Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 04-27-2011, 09:04 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 148 | Kudos: +11
Birth certificate

White House releases Obama birth certificate - Yahoo! News

This is only a delayed birth certificate. It was issued just 2 days ago. It is not the original; it is not even a copy of the original.

And just whom was it issued to? Was Obama in Hawaii on April 25, 2011 when this birth certificate was issued? Hasn't the argument all along been that Hawaii cannot legally issue a birth certificate to just anyone?

If Hawaii is like my home state of Florida the paper used is treated somehow so that the document cannot be faxed, scanned or photo-copied. So how did Obama get the actual document from Hawaii in just 2 days?

And why does a state bureaucrat need a Ph.D.?

For the record:

I haven?t been a Republican since 10 GOP senators voted to acquit Clinton in 1999. I voted for GWB both time and regretted my vote both times. I voted for McCain because Biden is dumb as dirt and I still regretted that vote as well because of Palin- unless we find out that Hawaii is really a province in Kenya, it must be official: every state in the Union now has white trash.

I haven?t voted for any other GOP candidate since I voted for Bill McCollum in the 2000 Florida senate race. I don?t vote for Democrats, never have, never will.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 10:02 AM  
AK 47 toting Liberal!
 
rainbow's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 309 | Kudos: +17
It just makes me grin from ear to ear, knowing that something so idiotic as this birther theory crap, just pisses of the right wing fanatics this much. I mean it really does bother some of these guys! Boray!
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 10:36 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 148 | Kudos: +11
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbow View Post
It just makes me grin from ear to ear, knowing that something so idiotic as this birther theory crap, just pisses of the right wing fanatics this much. I mean it really does bother some of these guys! Boray!
I am neither a birther, nor right wing. This country deserved whatever Obama can do to it because a majority of Americans (going back at least 20 years) don?t have sense enough, or nerve enough, to demand anything better.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 10:58 AM  
Traveler

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,452 | Kudos: +43
Obama got stuck with a bad situation no doubt, and I can't help but believe that in addition to people being somewhat brain dead in terms of the voters, the candidates are even stupider. What we need are real leaders, who bring this country back together, rather than this multi team nonesense, polorizing and causing this country to stagnate. The real issue here, is no more good meaningful leadership, and I go back even more than 20 years on the legacy of bad presidents too!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 11:25 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 148 | Kudos: +11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicinabottle View Post
Obama got stuck with a bad situation no doubt, and I can't help but believe that in addition to people being somewhat brain dead in terms of the voters, the candidates are even stupider. What we need are real leaders, who bring this country back together, rather than this multi team nonesense, polorizing and causing this country to stagnate. The real issue here, is no more good meaningful leadership, and I go back even more than 20 years on the legacy of bad presidents too!
The single most effective thing we can do is implement term limits. As long as our politicians in office have to kow-tow to the whim of the electorate in order to stay in office, they have nothing to lose by fighting amongst themselves and pitting one interest group against another and spending money left, right and center in order to win votes. Term limits would remove politicians' ability to stay in office so they won't be able to put their political career over the interests of the nation as a whole.

The second most effective thing we can do is raise taxes on the poor and middle class. 45% of American households do not now have a federal income tax liability (45% of households owe no federal income tax for 2010 - Apr. 17, 2011) so they don't care how much the country borrows or how much it spends because they know they don't have to pay for our deficit spending.

The third most effective thing we can do is to make Americans do without so we can stop spending money we don't have.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 12:27 PM  
Supporting Member
 
teaberryeagle's Avatar

Richmond, VA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,444 | Kudos: +200
Images: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaja View Post
I am neither a birther, nor right wing. This country deserved whatever Obama can do to it because a majority of Americans (going back at least 20 years) don?t have sense enough, or nerve enough, to demand anything better.

Here's some more "food for thought".......

American Family Association - Action Alert

What About Easter?

Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 12:36 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 148 | Kudos: +11
Quote:
Originally Posted by teaberryeagle View Post
Here's some more "food for thought".......

American Family Association - Action Alert

What About Easter?

Muslims don't celebrate Easter.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 12:36 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
The single most effective thing we can do is reorganize our political representation so that it no longer supports a two-party-only system. Minor issues in each of the major parties are currently elevated to major importance. The percentage of people with a strong opinion (either way) on abortion or gay marriage, for example, is nowhere near a majority. Yet a candidate can't win support unless he echoes the party position on these issues. Whatever party is currently in control is expected to push legislation supporting their position on these issues that are unimportant to a vast majority of the people.

With the existence of third parties, these issues can be suppressed. Liberals gun owners aren't forced to support either an anti-gun or a conservative party. Gay conservatives aren't forced to support an anti-gay or liberal party. Anti-gun conservatives aren't forced to support a pro-gun or liberal party. Anti-gay liberals aren't forced to support a pro-gay or conservative party.

What I'm suggesting is not as radical a change as one might expect. Instead of voting for one congressman for your district, you vote for each congressional seat in your state. The tea party and the GOP would no longer be competing with eachother against the Dems, for example.

You, as an individual, are no longer represented by a single congressman - whose ideology may directly contradict your own - but by your state's entire congressional delegation. (Unless you're in a single-delegate state, of course) The political landscape of your state's population is more accurately reflected in its representatives. Isn't the purpose of a democratically elected government to represent the will of its people?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 01:58 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 148 | Kudos: +11
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
The single most effective thing we can do is reorganize our political representation so that it no longer supports a two-party-only system.
I agree that we need a viable 3rd party. But without term limits career politicians would simply migrate to the 3rd party when they cannot win a Democrat or Republican primary.

A viable 3rd party would be conservative on social issues and center-left on economic issues. Few Americans base their vote on social issues even though social conservatives outnumber moderates and liberals. Being conservative on social issues will not hurt a candidate on election day in most places. Both Florida and California passed constitutional bans on gay marriage in 2008 and a majority of blacks in California voted for the ban. But at the same time both states supported Obama despite the fact that he supports gay marriage because Obama is an economic liberal. If McCain had been less libertarian on economic matters, he would have given Obama a run for his money.

However, right now this country cannot afford to be too center-left on economic issues. We simply don?t have the money.

Quote:
Minor issues in each of the major parties are currently elevated to major importance.
What do you consider to be minor issues?

Quote:
The percentage of people with a strong opinion (either way) on abortion or gay marriage, for example, is nowhere near a majority.
Gay marriage has been voted down every time it has been put on the ballot. State legislatures have voted it down even after state courts have said it is OK.

And polls released just after the 2008 election indicated a pro-life majority (for the first time in abortion-poll history). A majority of Americans do not support abortion on demand, but most Americans vote according to economic issues, rather than social issues.

Quote:
Whatever party is currently in control is expected to push legislation supporting their position on these issues that are unimportant to a vast majority of the people.
I gave up on the Republicans ages ago. Republican office holders don?t want to end abortion because Republican candidates need the abortion issue to drive gullible conservatives to the polls on election day.

Quote:
With the existence of third parties, these issues can be suppressed.
Actually, historically speaking America?s 3rd parties have come about because the 2 major parties wouldn?t take up certain issues. But then all of America?s viable 3rd parties (except 1) have dissolved when one of the major parties have taken up the 3rd parties? issues. The only 3rd party in U.S. history that didn?t have its issues co-opted by a major party is the Republican Party. The Whigs wouldn?t take a stand on the extension of slavery into the territories and the Democrats took the wrong stand, so the Republicans became one of the 2 major parties.

Quote:
What I'm suggesting is not as radical a change as one might expect. Instead of voting for one congressman for your district, you vote for each congressional seat in your state.
You are calling for proportional representation. I support this idea as long as no candidate is barred from the ballot because he cannot pay a fee or submit enough petitions and as long as all votes for constitutionally eligible write-in candidates are counted.

But under the Constitution you do have the issue of choosing replacements when a Representative dies, resigns or goes to jail. A state-wide election for a single seat in the House, may not be all that practical.

I would also base how many seats a state gets in Congress on the number of votes that are cast. Say 1 representative for every 200,000 votes cast in the state?s last presidential election. Right now a state gets seats based only its population even when half or more of the state?s voters don?t bother to go to the polls.

Quote:
You, as an individual, are no longer represented by a single congressman - whose ideology may directly contradict your own - but by your state's entire congressional delegation.
I just turned 43. Apart from a few years I lived down state and out of state when I was a child, I have only had 3 U.S. Representatives because Florida used to be a one-party state and then my district has been racially gerrymandered since 1992. My mother, who moved to Florida in 1959 and is about to turn 60 has had these same 3 representatives.

Quote:
Isn't the purpose of a democratically elected government to represent the will of its people?
America is a republic, not a democracy. The Constitution was written for the express purpose of hampering the will of the majority so the nation as a whole cannot be damaged by the majority?s will.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 02:08 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Term limits would remove politicians' ability to stay in office so they won't be able to put their political career over the interests of the nation as a whole.
Two terms in the House, one in the Senate. An attorney may only serve one term in either house (the place is a** deep in attorneys at present.

Quote:
The second most effective thing we can do is raise taxes on the poor and middle class.
Smart. Tax those with nothing to tax and cut Big OIL, Big Pharma and Wall Street new tax breaks?
__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.