Obama's Illegal Anut

Interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHoAuk76fT8

Like that's a suprise!

we seriously need to get our country together. its sad and really frustrating. do we have idiots running everything? like, i swear the average joe could do a better job running our country then most of the people in power these days. theres absolutely no morality or accountability in the government.

Why doesn't Obama house her in the white house?

I knew there was an illegal black woman somewhere that was causing our country to go down. Mystery solved!

IIRC she was "exposed" during the election two years ago. 2008 wants their news back.

Originally Posted by fly135

I knew there was an illegal black woman somewhere that was causing our country to go down. Mystery solved!

IIRC she was "exposed" during the election two years ago. 2008 wants their news back.

i dont think that she is the only person in the united states doing this.... its not HER that the issue, its the large population of people that are like her that are doing the exact same thing.

I love paying taxes so people like her and the several others that I see on a daily basis can live because they are on "disability" If you want a disability check, first you must be able to spell your name and secondly you must be able to pass a drug test! The more I think about it the more if believe that Darwin was correct, survival of the fittest would do this country wonders

Chris

There are some very intresting things that are being said in that interview.

"Im not taking advantage of the system the system is taking advantage of me"

So the US gave you free medical care when you were sick
The US gave you a Free place to stay
The US gives you $700 a month

And the US is taking advantage of YOU?

But wait. She is or was here Illegaily and orderd to get out. So if your here illegal IMO your taking advantage of the system. IMO you should get NOTHING but a ride back to the airport. If your here legal your just getting what ever you can and what the goverment will give you.

I guess her point in that quoted statment above depends on what she recieved depending on her resident status legal Vs Not legal.

IMO Ants will always be attaracted to food. Take away the Food and you don't have a Ant problem. Where is Obama in all of this. How about one of his Yes we can speaches. Pull your self up by your own boot strap talks. Self reliance.

Bottom Line is She is not the Problem. She is only doing what our goverment allows. the bigger question is WHY does our giverment allowd to spend so much money on thousands of people like this? IMO Goverment blows so much money on social service it would make your head spin. Makes you mad. But what did you expect. People voted for a guy name barack husain Obama

Originally Posted by grant_west

But what did you expect. People voted for a guy name barack husain Obama

Seriously. Companies spend lots of money having marketing firms study public reception of new product names. I cannot see why anyone, in his right mind, would vote for a person who's name was so close to Osama bin Laden. The name alone should have been enough to turn the American public off and cause the democratic party to choose another candidate. What this proves is that the American public will buy anything if you sell it hard enough. Sad, very sad.

What's an "Anut"?

"The name alone should have been enough to turn the American public off"

Who were we supposed to vote for, McCain and Palin? I would have probably voted for Bin Laden as opposed to those two.

We still have the highest business taxes in the world! Our founding fathers who were small businessman certainly did not envision a suffocating, near 50% tax on business (39.6Fed+10% State +Local). Obama--and the majority of Democrats--think they can, just by will, create a middle class. Middle classes are only the result of healthy small and medium sized business. Confiscating nearly 50% from the means of production will only shrink the middle class and destroy this nation. As a result, we have people of enterprise, innovating spirit and creativity, leaving the country. Risk with little reward only creates “trickle up poverty.” Most Democrats think we can have an all gain with no pain society. What’s worse is a high business tax creates a larger financial sector like Wall St and Big Banks forcing business to borrow and increase destabilizing debt. We have too much of a debt driven economy and less of an organically driven one the way it was 100 years ago. Meanwhile, the financial alchemists at the FED try to hopelessly create gold out of paper, but now it fools no one. These are structural problems that have been developing over the past 40 years, largely brought on by the Democratic Party, only to be masked over by the concocted/phony credit expansion. The Democrats will continue to vote money for entitlements the government doesn't have until the currency collapses. Americans will never give up their entitlements until it is too late. The currency will see its final collapse and we will lose 90 cents on the dollar. This will be the final equal opportunity destroyer, so be sure to vote for Democrats by all means.

If my only other choice is Palin, I will vote Democrat 100% of the time.

And to place the blame of the current deficit solely on Democrats is asinine. If you look at the country's financial history for the past 50 years, you will see that the godsend Reagan holds much of the blame.

Originally Posted by wake77

I would have probably voted for Bin Laden as opposed to those two.

He's done such a great, great job that I would have to say that you basically did. Osama tried to break this country overnight. Obama is doing it slowly.....

There use to be quite a few screaming dems on this board, but it seems to have quieted down. I wonder why? I laugh everyday when I see a Obama bumper sticker on the way to work and wonder if that person realizes how they were herded, duped and set America up for the slaughter. It's at that moment when I stop laughing.

^Do you suspect things would be drastically different if McCain would have won? If he was such a solid candidate, why did he have such a hard time getting his seat back (which he has held for decades) in Arizona?

I voted for Obama, and I still feel that I voted for the best candidate.

The economy would certainly be no different under McCain. There wouldn't be much difference in the deficit either.

Maybe, I can't speak hypothetically as to what the economy would like if McCain had won, but chances are taxes wouldn't be increasing. We may have even had competition amoung health care providers instead of unlimited liabilities. All I know is from personal experience. IMHO, the current tax strucure is killing small business investment while weakening our currency. Entitlements have gotten to the point that some people are just having children in order to receive benefits, The Republicans continually warned that Freddie Mac was in trouble, and raising taxes on anyone at this point anything is a bad idea.

I believe it doesn't really matter who would have won. The president is just a puppet who dances for the puppet masters. The super wealthy have been running this country for years. It won't end until we the people raise up arms and take our country back..

Originally Posted by wakeboardingdad

Seriously. Companies spend lots of money having marketing firms study public reception of new product names. I cannot see why anyone, in his right mind, would vote for a person who's name was so close to Osama bin Laden. The name alone should have been enough to turn the American public off and cause the democratic party to choose another candidate. What this proves is that the American public will buy anything if you sell it hard enough. Sad, very sad.

This is the dumbest conclusion I could imagine. What it proves is if a party in power does such a horrific job as the Republicans did, then even a black man with a muslim sounding name can win the Presidency. Anyone with half a brain knows that's exactly what happened.

Quite frankly, every one of you guys ragging on Obama for ruining the economy are brainwashed. Yes, we all hate illegal aliens getting govt benefits. And we all hate people scamming the system for welfare. But if you really think that what's killing the economy then you are clueless. Obama isn't doing a great job, but IMO there is no politician that could or would,

America's greatest enemy has been attacking this nation for years and placating the American public into allowing the destruction of our economy with cheap prices. The trade deficit is extracting a 1/2 trillion of our money supply and sending it out of the country every year. If a politician actually had the guts to stand in front of the American people and tell them this, then you have your first hint of an honest intelligent politician. As a matter of national security the govt should have a priority goal of reducing the trade deficit to zero.

The problem is that this would be extremely painful to every America in the middle or lower class, But it wouldn't be more painful than being jobless and homeless. Right now the future of our economy is being dictated by a dwindling cash supply. What we need is an answer at to what will mitigate the danger this is causing to our economy.

Originally Posted by fly135

This is the dumbest conclusion I could imagine. What it proves is if a party in power does such a horrific job as the Republicans did, then even a black man with a muslim sounding name can win the Presidency. Anyone with half a brain knows that's exactly what happened.

You may think that, but it is true, except when people are promised things that can never be delivered; like paid house notes. I know that is a stretch and the overplaying of one sound bite. The economy was well on it's way of going in the tanker and that is exactly, and listen carefully, exactly why McCain was chosen. The GOP knew it was an impossible win and they through in the candidate that "was on his way out" and introduced another one to offset madame Clinton (That's called long term planning.).

Seriously though, those who voted for Obama were the only ones brain washed here. You even said so yourself with your comment. "What it proves is if a party in power does such a horrific job as the Republicans did, then even a black man with a muslim sounding name can win the Presidency." I didn't vote for him because of his record (what record) and the fact that dems have one thing in mind: Taxing every hard working American to death so they can give it away to those who want to do nothing but suckle at the government ***. (Distribution of wealth.) I could go on and on, and every bit of it would be argued and broken up as hate or whatever, but when I want someone to fill a job, I look for someone who has the most experience. Not the one who only tells me what I want to hear (That's called BS.).

I'm not rich and I'm not poor. I'm probably solidly middle class. My taxes this year were the highest I have ever paid and next year it'll be worse. When I was younger, I voted for Clinton twice. I did so, because I was brainwashed and partially because I had an axe to grind with Reagan. I finally opened my eyes.

I go back and read your post Fly and see the following: You are right. I have wondered many times why I can buy a television for what they were selling for when I was a kid and how much a house would cost if we didn't have illegal aliens building houses. Everything would cost more and our inflation rate would go through the roof if we didn't import crap from China and employ illegals. Just the other day I bought some tires. How can it be that it is cheaper to make tire in China and ship it here, instead of building it here and selling it here? (more inflation)

If I read correctly, a lot of what you say points to or toward the independent party. How do we get past the idea that if I don't vote for this clown or that one, our vote isn't wasted?

Aka, I don't know what the answer is. I feel like I'm alone in my belief that the trade deficit is the real problem. But it doesn't make sense that you can remove $500B from the economy each year without seeing whats happening right now in the job market.

The mere mention of protectionism will bring out a flurry of people claiming protectionism has always been proven to be bad. So at best if people could reorient their thinking towards eliminating the deficit then perhaps some solutions could be worked out. Right now I'm not optimistic.

But it frustrates me that the focus is always 100% political and mostly irrelevant.

"I wonder if that person realizes how they were herded, duped and set America up for the slaughter"
This is exactly what the replublicans under Bush did to the american people.

What's an anut?

How did Bush set up America for slaughter? I think you listened to much to the leftist. They are pretty good a stirring up crap with ignoring the facts. If not for the wars, it is said that the budgets under bush were nearly neutral debt wise. What exactly did Bush do that did anything? I ask that every time these discussions come up and no one can really answer so I invite you to answer.

The fact that Obama does have an illegal aunt is very much a current issue and not just a 2008 issue. In California (besides all the horrible regulations), illegals are directly responsible for around 10 billion a year if I remember adding up all the old links to data and maybe more. All while a few fat cat farmers line their pockets and we the tax payer get hit with at least $1200 a year in extra taxes all while saving 50 cents on lettuce. What Obama and his aunt situation tells us that he has a direct conflict of interests in stopping illegal immigration.

Also, I do blame Obama and the democrats because they are passing more and more regulations and taxes that make it so business can't/ won't expand. The president and congress can not directly create jobs (at least long term jobs directly that don't come out of the hands of the tax payer), but they sure as heck pass policy that can stimulate growth or repress growth.

Again, people do not understand finance and human nature. Every time I see democrat arguments, I see lack of knowledge of finance and cause and effect of human nature.

John, you are absolutely right about businesses going abroad as the biggest issue and is the overall symptom of the disease. Every one knows this. It is the 500 pound gorilla in the room. This is the point where I say democrats don't understand finance (I know the irony considering all the richest people in the world are democrats) or cause and effect. Why are businesses moving overseas? Why is manufacturing moving out of California? I think everyone knows the answers but still would love to push environazism down our throats all in the name of hypotheticals and political based science and then bitch we don't have jobs.

Problem is people only start looking at the effect after all the underlying damage is done. To understand the roots, you have to examine the goals of those on the extremes. On the left you have the progressives in which the likes of Obama and Pelosi come from. They are European socialists and basically an arm of the World Workers Party/ communists. Their goal is to have a everyone is equal, no one makes more or less than another type of world worker. To do this you have to beat down the individual an pass laws that guide people into collectivism. Some tools of this are the environmental movement and destroying individual currency nations. Convince people they need to come together to united against a great evil is the goal. With that end, the progressive democrats in which we now have are not interested in anything but that. They don't believe in nations. Mater of fact you have heard many democrats use that montra over and over on this board. They say lines like' "just because you were born in this country does not mean you have the right to...." Ever hear a statement close to that? OR the ol, "I am a citizen of the world" comments? Where do you think this comes from?

On the other side you have the corporatist. They don't care so much about the person because the bottom line is creating money. Money is completely neutral and very factual. There is no emotion in money. There is no lies in the corporate world because at the end of the day, you know the bottom line. You can't be lied too if you know the goal. You can trend it, analyze it, project it, and tell if something is going too well there is something wrong.

Between the two, you have to strike a balance. I choose the money side from the aspect that it has many known variables that are known and you can regulate it if needed. I don't like the progressive side because they are emotional ends justify the means people that can not be trended or regulated with a goal that is to destroy the individual and with that by defacto the constitution. The constitution is the greatest document for government ever written that is the centerpiece of the individual.

how they were herded-> everyone in congress was convinced to go to war
duped-> lied to
set America up for the slaughter-> several thousand Americans have died( slaughtered) because of the war

Joe... you're an idiot.

This is not to be taken as me saying that the losses suffered by our armed forces is in any way miniscule... But it is such a small percentage of the men and women serving over there (4425 in six years out of over 200,000 at any given time. This does not account for the turnover and actual numbers of American forces that have served over there, which is much, much, much higher), much less a miniscule percentage of America's population, that to say that that is a slaughter is just an idiotic alarmist statement meant to bring out emotions in an argument that would be well served to lack an emotional approach.

Also, we have been at war with Iraq since Desert Storm. Which is what Bill Clinton used to justify the bombing runs against "chemical weapons" plants and other such potential threats during his administration. The idea that Iraq had weapons was widely believed by both parties. It was hardly a lie by George W. Bush that sent us into that country. Which means that your statement of duped is also a gross exaggeration.

And like I said, pretty much the entire government was for the war from the get go, so they weren't really herded by anyone to do so. They already wanted it, not to mention, it was a formality that Bush even went to congress with that, because if I remember reading correctly, he could have gone to war with Iraq whenever he so desired by ending the vague cease fire that had been in effect since the end of the first Gulf War.

If you're going to try to argue about the war in an economics thread, please, please, please at least understand what in the hell you are talking about. Thanks.

Claiming the democrats are responsible for the trade deficit and implying if only the business smart repubicans were in charge we wouldn't have this problem, is just an another example of bizzare politically oriented thinking. All of America is at fault for a lack of understanding cause and effect.

How was the economy great when the exchange happened between Bush and Obama? It's not exactly like George W gave a perfect alley-oop that his successor just had to put down. The country wasn't living in a surplus state 2 years ago either. I'm pretty sure no matter who you have heaving a full court shot things probably won't turn out roses. I want the person best suited for the job to be in the position to give us as a country our best chance. I don't thing Obama, McCain or anybody else could have fixed the issues that our country had in less than 2 years.

I really try not to post in these political type debates because nobody is changing anybody elses mind. Republicans are going to say the Dems ruined the economy and the Dems are going to say the Republicans ruined the economy. Even if you make a undisputable valid point you will get argument from the other side with some justification that is so far from possible it would be time to end the conversation.

Originally Posted by wakeboardern1

Joe... you're an idiot.

Oh, the irony.

well, I would rather be an idiot than an A-HOLE Nickt!
Bush lied, soldiers died!
"They already wanted it", no, they were herded
"we have been at war with Iraq since Desert Storm"- back in the early 90's we were smart enough to not take over iraq, bush was just too stupid to think this was a continuation war of desert storm.
Nick, I hope you are rich, because there is nothing dumber than a poor republican!

You mean like the democrats who continue to vote themselves money from the public dole? That is why you are the disease. It is not about being rich or poor. I just love that non thinking garbage you are pushing. They love to say repulicans are the party of the rich but yet all the richest people in the world are democrats. The democrats always love to try and play class warfare but yet all the democrat areas are the bigger cities/ highly industrial areas but yet all the poor fly over areas in the country are mostly republican. If, according to democrats, the richest are the top 1% and are supposedly republican (though against actual facts) then why is the vote always around 50/50 in national elections? You are just talking crap.

On your Bush mem that you democrats love to continue to lie about. Why do you ignore the voting record? Why do you ignore all the top democrats speeches on the subject of saddam and that he needed to be taken out because he was such a threat. Why do you continue to lie about the democrats roll in the war? Why do you ignore that the democrats got control of the money that funded the war in 2006 and got elected based on getting us out of the wars. Why during that time we actually funded the war enough to actually expand the war in Iraq? Why after anti war obama got elected are we expanding the war in Afgahnistan? I thought this was Bush's war? Why do you continue to lie to us and most importantly yourself?

How did you feel about clinton slaughtering the serbs against the UN's vote? Even Bush went and played by those internationalist UN loving democrats rules and got a resolution against Iraq. Be honest for once. This was never about the war's. This was and is an excuse to bitch moan and lie to get back into power. Sooner you admit it, the sooner you and others will have a shread of credibility.

I challenge you Dems to read this article by Vern McKinley--at least scan and read the conclusion. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...4/vmck4-94.pdf The Community Reinvestment Act is just one example of how the government forces regulations on banks. These policies were first signed by Jimmy Carter and further endorsed by Janet Reno and Bill Clinton even though most regulators were warning of the potental consequences. What most fail to understand is that even though these regulations were passed long before Bush came into power, we are just now seeing the consequences. IMHO most of the Dems are only concerned with minorities and women's rights, which is fine, because that's their agenda. The only thing they need the rest of us for are to pay taxes. For example, I have a friend who owns a construction business, but he was told by the owners--who were taking the bids--not to waste his time on placing a bid because the stimulus money was earmarked for busiesses who were either owned by a minority or a woman. Now how is that fair? The Dems have placed low-income housing next to invetment property some friends and I own. Do you think our property is now worrth as much? WIth the Dems in office, not only are my taxes going to increase, but also I have to watch my property value decrase. And where does the money go? No, we need politicans who understand basic economics.

"No, we need politicans who understand basic economics."

Are you implying that Democrats don't understand basic economics? I would like to offer Warren Buffet as a one of many counterexamples to your argument.

To be honest Jeremy, Warren Buffet made his money in stocks and part of that was he made money when the economy would tank. That's why he is considered a master. As we learned, default trading (if that is the correct term) has pretty much killed our economy. Just do the simple test. If you could not run your household in a certain way and still maintain your living, how would you expect the government or anyone else to do it and survive. Most things are scaleable. Do the math is all I ask.

Yes, I respect Waren Buffet and he does on occassion meet with Obama, but it's the Democrats shoving all of these liberal policies at once down our throats irrates me to no end. Here is what Warren Buffet himself had to say about the Democrats, and I'm not so sure he big supporter of all of the banking regulations--especially derivatives trading-- that just passed either.

“If you’re in a war, and we really are in an economic war, there’s a obligation to the majority to behave in ways to not go around inflaming the minority. If on Dec. 8, or maybe it was Dec. 7, when Roosevelt convened Congress to vote on the war. He didn’t say, ‘I’m throwing in about ten of my pet projects,’” Buffett said.

Taking aim at one such issue, interviewer Joe Kernen replied: “You might not have fixed global warming the day after – the day after D-Day, Warren.”

“Absolutely,” Buffett declared. He also told Kernen that the Republicans should provide general support for the administration, but that the Democrats should not be pushing “contentious” policies that are not related to solving the nation’s economic woes.

“Job one is to win the economic war. Job two is to win the economic war and Job 3,” Buffett said. “And you can’t expect people to unite behind you if you’re trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throats. So I would absolutely say, for the interim until we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that, that you know are contentious.”

You may view the entire interview here http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedch...en-buffet.html