Is there anyone else here (US citizen) that CAN NOT produce a certified copy of their birth certificate???! I mean - what the fuck?!?! If it is such a non-issue, why can't he just produce the document... makes no sense.

I've had to use mine over the course of my life numerous times - school, college, passports, etc. I've got a copy here at the house now - and if it went up in flames, I could be on the phone to Cook County, IL and have another one in less than a week.

Why doesn't HE have one... Just sayin... a lil weird... :Oh crap

You see, one should be a little smarter than you to understand. The Obama admin is so good that they could not accurately estimate a $1 billion program. It's just a week old and already 200% over budget, imagine how nice the healthcare reform will be :thumbsup

i have to say it's ridiculous the fucking program ran out of money in the 1st week. jesus, what a train wreck our government is- on everything.

You just proved that you don't even bother to research most of what you believe to be true. You just pick and choose what you want to be true instead and go with that.

^^ See what Brujah said.
From the liberal media itself (snark) >> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...VjNzRmODE2NTI=

So then what the hell is all the hoopla about???

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on IF he has one - I've only heard it mentioned before and then responded to the chart here. I was saying if it is such a concern, why hasn't it been produced... according to the article above it has - so - again, I guess I'm wondering what all the hoopla is about... :upsidedow

It's strange how the barely rich equate high taxes on the top 1% with themselves. Warren Buffet has PERSONALLY paid more in taxes than most of the 1% combined. In 2003 his company paid 2.5% of all corporate taxes paid in the US... TOTAL.

Some people see a strong country, a well funded military, a healthy populace, an educated citizenry and the rest of the things taxes pay for as more important than their next car or webmaster toy.... including the guy paying more taxes than anyone in the last couple decades... :2 cents:

He does have one.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

Read the information there.

Here is another source.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

Why don't you see a signature? Because it is on the back and scanned copy on all the websites is just the front. If you look at Factcheck they have pictures of the raised seal and signature stamp that has everyone's panties in a bundle. The reality is this a non-issue. The guy is a citizen, he has a birth certificate, the right wingers are so full of hatred and anger about losing the election that they are grasping for anything they can to pull them back together.

It's cute when one of the leeches points to buffet as relevent to the overtaxation of the rich.
One man's opinion on the unequal taking of another's money means nothing.

For a good read, find Walter Williams who famously said,"if a group of people vote to steal someone else's money, it's not democracy, it's theft"

it's just amazing the lengths the have nots will go to justify taking what isn't theirs.
"But but but, Warren buffet says......."

What was Obama's VERY FIRST act as President?

Oh right, ..it was the signing of EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 (January 26, 2009) banning release of any of his records.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf

Did you actually read that or just repeat what some idiot posted about it? Read it and then say it says what you say it says... because it doesn't at all. It is an executive order to overturn the claim of executive privilege made by Bush... that is why it says "Former" and "Incumbent". Some of you people just make me scratch my head and wonder where you were educated.

Were you saying something?

Here's a little more fuel for this this Obama fire..

Regarding the issue of Obama's birth certificate. I have no idea if indeed Obama was born in the USA or not, but here is a link to a forensic analysis of the issue of his certificate of live birth done by an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...exclusive.html

Yeah, I was ridiculing shitstains like yourself but as with all of your kind, you didn't realize it

And the rebuttal
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5745

Bad Science - How Not to Do Image Analysis
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/ind...-Analysis.html

Dig a little deeper...

Here is a good analysis:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R40238.pdf

If you don't have time to read it, here's the section that summarizes it best.


"On November 1, 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order (E.O. 13233), which
allowed the incumbent President?as well as former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, and their
designees whose records are affected?to withhold from public disclosure the records of former
Presidents and Vice Presidents or to delay their release indefinitely under claims of executive
privilege.3 On January 7, 2009, the House passed a bill (H.R. 35) that would statutorily revoke
E.O. 13233. The bill would also allow the Archivist to reassume control of access to the records
of former Presidents.


On January 21, 2009, President Barack Obama issued E.O. 134894 on his first full day in office.
The new executive order explicitly rescinded E.O. 13233. Many of the aims of H.R. 35 are
incorporated into President Obama?s executive order. However, unlike H.R. 35, which would
grant the Archivist final determination over record disclosure, President Obama?s order allows
the incumbent President to stop disclosure through claims of executive privilege. This report
will discuss policy changes incorporated into E.O. 13489 and analyze the possible effects of H.R. 35."

E.O. 134894 was basically answering H.R. 35 (which revoked E.O. 13233 anyways) to once again allow Obama to "halt disclosure" through claims of executive privilege. H.R. 35 took that away.

Excellent point... though it shows exactly how unimportant your own POV is if you believe that... ;)

I pay more in taxes than I am ever likely to receive directly from taxes. It's the cover charge at the door and you don't get to go inside the club, let alone the VIP room if you are unwilling to pay it. You don't have to pay taxes, you are free to leave ant time you want.

None of the top 1% give a shit about obama's birth certificate.
This isn't about him, it's about the direction of the country. It's just embarrassing to think my fellow Americans think our present course is right or sustainable

When JFK became President the tax on every 1 million dollars earned was 92%. During the Nixon administration...if I remember correctly...it was reduced to 58%. During the Regan administration...if I remember correctly...it was reduced to 38%...and I think it was cut to 36% during the Bush administration.

Obama wants to bring it back up to 38-40%...if my memory serves me correctly.

The chart is meaningless other than to show that there are more and more millionaires/billionaries and that over all they pay the bulk of the taxes but the percentage rate they pay is far from overwhelming.

It's a lovely story but a troll who makes his money in text like you do is a leech on society. Pretend all you want on chatboards but the reality is you you don't pay anything in tax, you merely say you do to seem relevent to the conversation.:thumbsup

Oh look, another sucker of the public teat speaks.
What the chart shows is that what you recieve for free, your betters pay 6 and 7 figures for.
The thought process of you trash sends a shiver up my spine.
20yrs and more ago millionaires could hide all of their money off shore so the tax rates were irrellivent

I suspect that the capital gains tax I have paid exceeds your total worth...but maybe not as I do not know anything about what you are worth financially.

Pathfinder, I suspect the lie about your deTh is equal to the lie about your capital gains.

Nice find. I don't have the time to run through it and compare things, but check out the comments at the bottom. ..It didn't even fool most of the people that read it.

"Dr. Krawetz

In your 1st paragraph you lost the whole audience. Techdude did not make the claim that all COLB's since 1959 were printed on the same printer.

What a moron you are if think you that is the case.

No need to read further. That large a blunder set you up for the ridicule you justifiably deserve.

If you happen to retract your mistake, I might waste my time reading the rest."

What is all the hoopla about? People like you that choose not to research anything for themselves, or think with their own brain. You are the reason stuff like that kept getting lied about, because instead of actually looking up the info to see if it was true, you just keep repeating it, because you want it to be true.

Whining about taxes is a pastime of lower class individuals who happen upon a bit of money and become paranoid that others are trying to take it away from them.

It is quite amusing to see the usual useful idiots trying to deflect attention away from a legitimate issue with a bunch of nonsense about Obama's birth certificate (which is obviously a non issue). The fact is Obama's class war bullshit is all based on on lies about who pays the majority of taxes in the US. His socialist wealth distribution schemes depend on the ignorance of the general populace about the current tax system......... which is why you see his most starry eyed defenders desperately trying to change the subject.

Said the one bedroom apartment dweller who's never made more than 30k in his life.

I don't know that it was lies . Obama said all along he would raise taxes on the wealthy and felt that there should be a "sharing of the wealth." He never hid that fact. Taxes in general are a system of wealth distribution. Obama was just the first person to admit it and then say he was going to increase it.

In a sick kind of way it will be pretty funny to watch.

This will be my first and last post in this thread, since debating with 12clicks cannot be, by definition, intellectually honest.

What that graph doesn't show you is how the wealth of the top 1% has grown in disproportion to the bottom 95% in that same period of time. The wealthiest Americans share of the total tax burden is disproportionately low compared to their share of our national wealth.

That graph also only shows income taxes. It doesn't take into account any other form of taxation. The reason it doesn't is because most other forms of taxation are regressive, and would show the argument that the rich pay more is a flat out lie.
Oh sure they may pay more in terms of raw dollars, but in terms of percentage of total income or total wealth, they pay a much smaller share than the middle class.

For instance Social Security and Medicare are 1/3 of our total federal budget. Yet social security taxes are capped at around 100K per year. Meaning if you make $1MM per year, you only pay Social Security tax on 10% of your income, while the guy making 50K per year pays those taxes on 100% of his income.
You also can't separate Social Security from the rest of the budget because it currently runs a surplus and those surplus dollars are used to pay for things like defense spending and interest on the debt.

Anyone with access to google and a little bit of intellectual curiousity can find out the truth about these things. 12clicks is not one of those people.
I have owned his sorry ass in many of these arguments before, but he just ignores the facts and continues with his insults and bullshit.

I'm sure a post will be coming soon with the words "son, rabble, idiot" or something similar soon. Whoopty fuckin doo.

Speaking of this "honest debate over the progressivity of the tax system", we already had that Ron. It was last November, and your side lost, by a significant margin.
I understand that you're a sore loser and want a do-over, but that ain't gonna happen. So kiss your offshore shelters and 35% marginal rate buh bye. :1orglaugh

What trash like snake doctor pretend isn't so is that the rich pay for what the poor trash like himself vote for.
We have this idiot system of taxation because the politicians realized that it was the best way to pander to the underclass whom snakesoctor is a part of.
Just as we wouldn't go to the grocery store and snakesoctor would get his bread for free because of his economic status and I'd pay $20 for the same bread, all Americans should pay the same amount for the services the government provides.

Snakesoctor pretends I'm intellectually dishonest so he can continue to get his government services for free, courtesy of his betters.

But then, he's a failure, it's not like he "could" pay his fair share.

Oh, and about the election.
It marked the tipping point where the handout vote is larger than the intelligent vote.
Snakeboy, you don't have a clue how bad that is for the country because your kind can never see past the shiny coin that is your handout. Obama banked on that

The world you live in must be so wonderfully simple. It's almost a shame it isn't the real one.

So in your twisted little mind it would have been more intelligent for someone to vote for a complete sell out (McCain) and his mental midget VP pick? I LOL'd.

This chart is USELESS.

Do you honestly not understand how that can appear to be more than it's is, or are you just hoping a sucker will believe it?

Let's analyze the total % of income the top 1% pay vs. those in the bottom 95%. That is what matters. Of course 10% of $30,000,000 is a lot more than 10% of $17,400.

Oh, that's right, it wouldn't support your right wing propaganda.

The irony is that the same people that bitch about taxes are the same ones that think Reagan the puppet was a genius. Guess what? Reagan started the outrageous spending! Nobody complains and his predecessors realized they could get away with it, too. Nobody slapped their hands for putting it into the cookie jar.

Says the guy who loves taking advantage of all the publicly funded things around him but has no interest in paying for them. In the real world, we call those people 'hypocrites.'

So like I was saying, about intellectual honesty. Here are a few simple facts.

The top tax rate during the Eisenhower administration was 90%.

During Nixon, 70%.

When Reagan cut taxes, it was from 70% all the way down to 50%.

Today the top rate is 35%, and capital gains taxes are at ridiculously low levels. Yet Obama's plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and have the top rate go back to 39.6%, that was the tipping point where the handout vote is larger than the intelligent vote

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

If all there is to debate is facts and public policy, you lose and you lose huge. Every single time.
You just start these threads so you can call people shitstains, or failures, or whatever. You can't win the argument honestly so you resort to personal insults.

It's so predictable and so pathetic, that I could log in as you, start one of these threads, and keep it going for days without anyone knowing it wasn't really you. You're just that much of a repetitive douche.
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Grow up.

Dear unintelligent halfwit,
Reagan did not have a republican congress supporting him. The democrats refused to stop spending. Reagan cut taxes, the democrats kept spending.
You're out of your depth and it makes you appear stupid.

Snakeboy, you're "facts" are irrelivent to this discussion.(it's so hard to tell when you're playing dumb)

%s from 30+ years ago are meaningless.
Today the rich pay for almost everything already. However, trash like yourself (the typical Obama voter) Still don't think it's enough. Your resentment of successful people has an outlet now!
As I said, you're not bright enough to understand the death spiral we're in or that the bottom will go first

Dear uneducated buffoon.

The legislative process requires both branches to cooperate. Otherwise there would have been a shutdown like there was with Clinton and the republican congress of the 90's.
The fact that you want to give Reagan credit for the good things of the 80's and blame the Democrats in congress for the bad things, shows just how disillusioned and intellectually dishonest you are.

Reagan signed all of those budgets.

BTW, the biggest item in the discretionary budget, by far, is defense spending. Which Reagan wanted increased by an order of magnitude higher than he actually got. (Over [Fiscal Year] 1980-85, real military spending would increase 39 percent)
http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr0401.htm

So this idea that he wanted to toe the line on spending is pure bullshit revisionist history.

Calling people shitstains and halfwits doesn't change the fact that you have no facts to support your arguments. Only rhetoric.

So what about Clinton. When he got elected in 1993 there was a democrat controlled house and senate. The next election saw the republicans take control of both and they held it for the remainder of his presidency. They did nothing to curb spending. Bush had a republican controlled house and senate for the first 6 of his 8 years. They did nothing to control spending. Spending is not a democrat or republican issue.

Here is the difference.

Democrats - tax and spend.
Republicans - cut taxes then spend and run up debt.

Oh and as for Reagan. There was a republican controlled senate for the first 6 of his 8 years. So the republican senate and president could do nothing to control the democrats spending? Of course they didn't they wanted to spend just as much money, they just want to spend it on different things.

neither party has any interest in spending less.

Sorry asshat, you're incorrect.
After Carter gutted the military and ruined the economy, Reagan did exactly what was needed. The only one revising history is you.

Congress controls the spending no matter how the mighty snakeboy pretends otherwise.

But I'd argue about Reagan too if I were you since you don't have a leg to stand on considering the top 1% pays for all of YOUR public services

Kane, you're wrong. Google Newt Gingrich

Good thing I am not in the top 1% or even the top 5%...fuck the rich people. LOL

What about Newt Gingrich?

Here are some highlights of his career:

He had a bunch of ethics charges brought against him. All but one of them were dropped, but that was a pretty ugly one where he supposedly lied about how money going to a tax free non-profit was being spent. "On January 21, 1997 the House voted overwhelmingly (395 to 28 ) to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich for ethics violations dating back to September 1994. The house ordered Gingrich to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it had disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing."

He was the guy who spearheaded the government shutdown in 1995. There are many who will say this was simply the republicans trying to curb out of control democrat spending and there might be some truth to that. Others say it was them playing petty games. Here is a quote from Tom Delay :
Delay writes in his book, No Retreat, No Surrender:[3]

"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child..The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

He did help draft and pass the Contract With America. Most of which the Republican party themselves ended up not following. I understand that in some cases deomcrats fought them, but the republicans themselves could at least stand by many of these beliefs and act on them in their personal lives, but of course most of them don't.

So I guess I'm curious what makes Newt such a good guy?

And I am correct about the spending.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

This site shows the budgets put forth by every president since 1930. It shows how much they put in outlays, how much they brought in in receipts and what the deficit/surplus was. Since 1930 there have only been 7 times that there was a budget that was actually smaller than the previous year and the last time it happened was 1948. Since 1980 the federal budget has grown from 517 billion to 3.1trillion. During that same time period the population has gone up by about 33%. So if it increased around 33-40% you could understand that, but it has increased 500%.

How exactly is that not just politicians spending money?

I had dinner with Newt Gingrich many moons ago when I lived in Georgia. He's a cooler guy than you would think.

I don't know anything about him personally and there have been times that I have met politicians in the past and they have seemed like pretty cool people, but I wonder what he means when he says Newt is proof that every administration doesn't just spend money and they politicians don't really care about reeling in the budgets.