Oh, no...Obama's Birth Cert is actually FAKED. I'm CONVINCED!!

[lily]

He WAS born in America, it's just that I personally wouldn't care even if he wasn't. His mom was born in America and that's enough as far as the Constitutional requirements go.

I'm just curious - do you see the purpose for having those constitutional requirements? You say you don't care, so it sounds like you don't understand why we have those kinds of laws for eligibility in the first place.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You're not fooling anyone. At least not anyone with a brain.

Neither are you, with your non-answer to the question.

[lily]

Neither are you, with your non-answer to the question.

I have no interest in trying to convince you, because I believe you are insincere. The reason I actually take the time to answer Ganja's posts is because - even though we vehemently disagree on numerous topics - I do think he is sincere and has generally has good intentions, as misguided as he may be on certain issues.

[Cyclone Ranger]

I'm not at all insincere. You keep referencing this vague corruption and deceit on Obama's part, without any specific instance of corruption detailed.

[lily]

I'm not at all insincere. You keep referencing this vague corruption and deceit on Obama's part, without any specific instance of corruption detailed.

Everything about him is a lie, pretty much. But in my previous posts, I wasn't talking solely about Obama. I was talking about the entire system. It's not limited to one president or party. But since your job, apparently, is to defend the government day in and day out, I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. If you really are retired, why don't you go do something else for a change, like go on a vacation, get some fresh air, do something fun. Something tells me you're not really retired, but whatever.

[food4thought]

You're not fooling anyone. At least not anyone with a brain.

Well then, he might be fooling you.

[kellyb]

Oh, FFS.

He lied about restoring civil liberties. He lied about being a progressive (unless his declaring himself one functionally changed the definition of a progressive.) He lied about caring about the rule of law in high finance. He lied about Gitmo. He lied about believing that "trying to fix our health care problem by mandating insurance is like trying to fix homelessness by mandating home ownership". I could go on and on and on.

[kellyb]

Candidate Obama, 2007:

[Lulu]

At the risk of giving soylent green a coronary, I did watch this video when it first came out about oh, a year ago so I'm not watching it again. My thought then was who is this lame pseudo detective who posted his video on youtube and "uncovered" this huge conspiracy of the fake long form certificate? I'm so over the BC thing. And that loon from Hollywood is likely just a loon. Bill Clinton (who is the one who started the whole "Obama was born in Africa" thing when his wife was running against Obama) claims his life was threatened by mysterious people? imo either this Hollywood person is crazy and thought he said that, or he really did say it and it was just another way to keep the conspiracy going. My guess is she's a blabbermouth and the best way to "leak" info is to give it to a blabbermouth.

The time spent talking about this huge conspiracy is better spent talking about Obama's failures and as Kelly pointed out his lies during his campaigning.

[Lulu]

Ok I watched most of the video of that Bettina woman. Yes, I think she's a kook... unless this mysterious group has highly trained assassins who have day jobs at Target.

Death

On August 13, 2008, Gwatney was fatally wounded[6] when a man, identified in news reports as Timothy Dale Johnson, 50,[7][8] entered Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas and shot Gwatney three times.[9] Gwatney was taken to a hospital, but died at 3:59 pm CDT.[6]

The gunman had said he wanted to speak with Gwatney about volunteering, but sidestepped his assistant when she said he was busy.[10] After the shooting, the gunman fled the scene in his truck and led police on a 30-mile (48 km) chase out of Little Rock.[10] Johnson was fatally shot by police after a PIT maneuver forced him off the road into a field near Sheridan.[9][11] No motive was discovered, except Johnson quitting his Target job earlier that day.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gwatney

[9ball8]

Oh, FFS.

He lied about restoring civil liberties. He lied about being a progressive (unless his declaring himself one functionally changed the definition of a progressive.) He lied about caring about the rule of law in high finance. He lied about Gitmo. He lied about believing that "trying to fix our health care problem by mandating insurance is like trying to fix homelessness by mandating home ownership". I could go on and on and on.

If we had a president who had chosen a cabinet and advisors who were on board with changing the "old order", then there would be hope for a positive change. But kb's observations, along with the Dem Party's refusal to prohibit organized groups' writing portions of our law, leads me to believe this is the same 'ol. It isn't even the NWO; it's the same 'ol shit dating back to the Roman Empire. If this rot didn't infect the new Republic in the late 1700's, it was because they didn't yet figure out how to corrupt a gov't without a monarchy. The titans of capitalism organized themselves against regulation by 1920, and would have maintained their unbroken influence on gov't if they hadn't broken their own system by 1930. The organized left also played the ol' boy system, which divided their own ranks by sexism and racism until the 60's. Same goes for the populace in general: our bias against genetic factors like gender and race only makes it easier for the plutocrats to monopolize their power over the economy and govt. It is only so because the people allow it. The vacuum created by the great majority failing their duty must be filled by another group. History always chooses plutocrats in that case, at least when charismatic dictators are not available.

[kellyb]

If we had a president who had chosen a cabinet and advisors who were on board with changing the "old order", then there would be hope for a positive change. But kb's observations, along with the Dem Party's refusal to prohibit organized groups' writing portions of our law, leads me to believe this is the same 'ol. It isn't even the NWO; it's the same 'ol shit dating back to the Roman Empire. If this rot didn't infect the new Republic in the late 1700's, it was because they didn't yet figure out how to corrupt a gov't without a monarchy. The titans of capitalism organized themselves against regulation by 1920, and would have maintained their unbroken influence on gov't if they hadn't broken their own system by 1930. The organized left also played the ol' boy system, which divided their own ranks by sexism and racism until the 60's. Same goes for the populace in general: our bias against genetic factors like gender and race only makes it easier for the plutocrats to monopolize their power over the economy and govt. It is only so because the people allow it. The vacuum created by the great majority failing their duty must be filled by another group. History always chooses plutocrats in that case, at least when charismatic dictators are not available.

Yeah, totally. Although, I'd say this is a "new FOR US" world order compared to the almost 100 years or so when communism was a threat to the wealthy oligarchs and hereditary aristocracies. But politically, we're right back to where we were around the year 1900. The political literature from that time is JUST LIKE now (minus democrats today often being in denial about how deeply the democratic party serves wealth again - in 1900, pretty much nobody believed there were significant differences between the dems and repubs.) Propaganda has also gotten more significant, although the consumers of propaganda have also become a little more savvy, as well, so that might balance out. Maybe.

Orwell's predicted surveillance state is also genuinely a new thing under the sun compared to pre-1920 (when totalitarianism first reared its still-primitive yet-ugly head in the USSR.)

[big steve]

YOU GIVE ME YOUR ADDRESS RIGHT NOW SO I CAN SEND THE AUTHORITIES TO ESCORT YOU TO GUANTANAMO BAY!!!!

You are out of line! You are disrespectful! You're also fat! You're gonna make a tasty meal for your terrorist buddies in Guantanamo Bay - you're new home punk! This is what happens when you're a traitor! You're a traitor to your own country! You will hang your head in shame for the rest of your life! I am amazed at your level of retardation, disrespect, insubordination, racism, stupidity, and gayness! Just because the president is black doesn't mean he was born in Kenya, you unbelievable undeniable unrepentant buffoon! Don't be surprised if a black helicopter show up to your trailer park later today!

HaHa, Take a deep breath and call your Dr. to see if he will increase your meds.!

[Cyclone Ranger]

apparently, is to defend the government day in and day out, I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. If you really are retired, why don't you go do something else for a change, like go on a vacation, get some fresh air, do something fun.

Ditto.

[GanjaFreebird]

Ok, I can see what the problem is here. You clearly aren't seeing the bigger picture and the ramifications of your "I'll vote for the lesser of two evils" mentality. I'll explain what I'm saying in a minute.

And I also think that you simply don't realize or believe what is actually going on. Your thinking seems to be, "Some corruption and lies in government doesn't affect me, and a president's character certainly doesn't matter, as long as they do their job."

What you aren't getting is that the "job" of that liar/deceiver/fraud that you support is not what you think it is. You seem to think that these presidents may be imperfect "assholes", but they still put through good programs that help people (like healthcare, welfare, etc). What you DON'T see or believe is that these presidents have an entirely different agenda. They are bought and paid for by interests that do NOT care about "the people" or about freedom or the idea that our leaders are supposed to represent US, and the power is with the people, as it should be. They don't believe in any of that.

Now, if that alone was the problem, it might still be remotely understandable that you would continue to play the "lesser of two evils" game. But the problem is, you and TT (and CR, although in his case I don't think it's a matter of disbelief or lack of awareness, I think he knows what he's doing) simply don't believe that there are people within our government who are entirely subversive. That's because the people who they are sold out to are subversive, they don't believe in nation states, their agenda is world government.

So, what you don't get is that it doesn't matter if you vote for the "lesser of two evils" - if you vote for ANY of those sold out puppets disguised as Democrats or Republicans, you are supporting their agenda for world government. What kind of government are they moving us toward? It's basically fascist, and certainly anti-individual rights and freedom. So, if you want fascism and a Police State type of system, and the end of national sovereignty and the beginning of the NWO, then continue to support the puppets that you support. Because the people who control them have that agenda. They are not the nice "Democrats" that you and TT believe they are.

I don't give a shit what leads the politicians to do what they do as long as they do what I consider to be right. As an obvious example, Richard Nixon was a hardcore anti-Semite and didn't really like Blacks and other minorities either personally, and obviously his pressure on Soviet Union to treat their Jewish citizens better and his support for Israel during the Yom Kippur war didn't happen because of his "good heart", as neither were his accomplishments when it comes to civil rights for Blacks in America, and honestly, I don't give a shit WHY he did it and "who else" was behind it, I just care that those things happened, and he gets credit in my book for that.

Likewise, I don't give a shit that Obama doesn't support healthcare and welfare for people who are unable to survive on their own because he's a "nice guy", I don't care if there's any "conspiracy" going on, I just care about him getting those things done.

[GanjaFreebird]

I'm just curious - do you see the purpose for having those constitutional requirements? You say you don't care, so it sounds like you don't understand why we have those kinds of laws for eligibility in the first place.

My personal opinion on this issue is irrelevant because Obama was born in America, and EVEN if he wasn't, that still wouldn't change anything because his mother was born here. I know you hate the fact that he's your president, but learn to deal with it anyways

[Cyclone Ranger]

He lied about restoring civil liberties. He lied about being a progressive (unless his declaring himself one functionally changed the definition of a progressive. He lied about caring about the rule of law in high finance. He lied about Gitmo. He lied about believing that "trying to fix our health care problem by mandating insurance is like trying to fix homelessness by mandating home ownership". I could go on and on and on.

He didn't do everything he promised in his campaign, but no other president ever does either. He worked to curb some of the most egregious provisions of the Patriot Act, but couldn't scrap it.

Exactly what violation of the rule of law in high finance did the President not care about? Not sure what you mean.

[kellyb]

He didn't do everything he promised in his campaign, but no other president ever does either. He worked to curb some of the most egregious provisions of the Patriot Act, but couldn't scrap it.

Exactly what violation of the rule of law in high finance did the President not care about? Not sure what you mean.

He took the biggest bankster criminals and quacks (Bernanke, Summers, etc and so forth) and appointed them to his economics team!


In what way did he "curb some of the most egregious provisions of the Patriot Act" ???

[kellyb]

He worked to curb some of the most egregious provisions of the Patriot Act,

Did he do what you say he did, or did he vastly expand upon it, also taking the right to assassinate and indefinitely hold in US citizens without due process?

These are matters of facts and not opinion.

[Cyclone Ranger]

He took the biggest bankster criminals and quacks (Bernanke, Summers, etc and so forth) [I]and appointed them to his economics team!

Don't see the evidence that Bernanke and Summers are either criminals or quacks. It's just your paranoid fear of the FRB showing.