OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[HoneyBadger]

You don't have to tell me, Tichy, I just wanted to squash this particular conspiracy theory once and for all, and I think that's been accomplished.

As far as not going to court if you don't have to--well, who wants to do that? Who here enjoys the thought of jury duty? I also understand there are court fees involved, not to mention lawyer fees.

And the statement "You're not even qualified to bring your argument to my attention." holds as much weight for me as "Your argument is fallacious and silly and wrong." What's the difference?

[licker]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

And the statement "You're not even qualified to bring your argument to my attention." holds as much weight for me as "Your argument is fallacious and silly and wrong." What's the difference?

You really are much more like Bush than you probably realize.

Just saying...

[Darkwind]

I've tried to stay out of this, but really. Comparing someone to Bush? That sounds a lot like ad hominem to me (plus, HB might like Bush and consider that a compliment, though it was fairly clearly, to me, meant as an insult).

Just saying...

Edit: Also, why compare HB to Bush? The current flow of the thread had very little, if anything, to do with bush. HB wasn't saying (s)he (I forget which gender HB is, unfortunately; sigh, and sorry HB) isn't like Bush, you just threw the comment out there. At least, that's how it seems to me.

[Omnirizon]

Has Godwin's Law kicked in yet?

If not that's amazing. Good job Dom3 comm.

Godwin's Law

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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....?

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.

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.

Wow Jim.

I dont really know how to respond to that, other than to say millions and millions of americans lined the highways of america to pay their last respect - and two polls by historians have ranked him in the top 10 of american presidents. And he is widely regarded as the icon of the american conservative movement.

A long period of prosperity at home, the most successful arms reductions we ever had with the soviets, a major role in freeing eastern europe from the USSR - dramatic reductions in unemployment, and inflation. Event he iconic are you better off now than you were 4 years ago... and so many other staples of modern political activism.. my memory tells me springs from the Reagan era.

Thousands of americans from across the political divide thought he was a great president - including those that were his political opponents such as Tip O'Neil, Walter Mondale

His allies loved him, including european leaders (thatcher for example) and his enemies respected him.

You can have the last word on Reagan....

[lwarmonger]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

If it was an opinion piece, I would accept the merit of your opinion.

However, since I am betting you did not even look at the article, I will clarify. The article uses statistics compiled from the economic report that the White House presents to the President himself, and Congress, every year. If you doubt the veracity of the analysis itself, simply because you consider the source biased - then I would offer to confirm the results. But since I am sure you would consider me biased at this point (yes, I am biased towards truth, rather than denial), then maybe you should follow the link the the government webpage that will allow you to directly download the entire report, in PDF format.

I DID look at the article, and if it is on Slate then it is an opinion piece of one kind or another. This one attempted to be more factual than most, however with a grand total of three democratic terms in the last ten presidential terms, it can hardly come up with enough evidence to make a case for Democratic stewardship of the economy (especially since President Carter's time in office was hardly known for sound economic policy or good growth).

Do you honestly believe that? How on Earth can you state something like that as fact? The Federal government clearly disagrees on your assertion that deficit increased under Clinton. In fact, by their records, he showed the only budget surplus since 1969 (2001 was still in surplus, but the year a President takes office, is not their budget).

That is true... however initially deficits went up (I think it was for the first two fiscal years... then he got a Republican Congress, and it stopped being a solely Democratic government and became a bipartisan one). Just because he finished his term up doesn't mean he didn't increase the deficit during his time in office, and if one is arguing for his presidency as a whole then since the national debt increased, by the measure you are using he failed there as well.

I am not saying that is his fault... this is a structural part of the US now and became systematic long before he came into office, and deficits aren't really a good yardstick for measuring economic success or sound fiscal policy. Also keep in mind that a large part of his "balanced budget" came from slashing defense spending due to the United States being not only at peace but completely unchallenged. Said defense spending had to be dramatically increased during the Bush years to compensate for a decreased military capability trying to sustain the vast array of strategic committments in a world still unstable from the loss of the international power system after the fall of the Soviet Union and the attempted(ing) rise of successor states. A lot of it also came from a series of economic bubbles that burst right about the time he handed things over. Economic cycles mean that we tend to see the results of the last presidency in the term of the next one. Ironic, eh?

[HoneyBadger]

My party in this non-election will refrain from mudslinging, and stick to the issues, so while my inestimable non-opponent is busy sputtering, grasping at straws, and citing unfounded comparisons, name-calling, and baseless arguments, I'd rather stick to the non-topic, which, while it is itself completely silly, has yet to be backed up with any sort of topicality, reasonability, or reality.

So, in the words of our fourtieth President, Ronald Reagan: "Wake me up when something happens".

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by 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.

Please feel free to refresh your memory of the thread. This particular subthread evolved essentially as thus:

a). I fairly often referred to soetoro as soetoro. Ich accused me of trolling and asked me to quit.
b). I responded that I found it useful to inform people that Barry had changed his name. Did Ich know why he changed his name - both the reason given in his book and what I consider to be the likely actual reason.
c. The conversation devolved into why names matter, and why its relevent to the election. My post on said subject is on page 10.
I have copied it for you:

'Be reasonable. Do it my way.'

I find it generally useful to inform others - that barack obama changed his name. So I'm afraid I shan't be following your prescription.

You may *not* be aware of the law in the United States - but when a lawyer registers to practise law, he is required *only* practise law under his registered name, and he is required to disclose any other names he may have used.

At the very least, Obama violated this law. Now, we know that Barry entered the country as Barry. But we have no knowledge did he attend college as Barry - it seems in part he did. Did he receive scholarships/acceptance as an immigrant student? We don't know. Barry won't release his records.

Furthermore, it is unlawful to run for public office under a different name. Recently here in Florida, a democrat running for office tried to change her name to something more hispanic. She was booted off the ballot by the courts for failure to abide by this law.

So, you see it very much does matter what Barry's name is. But lets not let a little matter of legality get in the way of annointing the next great democratic candidate.

My next quote was on page 14:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

While I disagree with your argument that it is necessary to show legal evidence in order to prove that a candidates behaviour is relevent - nonetheless, here you go.

Take a look a Berg V. Obama, a.k.a Berg V. the DNC. Filed by a Democrat, in the Philadephia circuit.

Here is a further example of why a candidates action do matter.
Attached is a link putattively to an attorney search in illinois for Barrack Obama. Notice that it has no other names listed for Barrack - notice also evidence that he did indeed go by Barry Soetero. http://www.mikefrancesa.com/wordpress/?p=976

Here is the illinois court systems page where a lawyer is required to file wth the illinois supreme court if he wishes to practice under a different name: https://www.iardc.org/reg_faqs.html.

There are many supreme court cases - such as, oh, SCHWARE v. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) where the supreme court has examined the question of a lawyers uses of aliases, and the states regulations requiring registration of same. While not the point of this case, the supreme court has long accepted that states have a legitimate purpose in so regulating.

So, I think its fairly well established that the actions of the candidate matter - that things such as citizenship, and name do matter.

In fact its so obvious, I realy wonder why you would even need it explained. Personally, I think its idiotic that Barry should have left these matters on the table. Why not release his birth certificates, and his personal records.

I mean honestly - you democrats are such hypocrates. The democrats made such huge fodder about Bushes National Guard records. And you don't think Soetoro's records are relevent?

Let me ask you something. Wouldn't you rather have these issues resolved PRIOR to the election, rather than AFTER the election? Can you even believe the ****storm we are going to be in if a court rules Soetoro isn't eligible to be president?

The next quote pg 15:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

You are factually wrong. The lawsuit was filed Aug 28. The day after Obama became the nominee.

The lawsuit filed does have several affidavits in support of its position. Motions for dismissal were defeated. Ergo, the motion has some basis.

There is *no* chance it will be resolved in favor of berg, as the date of hearing was after the US election - so you won't have to adjust your position, will you?

To put matters into a bit of perspective: I filed a lawsuit yesterday. I got a hearing on December 8. Berg filed his lawsuit Aug 28. He doesn't get a hearing until..... January? Why do you suppose that is?

As for the empty rantings comment - I am here after going to ignore your arguments as you have chosen to ignore mine.

Etc. Etc. No where will you find that I believe Obama isn't a citizen, or even that he isn't a natural born US citizen. In fact on page 18? I said I hope that he *is*.

Read my argument and you will consistently see that I believe a candidates actions count; that qualifications should be examined as part of the system; and that obama as a political move should have just released the documents.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Yes, I do think that the President of the U.S. should be a citizen of the United States. I absolutely do, so that answers that question. I just don't for one minute believe that Barack Obama *isn't* one.
I don't even waste my time wondering. I-infact-rely on the legal system of this country to present to me such questions, and to deal with them in a timely, efficient fashion.

Sighs patiently. Thats just it honey. *There *is* *no* *legal* *verification* *of* a *candidates* *qualifications*.

This is what I have been saying for 8 pages now. I looked into this for 12 hours, and ended up calling the department of elections in florida who said that the democratic party was responsible for ensuring Obama met the legal requirements.

No one else. Not the federal government. Not the states. The democratic parties. Minor candidates have to affirm an oath or some such that they meet the requirements - but major party candidates do not.

Please.. prove me wrong.. I would love it if you could.

Do you have any real, actual, physical proof that he's not?

You have it backwards - the constitution requires that a candidate be a natural born citizen of a certain age. It isn't incumbent on me to prove he isn't. Its up to the candidate to prove *he is*.

[HoneyBadger]

Ok, well, I'm glad that's straightened out. Now that he's President, it's good to know that he's a citizen of the United States. Thanks for clearing that up, Chrispedersen.