KrustyKidd

Why are you looking for a safe place to bury a minor's hole? As screwed up as you have shown yourself to be I never figured you for an evil sicko. :angry:

And you go back and forth as the guy who can't answer

If you are incapable of understanding the relationship between Gandhi and his followers then why would you for a moment figure the guy is even worth mentioning? They did what he told them to do and, what he told them to do was to put themselves in harms way where they were certain to be beat to a pulp. Much like a father would place a two year old in harms way. So, was he a great leader or just a name and why?

Try followers. You know, Gandhi is a leader, they are followers. He tells them what to do and they do it. I would say that this is all lost on you but you seemed to grasp it for a moment here;

It's like you placing your two year old grandson in the middle of a busy street and then blaming the guy who runs over him for his death and then, finally, you, 'Dub the Peaceful' get to proclaim that there should be a traffic light there to slow the cars down.

I was responding to this comment That I did not comment nor post any video should have alerted you to the possibility that I wasn't talking about nor posting a vid. i did post a story by Newsweek thoughg. Why don't you read it to see how Hamas uses it's own population as a human shield rather than wallow in stupidity disguised as outrage born of confusion.

And even they didn't do it. It was the guns and clubs that did. Now as for who created the situation where those people would be sure to be beaten and shot, it was Gandhi. He knew the British would react with violence, in fact, he counted on it and so, sent his followers out to be beaten and killed knowing that the propaganda victory would be his. Just like Hamas fires rockets from the middle of residential areas in the hopes that Israel will attack and cause civilian casualties so they too, can have a propaganda coup.

You are confused as usual. I never contended anything about video in this portion of the discussion. I did however, give a link and this quote so you can see that Hamas as policy, uses their own people as human shields as reported by newsweek; Hey Dub, just wondering, don't you think it is sort of dangerous to be firing those things unnecessarily in the middle of a residential area? It might backfire, return fire might happen. All sorts of dangers Hamas is putting their people in by storing and having these prohibited weapons where women and children congregate.

My opinion? Only loon bats would classify Israeli action as terrorism. Not even the UN or the biased AI does this. A military operation with the intent to deny the enemy capability to attack is not terrorism no matter how you spin it or no matter how scary it may seem to some. Terrorism is completely senseless violence, and, even a moron knows that Hamas operates fluidly everywherre in Gaza. On the other hand, rockets lobbed to land wherever and whenever with no set target is certainly terrorism as the victims are completely random and, there is no military purpose or reasoning in the action.

They did and then they were attacked by six Arab nations. Four of them are still at war with them.

Really? One terrorizes with Russian made weapons and the other conducts a militarary operation with clear objectives - to take out the capability of the enemy to terrorize. If they only wished to terrorize they would simply drop bombs indiscriminently rather than target military leaders, tunnels, suicide bombers houses etc.

Only iin certain cases where the state elicits the aid of a terrorist group to purposely create terrorism against an entity. Terrorism is pretty much senseless acts of violence against random victims in order to create a reaction favorable to creating conditions desired by the group supporting the terrorists from the people targeted or the government protecting the people. A government normally has the power simply to force people to do something or, simply carry out a military operation to force action to create whatever conditions they desire.

She is paying out profits to each and every Alaskan. If she were spreading the wealth, she would be taking money from the rich and not so rich Alaskans and giving to the poor and not so poor Alaskans. Now, in Obama's case, he just takes the company over completely,refuses to sell it back when the company wishes to purchase it, places somebody who has never managed a business in charge of it and then takes from the rich and gives to the poor beyond normal taxes and, as the companies he has taken over no longer can make a profit, unlike Alaska under Palin, nobody gets a share of the profits hence, the poor get money from the rich. That is socialism.

The agreement is that when the oil company drills into the people's land, they pay money hence, it is not the oil company's money but rather the people's at that point. Golly, it's simple capitalism at work. As for Mathews, he says he gets a tingling up his leg when he hears Obama speak. It's on the vid. No, she is a good leader who gives out money to the people which the state earned from capitalist entities that produced a profit as per an agreement with the state to the people. If she were a communist, they would recieve none of that money and be living in state housing while she spent that same money on whatever she felt the state needed. You might want to crack a book or two if you find this confusing.

She doesn't take that money from anybody though, it's already there coming in so instead of filtering it to pet projects of special interest groups and supporters she spreads it to all which is what all good leaders should do once the basics have been covered. Great thread though. Nine months after her relevancy she is still the focus of the Left. More talked about than Bush for crying out loud. And hot. Mmmmmmmm. While Obama might do it for quasie male lefties like Matthews Palin does it for any red blooded man.

It was a distraction wasn't it? Strange they just didn't show the goods to begin with rather than play games like this which only added to the suspicion. Sort of like when asked for two pieces of ID you pull out a pen and paper and write your name on it twice,then when pressed further, your friend vouches for you then when pressed even further you show whomever your keychain with your first name on it and when cornered, you pull out your library card backed up by a gym membership. All the while your drivers license and health card with photo are right in your back pocket.

I think the ones who state Obama was not born in the US I believe are wrong. I also believe that to single Obama out without a firm reason like this is also wrong. However, wrong as it may be for them to ask, to ridicule people for asking for available verification is somewhat silly given we live in a world where this sort of proof should be provided by public officials given this particular one attempted to portray transparency rather than secrecy as one of his pillars of office.

Apparently it is you who has no clue as I, unlike you, would certainly never use a pro Obama site to provide proof to back something of his up with. I said Annenberg was intertwined with dozens of organizations who's activists and heads scratched each others backs. Here is a start for you Wlado Obama Contributors Emerged from Staff and Boards of Annenberg Grantees And the list does go on my simple friend. Indeed, it does go on, and on and on. About two hundred donations worth millions just by having a cursory look. Transparency huh? Waldo! Using Obamacheck.org. Classic!

Huh? Hardly a declaration. Congress voted on a resolution that marked the fiftieth anniversary of the state of Hawaii and also mentioned within it that Obama was born there. From CBS; Good for him. Legally now he has been declared born in Hawaii. All on the word of one single state employee. Punked Explain this with something to clarify what the heck you are saying please. So you are saying that Obama would not have the hospital, doctor attending etc on his? Strange, if he were born in 1961 in Hawaii he would as that was the practice at that time and, that information would have been transposed to an electronic form when the transition to paperless occurred. In Obamas case, since his mother was not 19 (resided in the US for five years after the age of 14) and his father was non US, to be natural born he would have to be born on US soil. Why would it be legal suicide to produce a copy of the doc when it is costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight these 'frivolous' lawsuits? Or a matter of national security and interest such as a Presidential election. It was not debunked months ago in another thread. Are you denying that Annenberg owns factcheck? That $350 thousand was donated to Obamas campaigns by executives of Annenberg? That he and Ayers chaired the Annenberg challenge? What part is viewed as false that you need a link for? When did he provide the proof? To my knowledge he has never, ever produced any birth document to a federal elections official for examination. In fact, isn't that the bill being brought up by Posey so that this sort of thing does not become an issue again? You are right on both counts. It has never been proven in court of law that Barrak Obama did not meet the requirements but really, when somebody asked him to prove he did meet them the case was thrown out. To some, this seems rather odd for a campaign who's main cornerstone was that of transparency. He has not proved a thing. A web site is not a court of law nor is it a federal elections office. Not sure but I think these birthers contend that it was issued fraudulently which might explain why they wish to see the underlying information. State employee decides fate of free world. Nice and legal, hope she's right.

It was never proved in a court of law or, by a federal entity hence, it has only been discussed much like it is here. If those people had a case, that proof, as seen on Waldo's 'Obamacheck.org' and a state employee giving it the thumbs up wouldn't stand up for a second. And how am I giving any credence to the nutjobs Lilly? I keep repeating that they have not shown any reason to have a case to begin with so I can only assume that because I don't jump in and agree with everybody like a sockpuppet, you take it to mean I'm in bed with the birthers.? Talk about black and white with free thought going down the toilet.

I'm afraid you have it backwards, they are asking Obama to prove something, not the other way around. I'd like for Obama to prove they are wrong however, it is they who are asking for proof and he is the one not providing it to their stated satisfaction. As I said earlier though, I would like to understand why they seem to feel his mother was traveling near the end of her term. Only Waldo would use the Annenberg Foundation to prove anything about Obama. you know, the same Annenberg Foundation that both he and Ayers worked for when heading the $46 million dollar Chicago Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The same Annenberg foundation that owns the Factcheck.org that he uses as proof and, who's board members contributed over three hundred fifty thousand dollars to his political campaigns. Edited to add: Waldo Which makes it all that easier to access the information that the original Birth Certification contained that the birthers wish to have produced. Waldo! You haven't a clue do you?

These birthers seem to feel that his mother was out of the country at the time of his birth. Why, I have no idea. If there is any validity to their claim (which I have not seen) then it is would be a serious federal matter requiring an examination of the document by a federal entity rather than a state employee simply saying that it looks ok to her.

I don't question that as I believe he was born in the US. I do wonder why an explanation of the difference between two documents as requested by Guthrie is considered by yourself as nutty though. Perhaps you can explain that one? As for the State saying it is fine I am sure it is quite legal though it may not contain any exacting information as to exactly where he was born and who was attending the birth. I do wonder why he spends tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of dollars defending himself instead of producing a document though. For those who say that the birthers would not be satisfied, a counter suit could then be filed requesting court costs which would then more than likely stifle any continued suits.

His citizenship was never in question. It is the criteria that any presidential candidate must be born in the USA. For example, Shwartzenegger is a US citizen however, can never be president, even though he has attained the position of Governor. The birthers are contending that Obama has not proved he was born in the USA and maintain for some reason, that his mother was not on US soil when he was born. Furthermore, when his fatehr is not a US national and his mother has not spent five years in the US when over the age of 14, he is not a US citizen and must apply for that status. While I feel it rather strange that Obama would take the trouble and cost to put up what must be a costly defense against these charges when he could simply show the Birth Certificate itself is only surpassed by the question I have of the birthers which is what leads them to the suspicion that Stanly Duram was not in this country and instead, in Kenya when he was born.

All orthodox religious people are very emotional and sometimes, extreme in their views be they Jews, Christians or Muslims. You know that. It is however, not indicative of Israeli society just as abortion doctor killers are indicative of US society.