Oh please QM, that is such a load of rubbish.

Obama's birth certificate was verified. He is a natural born US citizen. The birth certificate is not released to public because of Hawaii's own statues against releasing birth certificates on the grounds of identity theft, only family members may obtain a copy. It doesn't look like yours because birth certificates are not standardized nationally.

The authenticity of the birth certificate released by the campaign has been verified by the:
- Hawaii Department of Health based on the certificate released by the campaign. Actually it's director.
- Marriage records from The Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics
- Employment records from Illinois Secretary of State's office
- Employment records from Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois.
- FactCheck.org conducted its own investigation and verified his status as well.

Similar cases were brought against McCain because he was born in the former Panama Canal Zone which was given back to Panama, thus invalidating him as a natural born citizen. They are just as ridiculous as this. McCain is a US natural born citizen.

Look at the backgrounds of the people pushing forward this garbage, they are all conspiracy theorists. The only thing these people are creating is a selective perception, no matter how much contrary evidence is presented to them.

Think about what it means if he is not a US citizen, it implies a vast conspiracy that involved the Hawaii Department of Health, The Cook County Bureau of Vital Statistics, Illinois Secretary of State, Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, the entire Obama campaign, the Democratic party, FactCheck.org, numerous journalists across the country, other government agencies all coordinated over the last 40 years to create a false history to cover up the birth of one single man. In case he runs for President.

Occam's razor. This is all bullshit. You're an idiot.

His great speech aside... why are we having banquets when people are loosing their jobs left and right? If I was president, I would cancel ALL bullshit "events" until such a time as the economy was back on track.

You should watch Intervention more if you think this is all bullshit. It doesn't strike me as odd at all that he didn't work his problem out in 42 days. Sounded like he had some issues that went way deeper than gaming.

>> ^kulpims:
ah, fuck it. all this... it means nothing to me. words he spoke out, I've heard it all before, from the mouths of fallen heroes in a country that is no more. economic and social decline, hyperinflation, elitism, corruption, nationalism, patriotism, war, ...empty rhetoric; dictionaries exhausted of words to describe the depths of emotions that ran through them... all bullshit, as it turned out.

I agree. But realistically what could he have said?

Americans love over congratulating themselves, some kind of net psychological tick that needs to always preserve American naivete about their situation and posture in the world.

I loved how they mentioned the peaceful transition of power, as if in other nations there is no peaceful transitions of power.

Rhetoric to the masses to give them a inkling of hope. Almost everything he mentioned will take close to a year and to 2 years to actually formulate as a credible effect. Yet people expect things to resolve now, even Obama's advisers are trying to minimize the expectations. But you know you can't. Look for loads of videos and blogs whining about Change not being that.

I hope the political involvement and participation generated over the last 8 years doesn't seep away with Obama's presidency. Because it is one thing to believe a candidates promises and another to make sure he follows them through. Obama has a unprecedented support politically and domestically, he can do alot, but he has to have the balls to actually do it.

I don't know if he will. I hope he will but hope is not actual policy.

ah, fuck it. all this... it means nothing to me. words he spoke out, I've heard it all before, from the mouths of fallen heroes in a country that is no more. economic and social decline, hyperinflation, elitism, corruption, nationalism, patriotism, war, ...empty rhetoric; dictionaries exhausted of words to describe the depths of emotions that ran through them... all bullshit, as it turned out. lesson I got from it all was: you can always trust a politician to be exactly that. to have expectations beyond this simple fact, is just fucking with your own head. i don't feel elated by this show of last throes of The American Dream™. the most accurate short description of what I felt watching this is a kind of sorrow for what has happened to the american ideals, to the image the whole world (me included) was masturbating to for the past decades. i love you all, my american friends, but you're mostly blind to what is happening right now. i recommend a quick beer+jagermeister therapy at your favourite watering hole - nothing makes you see reality in higher definition than a bad hangover

Petty, conflict is petty.

c-c-c-c-comb breaker.

Its all bullshit, and a waste of atomic energy.

He was talking about "organic foods" too, not just social sciences. And I study humanities, and it's basically all bullshit. Lots of theories, but no concrete evidence in any direction. This is what makes it different from, ahem, "real" science, where there are actual objective truths that can be found.

*promote

His drawers with "ALL BULLSHiT" written on 'em had me giggling.

See the discussion at http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Atheist-Delusion
I have little to add. It's all bullshit.

These arguments are all bullshit.

Domestic partnerships aren't the same thing as marriages. Imagine how the average woman would react if her boyfriend asked her to enter into a domestic partnership instead of a marriage.

Catholic Charities voluntarily stopped its adoption work because it thinks that placing children with same sex couples is bad. But there is no evidence of this. Their assumption is based upon bigotry and ignorance and hatred.

It is ridiculous to think that churches would be required to perform marriages that they did not want to perform. And why would a same sex couple be members of a church that did not support their right to marry? This is just simply fear mongering.

What's wrong with teaching children about same sex marriage? Same sex couples are a part of the real world. In most of the country, and especially in California, homosexuals no longer have to hide for fear of their lives. Why not introduce the concept to them in a controlled environment? Is that not what school is for? Preparing children for the real world?

And at the end they call homosexuality a choice. Wonderful. Just because a bigoted, hateful point of view is expressed in a polite manner does not mean it is any less bigoted or hateful then calling for a fag drag.

^ The only problem is that it's all bullshit. Obama, in fact and as usual, said exactly the opposite of what Fox is claiming:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLBaoE7NjOjG6VtBb8hJjgGb-vxwD943LJ8G1


"I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way."

It's not a slippery slope argument. Faith is believing in something without a good reason. Believing in something without a good reason increases your risk of being wrong. Social norms accept some types of faith and not others. But collectively, people believing in things without good reasons increase the risk of social norms being wrong. This gives us problems with theocracy, sexual repression, antihomosexuality, antiabortion, antiatheism, etc. Fifty years from now much of that will be disdained as segregationists are disdained now.

Any one of the following points is enough to refute Pascal's Wager:

*If a god exists, and he is such an asshole that he would send people to hell for doubting his existence, then he is unworthy of worship.

*One cannot simply choose to believe something that one does not actually believe.

*It's not a binary choice, but a choice between atheism and thousands of different religions. What about all of the other religions, which if true, would punish you for choosing the wrong religion? It's all bullshit anyway. Whatever probability you assign to the truth of each religion, I can make up another false religion with an even worse penalty for not believing in it.

>> ^Psychologic:
>>Back before 9-11 when Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty and rejected the Kyoto protocol (somewhat of a change in foreign policy), that was seen as the "Bush Doctrine" of the time. Then after 9-11 it became the "with us or against us" attitude of unilateralism. It wasn't until we invaded Iraq that the "Bush Doctrine" included preemptive war. That's why I said that the term isn't very specific... you can't just look at its first use and claim that is the answer, because it was used well before preemptive war was even mentioned. Personally I thought the current Bush Doctrine was that it is our duty to spread democracy throughout the world.



Yea, that's all I was saying. He was trying too hard for a "got ya" moment. Even after he explained what he meant by it she still tried to avoid answering the question. I'm in no way trying to defend her, but when I was watching the interview and saw him ask that question I was admittedly asking myself "which part of the Bush Doctrine". Perhaps that is a lack of experience on my part.
Either way, I'm in no position to question Palin's abilities, especially with her being the USA's most experienced energy expert and all that. =P



What i'm saying is the first time the actual term "Bush Doctrine" was formally used was in a paper about that speech and it clearly defined what the Bush Doctrine was from that speech. I'll see if I can find it and i'll post a link. From there people have just used it to involve various changes to foreign policy for political expediency.

You've pointed out a perfect example of what i'm saying. You thought the Bush Doctrine included spreading democracy, this just wasn't the case at the time of the speech and the original debate about the Bush Doctrine. The speech was given September 2002, before the US "preemptively" invaded Iraq. Now at this point the reasons for the war were not to spread democracy but to stop Saddam from taking out American cities or giving weapons to terrorists that will. When it turned out there were no weapons suddenly the war wasn't about preemptively taking out someone that was about to kill Americans, it became about liberation and spreading democracy. People thus altered the Bush Doctrine from being focused on preemptive strike to focusing primarily on "spreading democracy." Essentially Bush was bailed out from being called on his bullshit because the media bought this new reasoning for the war and then the doctrine was changed, almost 1984 style except that instead of just erasing "preemptive strike" they added "spread democracy." You're right in that now you could claim spreading democracy is part of the Bush Doctrine but I would call it something different because that's what it is from the original understanding. The original Bush doctrine explained the original justification for the war in Iraq. Following the invasion I would call it the "New Bush Doctrine" or "Post-Invasion Bush Doctrine" or "Bush Doctrine 2.0"


I think we're still arguing the same point, that the Bush Doctrine has been confused. My stance is that it shouldn't have been. And it's no one's fault but the Press and opposition in the US. Bush should have been and should still be getting hammered for the reasons for going into Iraq. Claiming a preemptive strike and then when it turns out they had nothing claiming it was all about spreading democracy and freeing subjugated people. All bullshit and McCain will bring the same when he invades Iran.

Wow. A good Power Point presentation validates all bullshit. And I think my personal spiral is the wound the opposite way of his.

sorry videosiftbanned me, but the reason you've improved is that you made the choice to improve.

you went out, and the act of buying the book was the change.. you said that's it, i'm not happy how things are, i want to change it..

the book was just a comforter.. it may have suggested that you do 1 or 2 generic things, which you did, and your brain made the connection between doing those things and success. it probably spent 10 pages telling you in flowery terms that you had power, to build your power, conserve your power, focus your power, now go out and find a subject you enjoy, and you decided to study it. all it did was tell you to get out and do something. something anyone would have told you on an internet flame post.

maybe it didn't happen in that exact way, but believe me, in one way or another, that's what happened.

it's all bullshit.. you did it, the book didn't help at all.