Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why Historian Dude and wrecking ball get away with their distortions of the truth. Don't just sit there and eat it up, do a little investigation on your own.
The flaw in your reasoning is assuming that lowering taxes is done for the financial benefit of "the wealthy" and has no benefit for anyone else. This is not so. To think this way you must also think that raising taxes is a good thing. It is not. Raising taxes discourages innovation, production, and expansion of businesses - which results in people not being employed. How is this a good result?
Lowering taxes is just a remedy for the bad outcomes that high taxes produced. Everytime lowering taxes has been done - it has resulted in a booming economy. This is because the money that the government would have confiscated is now free to be used by the people who earned it - this means everyone who participates in the economy - from the 16 year old flipping burgers for $8.00 at McD's to the CEO of a fortune 500 company or the starting pitcher for the New York Yankees.
Money in the hands of entrepeneurs - is most beneficial because they use the capital to grow their business - and the benefits snowball: people are hired, more money circulates which keeps the economy fresh and dynamic, the businesses tend to succeed which generates more tax revenue then would have been brought in under a higher tax rate. That is right - lowering tax rates actually produces more tax revenue than raising tax rates - counter-intuitive but true. This means that the government can actually fund what it proposes to do - or it can pay down the debt.
Now if you can explain to me how all this good economic results that are the product of lowering taxes is a bad thing - then maybe you can start me on the road to convincing me that there is a plutocracy. But I think that will be difficult to do. Liberals disliike capitalism for one reason only - because it prevents them from controlling economies and wielding power over people. These are the wealthy power brokers. They get the "lower classes" to go along with them by calling them lower classes - and waging class warfare. They promulgate myths like certain people are "against workers" and other mind numbing BS. They would prefer an oligarchy - and a central bureacracy that micromanages the affairs of people's lives. This was tried before - remember the Soviet Union and their Eastern European sattelites? How did that work out? Not such a good idea is it?
I will stick with the party of liberty, opportunity, and prosperity - the Republican Party.
If you prefer oppression, statism, and economic stagnation - by all means vote for Obama.
Excellent commentary, Harrier, and spot on for accuracy.
Done most of the above you stated. Let me ask you something. When have the poor ever created jobs?
Never.
If all the money in the country were equally divided and everyone started out from a "level playing field" the money would still end up in the hands of those who have it now. The poor would spend it on things they have always wanted but couldn't afford and the money will flow into the hands of the producers and job creators.
That's a lie. Forensic examination will tell you if it's a forgery or not. We have these people more than willing to present their case before a court of law. What's the problem?
The problem for birthers is that the STATE of HAWAII verifies that the information on the birth certificate is correct. Think about it. What is a birth certificate? It's a document that says that a person was born at a certain place at a certain time. But anyone could make up such a document. A birth certificate CERTIFIES that the state will confirm this information if the certificate holder is challenged. Birthers have challenged Obama. And the State of Hawaii has confirmed the information. As long as the State of Hawaii does so, the birthers have no grounds to challenge Obama about the document. The document became irrelevant when the State of Hawaii held a news conference to affirm that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
Do you believe that Article 2 Section 1 should always be upheld?
always. Since we haven't had a problem with the last 44 presidents, I don't think there is any danger of it.
But, hey, you should consult the republicans. They've introduced more bills than democrats, to change what the Constitution says about Presidential eligibility over the past 80 years.
It's only the demorats that believe that, that's why they fight against voter ID. Can't rig the election without Donald Duck and felons.
Boo-hoo. You sound like a butthurt sore loser. You know what? I'm fine with republicans continuing to delude themselves that the only way that democrats can win an election is via fraud, you know why? As long as they cling to this sour-grapes hubris, then they will refuse to address the elements in their own party (birthers, truthers, religious zealots) that are pushing them to the fringes, and away from moderate voters. Go ahead and let the loonies drive the bus, and you'll see how that works out for you.
Natural born citizen is born on US soil, of two citizen parents.
Ehm - no.
Quote:
I've posted documentation dozens of times on this forum, I don't understand why you people can't do a little of the research yourself, so you know what you are talking about, instead of making complete fools of yourselves over & over again.
The problem is this: Your documentation, such as it is, doesnt say what you think it does.
Quote:
This is truly getting tiresome!
A bit, but it's still roundly entertaining. Like watching Roadrunner cartoons - sometimes you have to take a break.
Quote:
No wonder foreigners think Americans are the dumbest people on earth.
I hope you don't think that the Birther brouhaha has done anything to increase the general impression of Americans anywhere.
A complete falsehood from HD, but he does this all the time. Historian Dude is only here to confuse you. Look him up on the net, he has made himself a well known Obama brownshirt.
Being born in this country grants one citizenship, natural born citizenship is something special, reserved for those born on US soil to TWO citizen parents. This was reaffirmed when they passed the resolution, signed by Obama, for McCain, which clearly states TWO citizen parents.
Harry Truman once said, "If you can't convince them, confuse them"
that's HD's motto.
In the essay titled What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?, I have put forward an interpretation and definition of the phrase natural born Citizen as it is used in the United States Constitution. To that end, I have used the original manuscript of a letter from John Jay to George Washington, along with a draft for that letter, and two essays written by Jay, to deduce both intent and meaning.
I have put forward the following intent of the United States constitutional requirement that the President of the United States be a natural born Citizen of the United States:
Intent. The intent of the United States constitutional requirement that the President of the United States be a natural born Citizen of the United States is: (1) to reduce the likelihood that a President of the United States would have a former, or present, attachment to a foreign country (because such an attachment could influence one to make decisions that would not promote the interests of the United States); and (2) to increase the likelihood that the interests of any President of the United States will coincide with those of the United States.
Is this not common sense? No divided loyalties.
Silly birthers can't even decide which conspiracy they want to push.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the money would still end up in the hands of those who have it now. The poor would spend it on things they have always wanted but couldn't afford and the money will flow into the hands of the producers and job creators.
