CountryPlans Forum

Fairly good speech. What's his name didn't cry. Pelosi didn't get a lot of camera time.

And little was said about the financial crisis that's about to take this nation to its knees.


Heh, Heh, ..........


Who....what..........Paul Ryan ....a response??????


d*




sparks

I did not care for the speech.  I cared less for the Paul Ryan robot act that followed. 

really?
a 400 billion cut over ten years is a solution to a 1.7 trillion per year problem? 
by freezing (not even cutting something that is only 9% of the budget anyway). 

sputnik moment?  really?  Talking up the grandiose of 50 years ago is somehow inspiring?

Talking about how the world has changed and how every Iowa farmer must compete internationally?  Really, what is going to be put in place to allow us to compete?  Do we repeal min wage laws?  Do we repeal environmental laws?  Because our competition doesn't have those - and thats the reason we are losing.  Instead of addressing the fact that we are now competing because of legislation that has been passed we suddenly have to out-innovate that?  really? 

going to veto any bill with earmarks in it?  oh f!@# me.  come on.  really?  What other 1000+ page bills have you vetoed for that? 

I dunno why, but after hearing that speech I feel like getting a model rocket kit and racing the next door illegal (now apparently legal) immigrant to the moon.

Yes I agree with the overall theme - Investing in America is exactly what's needed - until you realize there is nothing to invest with.  Unless you want to use China's dollars. 

But don't worry, we'll become competitive again.  As soon as we all agree to work for a bowl of rice a day.

  Thanks Muldoon,  I knew you would step up to the moment.

Not looking good for the home team anymore

Hang on tight.




sparks

Sorry I could not take anything he says seriously.  

I still consider him an impostor in the presidents office, but it does not really matter.  We have been sold down the river by all of our politicians.  We are simply playing the part we are intended to be playing in the plans of the one world government.  We are not supposed to be able to prosper.  We are post industrial society, and corporate profits are to be made elsewhere.

Now it has come out that a real birth certificate does not even exist, let alone have a chance of seeing it.  The plans are being orchestrated from above the level of government.  All we could possibly see tonight is a charade called The State of The Union.


...and I also agree with muldoon...

Just read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand - don't agree w/all the end philosophical conclusions she made.  But WOW! Incredible how the gov't & society she wrote about sounded just like ours today! 

I have no doubt that he was born in Hawaii... To me that is a red herring now someone please tell me about his so convenient theft of his passports where he traveled all over the place as an adult listing himself as a what (?) Indonesian? Arab? anything but American... ???

My dislike for him does not allow me to be objective at all. I have a serious dislike for the plotical arena and feel that DC needs a reset.

Pileofticks in Washington needs a serious cleaning!

To me all of the unanswered issues are important and while it doesn't matter what criminal is leading us, I think we should at least keep it legitimate so dealings with other countries, orders that result in the death of our military and innocent civilians (should never happen) etc. are at least from a legal ruler ... not a usurper.

Now the Hawaiians (vetting person testimony) admit in sworn  affidavit there is not a Hawaii birth certificate, so it  likely was issued elsewhere.. then on to the conflicting passport and school education and requirements he was from another country renouncing or not having US citizenship for the education.  

Sorry - this issue cannot be dismissed and take him seriously.  I will dismiss it and consider him an illegal alien in the office of president though.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=254401

Quote from: Texas Tornado on January 26, 2011, 04:50:33 AM
I have no doubt that he was born in Hawaii... To me that is a red herring now someone please tell me about his so convenient theft of his passports where he traveled all over the place as an adult listing himself as a what (?) Indonesian? Arab? anything but American... ???

Ugly American Syndrome?  Where you want to be anything but American in some countries?  Then his wife that said this is the first time she ever felt proud to be an American.

I would sort of like to know were the reset button is.  But I do not like some of the alternatives there as well.  You never know what the next Genie is coming out of the bottle.  Sort of like Speaker Nancy telling congress, 'We have to vote for this to find out what is in it.'  A VP that excitedly tells America, 'We are just going to spend our way out of this.'  I only wish it was that easy.......      

I'm not going to comment on the speech. Muldoon said it for me.

It is interesting that a number of states, including Arizona, are passing legislation that would keep Obama off of the ballot in their state, because of his lack of standing.
This would include anyone who is not a natural born citizen.

Even if he has a birth certificate, he would not be eligible in some of these states because the original term, "Natural Born Citizen" means born to a man and woman who are legal US Citizens. Obama admits Pop was not.

Quote from: peternap on January 26, 2011, 11:18:16 AM

Even if he has a birth certificate, he would not be eligible in some of these states because the original term, "Natural Born Citizen" means born to a man and woman who are legal US Citizens. Obama admits Pop was not.

This is completely untrue.  The first act of congress was to set that anyone born to a father (one parent) outside the U.S. was a natural born U.S. citizen.  This was because women weren't really considered citizen's because they couldn't vote.  Women were treated more like property.  With the equal protection amendment of the constitution this would extend that clause to either parent, not both.  It is all moot anyway.  People seem to like to forget the basic separation of powers and branches of government when it suits their political ends.  A recent example of this of how when conservatives loved the use of the supremacy clause of the EPA to subvert California's emission standards, but didn't understand how that set the same precedent for the ICE to subvert Arizona's immigration laws.  The courts have held an expansive view of what who is a naturally born citizen throughout the history of this country.  Notice how not a single legal scholar on citizenship, conservative or liberal, has argued that he was required to be born in Hawaii.  I am a little disappointed that not a single judge has taken up the issue, but I can understand why.  If every citizen had the right to challenge the qualifications of all politicians in court, you would have endless litigation clogging up the court systems.  Our legal system and government would come grinding to a halt.

The argument of his birth certificate tends to only work with people that are not familiar with the hundreds of years of precedents in case law and statute or are willing to ignore them because it suits their political ends.

Quote from: peternap on January 26, 2011, 11:18:16 AM
Even if he has a birth certificate, he would not be eligible in some of these states because the original term, "Natural Born Citizen" means born to a man and woman who are legal US Citizens. Obama admits Pop was not.

BTW, seven presidents were born to parents that were not citizens.  One,Andrew Jackson, neither parent was a citizen. This is a false statement as a matter of law.

I don't know about the birth certificate thing, it continues to seem questionable that none exist.  Apparently it is now official from the governor of Hawaii that no birth certificate exists for the man.  My personal opinion is that he was likely born in Hawaii, but that the certificate had something politically embarrassing on it.  Perhaps race: Muslim or Father: MalcomX or something to that effect. 

In any event, I couldn't care less about Andrew Jacksons parents, and I can care less about where he was born.  Just as I could not care less about where Obama was born.  I hold him directly accountable for his actions today, not his pasts - as dubious as it is.  That is my complaint against the man.  Things he has done and not done in the past 2 years. 

Quote from: Squirl on January 26, 2011, 12:51:15 PM

Quote from: peternap on January 26, 2011, 11:18:16 AM
Even if he has a birth certificate, he would not be eligible in some of these states because the original term, "Natural Born Citizen" means born to a man and woman who are legal US Citizens. Obama admits Pop was not.

BTW, seven presidents were born to parents that were not citizens.  One,Andrew Jackson, neither parent was a citizen. This is a false statement as a matter of law.

Don't tell me Squirl, tell Arizona. I'm rooting for them. Foreigners don't make good presidents. Obama's a perfect example of what NOT to have.
But I'll call the annalists up and let them know that they're absolutly wrong...because Squirl says so. That'll set em straight rofl
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255489

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.

Other definitions have called for a "natural born citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.

Read more: Game-changer! Arizona to pass 2012 eligibility law http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=255489#ixzz1CAcnu4bn

The article is a perfect example. Citing "many analysts", not "most analysts", or even who or what they are analysts of.  Who are they?  Are they even lawyers or judges?  Or are they political analysts? Do they even understand the basics of the American legal system?  The weird legal interpretation would have disqualified 6 other presidents, and both parties presidential candidates. .  Somehow the article fails to recognize that.  That somehow the U.S. legal system and precedents set were wrong for the past 200 years. It is just another article playing to a crowd telling them what they want to hear.  With even a slight critical eye, it falls apart.

As far as state laws go, they can pass whatever they want, and frequently do. It doesn't make them legal.  I'm sure you are very familiar with when it is a constitutional argument of states trying to interpret or control clauses of the constitution, such as owning a firearm or defining citizenship. They are not usually enforceable.

It is not because I say so.  It is because that is the widely held view of the legal system.  It is not a grand conspiracy stopping these attacks, just a flawed legal reasoning to begin with.  That holds no relevance though, 20%-30% of the country will believe no matter what because they don't like him politically. I am fine with people taking issue with his politics, I just usually take issue with people misstating the legal system.

My understanding of the birth requirement to be a recognized US citizen is that one parent must have been a citizen of the USA. The other parent could be from mars or wherever.

Having one parent makes one a so called natural born citizen. I believe that wording was chosen to differentiate between those foreign born people who have come to the USA and become a naturalized citizen (Arnold Schwarzenegger for example)

If one is a natural born citizen one is eligible to be president. You could be born on Mars as long as the birth was correctly recorded in the USA or with US Consulates.

Having both parents US citizens and/or being born in the USA does not guarantee one's patriotism. There are natural born Americans who have been convicted of treason against the USA. John Anthony Walker was a natural born citizen who voluntarily walked into the Russian Embassy and offered to spy on the US for them for money.

Quote from: Squirl on January 26, 2011, 03:02:33 PM
The article is a perfect example. Citing "many analysts", not "most analysts", or even who or what they are analysts of.  Who are they?  Are they even lawyers or judges?  Or are they political analysts? Do they even understand the basics of the American legal system?  The weird legal interpretation would have disqualified 6 other presidents, and both parties presidential candidates. .  Somehow the article fails to recognize that.  That somehow the U.S. legal system and precedents set were wrong for the past 200 years. It is just another article playing to a crowd telling them what they want to hear.  With even a slight critical eye, it falls apart.

As far as state laws go, they can pass whatever they want, and frequently do. It doesn't make them legal.  I'm sure you are very familiar with when it is a constitutional argument of states trying to interpret or control clauses of the constitution, such as owning a firearm or defining citizenship. They are not usually enforceable.

It is not because I say so.  It is because that is the widely held view of the legal system.  It is not a grand conspiracy stopping these attacks, just a flawed legal reasoning to begin with.  That holds no relevance though, 20%-30% of the country will believe no matter what because they don't like him politically. I am fine with people taking issue with his politics, I just usually take issue with people misstating the legal system.

But it's on the internet Squirl...It has to be true ;D

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

Sorry for the thread drift.  The poll is missing "didn't bother watching".  I think he is one of the least effective president's.  I didn't see him publicly spear head a single piece of legislation since being elected.  Much of the ones that people attribute to him (Obama care) were spearheaded by congress.  He frequently took the position "when congress puts it across my desk, I will sign it."  He never stuck his neck out on almost any piece of legislation. I never heard of the white house rewriting any legislation or pushing any legislation it had written through congress. He consistently let congress take the lead. I believe to avoid responsibility.  I expect the Republican congress to set the tone for the next year, and the president only having veto power.  So hearing about the state of the union from him was a waste of time. Just my 2 pennies worth.

Coming from you, that is worth $.50 Squirl.  I can see you are looking at things with your eyes opened. 

I agree with you - didn't bother watching wasn't there so I put didn't like it.  He is a non-entity to me so it does not matter to me what he says, but again, we only have a one party puppet system so it doesn't matter who is there.  They are all sold out to big business and to rip off  the middle class and not even the lower class is getting their mortgage paid or that much free food... [waiting]

I do agree we are probably at a sputnik moment in our history. We've looked up and we're behind. We can sit around and complain, and things will get worse, or we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. That's about it for the options, doesn't matter who is in office. As for the man, I see alot of similarity with Carter, nice enough guy, pretty ineffective, will probably make a great ex president. Complaining about a figurehead is the same as complaining that the cheerleaders lost the game. As for our laws and regulations making it impossible to compete, I don't disagree... however, Germany is doing pretty well, they take better care of their people, the environment, and compete head to head in the world.

I also believe that our moon landing was actually filmed in Hollywood.... I saw the light fall from the set in the leaked clip.  I have seen the astronauts response when asked to swear on the Bible that they landed there.... wouldn't do it.

So yeah - a Sputnik moment.... not real at least on our side.

Just smoke and mirrors and empty rhetoric as we are ripped off and the elite and sold out government play their con games.

Cheerleaders?....I always like them, win or lose... [waiting]

I don't know why anyone even cares about Obama, he's just a puppet anyway. The real power is somewhere well above his pay grade.

You nailed that one, Scott.

I was traveling in Iowa Tuesday night

sat down in front of the TV at 8:00 in hotel room

flipped on the nice HD tv


and was totally pissed off in seconds



the dam STOU speach pre-empted V

so I flipped the TV back off

Quote from: glenn kangiser on January 26, 2011, 11:14:53 PM
I also believe that our moon landing was actually filmed in Hollywood.... I saw the light fall from the set in the leaked clip.  I have seen the astronauts response when asked to swear on the Bible that they landed there.... wouldn't do it.So yeah - a Sputnik moment.... not real at least on our side.

Just smoke and mirrors and empty rhetoric as we are ripped off and the elite and sold out government play their con games.

Cheerleaders?....I always like them, win or lose... [waiting]

Mat:5 34-37 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

That is good, Stink... you are right , but {I think it was Aldrin) was swearing alright...... obscenities, so I don't think the Bible was what was on his mind.  He still did not call the accuser a liar or insist that he did.

That seems to me that that is referring to something not done but that you will do - ie: turn color of hair...promises of change ot things you may do or would like to do that you may not carry out...

He was simply asked to tell the truth regarding his moon landing..... tell the truth and the truth will set you free... of false accusation.  Appears it was not false accusation to me.

Some conspiracy theories are just so crazy that many people have just decided to stop responding to them.  That's what the astronauts are probably doing.

You could have a point there Archimedes, but that does not answer the issue or prove it false.   It simply stops the response to the issue on the side that does not want it pursued further.

I'm pretty sure there was a moon landing Glenn.
These fellows found a lot of junk on the moon.

(http://www.outofthecradle.net/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/vulturelogo2.jpg)

I dunno Peter... you seem convincing but relatively new accidentally released video says no.....

Banned in America: Proof of Fake Moonlanding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM&feature=related