Englebert

How about we just enforce our laws. Heavily fine any company employing illegals. Heavily fine any company/person renting/providing housing to illegals. Heavily fine any hospital that doesn't report illegals after treatment. Heavily fine any school district that doesn't report illegals. Now how could an illegal stay in a country where he can't work, can't get housing, can't go to the hospital and can't enroll his kids in school. Problem solved. And the government can claim they created millions of jobs.

Like I said, the stuff is out there, just harder to find. There are plenty of links in the article that can point you to much more, if you are so inclined. Or you can just do a Bing (I don't use Google) search. I could spend hours posting link after link but I have no interest in repeating that.

No specific source. But here's a start: [Hidden Content] It's hard to find specific stories I've read because most of them get scrubbed shortly after being published. And I no longer try to find anything on the subject. If you are compelled to study the subject the articles refuting man-made global warming are out there, just buried and not as easily found.

Yes he did. His proclamations varied wildly on the year and amount of sea rise, but he definitely said that most coastal cities would be underwater by now. And the debate is over. LOL. And to think that piece of excrement was a hanging chad away from occupying the White House.

Al Gore proclaimed that the debate is over, man-made global is real, the ice caps would be completely gone and the sea levels would rise 8 to 30 feet (amount varied daily) by the year 2015. This study is just copied and pasted from early studies that predicted the same thing. All they did was move up the year. After all, if there is no cataclysmic future on the horizon, how can they justify the billions of dollars of funding. I think this story would fit better in the National Enquirer along side Cruz's five mistresses than on a self-proclaimed "news" organization. There is plenty of evidence showing glacial growth in other parts of the world. This growth is also progressing at a faster rate than the spots that are showing decline. But somehow these nutjobs proclaim to be scientists. The one study we need right now is one that shows how much money these nutjobs stand to gain if they can convince the public of their gloom and doom theories. Just follow the money.

It's hard to tell. All four leading candidates are polarizing. I clearly see why three of them are, not sure why on the fourth. Many people will come out to vote for their candidate, and many against the "other" candidate. And many people will be so turned off that they won't show up. For some reason I have a strange feeling it will average out to about roughly the same turnout as other elections, even though emotions are higher on both sides. And I think we are buying the same stocks.

I completely forgot to follow up on this topic. I'm conflicted. Geraldo Rivera stated on national TV that the National Enquirer has a reputation for being correct on political stories. Bamatex stated "it's worth noting that the Enquirer is rarely wrong when it breaks the news on political figures' affairs". Westend1 stated "there have been enough baseless allegations against those two [Hillary and Obama] to choke a horse" when referring to the Enquirer. So based on these statements, am I to believe that since the Enquirer is rarely wrong on political matters, that all of the baseless allegations are actually true about Hillary and Obama? Or is the truth really that the Enquirer engages in yellow journalism and gets lucky every once in a while? Someone please enlighten me because I know zero about the National Enquirer.

The only reason I put in that last part was because I don't recall Smitty ever even suggesting the links he posts are facts. He just puts a link, sometimes with a one sentence comment...eerily similar. I'm totally just joking around (which I'm sure you know), but I'm a little surprised you did post a link that has no factual basis and giving some semblance of credibility to it. I just couldn't let that go uncommented.

No need, I believe you. I don't think I've ever seen anything in the National Enquirer except the covers while I'm checking out of the grocery store. I was jokingly responding like someone would if this was posted by Smitty.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be skeptical about. The story itself stated there is no evidence of anything. I might have missed something, but can someone point out anything in the article except accusations with no proof or even probable cause for me to believe it's accuracy? I am also curious as to what the reaction might be if these same allegations would have been directed at Hillary, or even Obama. I'm guessing outrage against the publisher for printing unsubstantiated gossip. The editor would have probably already been fired.

Thanks for the post and links. I was a little skeptical because the incidents you brought up were definitely newsworthy, national newsworthy, and I haven't heard a thing about them. Not that I try to keep up with everything that happens, but I sure thought I would have heard something on this.

I do have a question for you Bamatex. You stated in previous posts that you saw or know about cross-burning, racial slurs spray painted on walls, death threats containing racial slurs, and some other stuff. My question is: Did you or anyone else report these things to the police, and better yet, to the media? All three of these things would have probably made the national news. And I'm sure you could have persuaded Al Sharpton to come down and investigate...uh, I mean give a speech. A guy I know that lives in Beaumont had his driveway spray painted with a racial slur about 10 years ago, and it made the national news. I'm sure cross burning and death threats should garner the media's attention. Did any of these things have a story printed/aired? Just curious.

In fairness to Bamatex, I didn't keep it on an intellectual level either. And for that, I will apologize to Bamatex and the board. ...but he cracked first.

I don't know about beaten. Just not childish enough to continue. It's like fighting with Trump.

Went back and read it. And you're right. You are a condescending douche bag. That's about the only thing you got right in that whole childish post. And by the way, you do know the data in the graph you posted is manipulated data. Anyone that has looked into anything NASA has posted in around the last 8-10 years knows they use manipulated data. Hell, they even admit it. And I would love to build a time machine to go back to the late 1800s/early 1900s to get a look at the temperature scales they used. You know, the ones that can measure temperature all over the world to a hundredth of a degree.

I didn't read it. Too childish.

The whole conversation devolved into the fact that you stated, not that you believe, but the fact that I misunderstood Obama before you ever knew anything about me. For all you knew I could have been Michelle, but somehow you knew that I misunderstood the man. That is the definition of condescension, but you still won't admit it. You can believe I severely misunderstood Obama all you want. In fact, if you would have stated it that way in the first place, I would have probably not even continued with this. And yes, I never said or strongly implied that I've done any research on the man. I said that "you have no idea what I've read, heard, or researched on the man." And you still don't. And what's laughable is you trying to say I reneged on an statement that I made when it was you that in fact made the statement. I'm guessing that you threw out the trial balloon about your experiences of race to divert the conversation to a racial one, at which time you would try to throw out the old race card. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. It's an old tried and true tactic practiced daily. I get called a racist on a daily basis for just saying I disagree with Obama's policies. Hell I get called a racist for saying that I don't care for rap music. I wonder why I don't get called a racist for saying I don't care for Gregorian chants? And no, your personal experiences have no bearing on the discussion. Your personal experiences provide not context and are irrelevant when attempting to ascertain Obama's view's. So you think you can go to Alabama for a few years (I'm guessing four) and then deduce the plight of the black man all across this nation. Are the black lives in Alabama the same or different than say Connecticut? Or North Dakota? Or Alaska? I'm just gonna leave that at WOW. You're not towing the liberal line on man-made global warming. (I prefer the more accurate term, after all, even my dogs know the climate changes. It's called weather.) Obama has stated many, many times that the debate is over. He has also repeatedly stated that 97% of all scientist agree that man is the cause of the warming (when in fact the temperature has remained unchanged for at least the past 16 years). If you attempt to transform the entire national economy based on an ongoing debate, not knowing if your subsequent actions will actually hurt, help, or be inconsequential then you should be fired/impeached. If you attempt to transform the economy based on a lie, then you should go to prison. And I have very little doubt that he knows it is a lie.

No. And thanks for not thinking I was the one sitting in the Defendant's chair.

You did not call me out. I called you out because you said I had a misunderstanding of Obama's view's. Again...let that sink in. I called you out because you arrogantly stated that I had a misunderstanding of Obama's view on race. I made the point that you were condescending because you have no idea what I know about the man, but you arrogantly assumed I was some blowhard you could talk down to. I have never stated that I knew, read, or researched anything on Obama. I said you don't know what I know about the man, but somehow your opinion is more valid than mine. That's the epitome of condescension. But you won't admit it. Again assuming are you. Yes, let Cap & Trade sink in. Anyone that does 30 minutes of research on man-made global warming can quickly find out that it is a lie. And when a president proposes transforming the entire national economy on a lie, in my opinion he should go to prison. I'm fairly certain Obama knows man-made global warming is a lie, but he wants to spend trillions of tax payer dollars on it. Many men have gone to prison for far less.

I got called a racist on here a couple of years ago for making that same statement. Somehow I was accused of speaking in some code language I have never heard of.

Again, by most people standards you were condescending. Deny all you want. I really don't know or care what you think you know about racial issues. It does cut both ways. I have many stories on racism and reverse racism. I also know many, in fact, the majority of people that don't have a racist bone in their body. Maybe it is you that has lived the charmed life. But your life experiences do not afford you any depth of knowledge on what shaped Obama's views. You are the one that felt the need to have to justify Obama's views based on personal experiences. I just reciprocated. And again, your personal experiences do not give you any more insight on Obama's personal experiences, and neither does mine. To say you can understand Obama's views and I only have a misunderstanding of his views is condescending. You have no clue as to what I have read, heard, or researched about the man. I agree Obama could have done a lot more, especially in the first two years when he had both houses. In fact, I think everyone agrees with that. You made the statement enclosed in the paragraph of Obamacare. So I assumed you were talking about Obamacare. If you were referring to a larger scope it would have been helpful if you would have relayed that information. And don't get me started on Cap & Trade, better known as the fallacy of man-made global warming. The Obama Administration had to change the name when they figured out the sheeple weren't following along like they should. The man should go to prison for even suggesting Cap & Trade. Calling it a bad policy is like saying a big pile of crap is just a little distasteful.

I do know the tone in your writing. You were being condescending in two particular sentences. You stated that I have a misunderstanding of one black man's (Obama) perspective and that I will "learn this lesson the hard way when Hillary gets elected." You have no clue as to what I have learned, will learned or refuse to learn. And to state those sentences the way you did is condescending by the majority of people's standards. Furthermore, how in the hell do you think that witnessing (I'm guessing) some acts of racism give you any more perspective than anyone else's on Obama's view of race. I have no idea why you felt the need to share your experiences at Alabama. I suppose you were trying give credence to your perspective, and again, not having a clue as to my experiences. If you want to compare credentials, I'll go along. I have a Master's Of Science degree in Psychology and have done consulting work for over 30 different companies in the last 22 years. The majority of that work has been close involvement with management and HR departments, including hiring and firing practices, dispute resolution (the majority involving racial complaints), and diversification of the labor force. None of which gives me any more clue about Obama's view of race, nor does your personal experiences. When you said Smitty was trying to divide people you also included the phrase "along with your other super conservative buddies". I took that as a blanket statement regarding the majority of posters on this site. I could be wrong and I'll begrudging (based on the tone of that post) give you the benefit of the doubt. I glanced over your last post this morning during a court recess, and one of your statements stuck out: "The idea that something [Obamacare] was "all Obama could get" when his party controlled both houses of Congress is laughable". You stated that if he was more adept he could have gotten much more. I don't know where you were or how well you kept up with the proceedings, but my statement that "was all Obama could get" is factual. He and Pelosi had to plea, beg, threaten, and make side deals to persuade some House Democrats to vote for the monstrosity. They also had to release the bill on the day the vote took place so no one could read it. It was common knowledge among liberal and conservative media that Obama was stretching as far as he could for something that would pass. In fact, most pundits thought that Obamacare would not pass. If you think he could have gotten much more then you are in the slimmest portion of the minority, possibly alone. I'm not going to go through the rest of your post, because basically I don't see us getting anywhere. You have not swayed me in any way that Obama is not the worst president in U.S. history, and I doubt I swayed you in any way. For Bobcat1, I have no clue if Trump can beat Hillary.

I would prefer that you don't talk down to me. You don't have a clue as to my "understanding" of one black man's perspective on race. I am also not ignorant of the consequences of a Hillary presidency. Now, to retort some of your answers. Obama got Obamacare passed because that is as much as he could. A single payer plan would have never passed the House or Senate. I have absolutely no doubt that he would have signed a single payer healthcare bill if it was put on his desk. The dems are taking baby steps to get to the single payer plan. Period. I didn't even mention his involvement in man-made global warming. If given the opportunity, he would (and has tried) to get bills through that would do substantial damage to this country's economy all under the fallacy of man-made global warming. That, along with healthcare, would surpass LBJ's and FDR's crap. Luckily, so far he has been stopped. So yes, I think his intentions are not in the best interest of this country. I do believe he has done everything he can to destabilize and ruin our relationship with every country around the world. Not blatant enough to raise the ire of Dems and get him removed from office, but enough to cause what we have now. I believe it was definitely intentional on his part. Now to the corruption. I guess you forgot about James Rosen and many others. So yes, along with the other things we know Obama and his administration has risen to and above the level of Grant. I'm sure there will be more information we might find out about later. You stated that Buchanan's ambivalence laid the foundation for the Civil War, then answered my statement with the statement that the Civil War was indeed inevitable. So yes, your original statement was bogus. The foundation was already set for the Civil War. Obama's executive order to give illegals amnesty is blatantly against his oath of office, and against the laws of the United States. You might not think illegal immigration is a big deal, but I think that it is the biggest burden on this country (with the interest payments on a 19 trillion dollar debt coming in a distant second). Obama is not trying kill a race of people, but he is actively trying to change to demographics of it. Also, I never mentioned the amount of executive orders. I know other presidents have issued more. It is the scope and scale of the ones he has signed that is so troubling. FDR's interment camps and the Indian Wars were wrong, but done with the intention of strengthening this nation. Obama intentionally stoking racial divide is done with the intention of weakening this country. I'll state it now. I think, without one iota of doubt, that Obama is the worse president to ever grace the oval office. I'm not stating that to invoke any political point, or to try and divide people. That is my opinion and I have the right to state it. I have never read anywhere that Smitty has any kind of divisive intentions. There is not one smidgen of proof. I find it highly ironic that you try to impugn me and Smitty and many others by trying to interpret our intentions, but refuse to believe or acknowledge that Obama's intentions are not morally sound and indisputable.

I'll answer your questions. I'm not going to quote your post because it's full of childish pictures and formatting. To answer every one of the questions in summation: Hell yes Obama is the worst president in U.S. history. Does Obama compare to Jimmy Carter in ineptitude. No, but Carter was doing what he though was good for America. Obama is much worse. He does what he thinks puts America on the path to be a more socialist nation. He doesn't like America's stature in the world and is doing his best to smack us down a notch. Do you think he's as corrupt as Ulysses Grant? Yes. Lois Lerner come to mind. He sat back and did nothing. Fast & Furious! He exerted executive privilege over the documents. The military attired radicals stifling voter turnout. He watch Holder drop the charges and did nothing. Obamacare. He knew full well that we could not keep our existing healthcare plan or doctor, and knew the costs would rise, but lied and lied, and lied some more. (This is by no means a full list.) As lazy and indifferent as James Buchanan, the man whose inaction laid the foundation for the Civil War? That is a bogus statement. The Civil War was coming no matter what Buchanan did. As abusive of executive authority and the constitution as Andrew Jackson? Yes. Sanctuary cities and executive amnesty. His executive orders have been more detrimental to the country than any other president in U.S. history. (This is by no means a full list.) As evilly caught up in racial tensions as any of the presidents that carried out the massacres of the Indians, or even FDR, the man who put every Japanese American in the country in internment camps? FDR was doing what he though was right for the country. Obama knowingly is creating a racial divide...which is pure evil. You had to try and pack the wrongs of many individual presidents to reach the level of Obama's wrongs...unsuccessfully I might add. Then you resort to personal attacks on not only Smitty but to the entire board. I don't know what happened to you lately, but I no longer feel any desire to read your posts.

All I can think of about this is that: Of the money given to low income people with children for purchasing the child's necessities, that money apparently is not going toward diapers. So instead of finding out where that money is going, let's just give out more free money. I think I will be able to understand how women think before I will ever come close to understanding the liberal mind.