• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Romney vs. Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
Irrelevant. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that said law did indeed exist in the 50s. Does it mean the birth certificate was obtained that way? Not at all. It leads no credence at all to the Birther garbage. It is as irrelevant as stating that there the second of some month fell on a Tuesday in 1953. Unless you can connect the dots, it doesn't mean a thing.



I would say half and half is divisive. How is what is basically a 50/50 split not divisive?

Poster made a statement of fact, thus far, it is not supported by anyone, including yourself.

Gore received a majority of the votes in an election, therefore divisive. Others have not run for elective office, therefore not divisive. I find your conclusion faulty.
 
Poster made a statement of fact, thus far, it is not supported by anyone, including yourself.

Did you not read what I posted? Even if the OP's statement is true it lends no credence at all to the Birther claims. Therefore whether it is true or not is irrelevant. Not sure how I can be clearer.

Gore received a majority of the votes in an election, therefore divisive. Others have not run for elective office, therefore not divisive. I find your conclusion faulty.
Gore received 50.5% of the vote. That's pretty darn close to half. How is that not divisive if half of the country votes for him and half of the country does not?

Edit: It appears the Birther guy is correct in his statement since OutofDate1980 insists it's relevant. The Hawaiian government did have a program from 1911 to 1972 where people with no birth certificate could apply for a certificate of Hawaiian birth. The program is detailed here on the official government site so it's a legit program. Still not sure how this even matters though.
 
Dittoheads, by definition are not capable of thinking, therefore I'm not naive to have thought one to do so.

As it's most likely that Obama will win in Nov., perhaps you can share the cost with Ted Nugent upon the occurrence of that event.

Please stop commenting on Limbaugh fans and listeners. Rush has a proven and demonstrable record of accuracy and he does not lie. Try listening to him at least once before you decide to comment.

There is nothing to suggest Obama will win.
 
They provided a machanism for amending the constitution if future problems required it.

And it takes much effort. Our founders made it possible yet very, very difficult.

I am not sure it could be done in this political climate. That said, with so many of our leaders ignoring the document anyway, why bother? Obama and his gang could do all sorts of things that are legal, like essentially banning guns or simply ignore the constitution altogether.

When SCOTUS becomes an all liberal chorus, lots of bad things can/will happen. The 11th Hour approaches and I fully expect the president to try something to get those that elected him once again on his side.
 
There is nothing to suggest Obama will win.

I disagree with this. Intrade has him at ~57% chance of re-election at the moment. I would tend to go along with that as well.

If you're interested in gauging how accurate the site is, it's got Portman for VP (30%) followed by Pawlenty (25.6%).
 
Rush has a proven and demonstrable record of accuracy and he does not lie.
Oh man. What is this I can't even.
I wouldn't count the bill that you linked to as a substantial job-creation bill. Here's a review of the bill from a newspaper that is hardly known for being friendly to Rupublicans. The bill was cynically introduced in conjunction with Bain outsourcing attacks on Romney to try to gin up a wedge issue during an election year, pure and simple.

As far as having to face opposition from the, er, opposition, welcome to the party Obama. The two most effective presidents of my lifetime (Reagan and Clinton) managed it with Congress controlled by the other party for most of their administrations.
How about the "Bring Jobs Home Act", sponsored by Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow and supported by Obama, which was defeated by 42 Republican senators filibustering it? The Republicans allegedly refused to support the bill because Sen. Reid said that he wouldn't include amendments to the bill that would repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. :rolleyes:
 
Oh man. What is this I can't even.

I take it, you disagree? Well, . . . if this is the case, how about a little evidence to the contrary? Bob is a good listener. Just no "He just does, everyone know that" reply. Proof is what I seek. And not just one twisted and biased example. Demonstrable proof and some sources.
 
How about the "Bring Jobs Home Act", sponsored by Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow and supported by Obama, which was defeated by 42 Republican senators filibustering it? The Republicans allegedly refused to support the bill because Sen. Reid said that he wouldn't include amendments to the bill that would repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. :rolleyes:

The Bring the Jobs Home Bill is a poorly thought out bill that was rushed out to create a wedge issue with Republicans before the elections. The Republicans said we'll see your wedge issue and raise you one with the repeal the Affordable Health Care Act amendment. Politics as usual, and I'm not saying I like it but the assertion that partisan politics is something new that only poor old Obama has had to suffer through is laughable to anyone who has paid attention to the parlor tricks in Washington DC over the years.
 
I disagree with this. Intrade has him at ~57% chance of re-election at the moment. I would tend to go along with that as well.

Intrade is quite accurate, but I cannot help but wonder what Obama will do next to sway the public. He can promise many things to get elected and he actually does not need to deliver, as he has proven.

Fortunately, he is not all that complicated or complex, so he might think the public will vote for him again. We are waking up and we know he is an empty suit.

So much is happening, I doubt people will trust him. Clearly, he cannot run this country.
 
Ok, I see that I'm being taken in the wrong way.

1. I posted the law about birth certificates, to make an example of it being possible. Not saying it happened. I'll let the retired sheriff that is investigating this issue do the legwork. But it is possible.

2. I was talking about the Jewish people before the end of WWll. I thought it was fairly apparent in the post, but i guess I was mistaken.:rolleyes:

3. The Churchill statement was a fact. The blockade was necessary to handicap the Nazis. The side affect of what happened to the Jews was just that, a side affect. As to pearl harbor. How can anybody defend the fact that FDR. Had almost "all" of the Pacific fleet in one harbor, that if you look at, is a bottleneck at it's mouth. When the attack occurred several of the ships tried to get out. When the Japanese sank a couple of the ships it resulted in blocking the only way out. Which turned the whole attack into nothing more than shooting fish in a barrel.

4. The bailouts where needed in the sense that if they didn't happen there would have been a run on the banks. Which would have resulted in a collapse of the U.S. economy. But in last week's Bloomberg Businessweek there was an article discussing this very choice. To bail out or not to bailout. Mr. Krugman (Nobel laureate in economics) was having a Twitter argument with the president of Estonia. Estonia wanted into the eurozone, they had pegged their currency to the euro in an effort to provide faith in the value of the currency. When the global economy took the hit caused by the derivative market, the Estonian government looked at the growth of the economy from 2000 - 2009 and noticed a bubble from 2005 - 07. Instead of bailing everybody out they asked the country to take the hit. From 2009 -2012 the economy grew to the point that now the rate of growth is back to where it was in 2008. Which shows to them that the supposed growth was fake. And was fueled by cheap household debt. In most recessions that are allowed to run their course without outside influence the rate of growth coming out is usually double the growth rate from "before" the recession.

5. Firstly this is the U.S. not Britain. To make a change to the constitution requires a total of 60% in favor of said amendment. Hence the term super majority. If it was only 51% we'd end up with so many stupid laws it boggles my mind. Now to address the Bush/Gore election. Al may have won the popular vote but he lost the electoral college vote. The electoral college is in place so that states with a larger percentage of the population don't have a distorted amount of power compared to less populated states. If this wasn't so states like New York, and California would decide every election based on their population count.

6. "NO" I don't want the government to build the infrastructure of the internet. If they were to build it out. They would control it more than they already do. China built their internet and look where it got their population. They are controlled as to what they can search through Google for example. My opinion on this issue is the same as government healthcare. I don't want some fool in Washington deciding what I can and can not do. Maybe living in a country that already has control over so much of your life has made you immune to the affects of government over reach. But the U.S. was built on the foundation of the freedom of the individual. When you erode that basic principle you erode everything this country stands for. People from all over the world come here for that reason alone. This principle allows the individual to rise to his or her full potential without the government keeping them down. I use the USSR to illustrate this point. When the communists ran that country, and gave each to their needs etc.. They caused people to not try to better themselves. It's a fact from those years that the USSR had the highest rate of alcoholism of any developed country in the world. If socialism is such a great system why did the countries of the Warsaw pact rush to embrace the system of the free world when the Soviet union collapsed? And why does China have certain city's that are judged as free trade zones?

You may consider my point of view to be "paranoid" and maybe it is. But I'd rather be paranoid and free than not. I consider myself to be a free thinker. I think and vote based on what I think is good for the country, not based on what I think is good just for me. I cannot in good conscious vote selfishly. I cannot put my faith in a group of people who have proven over time to do nothing more than cater to the extreme ends of the base of their party's. Each group has their valid points, but the extremists of these groups have blinders on, which prohibit them from thinking of solutions that work for everybody not them only without considering the bigger picture.

Which is why I like Romney more. He's closer to the middle than Obama. And if he keeps to the tenants of his Morman faith he should lead with a sense of community which is what this country needs, because we are all in this together. What effects one person effects the whole country. I don't get work from poor people, they can't afford high end stone floors. But the rich guy will hire them, and I if the government doesn't tie their hands.

Think outside the box, innovation comes from individuals, not from the state.
 
Intrade is quite accurate, but I cannot help but wonder what Obama will do next to sway the public. He can promise many things to get elected and he actually does not need to deliver, as he has proven.

Fortunately, he is not all that complicated or complex, so he might think the public will vote for him again. We are waking up and we know he is an empty suit.

So much is happening, I doubt people will trust him. Clearly, he cannot run this country.

Oh please -- it's not like Obama was the first candidate to fail to deliver on a campaign promise. I seem to remember someone running not too long ago that said "Read my lips: no new taxes". How did that work out again? Oh that's right...he approved new tax increases.

If there was someone out there who actually delivered on every one of their promises I would be shocked. I do think he has tried to deliver on most of his promises but the Republicans in Congress refuse to let anything pass if it includes a tax increase on people that make over $250,000 (which seems to be Obama's trademark cutoff for "rich").

Quite frankly I don't expect there to be any noticeable difference between a Romney or Obama presidency. Either one will mean business as usual in Washington, save for a few small blips in the radar here and there (Affordable Care Act would never have happened under a Republican for example).

I don't think either major party is really working to make the country better because they are all constantly campaigning and working to get re-elected. But given the choice between Obama and Romney I will gladly vote Obama (not that my vote matters in Texas anyway). Romney just wants to reinstate the "top down" policies of tax cuts for the rich, and little to no regulation of anything. So you're saying we should bring back the policies that got us until this giant recession in the first place...how does that make any sense??? :confused: Furthermore he wants to jam religion down everyone's throats which is completely contrary to what the first amendment is supposed to protect.


6. "NO" I don't want the government to build the infrastructure of the internet. If they were to build it out. They would control it more than they already do. China built their internet and look where it got their population. They are controlled as to what they can search through Google for example. My opinion on this issue is the same as government healthcare. I don't want some fool in Washington deciding what I can and can not do.


I just don't understand this argument. The Affordable Care Act forces you to have insurance, but it doesn't dictate which one you choose. It basically just says you must pick, but you can pick any plan available out there in the free market. I think it's a huge step forward for our country, but critics are saying it's costing them more money when the provisions don't even go into effect until 2014 so how do they even know? (NOTE: the only provision already in effect is a 10% tax hike on indoor tanning which began in 2010).

I don't get what's so bad about "Obamacare". Is is the fact that dependents are covered until 26? Is it the fact that there can be no pre-existing conditions now? Is it the fact that insurance companies can't drop you when you become ill? Those all sound like great things to me. So far the only gripe I have really heard is the individual mandate (forcing people to pay for health insurance). If that's so terrible then why aren't people up in arms about being forced to have auto insurance on vehicles that they own? People should have been bringing lawsuits against the insurance industry for decades if they don't think the government should mandate insurance.

:confused: :confused:
 
Neither one is running on paying off the national debt in 4 years so why bother voting ?

Well, Obama's reelection can affect the Internet and guns.

For example, stopping all imports, raising fees on the mom and pop gun shops, stopping all sales of guns by private owners unless they have a permit/license, raising the tax on ammo . . . Can you imagine a fifty dollar tax on a box of 22 cal?

Some would scream UNCONSTITUTIONAL! and the SC can simply not hear the case or agree with the state. Or not hear any gun related cases, period

What really bothers me is if SCOTUS becomes completely liberal, they can do much damage and there is no easy way to fire an SC judge. A judge mates with SCOTUS for life.

And it will be unlikely that the United States can pay off a 16 trillion dollar debt, anyway.
 
So now Romney has stated that Israelis are superior to Palestinians and that is why the latter are poor. Right.

Where did you see this? I've yet to get my news update for the day. (It takes 4-5 hours for me to go through all my news outlets) Do you have a context for it? I can't believe he'd say something like that, (and opinionated as I am I don't subscribe to any group being superior to any other) there are things that could be used as arguments for that, but they wouldn't be based on any racial or religious views. They'd be governmental system points though and I'd rather not end up typing out a synopsis of Nietzsche's philosophy of the over-man.
 
... Gore received 50.5% of the vote. That's pretty darn close to half. How is that not divisive if half of the country votes for him and half of the country does not?

Your premise that those who have run for office are divisive in all issues is not true. Your claim that Gore is "pretty universally disliked by the right" is hyperbole and treats the right as being incapable of differentiating the message from the messenger. Just because one doesn't like an individual, doesn't equate to that individual being divisive. What is divisive is those that have a financial interest on the issue of global warming, i.e. climate change, secretly funding bias research.

Edit: It appears the Birther guy is correct in his statement since OutofDate1980 insists it's relevant. The Hawaiian government did have a program from 1911 to 1972 where people with no birth certificate could apply for a certificate of Hawaiian birth. The program is detailed here on the official government site so it's a legit program. Still not sure how this even matters though.

Nice of you to help out the original poster. Up to 1972 one could obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth for those not issued a Birth Certificate at birth. Obama just had a plain old Birth Certificate, two different forms. The Birthers are trying to make hay with this, but falls flat when shown there is a difference between the certificates.
 
I don't get what's so bad about "Obamacare". Is is the fact that dependents are covered until 26? Is it the fact that there can be no pre-existing conditions now? Is it the fact that insurance companies can't drop you when you become ill? Those all sound like great things to me. So far the only gripe I have really heard is the individual mandate (forcing people to pay for health insurance). If that's so terrible then why aren't people up in arms about being forced to have auto insurance on vehicles that they own? People should have been bringing lawsuits against the insurance industry for decades if they don't think the government should mandate insurance.

Here you go then:

It is bad for everyone. For example, I have amazing care but I cannot change it, according to OC. If I wanted to improve it, it goes away. One of the provisions in the plan is existing plans cannot be changed. Many corporations will likely drop your coverage to take advantage of OC.

It is bad for doctors because it further screws up Medicaid and there is not enough money to handle millions of new patients.

I am being forced into paying an estimated 2500.00 per year and worst of all, is the IRS is tasked with collection. You might like it, but should it remain in effect, it will cost you dearly. I would love to see how an America that wanted UHC to react when it comes time to pony up the payment. And with the IRS handling collections, they will simply take the money from you. no choice!

Millions of people stand to lose their existing coverage.

Competition is drastically reduced so the costs will grow over time.

It will jam up your waiting room.

Doctors might not be able to make the decision about what is best for your care. I know the phrase "Death Panel" made the news some time ago, but bean counters will make the decisions. Perhaps the IBEW can be tasked with unplugging granny when she is refused treatment.

The plan will increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. Some are saying it is more like 1.8 trillion over a ten year period. It is the government so lets play it safe and simply assume costs will grow, not slow.

Those that signed it into law did not read the 2500 page (give or take) bill before they signed it. You really want those making the law to avoid reading what they wanted to pass?

They just assumed it is good for us and so we are stuck until a conservative is elected and can put an end to the nonsense once and for all.

We fix HC in this country by tort reform, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, healthy competition across the board and other minor things that are easier to implement compared to Obama care. I could probably write a new bill weighing in at 25 pages that would be far more doable and fair.

The government stinks at managing the public trust. You really want them running your health care? Really? It is an unpresidented government power grab, clearly and unargueably.

Obama care is clearly constitutionally illegal despite what SCOTUS has to say. And if they can mandate your care, they can start mandating other stuff. Perhaps take away your fat children because you clearly cannot raise them. OK, that might not happen, as I was thinking when Obama nationalized one auto maker.

At least I'll be able to yell at large people for super double-sizing their fries and shakes. After all, if my tax dollar pays for their bad choices, I have a right to tell fatso to drop those fries. Smiley!

And it is the government, remember that. Clearly, they are capable of running a lean, mean Obama-care machine. Just like your DMV, right?

When rationing takes place, you will not get what you over paid for. Feeling ill? Try the waiting room filled with cold and flu sufferers filling the place to capacity.

It is already unfair because Obama gave wavers to companies. Obama was quoted as saying how unfair the rich have it; how corporations need to pony up. So rather than hold us all to his silly plan, he is giving wavers.

Any idea that Obama feels we need to be fair is BS and clearly, not what he really wants. We will end up with a huge cost smaller income earners cannot afford and the rich will have concierge medicine at its finest.

This is just adding vast costs to an overloaded budget and it will--in the end when all is said and done--hurt millions of people rather than help them.

Doctors will be forced into fighting the inevitable government red tape and we might see a shortage of doctors. We are (apparently) in need of more than 90,000 doctors right now and one report said many doctors are moving up their retirement by five years or so.

Perhaps the IRS can give us all 80.00 flue shots when they ding us for thousands of dollars.

Need more data?
 
Please stop commenting on Limbaugh fans and listeners. Rush has a proven and demonstrable record of accuracy and he does not lie. Try listening to him at least once before you decide to comment.

There is nothing to suggest Obama will win.

As previously posted, Limbaugh is a proven liar and yes his fans are ignorant, blowhards, aka, dittoheads. If you don't like my comments about this Big Fat Liar, too bad.:proud:

http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/555353-mitt-romney-cayman-islands.html#post4625973
 
As previously posted, Limbaugh is a proven liar and yes his fans are ignorant, blowhards, aka, dittoheads. If you don't like my comments about this Big Fat Liar, too bad.:proud:

http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/555353-mitt-romney-cayman-islands.html#post4625973

Again, some facts would be nice to see. Easy to beg out of the discussion when required to substantiate the claim with some blabber and a high and mighty "If you don't like my comments about this Big Fat Liar, too bad.""

'Tis Another thing to actually prove your claim with something we, in these hear parts like to call facts. Google 'facts' and learn more about them.

Until then, again, do not comment on Rush because you are simply not doing what is needed to make your ""point.""

Perhaps you can post something you think he said, and I'll help you with the pesky facts.
 
I'm sorry but Rush lost the last tendrils of whatever credibility he had left, when he started whittering on about the Bain/Bane (Batman) link...

There are probably several left wing commentators who are equally as wacked out as Mr. Limbaugh so I'm not saying it's because he's a Republican - he is either a veritable loony or an extremely talented comedian who's still having a joke at our expense.
 
Again, some facts would be nice to see. Easy to beg out of the discussion when required to substantiate the claim with some blabber and a high and mighty "If you don't like my comments about this Big Fat Liar, too bad.""

'Tis Another thing to actually prove your claim with something we, in these hear parts like to call facts. Google 'facts' and learn more about them.

Until then, again, do not comment on Rush because you are simply not doing what is needed to make your ""point.""

Perhaps you can post something you think he said, and I'll help you with the pesky facts.

I've posted this link proving Rush is a liar several times, don't worry, just search the net and you'll find plenty more examples. I'll decide what makes my point which is, "Limbaugh is a proven liar and yes his fans are ignorant, blowhards, aka, dittoheads." Remember Rush is a just a paid flunky for Bain Capital.

http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/555353-mitt-romney-cayman-islands.html#post4625973
 
The Bring the Jobs Home Bill is a poorly thought out bill that was rushed out to create a wedge issue with Republicans before the elections. The Republicans said we'll see your wedge issue and raise you one with the repeal the Affordable Health Care Act amendment. Politics as usual, and I'm not saying I like it but the assertion that partisan politics is something new that only poor old Obama has had to suffer through is laughable to anyone who has paid attention to the parlor tricks in Washington DC over the years.
How exactly is giving companies that bring jobs back into the country a tax break a poorly thought out idea? Here I thought that reducing unemployment and improving the economy was supposed to be a good thing -- oops :rolleyes: The only "as usual" that I see is Obama and Democrats trying to affect positive change and the Republicans stymying them so that they can turn around and run attack ads saying that there haven't been enough jobs created.
 
Your premise that those who have run for office are divisive in all issues is not true. Your claim that Gore is "pretty universally disliked by the right" is hyperbole and treats the right as being incapable of differentiating the message from the messenger. Just because one doesn't like an individual, doesn't equate to that individual being divisive. What is divisive is those that have a financial interest on the issue of global warming, i.e. climate change, secretly funding bias research.

I'm sorry, but if you think Gore is any sort of unifying political figure I have no idea what kind of reality you're living in. The main reason why global warming is such a controversial issue here in the US is because Gore became the face of it. Half the country instantly dismissed or was skeptical of it just because he was the face of the cause.

Nice of you to help out the original poster. Up to 1972 one could obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth for those not issued a Birth Certificate at birth. Obama just had a plain old Birth Certificate, two different forms. The Birthers are trying to make hay with this, but falls flat when shown there is a difference between the certificates.

Which is why I said the law was irrelevant in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom