if he had been born outside the U.S. (Source: Fulbright Program)
Did the Daily Mail discuss these "revelations" in a news story entitled "Obama Eligibility Questioned"?

No. No such story turns up in a search of the London newspaper's archive.
Did Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation release research showing Obama has spent $950,000 or more "to block disclosure of his personal records"?

I've found no record of any such "research" being published. The U,S. Justice Foundation does exist and its executive director is indeed a man named Gary Kreep, but he's on record saying the above claim is a hoax.

The fact of the matter is that specific expenditures pertaining to litigation on Obama's Constitutional legitimacy aren't a matter of public record. What are a matter of public record — and what have have been continually misrepresented as moneys spent fighting citizenship lawsuits — are the total year-to-year legal expenditures of Obama's campaign finance committee. Anyone who purports to know exactly what portion of those funds were spent responding to citizenship challenges is merely speculating.

Moreover, it's disingenuous to characterize Obama's legal expenditures on these cases as funds dispensed "to block disclosure of his personal records." While various personal documents have been requested in the filings, securing their release wasn't the point of the litigation, which aimed to have Obama's candidacy ruled unconstitutional on a variety of different grounds.

Lastly, it isn't as if a presidential candidate whose legitimacy is challenged in court has the option not to mount a legal defense — just ask John McCain.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/bar...estioned_2.htm

[max1]

Yea, but hes still a Muslim so there.....nener nener :-)

[RobForaker]

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/was...rn-in-the-usa/

[Tracy]

[outahere]

Legitimate Questions




This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. I voted for Obama. McCain was a Washington insider and we don't need any more of them. I have changed my mind three times, since then. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. I started thinking "where does all the money come from for President Obama"? I have four daughters, who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's history for my own peace of mind.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental; he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.

My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barrack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least. My girls asked me; where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe it's none of my business?

After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York. By "chance" he met Antonio "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery several times in the past and in 2011. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? His family has no money that's for sure.

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what I discovered? They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for this property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Am I going nuts or is there a pattern here?

On May 10, 2008, The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things". What the heck does that mean?

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that were born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2009, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he made a mistake". Some mistake huh?

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barrack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this? Is this a Kettle of Fish??

As Arsenio Hall would say.----"HUMMMMMMM! Does something stink or is it my imagination?" These are legitimate questions for our president. Unquote

[outahere]

What you just read is what sources wants you to believe. Snopes is run by a husband and wife team giving their opinions to the public. Some have been `true` some `false` but those words have not always been accurate.

[Chase]

opinions derived from facts is all good, opinions derived from lies is another story.