http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081024/ts_alt_afp/usvotecandidates;_ylt=AsKQHouObTwzGyIxVKozou1h24cA

Forgotten candidates for US president may still impact race

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have captured the limelight in the race for the US presidency, but they are not the only ones running: 12 forgotten candidates are also chasing the keys to the White House.

Without the million-dollar war chests or national organizations to compete with the major parties, none of the other hopefuls have a chance of victory on election day, November 4.

But still, the libertarian candidate Bob Barr, independent Ralph Nader and, to a lesser extent, Chuck Baldwin's Constitution Party and Green candidate Cynthia McKinney, could have a significant impact on the hopes of McCain or Obama, who remain locked in tight races in key battleground states.

For anyone who remembers Nader's bid in 2000, and the effect it had on Democrat Al Gore's chances of beating George W. Bush, the possibility of such an upset is tangible.

In 2000, Nader won almost three million votes nationwide. Gore, who won the national popular vote by almost half a million votes, lost to Bush in critical state of Florida by just 537 votes.

Standing as a Green party candidate then, Nader snapped up some 97,000 votes in the Sunshine State.

According to independent analysis website RealClearPolitics (RCP), which accumulates multiple polling data, Nader is holding 2.5 percent support nationwide. Barr enjoys 1.3 percent support, and the other candidates all average below one percent support.
--snip-- Barr is competing in at least 45 states, including the key states Ohio and Nevada that are crucial for the major parties to win.

In Georgia, a traditionally Republican state coveted by Democrats this year, Barr could play a decisive role.

"Barr conceivably could be to John McCain what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000: ruinous," wrote conservative columnist George Will in Newsweek magazine.

Barr is himself competing with Chuck Baldwin, another former Republican, who is running as a candidate for the Constitution Party, which has an election manifesto very similar to the Libertarian's. Baldwin is standing in at least 37 states.

Consumer advocate Nader, 74, is undertaking his fifth bid for the White House, this time as an independent candidate, and will be on the ballot in at least 46 states.

Like the Democrats, the Green Party also has an African-American candidate in Cynthia McKinney, a Georgia congresswoman from 1993 to 2003.

McKinney will be on the ballot in 32 states, and could possibly peel off voters from Obama in key states due to her support among women, blacks and anti-war advocates.

I know. Seriously, 8 lawsuits. Why not just hand over the paperwork?? Who would have that much time and money to defend??

By the way, think of the consequences if indeed, Obama can not - is not found able to run for the office. And here, he raised all those dollars - would think there would be more lawsuits. Plus, heard - well, it is just mind-boggling what might he be forced to do. Then I would really feel pity for the man.

What a HUGE emergency meeting would the Pres. call about the withdrawal of O? Would Hillary step in, would she choose a V.P to run with her.
Would they delay the elections? Would they let her have time to again, push her own agenda?
They'd have to scratch all the votes so far, man, what a mess.

Haveta wait and see, some story huh? BB

Humm, maybe. SOON TO KNOW!!!

Time-line for those who might have missed it.

O is being sued in EIGHT states to produce his b/cert.

The first suit, was in Pa, from atty Mr. Phil Berg

http://www.obamacrimes.com

O's attys answered to dismiss, and then they
missed deadline - it is now going forward. See above link.

There is supposedly, a call Mrs. O made, and tapes, and this will be a MAJOR factor to overcome if true. (African firm said offers of TWO Million
dollars were turned down, just so American people could have the truth.
website is:

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/shocking-development-mrs-obama-decides-enough-is-enough-my-husband-was-born-in-hawaii-and-adopted-by-his-step-father-does-that-make-him-unpatriotic-she-asks-on-a-direct-telephone-to-api/


---copy-- Lawsuits Starting Across the Nation Proceeding to Avert Potential Constitutional Crisis, Possible Civil Unrest, and Confidence in Elections; Lawsuits are being filed in Eight States Seeking to Require Barack Obama to Provide Certification of Birth in U.S. Or Be Removed as Presidential Candidate on State Ballots.

Seattle WA. 10/22/2008 — Lawsuits in eight states as of this writing– Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia. Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut, are seeking judicial authority to force the certifying or decertifying of Senator Barack Obama’s qualification to run as a candidate for President as a natural born U.S. Citizen. Previously, two lawsuits have failed to force the certifying documents from Obama.

Philip Berg’s months-long lawsuit in Federal Court in Philadelphia reached a dramatic plateau yesterday as Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) failed to respond to the court that Mr. Obama is not a natural born U.S. Citizen and therefore not qualified to run for office of President of the U.S. They admitted to Obama’s non-qualification by their failure to respond to a 30-day court ordered discovery in which Obama and the DNC were ordered to answer a petition by Berg. Berg is a lifelong Democrat in the Pennsylvania Democratic Party who has sought to ratchet up the legal pressure as Obama and the DNC has continually delayed providing certifying documentation of Obama’s birth, which he claims to have been in Hawaii.

A lawsuit in Honolulu in the First District Court is seeking a court-order to open Obama’s secret birth records. Obama has thus far neglected a Freedom of Information request for the records at two hospitals in Hawaii. Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state Superior Courts to force the states’ Secretary of State, as the chief state elections officer, to perform their state constitutional duties to require original certifying birth records from Mr. Obama that would verify his birth in Hawaii.

---end copy--

NOW< Mrs. O's tape, is to be released for the USA
citizens. (Fox News was mentioned. The voice is getting all tests/detailed to assure it is Mrs. Os) The African firm has hired the atty Mr. Phil Berg (who filed first PA lawsuit) to handle the transaction!!!

This story has gained alot of speed thru many websites, radio stations and media.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/My-Two-Cents

----- another website, another atty. ---
(Korir is from African Press International - API who the call was placed to, whom made the tape.)

Cloud is a lawyer who is keeping in contact with Mr. Korir and Mr. Berg. visit his blog

http://AmericasRight.com

Understand Obama is in Hawaii today, that is also where the 2nd lawsuit is at, and the deadline for the date at the courthouse was today. More details later, BB

PS> Yes, anyone can file a lawsuit. But anyone w/brains know that defending it takes time and money. Much easier to turn over the paperwork no?

Smile, drove thru Madison today (about 20 miles)
nice to know I will be canceling out your vote M!
Good news on the ride to the booth for the ladies. Hope you don't sway any ! BB

Wondering if you could document this please??
A link or report of value?

>>(all the figures you gave) People who earn up to $18,725/yr. (etc.)

Thanks, BB

PS> Hey, McCain is NOT Bush, period.

Edit: Do not think many that earn $18,725. a yr
pay into taxes too much, so your 'tax cut' might be a tax refund (again, note, not paid into much)
THAT would really be a refund check, taking money out of those who did pay into it, alot. (spreading the wealth around, cough cough)

so far away!!

Thanks for the smile, (but that's true!!!!! ) BB

What kills me is that we can't afford this budget.

NOW -- WE are sooooo deep in debit to China, WHEW BB

Right, not to forget, Joe B. also did the same thing. First saying he did not believe Obama had enough experience at a debate, and then saying he would be proud to serve under John McCain. Jumping ship, for their own popularity. Not beliefs. BB

Allow me to enlighten you ----

Definition of propaganda (noun)
information spread in order to promote a particular goal

----- not doing that in this thread at all.

what is here are factual events. Lawsuits (FOUR!!) against B. Obama for failure to produce a valid birth certificate. His website had a fake one up.

Sounds like it's sad one can't keep up. To be in the know is to be informed. Period. Have a Good Day, BB

If religious intolerance is your only fault, God Bless you, smile, BB

heartless I think they call it. :(

Don't go there, just yet. There still might be hope with the right party in the office. And it is not BO!

IMO I think THEN THAT was the start of this New World Order or North American Union that is being talked about.

Look into the USA having it........ bad news.

AND under O, it gets way worse (maybe a Global Domination scheme). BB

READ Obama's Social Security Whopper
September 20, 2008
Updated: September 22, 2008

He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False

Analysis
In our "Scaring Seniors" article posted Sept. 19 we took apart a claim in an Obama-Biden ad that McCain somehow supported a 50 percent cut in Social Security benefits, which is simply false. Then, on Saturday Sept. 20, Sen. Barack Obama personally fed senior citizens another whopper, this one a highly distorted claim about the private Social Security accounts that McCain supports.


What Obama Said


In Daytona Beach, Florida, Obama said in prepared remarks released by the campaign:

Obama, Sept. 20: And I'll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a "casino culture" on Wall Street - but the fact is, he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.

That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005.


Who Would Have Been Affected


As the White House spelled out at the time, on page 5 of the document titled "Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century," released in February 2005:

Bush Plan: Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so.

Nobody born before Jan. 1, 1950 could have participated, and anyone born on that date would be 58 years old now. The earliest possible age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits is 62, for early retirement at reduced benefits. Full retirement age is currently 66, and scheduled to go up to age 67 in coming years.

It is certainly true that the stock market carries risks, as recent events remind us. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent for this year, for example, and despite gains in other years it is still barely above where it was at the start of 2000. But historically there have also been rewards for those who make diversified investments and hold for long periods. When Obama spoke, the Dow Jones average still stood 305 percent higher than it had at the start of the 1990's.


Disappearing nest eggs?


Also worth noting here:

The private accounts would have been voluntary. Anybody fearful of the stock market's risk could simply stay in the current system.


Obama's reference to "casino culture," disappearing "nest eggs" and gambling with "your life savings" are also misleading exaggerations. Only a little under one-third of any workers' total Social Security taxes could have been invested (a maximum of 4 percent of taxable wages, out of the total 12.4 percent now paid, split equally between worker and employer.)

Correction, Sept. 22: Our original story incorrectly said the rate was 15.3 percent, but this figure included Medicare taxes. We also said what would have gone into private accounts would have been just over one-fourth of Social Security taxes, but the true figure is closer to one-third.


Speculation in individual stocks would not have been permitted. Workers would have had a choice of a few, broadly diversified stock or bond funds.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html

---- end copy ---- (Just telling it like it is) BB

President Clinton Signing NAFTA is what did it to start, other than that, I agree with your post - just started with someone else, and grew from there. BB

A real inconvenient truth
By Warren Stephens
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:38 AM HST



http://westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2008/10/15/opinion/columns/column01.txt
--copy---

A real inconvenient truth
By Warren Stephens
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:38 AM HST
I have never written a column in one of our newspapers and really had no intention of doing so, but after watching the debate last Tuesday night I feel compelled to put some facts to paper so that readers can make an informed decision about this election. Given the dearth of facts in the current debate, this may not be my only foray into writing for publication. I want to make sure I make the proper disclosures about who I support in this presidential campaign. I am the co-finance chair for Arkansas for the John McCain campaign and an ardent free market capitalist. I believe social issues are best left to individuals and while I have strong beliefs about them, I will not interject them into my choice of a candidate. Economics and taxes, on the other hand, are NOT subject to interpretation. Supply and demand curves are real and they work. This column is an attempt to put facts in front of you, particularly as they relate to taxes and the "fairness" of our tax code.

Sen. Barack Obama is proposing tax increase for small businesses and the top 5 percent of tax paying Americans. He says that he will give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut and he and Sen. Joe Biden say it is fair and the "patriotic duty" of the top 5 percent to pay more. Again, full disclosure, I am in the top 5 percent and probably the top 1 percent. The facts, as to who pays taxes, paint a different picture and, for whatever reason, Sen. McCain will not use them. The tables below really say it all:


(gotta to to web-site to see)
These statistics are from the U.S. Treasury Department and they reveal a startling and seldom talked about FACT. The top 1 percent of wage earners in this country pay 39 percent of the income taxes paid, while the top 5 percent pay 60 percent. That's right, 60 percent of all income taxes are paid by the same people on whom Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden want to RAISE taxes. What is more, the percentage paid by this group has increased since the so-called Bush tax cuts. This is a real inconvenient truth for the Obama campaign.

In 2006, the lower 50 percent of wage earners had 12.5 percent of the income and paid 3.0 percent of federal income taxes. The 2006 statistics also reveal that the top 5 percent of U.S. taxpayers paid $616 billion in federal income taxes which was MORE than the remaining 95 percent of taxpayers' total of $408.1 billion. Our system could hardly be more weighted to having the wealthy pay more, yet that is precisely what Sen. Obama proposes. I will reluctantly accept (for now) that in our society the top wage earners will pay more (in percentage terms) in taxes, but if Sen. Obama wants to raise taxes, he should say so. As The Wall Street Journal has been saying, you cannot give a tax cut to people who do not pay taxes. Sen. Obama's plan is a redistribution of income from those who pay taxes to those who do not. It is nothing more than the granddaddy of all welfare plans and voters need to know it. For Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden to couch this issue as one of fairness and a "patriotic duty" is an attempt to deceive the American public as to the facts.

I am not afraid of Sen. Obama becoming president because he is a bad person. Rather I am concerned about his policies and their effect on our economy both in the short and long term. Higher tax rates will discourage investment and capital formation and that is not good for anyone.

Warren Stephens is president and CEO of Stephens Inc., one of the largest investment companies off Wall Street, and an owner of Stephens Media, which publishes newspapers in nine states, including this paper in Hawaii.
--end copy---

You can't blame Bush for the failure of the last month. Look to those running the Fannie May and Freddie Mack, research/ google it. And McCain (along with few others, NOT O) three yrs ago tried to alert, work on it. They were shot down.

Who caused it? Who had their hands into the pockets the deepest?? Why Mr. O and his camp!
Which is the reason financial markets are in turmoil.

Obama took more money from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac lobbyists in his three years in the Senate than all but one of the rest of members of Congress took in the past nine years. BB

Edit: Gio, GREAT thread, post by the way.

Beat them up and watch failure - plus no free ride anymore......(anyway) hummm ... maybe the thought of saying thanks and understanding all that is given and not crowding more - to prevent disappearance of Mr. Big in the first place, would make ALOT more sense!

audio

http://webclust1.liquidcompass.cc/sos4cust/KFMBAM/audio_player.php?id=KFMBAM

and the story ---- copy--

http://obamacrimes.com/

Phil J. Berg files motions to expedite resolution in Berg v.. Obama
Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:29 administrator Plaintiff Phil J. Berg filed two motions today seeking an expedited resolution in Berg v. Obama. (PDF's of the motions are attached below.)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

This motion argues that the facts have been established that Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be elected or serve as President of the United States, and that the Court should issue a summary judgment as follows:

That Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen.
That he is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.
That the Democratic National Committee be enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot.
That the Democratic National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency.
That Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING AN EXPEDITED RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This motion requests that the court:

Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Order that Defendants Response to Plaintiff=s Motion is to be filed and served upon Plaintiff by a specified date.
Order that a Ruling, Hearing and/or Resolution be set for a specific date.

----end copy--

Fox Toledeo Ohio News airs story Berg V Obama Lawsuit

http://obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/32-fox-toledo-news-airs-berg-v-obama-story


http://www.americasright.com/search?q=obama+%2B+hawii


update links above, BB

As recently as the Oct. 15 debate, Obama demurred when asked whether she (Sarah P.) was qualified to be president. "You know, I think it's -- that's going to be up to the American people. I think that, obviously, she's a capable politician who has, I think, excited the -- a base in the Republican Party," he told moderator Bob Schieffer.----

So, did Obama lie? BB

I knew I was going to get into trouble for that one. No, gotta agree with you. Many do not, some do and many abuse the 'system' even as it stands today. No, I would not consider myself rich,( we built our home (took a yr, in 1976, my house is paid for, and we worked hard to get where we wanted to be/go) We both worked long hours, multiple jobs and worked our way up (while raising 2 sons). Took chances to open a business, were you work to get the job, work to get the job done, and then work to get paid. Putting everything on the line for that American dream. Over 20 yrs self employed.

And I sure don't hate anyone, especially as you detail, those that might make less than me. Despise not a person on this earth.

The one thing that I think makes a difference in a person, is not how much money that they make - it is how much money they spend.

The more a person makes, most of the time, the more a person spends. The needs will grow to take up most of the pay-check.

And, if a person doesn't know how to budget money (and that is the problem) they will always be needy. If they splurge and fail to plan ahead, then they will fail, period. If they try to keep up with the Jones, spend on luxuries they can not afford, party hardy instead of paying attention in school, or try to further themselves - have no goal, then (IMO) they become one of the less fortunate.

Hard workers (like you mentioned) are not slackers, and if they keep at it long enough (and not be spendy) they crawl out of the hole. But, I think the ones who do sleep in - take off work- or don't put the needed efforts in to get a job, the slackers, who are not hard working, are the ones that most of us have dis-respect for. Not hate, but I don't think they should be entitled to ride on the hard working gang's shirt-tails, for free, when it isn't them that are trying to better themselves.

No cable, (I don't - and just upgraded to dsl but not high speed :) and other things that can be cut out of a budget - keeps more in one's pocket. Many are not willing to keep their eye on any goal, and just live for the moment. They buy new cars all the time, gamble, drink, smoke, etc, etc.

And yes, when my late husband passed away 5 yrs ago, I was among the ones needing help (for a period of time). I turned to my church. We had always given tithe, and they helped me considerably when he became ill with cancer, and died. So welfare isn't the first place one can look. (If they have faithfully given and a member of a church family.)

It remains - the question - will you be willing to pull yourself up by the bootstraps, and sacrifice alot sometimes to reach a goal, IF you knew you were going to be helping - by way of dictation- those who were unwilling to help themselves?

I don't have all the answers, I just rely on research I have done, and gut feelings. This 'spread the wealth around' just isn't right. I don't care if I am not in the tax bracket that would affect me the most that way. MOST of the time those that are earning more, are paying the most taxes - guess you know that.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

--copy--In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
--- end copy--

http://minx.cc/?post=275500

--copy--

Obama: "Spread the Wealth Around"

"Economic justice," I think they call it in the radical consciousness-raising schools he funded.

How does he intend to spread the wealth? By increasing the size of federal programs?

Well, that's a start. But I'm afraid he's going to spread it around more directly -- by taking money away from people who pay taxes to directly give it to those who don't pay taxes in the form of a "tax cut."

A tax cut? For people who already don't pay taxes? That's not a tax cut, is it? That's more like a... well, a government handout. It's a welfare check.

Not so.

Obama prefers to call it "refundables." Even though you're not being "refunded" anything, you're just being sent a thousand or two dollars from someone else's tax payments.
---end copy---


and it gets to a point enough already!
BB

Not sure, just see they show his photo (guess 'cause it is well known).

Took it from

http://www.nationalrepublicantrust.com/licensefactsheet.html

facts on how O voted for same in Ill and now wants to do this dangerous thing nationwide, BB