Ongoing questions about Obama's birth certificate

freetown fred wrote:This is probably going to be a revelation for you, but, you get what you give. Personally, once again I'm done with your childishness. Like I said before, you've never been there so I don't really expect you to have a clue..

Promoting the Constitution is "childishness"?

I guess I see why you can't give an answer.

If I got what I gave, I'd have an answer by now.

jpete wrote:Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

The site seems to more or less support my view.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you...I just like the fact that the site I posted gives more of a whole view of when this "fiscal mess" started regardless of who the leadership is...in one of the charts shown it was easily seen:

"In this chart, which we generated from the most recent historical data and projections (Table 7.1) from the Office of Management and Budget, it can be seen that the total federal debt in relation to the economy is reaching historically high levels — approaching levels not seen since World War II. But it can also be seen that the rise started long before Obama took office.

In fact, the upward trend began with Ronald Reagan’s fiscal 1982 budget, declined somewhat from fiscal 1997 through 2001, and resumed the upward climb with George W. Bush’s first budget in fiscal 2002 (which started Oct. 1, 2001).

And the rise accelerated as the economy slid into the worst recession since the Great Depression, starting in December 2007. As the economy shrank, the debt-to-GDP ratio jumped 5 percentage points in the fiscal year that started Oct. 1, 2007, and another 14.8 percentage points during the following year. Obama took office nearly one-third of the way into that 12-month period. At the time, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting the deficit for that fiscal year would be $1.2 trillion. It later rose to $1.4 trillion after enactment of Obama’s economic stimulus package, to be followed by back-to-back deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010 and $1.3 trillion again in fiscal 2011. CBO just projected the deficit for the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30, will be $1.1 trillion."

Easily put...the "fiscal mess" started in 1982...so, the responsibility has spanned across "all leadership" since then and it's clear that none of them has taken the appropriate action to reverse the trend...the way I see it is you can't take a piece of a pie and call it a whole pie...

Sorry I didn't sit here & wait for your reply Jpete, unlike many I enjoy a little quiet time with the wife & tend to go to bed early & get up early. I have probably answered every question that I have ever been asked, may not be what you want to hear but my answer non the less. No I would not go to forcibly disarm a law abiding U.S. Citizen but that really wasn't the question as I see it. You want to bring in what are deemed as just & unjust wars, if your in combat (at least from my experience) I didn't consult with my pocket copy of the Constitution, given a target to shoot at, I did, I suppose I could have radioed back & ask the officer or whoever gave the order (didn't know) or we could have landed & walked over & politely asked if they were truly enemy but I don't think either would have gone well. A combat situation moves a bit faster than waiting a decade or two to find out the true reason for that war, hopefully we will never see another brother against brother war on our soil or any other war for that matter but in a combat situation if given or seeing a target I would do everything in my power to dispatch it. Even in civilian life haven't you ever been told to do something by a boss that you knew wasn't correct or the best way but went ahead & did what you were told?

Here is a enlisted man's oath, interestingly enough a officer takes a slightly different one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... enlistment
There is a link that will show that difference.
I'm waiting for your answer Jpete, you were quick a answering a question I asked Klook but I don't get shook up if I'm not answered, no big deal to me.

samhill wrote:Sorry I didn't sit here & wait for your reply Jpete, unlike many I enjoy a little quiet time with the wife & tend to go to bed early & get up early. I have probably answered every question that I have ever been asked, may not be what you want to hear but my answer non the less. No I would not go to forcibly disarm a law abiding U.S. Citizen but that really wasn't the question as I see it. You want to bring in what are deemed as just & unjust wars, if your in combat (at least from my experience) I didn't consult with my pocket copy of the Constitution, given a target to shoot at, I did, I suppose I could have radioed back & ask the officer or whoever gave the order (didn't know) or we could have landed & walked over & politely asked if they were truly enemy but I don't think either would have gone well. A combat situation moves a bit faster than waiting a decade or two to find out the true reason for that war, hopefully we will never see another brother against brother war on our soil or any other war for that matter but in a combat situation if given or seeing a target I would do everything in my power to dispatch it. Even in civilian life haven't you ever been told to do something by a boss that you knew wasn't correct or the best way but went ahead & did what you were told?

You're right. The question wasn't about disarming US citizens although that is a component.

Being that your example places you in the middle of a war zone, I'm going to say your answer is that you would follow orders.

And you see, the difference between your boss and my boss, is that mine didn't take an oath to uphold the Constitution and neither did I.

And if you knew me personally, you would know that on more than one occasion, I've told me boss I wouldn't do what he was asking me to do because it was stupid, wrong, or dangerous. And being as he wasn't the one standing in front when it all went wrong, my opinion counts more than his.

I've quit or been fired more than once over stuff like this and I expect it will happen again.

Jpete, even outside of a war zone in basic training we were given a lot of orders that didn't make much sense but as per the oath you follow. As the saying when "there's a right way, there's a wrong way & there's my way, you'll do it my way". There is reasoning for that, any who served will know. Somehow that's one of the few things you said that I find totally believable, that you've been fired or quit more than once & that it will happen again.

I'm not talking about a method to tie ones shoes or advance across an open field.

I'm talking about having a philosophy and adhering to an oath which you allege to take seriously.

I saw something the other day that I rather liked.

"Morality is doing the right thing regardless of what you're told. Obedience is doing what you're told regardless of what's right."

I proud of the fact that I got fired for holding the boss's feet to the fire. Next time maybe he won't run his mouth.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.


--Winston Churchill

As I said those that have never served will never know. I did figure you would bring it down to a boot tying level but with your boss, I guess you sure showed him, don't know how a man of your self claimed rightousness is still here doing what your doing or are you now off the Gov. handout?
To get a little back on subject, how about you were you born in the good ole U.S.A.? I know that I was & it's why I am proud of it & not ashamed to stand by it.

samhill wrote:To get a little back on subject, how about you were you born in the good ole U.S.A.? I know that I was & it's why I am proud of it & not ashamed to stand by it.

Depends on who you ask. According to my second sons birth certificate, I was born in Russia.

I said to hell with it, I'm leaving it like that and I'm encouraging him to run for president one day.

And no, I'm not particularly proud of a country that shreds the philosophy it claims to uphold and people who think that's right make me ashamed.

Easily put...the "fiscal mess" started in 1982...so, the responsibility has spanned across "all leadership" since then and it's clear that none of them has taken the appropriate action to reverse the trend...the way I see it is you can't take a piece of a pie and call it a whole pie...

I wonder if this had anything to do with it...

Davian wrote:I wonder if this had anything to do with it...

Nope.

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:I wonder if this had anything to do with it...

Nope.

Well it had more to do with massively cutting taxes on that same upper bracket and concentrating wealth in the very small upper class but yeah. Countries with wealth gaps that large tend to have major issues (both economically and socially). The last time the US had such a gap was just before the Great Depression.

Davian wrote:

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:I wonder if this had anything to do with it...

Nope.

Well it had more to do with massively cutting taxes on that same upper bracket and concentrating wealth in the very small upper class but yeah. Countries with wealth gaps that large tend to have major issues (both economically and socially). The last time the US had such a gap was just before the Great Depression.

Every line on that graph is positive. Who is the "wealth" coming from to increase the "One Percenters"?

If they went up, you'd expect at least one line to go down.

jpete wrote:
Every line on that graph is positive. Who is the "wealth" coming from to increase the "One Percenters"?

If they went up, you'd expect at least one line to go down.

You have to factor inflation into it...once you do that, those lower groups have actually gone down since the early 1980s.

Inflation tends to average just under 4% long-term, FWIW. The last 30 years of economy policies (under both Parties) have basically been a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy.

Davian wrote:

jpete wrote:
Every line on that graph is positive. Who is the "wealth" coming from to increase the "One Percenters"?

If they went up, you'd expect at least one line to go down.

You have to factor inflation into it...once you do that, those lower groups have actually gone down since the early 1980s.

Inflation tends to average just under 4% long-term, FWIW. The last 30 years of economy policies (under both Parties) have basically been a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy.

AHHH! "Inflation" you say? And who controls that?