Evo said:In this case it is a fact that the lawsuit has been filed and discussion of it is allowed. On the other hand if there was an unsubstantiated claim of a lawsuit, that would not be allowed.
If the only discussion here was of undisputed fact, we would have no discussions.LowlyPion said:Not to be argumentative, as you must know how shy I am about expressing my opinion or disagreeing with the opinion of others, but I am having a little trouble with the distinction you are making. The suggestion that discussion is allowed about the fact of a suit does seem a little like suggesting that it is OK to reference the fact of a particular crackpot science site - not of course that I would advocate that.
Evo said:A person can bring up any point to show fallicies, or they can argue for it.
Why are any of the allegations in a political campaign allowed? This forum isn't about protecting Obama from the perils of running for president. This forum is about discussing current events. If you have a problem with that, feel free to PM me.LowlyPion said:It does seem that the crackpot nature of this particular lawsuit has been adequately demonstrated by references to existing law and the presentation of the image of his Birth Certificate - an image for which he and his campaign must accept full responsibility if it is in anyway falsified - a penalty paid in public trust far greater than any that might accrue under law.
Getting back then to the OP and speaking generally, why are any of these allegations given continued currency? Perhaps this springs from some hidden animus harbored within the heart against his candidacy based on non politically correct primal feelings, in addition to the more mean spirited assaults that the nation has witnessed in past dirty tricks?
Because in 1961 or 2001 US citizenship is valuable commodity, causing to fraud to happen all the time?turbo-1 said:Wow! Why would someone fake a birth notice in 1961? ...
Oh, I thought you had just seen this one:OmCheeto said:Today I saw an anti-Obama bumpersticker.
I didn't really get the joke until the guy driving me around in his car pointed out that the bumper sticker proclaiming that Obama was an elitist was stuck to the back of a Cadillac.
I laughed.
This same idiot Berg issued a law suit accusing the US government of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks yet any attempt by posters to air that particular conspiracy were immediately shut down by moderators. What is different about this conspiracy theory that makes it okay to run this nonsense for 5 pages?Evo said:If the only discussion here was of undisputed fact, we would have no discussions.
A pending lawsuit is a fact, however. We can discuss it, but we don't hold a higher authority than the US government. A person can bring up any point to show fallicies, or they can argue for it.
The rules for P&WA and Philosophy are not the same as for hard sciences.
We don't disallow discussion because it goes against our personal beliefs or what we would like to see.
There was NO reason to file a fake birth certificate. Obama was born to a woman who was a US citizen, granting him US citizenship automatically. Berg's lawsuit is an attack on Obama, intended to plant doubt in the minds of people like the same idiots that forward emails claiming that Obama is a Muslim, not too long after forwarding emails tying him to fiery statements made by his Christian pastor.mheslep said:Because in 1961 or 2001 US citizenship is valuable commodity, causing to fraud to happen all the time?
Not that this relevant to Sen Obama's history, but that is not absolutely correct, there are caveats on the citizenship of children of single parent citizens. In 1961 the citizen parent was still required to live in the US prior the child for 10 years, 5 of those under the age of 14. Today its 5 and 2.turbo-1 said:There was NO reason to file a fake birth certificate. Obama was born to a woman who was a US citizen, granting him US citizenship automatically. ..
Art said:This time McCain has a possible weakness in relation to his Panamanian birth so his supporters attempt to deflect scrutiny by casting dispersions on Obama's citizenship.
mheslep said:Not that this relevant to Sen Obama's history, but that is not absolutely correct, there are caveats on the citizenship of children of single parent citizens. In 1961 the citizen parent was still required to live in the US prior the child for 10 years, 5 of those under the age of 14. Today its 5 and 2.
http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html
Specify which ones you find scary - and please use direct quotes or excerpts (no paraphrasing, please)WheelsRCool said:Me personally, I do not know how anyone could vote for Senator Obama, after looking at his policy proposals,
Again, what aspect of his history scares you?his history,
I think this is well covered in the media, but you can expend on this too, if you like to.his associations,
Can you name them? Do they outnumber the Republicans that are scared of McCain or Palin?etc...(there are Democrats even scared of him!)
I've listed some of Obama's national level accomplishments in post #37. Now tell me what thought Palin has given to events at the National level (forget accomplishments, just show me how much she has thought about something more than just the 600,000 inhabitants of her state)?and I find it laughable that people would criticize Governor Palin for lacking experience when Senator Obama has even less experience
It's simple: McCain went for the political pick, not for the person most qualified to help him. On the other hand, no one in their right mind would deny that Biden is among the most qualified Senators in the country today, as far as experience and grasp of national and international issues go.As for McCain and Governor Palin themselves, I just view them as the lesser of two evils. Remember this is politics. McCain could have chosen someone better, BUT, it would have just been two Republican white guys. Ho-hum. Picking Palin was a gamble, but it seems to have worked in terms of giving Senator McCain a fighting chance.
WheelsRCool said:I find it laughable that people would criticize Governor Palin for lacking experience when Senator Obama has even less experience
WheelsRCool said:Me personally, I do not know how anyone could vote for Senator Obama, after looking at his policy proposals, his history, his associations, etc...(there are Democrats even scared of him!) and I find it laughable that people would criticize Governor Palin for lacking experience when Senator Obama has even less experience (I can understand plenty though folks criticizing McCain's claiming she is the foremost expert on energy).
As for McCain and Governor Palin themselves, I just view them as the lesser of two evils. Remember this is politics. McCain could have chosen someone better, BUT, it would have just been two Republican white guys. Ho-hum. Picking Palin was a gamble, but it seems to have worked in terms of giving Senator McCain a fighting chance.
Specify which ones you find scary - and please use direct quotes or excerpts (no paraphrasing, please)
Again, what aspect of his history scares you?
Can you name them? Do they outnumber the Republicans that are scared of McCain or Palin?
LowlyPion said:Make that $9.50 by 2011 and indexed to inflation. Currently it's at $6.55 nationally, but over $8 already in many states.
Here are the state line ups.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
LowlyPion said:That's not good enough. Because he is talking 3 years from now.
For many people affected this represents a change of maybe 19% in 3 years - 6% a year. That's hardly a back breaker.
What do you propose we do with the minimum wage?WheelsRCool said:His plan to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 and index it to inflation,
The highest earners in Obama's tax plan will still be paying lower taxes than they paid under Reagan.his plans to cut taxes for the 95% of the population while increasing taxes on the highest-earners
Under McCain's plan, someone earning 2 million gets a 10% tax cut, while a person earning 20K gets a 0.1% tax cut. That's not class warfare?(who are a very large contributor to our economy, plus it is out-and-out class warfare),
Warren Buffet in the NY Times said:There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.
Which specific plans are these? You really haven't posted a single reference or direct quote/excerpt.his universal healthcare plan, his plans to infringe on free trade,
He has no such plan, and we've been through this before.his plan to increase the payroll tax cap,
I disagree with this one too, but Palin has the same thing going in Alaska.his plan to enact a "windfall profits tax" on Big Oil,
Okay. What about it scares you?some of his foreign-policy proposals, such as withdrawing from Iraq,
Obama's plan for military funding involves a raise in spending, not a cut. He has said though, that he will cut millions of dollars in wasteful military spending.he once said he would work to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world and cut funding to our military (I don't know what world he is living in),
Nonsense!he has talked of taking military action against Pakistan,
How exactly was it poor? Was it poor because it didn't involve the war mongering blustery rhetoric of McCain's speeches? Sheesh! McCain couldn't even pronounce Saakashvili or Abkhazia correctly. And even Saakashvili recognized McCain bombastic blumbering as nothing more than campaign rhetoric.his poor response to the Russian invasion of Georgia
I don't see how this is "history".The fact that he seems to be very comfortable in very Left-leaning circles of questionable people; also, I am highly skeptical of his "change" mantra considering that when he encountered massive corruption in one of the nation's most corrupt political machines, rather than fight against it, he merely went along with it to advance his career.
I also do not like that he essentially voted to support infanticide.
Because he is too hot tempered, and too impulsive to make rational decisions. Try for instance, this quote from Republican Senator Thad Cochran: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."I do not know; which Republicans do you speak of, and why are they frightened of McCain; because he is too far to the Right or Left in their view...?
Essentially, because she's a joke.And what do they fear of Governor Palin?
I see you didn't bother to either read the post that I pointed to or decided you didn't have the arguments to refute it ... so why bother?Senator Obama's only signficant "accomplishment" is that he has written two books about himself and run for office. He has never authored any major piece of legislation and when faced with corruption, never changed anything significant.
In the Illinois state legislature. I don't like that either.He also voted "Present" an awful lot of times.
She is a parochial pol that has shown no eagerness to think about events at a national or trans-national level. While Obama was still a state senator, he produced a dead on correct projection of the Iraq War.As for Governor Palin, I'm not sure what you're getting at (unless you count the pipeline project). She is a Governor. Her primary concern is going to be the people in her state. Also, she is the only one of the four of them who has had to actually make decisions and then live with the consequences.
That makes Biden a poor political pick.I would say both did. Senator Obama talks constantly about change, then picks one of the most entrenched politicians in Washington.
This is such an outrageous joke, I'm speechless.And I would disagree that Senator Biden has any significant grasp of national and international issues or experience. He has not had any experience in actually crafting foreign policy and then having to be responsible for the consequences. He has been an observer of foreign policy. But just because he has listened to many people testify on various foreign policy issues doesn't tell if he actually understands anything about them.
WheelsRCool said:For small businesses, it can be. Remember, there is a reason Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/). I doubt it has anything to do with caring about their customers. It is because they, as a huge multinational corporation, can absorb a higher minimum wage easily, but smaller business have to struggle more, either by firing people, or raising prices, or both. It leads to an increase in the unemployment rate.
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPISmallBusinessMinWage.pdf...Executive Summary
Some observers contend that because many small businesses are labor intensive and largely employ low-wage workers, they will experience sharp cost increases when the minimum wage is increased, leading them to reduce employment levels. However, this report examined recent state-by-state trends for small businesses employing fewer than 50 workers and found that employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with minimum wages above the federal level than in the remaining states where the $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage prevailed.
This report also found that total job growth was faster in the higher minimum wage states. Faster job growth also occurred in the retail trade sector, the sector of the economy employing the most workers at low wages, in the higher minimum wage states. The simplistic introductory economics prediction that an increase in the minimum wage will result in job loss clearly is not supported by the actual job growth record. Rather, faced with an increase in the minimum wage, small businesses may have benefited from some combination of higher productivity through improved worker retention and savings on recruitment and training. There may also be a “Henry Ford” effect at work: if you pay workers more, they can buy more, boosting the overall economy, especially among small retail businesses. [continued]
What do you propose we do with the minimum wage?
The highest earners in Obama's tax plan will still be paying lower taxes than they paid under Reagan.
Under McCain's plan, someone earning 2 million gets a 10% tax cut, while a person earning 20K gets a 0.1% tax cut. That's not class warfare?
Speaking of class-warfare, someone that may know a little about the subject had this to say:
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.
Which specific plans are these? You really haven't posted a single reference or direct quote/excerpt.
He has no such plan, and we've been through this before.
I disagree with this one too, but Palin has the same thing going in Alaska.
Okay. What about it scares you?
Obama's plan for military funding involves a raise in spending, not a cut. He has said though, that he will cut millions of dollars in wasteful military spending.
How exactly was it poor? Was it poor because it didn't involve the war mongering blustery rhetoric of McCain's speeches? Sheesh! McCain couldn't even pronounce Saakashvili or Abkhazia correctly. And even Saakashvili recognized McCain bombastic blumbering as nothing more than campaign rhetoric.
Now on the other hand, does it not scare you that McCain doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia?
Even GWB learned that lesson a couple years ago. Doesn't it scare you that McCain predicted that the conflict in Iraq would be short? And several months before McCain was parroting the Administration line about a cheap, short-lived war, Obama was dead on with respect to the cost of the war.
Doesn't it scare you that McCain doesn't seem to know who Zapatero is? Or that he helped the Administration peddle garbage like connecting the anthrax attacks to Iraq? And then he claims to have foreign policy expertise? Claims to need no "on the job training" while Lieberman has to whisper in his ear that al Qaeda is a Sunni group? Please!
Because he is too hot tempered, and too impulsive to make rational decisions. Try for instance, this quote from Republican Senator Thad Cochran: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
Essentially, because she's a joke.
I see you didn't bother to either read the post that I pointed to or decided you didn't have the arguments to refute it ... so why bother?
She is a parochial pol that has shown no eagerness to think about events at a national or trans-national level.
While Obama was still a state senator, he produced a dead on correct projection of the Iraq War.
States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level have had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth.
WheelsRCool said:From what I can see, the states employing high minimum wages and Left-leaning economics have some of the worst economies in the nation
What would you like your own state to do about the minimum wage?WheelsRCool said:Eliminate the Federal minimum wage and leave it to the states; those states with their own minimum wages that make them higher than the federal minimum wage, businesses must pay the state minimum wage, so there would be no difference in those states. States who do not want the effects of a minimum wage would be free; if states find that they do not like the federal minimum wage being rescinded and think a minimum wage or minimum wage increase is needed, they can implement one.
This is just flat out wrong. I know because I belong in that bracket.People making $20K pay no taxes; they get it all back.
Folks earning about $400K get a 2% cut, those earning about $100K get a 1% cut and a near-median earner of about $30K gets about 0.3%.A person earning $2 million is in the portion of the population paying a very large chunk of the total tax revenue. Also, folks earning $2 million consist of a very small portion of the highest-earners; I'm thinking more of folks earning $250K, $300K, etc...
So if you now know that it was just campaign rhetoric, you should now be somewhat placated.Regarding free-trade, well Senator Obama has been very vocal about NAFTA and how he will work to "reform" NAFTA and create more fair trade. Some months ago, his economic advisor, economist Austan Goolsbee made a statement saying that Senator Obama was essentially just talking rhetoric on NAFTA, because it had scared some foreign leaders.
Then what we've got now is protectionism of a dozen different kinds.The thing is, there is no such thing as "fair" trade. It's either free trade or protectionism of some type.
What you read - I think - is him saying he would "look into" that possibility (during one of the Primary debates).I know he had supported an increase, then in a previous thread, you had said he said he would not increase it, however I think I read somwehre (albeit I cannot find the link at the moment) that he had said he would raise it up to $200K; if this is still incorrect though, my mistake.
That could also happen after McCain pulls troops out. Besides, what terrorists exactly are you talking about? And what "area" specifically are you talking about?The area could collapse into complete chaos and Iran and the terrorists could take over.
I think it would be safe to bet that he would have called Star Wars wasteful. How does anyone determine what is wasteful? How would McCain decide what earmarks to cut? He said he will veto them all. Now since Israel gets virtually all of its economic and military aid via earmarks, this will eliminate nearly all aid that goes to Israel, which I can't imagine McCain wants. How will McCain decide what earmarks are okay and which ones are excessive? Will he veto the $3 million earmark to study the DNA of bears in Montana (that's one of his favorites) while he permits the $3.2 million earmark that Palin requested, to study the DNA of seals in Alaska?How will he determine what is wasteful though?
And what was McCain's initial response? As for pronunciation, it tells you about a person's familiarity with the subject - if McCain claims to be intimately familiar with Georgia, he ought to know better than to refer to Abkhazia as Abskaya (reading off a teleprompter).What does pronouncement have to do with it? Senator Obama's initial response was for both sides to negotiate a cease-fire and then take it to the United Nations. Does he really think Russia is going to want to "negotiate" anything with Georgia? Also, Russia has veto power in the UN.
This is the kind of attitude that created the mess in Iraq in the first place. When will you folks ever learn this?It is a concern, but nothing I find very scary. Something he definitely needs to bone up on.
It's not just me. I'm talking about Republican commentators like Peggy Noonan, Karl Rove and Mike Murphy.Oh please. If you consider her a joke...
Only when the corruption didn't involve herself. Obama was one of the key drivers of the ethics reform bill of 07. I think it's fair to say about Obama and Palin that they are both eager to root out corruption so long as they are not the people that take the fall for it.And unlike him, when she discovered corruption, she actually worked against it and managed to beat it.
Please! Alinsky was dead for at least a dozen years before Obama even went to Chicago. And Davis just happened to be a neighbor and friend of Obama's grandparents - both of whom served in the Military during WWII. Was Obama's grandfather a liberal commie?What is a joke is that a Senator who has been associated with some very Leftwing radicals in his past (Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshal Davis),
Yet Falwell and Robertson have been people that the right see as saviors and icons. Incidentally, Sen. Bob Byrd (D-WV) was a member of the KKK. And segregationists like Thurmond, Helms and Trent Lott were well respected among Republicans.If he was white, his minister said crazy things about America and had traveled with let's say a KKK member to meet some Nazis in Germany (Wright traveled with Farrakhan), and had been involved with some very questionable characters in his past, etc...the Left would be hysterically terrified of him.
She seems to believe that books should be censored, believes in creationism and the rapture, goes to churches that say the war in Iraq and the conflicts in the ME today are a part of the end times and that the last people on Earth before Armageddon will flock to Alaska. She believes that teens should not be taught about contraception and thought is was a good idea to have her fifth child at the age of 44 (when the odds of giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome rises drastically to 1 in 30). She fires city officials as a loyalty test and refuses to participate in an investigation that was unanimously agreed upon by a Republican majority legislature. She thinks we can drill our way out of the energy problem and her most developed thoughts on Iraq seem to be that we should pray that we're doing the right thing there.They're terrified of Governor Palin and she is no such extremist.
Even if we grant that, where does that leave Palin. With zero thoughts on matters not related to Alaska?And a dead-wrong one. He got one right, one wrong. So did McCain. He could have been wrong if Iraq had been executed better.
Gokul43201 said:What would you like your own state to do about the minimum wage?
This is just flat out wrong. I know because I belong in that bracket.
Folks earning about $400K get a 2% cut, those earning about $100K get a 1% cut and a near-median earner of about $30K gets about 0.3%.
So if you now know that it was just campaign rhetoric, you should now be somewhat placated.
Then what we've got now is protectionism of a dozen different kinds.
What you read - I think - is him saying he would "look into" that possibility (during one of the Primary debates).
That could also happen after McCain pulls troops out. Besides, what terrorists exactly are you talking about? And what "area" specifically are you talking about?
I think it would be safe to bet that he would have called Star Wars wasteful.
How does anyone determine what is wasteful?
How would McCain decide what earmarks to cut? He said he will veto them all. Now since Israel gets virtually all of its economic and military aid via earmarks, this will eliminate nearly all aid that goes to Israel, which I can't imagine McCain wants.
How will McCain decide what earmarks are okay and which ones are excessive? Will he veto the $3 million earmark to study the DNA of bears in Montana (that's one of his favorites) while he permits the $3.2 million earmark that Palin requested, to study the DNA of seals in Alaska?
And what was McCain's initial response?
As for pronunciation, it tells you about a person's familiarity with the subject - if McCain claims to be intimately familiar with Georgia, he ought to know better than to refer to Abkhazia as Abskaya (reading off a teleprompter).
This is the kind of attitude that created the mess in Iraq in the first place. When will you folks ever learn this?
It's not just me. I'm talking about Republican commentators like Peggy Noonan, Karl Rove and Mike Murphy.
Only when the corruption didn't involve herself. Obama was one of the key drivers of the ethics reform bill of 07. I think it's fair to say about Obama and Palin that they are both eager to root out corruption so long as they are not the people that take the fall for it.
Please! Alinsky was dead for at least a dozen years before Obama even went to Chicago. And Davis just happened to be a neighbor and friend of Obama's grandparents - both of whom served in the Military during WWII. Was Obama's grandfather a liberal commie?
Yet Falwell and Robertson have been people that the right see as saviors and icons.
Incidentally, Sen. Bob Byrd (D-WV) was a member of the KKK.
And segregationists like Thurmond, Helms and Trent Lott were well respected among Republicans.
She seems to believe that books should be censored,
believes in creationism and the rapture,
goes to churches that say the war in Iraq and the conflicts in the ME today are a part of the end times and that the last people on Earth before Armageddon will flock to Alaska.
She believes that teens should not be taught about contraception
and thought is was a good idea to have her fifth child at the age of 44 (when the odds of giving birth to a child with Down Syndrome rises drastically to 1 in 30).
She fires city officials as a loyalty test
and refuses to participate in an investigation that was unanimously agreed upon by a Republican majority legislature.
She thinks we can drill our way out of the energy problem
and her most developed thoughts on Iraq seem to be that we should pray that we're doing the right thing there.
Even if we grant that, where does that leave Palin. With zero thoughts on matters not related to Alaska?
Sorry about the post number error. It was post #37 in the other Palin thread (Palin pick an insult...).
Link to the studies that back this up.WheelsRCool said:Eliminate the Federal minimum wage and leave it to the states; those states with their own minimum wages that make them higher than the federal minimum wage, businesses must pay the state minimum wage, so there would be no difference in those states. States who do not want the effects of a minimum wage would be free; if states find that they do not like the federal minimum wage being rescinded and think a minimum wage or minimum wage increase is needed, they can implement one.
Evo said:Link to the studies that back this up.
You have been spewing a lot af "facts" without any backing. Do not post again until you link to mainstream studies that back you up.
You stated as a factWheelsRCool said:I don't get what you mean; what studies do you need to understand that if you rescind the federal minimum wage, that in a state with its own minimum wage that is higher than said federal minimum wage, which businesses must pay, that there will not be any difference?
If the Federal min. wage is $5 and the state itself has none, businesses will pay a $5 minimum wage; if the minimum wage is rescinded, businesses will pay the market's minimum wage.
If the Federal min. wage is $5, but the state has a $7 minimum wage, businesses pay the $7 minimum wage. If the Federal minimum wage is rescinded, the businesses in the state will still pay the $7 minimum wage.
Link to the study that proves that. I think that is a pretty clear request. Not to mention that it is a requirement of the Guidelines.Eliminate the Federal minimum wage and leave it to the states; those states with their own minimum wages that make them higher than the federal minimum wage, businesses must pay the state minimum wage, so there would be no difference in those states
WheelsRCool said:I do not know how anyone could vote for Senator Obama, after looking at his policy proposals, his history, his associations...
WheelsRCool said:Under Reagan, I believe the highest income tax rate was 28%; prior to the Bush tax cuts, the highest-rate was 39.6%.
The thing to remember though is that due to revenue shortages, many states are considering increasing their state tax rates as well.
Yes, I am aware of Warren Buffett's claim, but I think he is either a liar or he doesn't understand what he is saying. He called for flat-out increasing the capital gains and dividends tax, which would hit a lot of middle-class folk (Obama has since said he will only raise it for those making $250K or more).He also claims that he pays less in taxes than the middle-class, which I disagree with. Most of his income is from dividends, which are taxed at the 15% rate (0% if you have no ordinary income right now), but the thing to remember is the corporate tax rate paid and the tax on income from investments these big corporations make. Big corporations are taxed at about 11% for their investment income and a 35% corporate tax rate, along with the dividends which are taxed at 15%.
One look at Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Massachusettes, Germany, the UK, California, and the health plans in some other states that were implemented and went way overbudget, make me very fearful of something like this. Remember, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid already take up a large portion of the Federal budget, and no one knows if the projections of their future costs alone are correct.
To think that a state would implement the same or higher minimum wage than what is mandated by law is completely without basis.