OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Foodstamp]

Hey the election is over. You can reign in your short cock competition until the next one.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Mithras

http://www.republicanoperative.com/f...lly-won-1.html
btw does Obama have a passport? He's been out of the country right? That should be adequate proof of citizenship.

Mithras, No one questions whether Obama is a citizen. So a passport doesn't solve the question. Being a citizen is not enough to be president of the united states.

For example, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Henry Kissinger, Peter Jennings are all US citizens - and none of them can be president.

Britney Spears is *also* a US citizen - nor could she be president this year.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Gregstrom

I don't believe that the two are related. I suspect that the statistics show that war-damaged economies recover faster than peace-time economies can grow. As a baseline comparison, why not use the pre-war economies?

...and of those 4 countries, 3 had strong genuinely socialist political parties between WWII and now. 2 had influential communist parties, in fact. Are you suggesting that having far-left socialist rulership is better for an economy than having a far-right and centre-right 2 party state?

No, I am making two assertions:

1. Statistics can be used to prove anything.
2. The statistics Jim used to prove that Democrats are better stewards are a particular egregious example of #1.

I suppose I would also advance the argument that who we are as a country now is a product of democrats and republicans - good and bad. That who we are transcends democrat or republican - and that the trends of how our country does are longer range than the time of any one president. Who can doubt that clinton benefitted from the miraculous advent of the pc and the internet when the seeds of it were sown in the late 70's and early 80s.
Who can doubt that the first two years of Obama's presidency will be dealing with the problems of this financial mess.


I don't think any serious person can argue that Reagan wasn't a great president. I personally think FDR was a disaster during the great depression -but that he was absolutely *amazing* during ww2. Who can argue that Lincoln saved the union - and Rooseveldt Teddy was a great leader.

I think Woodrew Wilson was an amazing example of american optimism and idealism - even while he did the income tax and the treaty of versailles.

Jimmy Carter, W Bush, and Grant, Taft and Polk, will all go down as mediochre presidents. And while I may not agree with you as to the role of democratic presidents in the 50s-70's.. I believe that Martin Luther King (a democrat, yes?) played a larger and more constructive role than any of those presidents.

[Tichy]

Chrispedersen: After reading your long post about taxes etc. you seem like you have political and economic views you've thought about and that are worth debating. So why hitch your horse to this whole citizenship thing? It's a non-starter as an issue.

As for Ayers, I agree that he's not repentant about what he did in the 60's. Obama rightly condemned that.
I also agree that there are many who condemn him for what he did in the 60's, and his lack of remorse for the possibility that innocents could have been hurt. When I read about his responses to these things, I find him testy and unpleasant.

But that's not what I was saying. I was talking about the smear that Ayers now holds fringe/terrorist views, and that Obama endorses them. Both of those claims are demonstrably false.

BTW: "Distinguished" is part of his job title. It means that UIC has recognized his prestige within his field by promoting him. It's the kind of title that usually goes to the one or two members of an academic department's faculty that are most prominent in their field.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Dude, I cannot believe you are continuing this argument.

I can't believe that you still try to evade admitting that you were wrong.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

1. There have now been THREE lawsuits on this same topic.
Source: your own kitv article. This is madness.

Contrary to you, I'm at least quoting a well-respected news site from a broadcasting company instead of weblogs or other unfunded sources, if any at all. I gave you the option to find further sources through Google to verify this yourself, too, should I add another dozen links that tell the same story? But wait, why don't you do your homework yourself?

Where's that Kenyan birth certificate, BTW? Or evidence for some of the other myths that you brought up, and which I debunked?

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

2. Some Democratic functionaire saying 'yes he has a legitimate' birth certificate is of *no* legal validity.

A statement by the Department of Health's director for verification is good enough for a layman like me unless somebody successfully disproves this in court. I don't see how the political position of the Department of Health's director matters. Yeah, "unfortunately", he is a Democrat. There's a 50/50 chance for that, perhaps a little more so if he's from Hawai'i. So what? As you already said, the prosecution is a Democrat, too.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Releasing a document on a webs site is of *no* legal validity.

Apparently some rumor on the web is good enough for you to challenge legal validity, though.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

A. Any candidate should have to prove his qualifications.
B. Obama should have just released his birth certificate to the court, instead of squashing the suit on techical grounds.

If you want to argue with me - address those two points. I don't even see how anyone can think otherwise.

ad A.: like McCain, too. Remember that Obama wasn't the only one with allegations of unsure citizenship. Not that I'd think there would be reason to doubt that.
ad B.: the one that squashed the case was the judge. Regardless if there was a hearing or not, what the judge decides is what's "right". I'm not a lawyer, but I'd suppose that if a judge dismisses a case then that doesn't have to do with the defendant evading a trial, but, and let me quote you here again:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

There have now been three *stupid* and time wasting lawsuits on this stupid subject. How many do we have to have? How does that help anyone? Its a big enough deal to enough people.

... but, continuing my sentence from above, to avoid a nonsensical lawsuit with no sign of success that does little more but waste the time of the defendant, the judge, the jury, and the taxpayer's money over a lunatic's pipe dream.

As I already said, Berg brought the case before the US Supreme Court now. Let's see what they say about it.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

There is a logical tactic called Reductio ad absurdum - lets use it now.

[some hypothetical scenario and calling me a liar]

I don't see how this matters. Desperation? And I'm really getting tired when I have to repeat myself for people that are too slow or too stubborn to admit that their arguments are groundless and that they have to take them back. I already gave you the choice between humble pie or crow to eat.

Somebody else fight the tin-foil hat people from here on, please. Unless chrispedersen admits that he's at a fault and/or apologizes, I don't care anymore.

[Mithras]

I'm probably being niave here, but theres a bit censored on the birth certificate that is shown online. Now this is just a stab in the dark but is it censored for a reason could it be used to damage Obama in some way? If so then you have a perfectly legitemate reason not to make a hard copy of said birth certificate to a publinc domain (court) unless required to do so.

But personally I don't think you'd take that as proof, perhaps the judge will be left wing as well. BTW My point is however high up this goes somebody (not neccessaraly you) can still argue it as invalid. Theres just some people out there who pay no attention to what others say. Again I'm not referring to you Chris, in fact you have been quite good. But you have been unclear about what it was you wanted, I vaguely remember you saying that ALL Obama needed to do was show a birth certificate, then gradually elevated that to it has to be in court and a hard copy.

Oh and I think you did question his citizenship, in fact a few pages ago... if you want me to dig it up I can, but right now I'm out of time.

[Tifone]

Obama is the 44th President of the USA. Being only a marginally involved European, I'll have just one word for this.

WOOOOPWOPWOPWOPWOPWOOOOPWOPWOPWOPWOPWOPWOOOOP

No, really, I see very good things on horizon for USA now. Maybe I'm mistaken. Time will tell.

[Tichy]

In some ways this is huge. For example, if it means that minorities continue an active engagement in American politics at the national level and maintain a real voice there, I think it can only be a good thing.

But I'm concerned that people have Obama built up so much in their minds that if he hasn't solved the credit crisis, put humanity on the path to enlightenment, and established universal peace in his first hundred days all of this excitement's going to turn against him. The man is an extremely smart and talented centrist politician, not Jesus.

[Tifone]

I think people know he's not the world's saviour, Tichy. But surely it will be a change and if he does even the half of what he promised, they will be all steps in the right direction.

Personally, I'm a little sad though. After 8 years, I can't say "I'm more intelligent than the President of the United States of America!!!" no more...

Sorry, stupid joke. I have even more stupid ones though ^^

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I am making two assertions:

1. Statistics can be used to prove anything.
2. The statistics Jim used to prove that Democrats are better stewards are a particular egregious example of #1.

I'm sorry if it was completely outrageous of me to draw a direct correlation between growth of debt, and a degrees of fiscal responsibility. Especially since you don't seem to care about the other economic indicators presented, either. But apparently my method of providing facts, offends yours right to just believe what you want to believe....?

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Who can doubt that clinton benefitted from the miraculous advent of the pc and the internet when the seeds of it were sown in the late 70's and early 80s.

Okay, at this point I should know better, but I will bite. The assertion that the rise of the internet just suddenly made more money appear, borders on the absurd. Yes, some people made a lot of money. In fact, if you look at our government's published figures, the budget surpluses had more to do with a slowdown in proportionate spending increases, rather than a disproportionate increase in revenues.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I don't think any serious person can argue that Reagan wasn't a great president.

Trickle down theory? Make the rich richer to benefit everyone?
Iran Contra? Have the CIA sell cocaine on American soil, to fund militant extremists?
The worst income/expenditure ratio of any President?

Reagan was a tool. The worst kind, really.