Billy T Trump tossed a pile of poo over the net, any intelligent person would just let it plop onto the ground and lay there stinking(as Obama has done), not try to return it. Anyone who did try to swat it back would end up covered in poo and none of it would make it back over the net(Que a monkey(Trump)laughing). Obama is right not to dignify this racist crap with the least bit of attention, nor is Obama keeping any money from any charity by doing so, Lucy never let's Charley Brown actually kick the ball because that's the whole point of offering to hold the ball in the first place. Trump would simply claim they are forged(we have a history to examine re the Birth Certificate)and not pay it, embarrassing the President. Been there, done that, won't do it again. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
madanthonywayne You mean the President DID NOT say the attacks were terrorism 4 TIMES in the three days after the attacks? You mean the CIA is not TO THIS DAY saying the attack was motivated by the video? And who's First Amendment rights were violated, specifically? Or is this just more of the Right Wing poo flinging, trying to get something, ANYTHING to stick to this President's sterling record in foreign affairs?(You know, it's telling that for the first time in modern history the Muslims demonstrated in SUPPORT of America the day after the attacks. They also drove those responsible for the attack out of the city. Unlike under Bush, they really do see us as liberators under Obama). http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/24/the_shocking_world_changing_new_libya_e_mails.html http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/yet-more-non-scandal-over-benghazi "Both Obama and Hillary Clinton talked from the start about the attacks being the work of extremist elements. Susan Rice and Jay Carney later suggested that there had been protests outside the consulate and that a YouTube video had played a role in instigating the attack, but that's because this is what the CIA was telling them at the time. What's more, to this day there's still evidence that the video played a role. (An opportunistic one, probably, but a role nonetheless.) As for the charge that Obama was trying to downplay al-Qaeda involvement, that's not because he was trying to hold onto his reputation as the guy who killed bin Laden. It's because Ansar al-Sharia was a homegrown group with virtually no connection to al-Qaeda central. There really was no al-Qaeda involvement. This is crazy. Where does this stuff keep coming from? Based on the evidence we know today, the worst you can say about the White House is that they didn't do a very good job of coordinating the messages being delivered to the public by all the various agencies. Beyond that, it took about a week for everyone to get on the same page because that's how long it took before the intelligence community had a good handle on what actually happened. There's just no scandal here." Kevin Drum in Mother Jones The only place where people are stupid enough to still be beating this dead horse is on Fox. The only people to still believe this crap are low information bigots and racists who get all their "news" from that source. Another Right Wing disinformation campaign and fake outrage generator. Keep sucking on that teat, but it's not milk you are getting(and it's not a teat you are sucking on, either). Let's hear from witnesses who were there... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/27/benghazi-attack-libyan-wi_n_2032005.html "There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound. One of the consulate's private Libyan guards said masked militants grabbed him and beat him, one of them calling him "an infidel protecting infidels who insulted the prophet." The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack. " So, there is no "Benghazigate", the administration did not lie and security requests could not be met, largely due to huge cuts in the budget for such security put in place by Republicans(the true scandal here). GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are both very wrong about his wealth* and have no way to know what you claim to know about Trump´s intensions. Best thing for Obama to do is call him, like in a poker game. - I.e. ask for the 5 million to be put into a bank escrow account** (returns to Trump is Obama fails to met the conditions OR goes to the charities Obama names if he does.)*** If Obama, just "folds his cards" without calling Trump, then many will conclude Obama does have something in those records to hide. Just folding his cards may give Romney the POTUS. Giving $5,000,000 to Planned Parenthood is a much smarter political move - would regain for Obama many of the women now about equally split, instead of the earlier strong gender advantage Obama had. * Trump is number 128 in Forbe´s list of the 400 richest in US with 3.1 Billion dollars - For more details see: http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/ 5 / 3100 = 0.16% of Trumps wealth - pocket change to Trump. ** That also is a nice way to says: "I have no reasons to trust you." *** Bank will be happy to set up an escrow account with no fee charged. - Interest on 5E6 dollars for just a week of holding them would be their payment.
Billy T Trump's wealth is all smoke and mirrors, he's had several bankruptcies and his property consulting firm is next(he just got fired from managing Trump Properties). If it weren't for the Apprentice show he would be destitute. Politically, Trump is a clown, and just like Sarah Palin the mere mention of his existence by any serious player lowers that player and raises Trump. Obama is wise to ignore this buffoon. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS Forbes is a Right Wing rag not fit for wrapping fish. Steve Forbes is too crazy even for Republicans and the ratings are often HUUUGE in their errors, as they certainly are in Trump's case. Trump's financial house of cards is falling apart and if he has billions he should probably abscond forthwith, especially since Obama is going to win this election and won't pull his chestnuts from the fire the way Willard would.
So fox news must be a "Right Wing rag" too. Here is what they said in November 2011: "According to a financial disclosure report included in his soon-to-be-released book, a copy of which FOX News has obtained, Trump’s net worth is estimated at $7,004,900,000. That compares with estimates from Forbes in September that Trump was worth "just" $2.9 billion. " Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/11/21/how-much-is-donald-trump-really-worth/#ixzz2AcULIWgc Or better still (as Fox is right leaning) Search / Google: "wealth of donald trump" and try to find any of dozens of hits that put his wealth less than 2 billion dollars. Or this 40 day old text at my original Forbe´s link: "The Donald continues to collect prime real estate like the recently purchased Miami's Doral golf and spa resort and Washington, D.C.'s Old Post Office building, which he's redeveloping as a luxury hotel. He's also still raking it in as a one-man brand: he was number 17 on Forbes' Celebrity 100 list in 2012 mostly thanks to the success of his Apprentice franchise. The Trump name can be also found on alcohol, neckties, high-end mattresses and - as of March - a fragrance collection for men called Success by Trump. His controversial $150 million golf course in Scotland opened for business in July; he remains locked in battle over proposed wind turbines off the Aberdeenshire coast that he says will spoil the ocean views for his members. " Not bad for a guy whose "financial house of cards is falling apart" according to your OPINION. ALL YOUR OPINIONS ARE NOT WORTH MUCH WHEN YOUR "FACTS" ARE ABOUT THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WRONG (by most reports).
The right wing will find something in Obama's records, even if it's nothing. They are desperate for ammunition, even if it's made of lies. Why help them out?
It Isn't Complicated The same hypocrisy you're making excuses for: Like the 12,000 pages of documentation that the U.S. refused to accept because it suggested Iraq had no substantial WMD program? Uh-huh. You conservatives need some emotional-control counseling, then. After all, Benghazi is bigger than Watergate, according to Sen. John McCain. The Wall Street Journal compares Benghazi to Watergate. Limbaugh has jumped on the "bigger than Watergate" bandwagon. Newt Gingrich, as well. Charles Krauthammer, Sean Hannity, Donald Rumsfeld. The number of conservatives trying to whip up public outrage undermines your dishonest attempt to downplay the conservative attitude. Do you ever get tired of being a liar? No, seriously, does it ever weary you to go so far out of your way to deceive people? Alright: "blame a video and throw the first ammendment under the bus". You're on. Prove it. Come on. You can do it. Prove your assertion. Frankly, I think you're a liar who can't, but clearly you think you can. So do it. Given that what is holding back our economic recovery is a lack of consumer spending, and that the private sector recovery would be stronger if we weren't shedding public jobs and thus reducing consumer spending, and that the Republicans sank a bill to repair roads and bridges, and then taking into consideration that the Republican argument is that Obama doesn't actually have a jobs plan, your argument just doesn't work. • Jobs bills filibustered by Republicans: HR 12, Paycheck Fairness Act; HR 466, Wounded Veteran Job Security Act; HR 626, Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act; HR 1168, Veterans Retraining Act; HR 1171, Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization; S. 3816, Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act; S. 2237, Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act; S. 1660, American Jobs Act of 2011; S. 3457, Veterans Jobs Corps Act. And don't even try to suggest anything about the cost of these programs unless you want to explain why Republicans blocked pay-as-you-go legislation, which was one of the keys to the Clinton-era deficit reconciliation. What is this strange disconnection 'twixt you and reality? Like Henninger, you seem to think lying is okay, but not calling a lie by its name. The interesting phrase there is, "because one think tank and a few politicians are on the record as supporting it 20 years ago". Perhaps such moronic attempts to deceive people work in your corner of the world. But the Heritage Foundation invented the plan in 1989. It reiterated the individual mandate in 1992. The Chafee Bill (S. 1770) saw eighteen Republican cosponsors. But your response to Joe omitted the Nickles Bill (S. 1743), which had twenty-four Republican cosponsors: • S. 1770: Dole, Bond, Hatfield, Bennett, Hatch, Danforth, Brown, Gorton, Simpson, Stevens, Cohen, Lassebaum, Warner, Specter, Faircloth, Domenici, Lugar, Grassley, Durenberger (joined by Boren and Kerrey). • S. 1743: Nickles, Hatch, Mack, Bennett, Brown, Burns, Coats, Cochran, Coverdell, Craig, Dole, Faircloth, Greg, Helms, Hutchison, Kempthorne, Lott, Lugar, Murkowski, Simpson, Smith, Stevens, Thurmand, Wallop, Grassley. Julie Rovner for NPR: The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it. In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time." Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.'" The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take" .... .... Nichols, of the New America Foundation, says he's depressed that so many issues that used to be part of the Republican health agenda are now being rejected by Republican leaders and most of the rank and file. "I think it's a sad testament to the state of relations among the parties that they've gotten to this point," he said. And how does economist Pauly feel about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate they used to promote? "That's not something that makes me particularly happy," he says. That still doesn't answer why you aren't denouncing the socialists over at the Heritage Foundation, or in the Republican Party. I could have told you that four years ago. Perhaps you and your conservative neighbors should lie a little less. Understand, please, you long ago crossed the threshold at which simple misunderstandings, or even traditional spin, could explain the distortions you promote. No, not any spin. Just the spin that happens to be outrageously dishonest. I'm not at all surprised that you can't tell the difference. Then again, the 9/11 Commission Report was available a month after the attacks, so I can see how you might conflate the two events. The problem arises when your narrative, such as this tidbit, is completely disengaged from any sense of reality. Well, I don't think the president should apologize to conservatives for failing to talk like a professional wrestler. I do recognize that rhetoric in general needs to be dumbed down in order to accommodate conservatives, but there is only so far we can lower the bar before we render the public discourse entirely useless. As long as you're going to be dishonest, sir, you don't get to complain about people calling you a liar. Normally, that should be apparent enough to anyone who stops and thinks about it, but apparently it needs to be explained as simply as possible to conservatives. Thus: As long as you're going to be dishonest, you don't get to complain about people calling you a liar. And if that confuses you, well, I'll see if I can dumb it down a little more. ____________________ Notes: ProCon. "History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010". (n.d.) HealthCareReform.ProCon.org. October 29, 2012. http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182 Rovner, Julie. "Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate". Morning Edition. February 15, 2010. NPR.org. October 29, 2012. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612 See Also: Cesca, Bob. "Republicans Filibuster Everything, Romney Blames Obama for Not Working With Congress"/. The Huffington Post. October 25, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. October 29, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/republicans-filibuster-ev_b_2018663.html
Well at least that is answer, not just an attack on Romney´s character, wealth or intentions, but not a very valid one IMHO: I think the right wing will and already has assert things that the records, if released could disprove, at least for most. Exactly like was the case before Obama released his birth certificate. I.e. prior to that release, many who who did not like Obama did believe he was born in Africa, etc. but afterwards only the real nut cases continued to believe those right wing lies. I.e. it is the current policy, that is "helping the right wing out." Releasing the records would torpedo their lies with printed facts. Why should this case be any different? I.e. the creditability the right wing now has with false hoods such as Obama never when to Harvard, etc. is believed by many, but if Harvard confirms he did with a transcript, etc. then 90+ percent of these believers will at least stop repeating the lies as they did when the birth certificates were released. This is a benefit but very small compared to the benefit with women voters that $5,000,000 donation to Planned Parenthood would make. This elections appears to be so close that getting back the once large advantage with women voters might keep Romney out of the white house. Summary: It is silly to not call Trump out*. Risk losing the election for lack of the prior advantage with women voters, and for what - because you and others don´t like Trump. Try to keep you eye on the ball - and that ain´t Trump but getting more votes for Obama. * Politely say in other words: "Put the 5 million in a bank escrow account, or shut the fuck up."
It's best not to indulge these psychos. It's an old trick: How Lyndon Johnson first got elected to Congress in 1948 when his opponent was a wealthy and politically favoured pig farmer: 'Lyndon was running about 10 points behind, with only nine days to go... He was sunk in despair. He was desperate... he called his equally depressed campaign manager and instructed him to call a press conference at two or two-thirty ( just after lunch on a slow news day) and accuse his high-riding opponent (the pig farmer) of having routine carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows, despite the pleas of his wife and children... His campaign manager was shocked. 'We can't say that, Lyndon,' he said. 'It's not true.' 'Of course it's not,' Johnson barked at him, 'but let's make the bastard deny it.'
Interesting quote. It's not surprizing that a warmonger like LBJ (whose demagoguery gave us the "Great Society") would do or say anything to get elected. Gulf of Tonkin incident Shortly before midnight on August 4, President Johnson made a speech by radio in which he described an attack by North Vietnamese vessels on two U.S. Navy warships, USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy and requested authority to undertake a military response.[22][23] Johnson's speech repeated the theme that "dramatized Hanoi/Ho Chi Minh as the aggressor and which put the U.S. into a more acceptable defensive posture."[22] Johnson also referred to the attacks as having taken place "on the high seas," suggesting that they had occurred in international waters.[24] These people are truly sociopaths. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
that's cute you think the facts matter to the likes of right wing mob. these people couldn't give a fuck about the facts. they care about power and little else.
I don't think that words means what you think it means. You seem to use it as any polititian that doesn't agree with my ideas that would lead to economic aristocracy rather than refering to the actual you definition of the word( which its self is out dated and in the medical field not used funny how you don't even know that)
heh... says the Cattle to the Herd. Moo Mooooo Moooo So long as we have a central bank that issues paper backed by your labor, which by law you must take a portion (upwards to 30%) and give to the State so it can sell Bonds on your labor (think of yourself as value adding, our military sucks, so that pretty much just leaves your back) - you will live as Cattle. It really is that simple. Sure, you get to pick your employment (to a small degree) - but, you will pay. So will your children and their children. The wealthiest will continue to spend your labor and when you're used up and done, they'll do so to your children's labor. The nice thing about not questioning God, is you waste a lot of time debating catholicism versus protestantism. Lucky for you the Church is well and truly running things around here. No need to worry yourself over those pesty details like being taxed on something you already own - namely your labor. Just get yourself on down to the vote-in box and pick yirself a Bishop or a Minister - then go back to work, stand in your stall, and feel like you had your say in the way of things round here.
I never suggested that the nut mob would shut up - No matter what, they will not, but with independents, women, and many more rational people thinking about whom to support, having the facts is important in their decision. Hell, even I wonder why Obama is not willing to do as he did with his birth certificates to both shut down the TV noise level and suggestions that there is some deep dark secrete in those records Obama is hiding AND to regain the support advantage he once had with women with $5,000,000 sent to Planned Parenthood. I´m ONLY going by history of the birth certificates story - a greatly reduced noise (on TV in press, etc.) level is what happened when Obama produced his birth certificates. Certainly their still are "birthers" and release of scholastic records, pass port applications, will not silence some of the extremes, but will again if recent history is any guide, greatly reduce the noise by published facts. These nuts are not going to voter for Obama no matter what - that is not the point. Getting back the advantage with women is. The point is to win back the advantage Obama had with women voters and not let the nuts raise questions in the minds of the independents with nuts telling them or asking them what is Obama so concerned about hiding that he won´t take the $5,000,000 and give it to Planned parent hood. etc.
The Underlying Problem The Underlying Problem The underlying problem of Trump's offer is that Obama must provide the records to Trump's satisfaction. It is widely presumed that nothing will satisfy Donald Trump. Thus, the proposition is for Obama to simply hand the right wing something to try to complain about—resting well assured that they will complain, and that the press, in order to be “fair”, will legitimize the complaint regardless of its merits—while getting nothing in return for having created for himself a new headache at the peak of election season. Indeed, the only people who would pretend that Trump could possibly be satisfied are right wingers, like John Nolte of Brietbart: “But I'd like to know why Obama would go against his redistributionist nature and choose to deprive a charity of his choice from receiving a cool $5 million from The Top One Percent.” I think that, more than anything else, is why you're finding so much resistance to your proposition. If I thought Trump would actually pony up the five million under any remotely reasonable circumstances, then I think the proposition would be well worth considering. But I don't. Why shouldn't Obama take D. Trump's 5 million? In truth, because it's not really there for the taking. ____________________ Notes: Nolte, John. “Trump Offers Obama $5 Million to Release College Transcripts”. Breitbart. October 24, 2012. Brietbart.com. October 29, 2012. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...a-Five-Million-To-release-College-Transcripts
Rational people would not have much to think about. Best evidence is usually good enough for the rational mind. Because it's absurdly stupid? The rational mind rejects paying tribute to nuts and conspiracy theorists. Once had? You must be watching some other polls. Problems with this include (a) Obama is best known for the Lucy Ledbetter bill, strengthening women's right to equal pay for equal work, signed into law as his first act immediately after taking the oath of office; (b) Obama is more likely to support Planned Parenthood because he believes in a woman's right to choose, as a matter of fundamental rights; (c) I don't think there is a public perception of this particular payment, of the amount, that Obama gave the money, or that he did so to pander to women - Obama is better known for his stand on women's rights, and rights in general - even before he ever got into politics - it's illogical to connect this with pandering; and (d) women don't have this perception of Obama, and men also have an interest in seeing reproductive services made available to everyone who needs it. It's all bogus National Enquirer style inventions. Only a really stupid person, or someone with personality or mental disorders, would even entertain this. And even for them, only the civics class dropouts would not recognize that the birth announcements in the Honolulu newspapers are more than sufficient to shut the cynics up. They are behaving like spoiled children. They're problematic. I would surmise that very few women can explain the technicalities of the Lucy Ledbetter Act. They merely know it has something to do with enforcing equal pay for equal work. Obama knows the technicalities intimately--his JD is in Constitutional Law--and here he advocated for them like a lawyer defending them in court. Next, Obama obviously believes in a woman's right to choose. Additionally, he believes in aid to families with dependent children. He supports education, unemployment benefits, compensation for victims of the BP oil spill, homosexual rights, and on and on. This is why women support him. The advantage of believing in rights is the more than a mere advantage. It's an asset. Women aren't one-dimensional. Women's employment and reproductive rights are part of their interest in his platform, but so are rights in general. I just don't think this floats amid all the flotsam and jetsam of the Right and their litany of bogus attacks on Obama. Rational folks see through it, and the nut jobs are not likely to be managed by anyone except for nut cheerleaders like Rush Limbaugh, Faux News, or the Tea Party clowns. A majority of voters are probably rational enough to recognize this. Let's face it; some 40% of people believe God manages outcomes on Earth, including something like 12% who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. These undereducated and superstitious nuts are naively susceptible to the cynicism of the Right and its bogus claims.
Billy T And Rmoney's birth certificate? We KNOW his family came from Mexico, why hasn't he been asked? Could it be that asking Obama is triggered by something about Obama that Rmoney doesn't share(but, given his spray tan addiction, wishes he did)? And is it not reasonable to suppose that one of the mouth breathers who STILL claims Obama was born in Kenya has EXACTLY the same motivations for asking to see Obama's college records? And is it reasonable to assume that he intends to treat said records EXACTLY like he has treated Obama's birth certificate(IE deny it's authenticity)? Do you really think Obama's that stupid?(he isn't) As I said, wildly in error, even between Right Wing nutjob sources. Trump did not run for the Republican nomination because he cannot afford to give up his day job on the Apprentice and likely because the disclosures candidates must make would expose this billionaire wanabee, huckster fraud as near to bankruptcy and facing many potential lawsuits. Real billionaires never need to brag about how rich they are and the braggadocio he displays in his book doesn't mean he actually has any money at all, it just means he is(once again)CLAIMING to have billions, yet he clings like his life depended on it(his livelihood certainly does)on the measly(in relation)salary he earns with a cheesy reality show. Pardon me if I take anything Trump claims or says as being absolute crap(this is fast coming to be true of the whole Republican party). GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
god your such a fucking troll. typical micheal insult anyone who doesn't agree with libertarianism. and the currency isn't backed by labor but hey why stop lying now. its backed by the stability of the government. you have repeated this tired lie and gross misrepresentation about labor but no matter how many times you say it it isn't true. Your fucked up ideology is based on theft using your definitions unless you think you can both sell something and retain ownership of it at the same time.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So the US government has become 99.97% less stable since 1913? Perhaps you meant 'backed by the morality' of the US government? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Chinese aren't buying stability of the US government. They're buying the ability of the US government to extract labor via income tax from it's citizens. Which is related to the stability of the US, but that's not what they're buying. As an example: As soon as we stop paying income tax and start using competing currencies, the Chinese are going to stop buying 30 year Bonds from the US government.
