100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Another shameful moment in history,,, | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Pure logic,,,,, Questions do not harm anyone if they have nothing to fear/hide. its not the question thats harmful, its the disparate treatment example if john applied for a position that requires a background check and bob applied for a position that requires a background check and they BOTH Supply that check, but then bob is asked to ALSO provide a SECONDARY background check although his initial check provides the same qualifying information as Johns thats HARMFUL and DISCRIMINATORY,,, no, that is wrong... you don't have a right to work for someone, it is a privilege. that is just a minority way of thinking, just to get what they want... if TAXES are going in any way to support or aid that employer in their business, the law says I DO Have the right to be treated equally,,,, last i heard, business's paid taxes, not took them... so you are saying that a business owner doesn't have the right to do extra checks on people as they see fit? business pay taxes, they get certin 'perks' and 'write offs' from the government, giving the government a vested interest in those businesses and oversight into how those businesses are run those businesses are built on roads and lands paid for by TAXES and yes, a business owner can do checks on people, but they have to be EQUAL requirements for the candidates,,,,without discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity,nationality,,etc,,,,, Are you kidding me government has no right to know how businesses are run.......its a free country the government can know how much they made and the companies contribution to taxes owed and thats it beyond that they have no right to anything.......... so, if your money went to the materials used to build someones house, you feel they have the right to turn around and discriminate against you? I disagree because TAXES are paid across racial and gender lines, any business that has any tax support (via the street they have built on, or the land, or the neighborhood they have become a part of) should not have the 'right' to treat those taxpayers any way they want,,,, private business, on private land,, go for it otherwise no,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pure logic,,,,, Questions do not harm anyone if they have nothing to fear/hide. its not the question thats harmful, its the disparate treatment example if john applied for a position that requires a background check and bob applied for a position that requires a background check and they BOTH Supply that check, but then bob is asked to ALSO provide a SECONDARY background check although his initial check provides the same qualifying information as Johns thats HARMFUL and DISCRIMINATORY,,, no, that is wrong... you don't have a right to work for someone, it is a privilege. that is just a minority way of thinking, just to get what they want... if TAXES are going in any way to support or aid that employer in their business, the law says I DO Have the right to be treated equally,,,, last i heard, business's paid taxes, not took them... so you are saying that a business owner doesn't have the right to do extra checks on people as they see fit? business pay taxes, they get certin 'perks' and 'write offs' from the government, giving the government a vested interest in those businesses and oversight into how those businesses are run those businesses are built on roads and lands paid for by TAXES and yes, a business owner can do checks on people, but they have to be EQUAL requirements for the candidates,,,,without discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity,nationality,,etc,,,,, Are you kidding me government has no right to know how businesses are run.......its a free country the government can know how much they made and the companies contribution to taxes owed and thats it beyond that they have no right to anything.......... Are you kidding me? Yes they do. There are many regulations about running a business, zoning laws, minimum wage laws, hours worked,child labor,etc. If what you were saying is true I could run a whorehouse with slaved from some poor country and as long as I paid taxes I would be fine. That is incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give it up, msharmony. People believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. Stop banging your head against the wall. It's fruitless. sigh,,,good advice,,, it just frustrates me at times because I know the more often a lie is repeated the more 'legitimate' it becomes to many who read it,,,,, Gawd! just reading this debate is frustrating  There is one entity entitled to ask for proof of birth... The electoral body, BEFORE he presents himself as a candidate for the presidency. That's it, that's all.... This is absolutely absurd! It's the Electoral body who SHOULD have cleared this up DAY 1 by confirming his eligibility to be president. I'll go further to say, it borderlines treason for "birthers" to continue on this. I'd give Trump 20yrs in Leavenworth... Son of a Biche! America is wayyyy more messed up than any of you think... despicable conduct by sore losers IMO! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give it up, msharmony. People believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. Stop banging your head against the wall. It's fruitless. sigh,,,good advice,,, it just frustrates me at times because I know the more often a lie is repeated the more 'legitimate' it becomes to many who read it,,,,, Gawd! just reading this debate is frustrating There is one entity entitled to ask for proof of birth... The electoral body, BEFORE he presents himself as a candidate for the presidency. That's it, that's all.... This is absolutely absurd! It's the Electoral body who SHOULD have cleared this up DAY 1 by confirming his eligibility to be president. I'll go further to say, it borderlines treason for "birthers" to continue on this. I'd give Trump 20yrs in Leavenworth... Son of a Biche! America is wayyyy more messed up than any of you think... despicable conduct by sore losers IMO! How is it treason to question your government? The president is our representative. He is not some royal dictator. Is it fine to question where he is born? Yes though I don't see how it relates to right to be president as with one parent being a citizen he should have citizenship no matter where he is born. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't you have asked this particular question BEFORE he was voted in??? If not, tough chit!... you'll hafta find something else to murk up the waters with buddy LOL
 The independent electoral commission is there to ask these questions... on "your" behalf 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't you have asked this particular question BEFORE he was voted in??? If not, tough chit!... you'll hafta find something else to murk up the waters with buddy LOL The independent electoral commission is there to ask these questions... on "your" behalf Muck what waters? Did I not just stately shouldn't matter where he is born? Also if you say it should be asked before and election then it is relevant as we have one this November. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, it shouldn't really matter where he's born.... BUT It's a law!
If he wasn't eligible for a second term, you would have heard about it by now from the INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION!!!!!!!  I'm done...., Ciao! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By law a natural born citizen can be born in another country if at least 1 parents is a citizen. That is the current supreme court interpretation. Also you are trusting the government to do that? I wouldn't. Not with all the corruption in politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 06/01/12 11:46 AM
|
|
If it didn't matter "where" he was born, say Iran for example, like Obozo and the Kenya issue, how can you be sure he has the best interest of the American people in mind?
We could have had "Terminator" Arnie (the good little Nazi) as POTUS and we would have been broke by now (like he did to California!) Rules are there for a reason! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JOHNN111
on
Fri 06/01/12 12:10 PM
|
|
how can you be sure he has the best interest of the American people in mind? Sir, with all due respect, I've seen your posts about your president... Sure doesn't look like it would make one iota of difference if he was born in Kenya, USA or Mars for that matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 06/01/12 12:17 PM
|
|
how can you be sure he has the best interest of the American people in mind? Sir, with all due respect, I've seen your posts about your president... Sure doesn't look like it would make one iota of difference if he was born in Kenya, USA or Mars for that matter. My choice is Freedom and Liberty, sound money that is inflation and manipulation proof, an end to unconstitutional war, and bringing our troops home to defend us NOT THE ME!.....RON PAUL 2012! BORN IN THE USA! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it didn't matter "where" he was born, say Iran for example, like Obozo and the Kenya issue, how can you be sure he has the best interest of the American people in mind? We could have had "Terminator" Arnie (the good little Nazi) as POTUS and we would have been broke by now (like he did to California!) Rules are there for a reason! There are plenty of American born president's that didn't have our best interest in mind. I am merely talking the legality of running for president. However he may lose many voters if he was in fact born outside of the Us. This would be a reason to hide it if there was one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 06/01/12 12:24 PM
|
|
If it didn't matter "where" he was born, say Iran for example, like Obozo and the Kenya issue, how can you be sure he has the best interest of the American people in mind? We could have had "Terminator" Arnie (the good little Nazi) as POTUS and we would have been broke by now (like he did to California!) Rules are there for a reason! There are plenty of American born president's that didn't have our best interest in mind. I am merely talking the legality of running for president. However he may lose many voters if he was in fact born outside of the Us. This would be a reason to hide it if there was one. I agree there have been MANY in the office of POTUS who have shown little interest in the will and rights of the people.....TOO MANY! When people "hold their nose to vote" or must decide between "the lesser of two evils" (like the MSM wishes us to do AGAIN this election), there will never be one! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
War Pig in a Poke by Charles Goyette | Jun 1st 2012 With a win in the Texas Republican primary election Tuesday, Mitt Romney has a spot in the November championship round. Or, so his corner tells us. Although there are some valid questions about the real delegate count. But the certainty of Romney's victory can be seen in the repugnant spectacle of many of Romney's recent opponents now gathering around to tell us how wonderful a leader he will be. What short memories the electorate must have. Has Gingrich's dubbing Romney "Obama light" been forgotten so soon? At the beginning of the year, Gingrich insisted that Romney was a "liar," and a "fundamentally dishonest" tool of Wall Street. Is January so long ago that it his warning has since disappeared down a memory hole? Now Gingrich reports that Romney is "a lot like Eisenhower," and "a solid conservative." (He can't be both.) A quick Google search for "Santorum criticizes Romney" spits out 2.7 million hits. But now, "Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear," says Santorum. It seems never to be asked, if they were so wrong when they told us he was a candidate most foul only weeks ago, why we should rely on their fawning enthusiasm for him today? It does no good to tell me "that's just politics." It's all intellectually fraudulent and morally loathsome. I once had a leader of one of country's most well-known and strict religious institutions on the air proudly explain, as though he had just discovered what every high school follower of politics knows, that his favorite candidate would run to the right in the primary, only to run to the center in the general election. "But isn't it dishonest to represent yourself as one thing to one constituency and something else to another?" I asked this man of the cloth, "Shouldn't we be looking for integrity and principals?" "That's how it's done," he explained indignantly. "That's just politics." And so it is. They are all just Etch-A-Sketch men. Give them a good shake after the nomination. Americans should know that Romney's nomination means that in both the Republican and Democrat candidates we have Keynesian, spend-our-way-to- prosperity presidents. Even Paul Krugman believes Romney "is actually more of a Keynesian than he would ever let on." We will have the choice between Obama deficits and Romney deficits, just as we will have the choice between Romney-care and Obama-care. If there is any hope to save America from certain debt destruction, it has to start with the $1.2 trillion a year in national security state spending. It is an opportunity that will be missed under President Romney. As often as John Kerry told us he served in Vietnam, Gingrich reminds us he was a history professor. ("I am the most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson," he once modestly announced.) But it would be a mistake to rely on Professor Gingrich's new slavering description of Romney as "a lot like Eisenhower." Seven months into his presidency, Eisenhower had ended the Korean War, just as he promised to do during the campaign. He even made some efforts at moderating the Cold War and a nuclear arms race. Although he provided some support to the French early on, he avoided the substantial morass of Vietnam -- unlike his successors in office. He quickly rolled back the 1956 Suez crisis. And he refused to a launch a nuclear attack on China as urged by his senior advisors. Eisenhower was certainly not an ideal president. He approved the CIA's United Fruit Company coup in Honduras and authorized another CIA coup to install the Shah in Iran, an act that continues to have blowback today. Eisenhower may be no more deserving of a peace prize than Barack Obama, but the man who warned us about the undue influence of the military industrial complex was no Mitt Romney either. Romney has revealed himself to be the complete captive of the military industrial complex. Despite our present economic straits, Romney is eager to "apply the full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events," and to that end intends to add 100,000 more people in uniform. While the U.S. spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on warfare, Romney, who claims "this is America's moment," proposes to spend more. Romney's foreign policy posture is a continuum with that of George W. Bush. And while Romney avoids speaking Bush's name, referring to him with the verbally clumsy term "predecessor" five times in one speech, Romney may actually exceed Bush in his unmitigated bellicosity. He has surrounded himself with the most reckless of the Bush neocon advisors, those who marched this country into the decade-long morass of Mideast warfare. Romney's repeated call for a new "American century" is especially chilling since his war cabinet includes eight signatories of the Project for the New American Century, the manifesto calling for the invasion of Iraq long before 9/11/2001. Romney joined John McCain for some saber-rattling on Memorial Day and urged the arming of Syrians. Pushing for "more assertive steps" in Syria, it may not be long before he joins with McCain to urge U.S. bombing of Syria as well. He proposes to increase military training and assistance with Central Asian states. And Romney will, he tells us, "station multiple carriers and warships at Iran's door," apparently without regard for what our own intelligence community reports about Iran's nuclear viability. Romney is ceaseless in arranging his taxonomy of threats, bouncing quickly from one to another. He has identified Russia as "without question our number-one geopolitical foe;" jihadists are this century's nightmare; North Korea is a clear and growing threat to the United States; the Iranian leadership is the biggest immediate threat; China threatens Romney's "American century." So this is what Republicans offer the nation: The warfare part of Washington's warfare/welfare state. Oh, but there will be plenty of welfare to go along with it (mostly for the crony classes), just as Obama has included plenty of warfare even as he tilted to the welfare state. Americans are perfectly capable of buying a pig in a poke. They have done so over and over again. Before announcing his run for the presidency, Bush was quite explicit with a biographer about the joys of invading a country like Iraq to pump up his approval numbers and build political capital. But he told the electorate just weeks before the vote that he wanted a more humble foreign policy without nation building. The nomination secure, Romney may try to moderate his chest-thumping during the general election campaign, too. But there's a war pig in that bag. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give it up, msharmony. People believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. Stop banging your head against the wall. It's fruitless. sigh,,,good advice,,, it just frustrates me at times because I know the more often a lie is repeated the more 'legitimate' it becomes to many who read it,,,,, Fortunately, the whacko birthers have long since been discredited. And anyone who continues to spew this foolishness just looks more and more foolish themselves. But wait. If Donald Trump says it then it MUST be so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi ~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pure logic,,,,, Questions do not harm anyone if they have nothing to fear/hide. its not the question thats harmful, its the disparate treatment example if john applied for a position that requires a background check and bob applied for a position that requires a background check and they BOTH Supply that check, but then bob is asked to ALSO provide a SECONDARY background check although his initial check provides the same qualifying information as Johns thats HARMFUL and DISCRIMINATORY,,, no, that is wrong... you don't have a right to work for someone, it is a privilege. that is just a minority way of thinking, just to get what they want... if TAXES are going in any way to support or aid that employer in their business, the law says I DO Have the right to be treated equally,,,, last i heard, business's paid taxes, not took them... so you are saying that a business owner doesn't have the right to do extra checks on people as they see fit? business pay taxes, they get certin 'perks' and 'write offs' from the government, giving the government a vested interest in those businesses and oversight into how those businesses are run those businesses are built on roads and lands paid for by TAXES and yes, a business owner can do checks on people, but they have to be EQUAL requirements for the candidates,,,,without discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity,nationality,,etc,,,,, Are you kidding me government has no right to know how businesses are run.......its a free country the government can know how much they made and the companies contribution to taxes owed and thats it beyond that they have no right to anything.......... Are you kidding me? Yes they do. There are many regulations about running a business, zoning laws, minimum wage laws, hours worked,child labor,etc. If what you were saying is true I could run a whorehouse with slaved from some poor country and as long as I paid taxes I would be fine. That is incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Seakolony
on
Sat 06/02/12 09:44 AM
|
|
Pure logic,,,,, Questions do not harm anyone if they have nothing to fear/hide. its not the question thats harmful, its the disparate treatment example if john applied for a position that requires a background check and bob applied for a position that requires a background check and they BOTH Supply that check, but then bob is asked to ALSO provide a SECONDARY background check although his initial check provides the same qualifying information as Johns thats HARMFUL and DISCRIMINATORY,,, no, that is wrong... you don't have a right to work for someone, it is a privilege. that is just a minority way of thinking, just to get what they want... if TAXES are going in any way to support or aid that employer in their business, the law says I DO Have the right to be treated equally,,,, last i heard, business's paid taxes, not took them... so you are saying that a business owner doesn't have the right to do extra checks on people as they see fit? business pay taxes, they get certin 'perks' and 'write offs' from the government, giving the government a vested interest in those businesses and oversight into how those businesses are run those businesses are built on roads and lands paid for by TAXES and yes, a business owner can do checks on people, but they have to be EQUAL requirements for the candidates,,,,without discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity,nationality,,etc,,,,, Are you kidding me government has no right to know how businesses are run.......its a free country the government can know how much they made and the companies contribution to taxes owed and thats it beyond that they have no right to anything.......... Are you kidding me? Yes they do. There are many regulations about running a business, zoning laws, minimum wage laws, hours worked,child labor,etc. If what you were saying is true I could run a whorehouse with slaved from some poor country and as long as I paid taxes I would be fine. That is incorrect. There are laws that have to be followed but not how day to day business is run....and not every company abides by those law either. Still they do not control the comapines. If want to start a business and I want pay someone under the table I can do that. I can also call them a volunteer, which means I do not have to pay them anything on the books. If I pay taxes on my money, I made, that is fine. Yep there are laws, but you can hire volunteer keep track of hours and pay nothing nor incentives. By the way, people get welfare checks for volunteering. Cash under the table and completely untrackable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't you have asked this particular question BEFORE he was voted in??? If not, tough chit!... you'll hafta find something else to murk up the waters with buddy LOL The independent electoral commission is there to ask these questions... on "your" behalf It was asked and unanswered, thats the issue......I dont care because there isnt a diiference between presidents they will all do the same thing and are paid off by the same people.....so really who cares!! none of them have the best interest of the people anyways, they only say they do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/2011/05/after-obligatory-memorial-day-wreath-ceremony-at-arlington-obama-hits-the-golf-course-fb/
 *K at Free Republic confirms the story*<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2888848/posts> *:* *So this is how Obozo honors those who served….I just had this passed on from a friend who was at the wall this morning:* *I normally try to avoid political statements, but this one is a bit different. This was received by Colonel X X X X X just a few moments ago, who was refused access to the Vietnam War Memorial, where he has visited his fallen comrades for the last 15 years.* *Today is Memorial Day and I went to the Vietnam Memorial and something happened there that upset me greatly and I want to pass it on.* *For over 15 years I had been going with my dear Marine buddy, Larry Cullen. Since he passed away last year and was interned at Arlington Cemetery, I went this year accompanied by my grandson, Cameron. I had my list of Recon Marines, school classmates, and Larry’s fallen buddies to visit but, as we got close to the area of the National Mall where the Wall is located, we saw huge white tents. We also saw barricades all along Constitution Ave and for a couple blocks in each direction from the Wall. They even closed down all of Constitution Av from the Lincoln Memorial all the way to the WW-II Memorial and there was a virtual army of uniformed and plain-clothes security everywhere.* *The biggest tent was right at the west end of the Wall entrance and there was a covered walkway leading right up to The Wall. It was so close, you couldn’t get to the Wall on that side so, **my grandson and I went all the way around to the eastern entrance to the Wall and walked down along the Wall to the first of my names and I began telling my grandson about my buddies and how each one died. In short order, a guy in a dark suit and earpiece in his ear told us we had to leave as it was 0730 and they were cloerans and families were forced to leave and it was locked down.* *The Vietnam Memorial is the most visited site on the entire National Mall. Memorial Day has more visitors to the Vietnam Memorial than almost any other day.** Even at the rather early hour Cameron and I were there, there were a lot of veterans and family members down there. In the midst of all that, Obama decides to close it for over seven hours just so he can roll by for 30 minutes in the afternoon for a campaign appearance with Democrats, supporters, and campaign donors? **This is an incredulously arrogant, egotistical, and inconsiderate thing to do. What in hell was Obama thinking? * *Hey President Obama: Since you ran me (and all the other veterans and family members) out of the Memorial before we finished our business there, how about doing me a favor. If you can take a short break from all the grippin’, grinnin’, posin’ and pontificatin’, how about taking a minute or two to stop by and say hello to my fellow Recon Marines and other classmates on the Wall. I suspect you’ll be too busy with photo ops, campaigning, and stroking donors to be troubled with a couple minutes doing what the Memorial was built for but, just in case, here’s a list so you can have your man find them and point them out to you. Hope you have a Meaningful Memorial Day.* *Joseph J. JONES; 53-W-02** Sherwood David Kreis, 42-W-40 Dale Kagebein, 34-W-50 Jerry Bock, 25-W-95 Larry Daniels, 09-E- 66 Joe Mack Kemp, 09-E-69 Rhonda L. Raglan, 09-E-70 Robert L. Studards, 09-E-71 Jose D. Flores, 09-E-74 Arthur Willie Greene, 14-E-56 Eric Barnes, 17-E-41 Godfried Blankenship, 17-E-48 Michael Ray Smith, 19-E-113 Ervin Lovell, 19-E-120 William D. Martin, 25-E- 87 Michael L. Laporte, 26-E-1 Ronald Frederick Kitzke, 32-E-76 Charles Harris, 34-E-48 Robert Tracy, 34-E-72 Michael G. Murdock, 36-E-57* *Maybe it would have been better for everyone if Obama had **just gone golfing like last year<http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/2011/05/after-obligatory-memorial-day-wreath-ceremony-at-arlington-obama-hits-the-golf-course-fb/> **. Unfortunately, this is what veterans and their families have to suffer when Obama is in full campaign mode.* *No wonder a recent Gallup poll showed **veterans prefer Mitt Romney to Obama, 58% to 34%<http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/on-memorial-day-veterans-give-romney-a-24-point-lead-over-obama/> **.* |
|
|
|
|
