What's the Story, Morning Glory?

Here is the gist of the "birther issue" (a not so subtle put-down of anyone who even thinks about it.

Barrack's grandmother, among others in Kenya, say he was born there and that they witnessed it.

The certificate of live birth is a substitute form, not a real birth certificate. The one posted online for viewing has been digitally altered recently--many believe it was his sister's and was altered to put Barrack's information on it.

A real birth certificate has a seal on it, original signature of the attending physician, place of birth as in hospital, etc. None of this has been presented.

The governor of Hawaii recently said he was going to find it and release it to the media because he was sick of the controversy. He shortly changed his mind; was it because it did not exist?

To get a passport you have to submit a certified copy of your birth certificate. To receive Social Security benefits, you must produce your birth certificate.

But the Democratic Party failed to do their due diligence concerning Barrack's eligibility to run for president. The various state election officials also failed to do their jobs.

The clippings from the 2 newspapers on the announcement of his birth could easliy be produced by government forgers.

But as Sam has eloquently stated, it does not matter. I suspect the truth will be like the Kennedy assassination conspiracies--the release of those documents are slated for far in the future.

Do you remember the Lusitania? Our government contended for decades that the German Uboat sank a passenger liner. After about 70 years they admitted the hold was filled with war munitions for the Allied forces--they didn't think the Germans would attack a passenger liner. Wrong. That's why the ship sank so quickly.

Do you remember the Korean jet that was shot down by North Korea. The official story was that it strayed over the border. Anyone who flies aircraft knows you set the auto pilot and such a drift is not possible--the computer will tell you the tragectory is wrong before you lock it in.

About the "near shutdown" of government, I think people are asking the wrong questions. I think the real question is why wasn't the budget handled last year like it was supposed to.

Mike,

I have some questions about energy policy. You said: "One really has to wonder just how safe nuclear power plants are". When people, usually on the left, complain about nuclear energy, coal energy, oil energy, etc. what is the alternative? People complain about how bad everything is but don't have any legitimate suggestions. Are we supposed to go back to candles and horses?

Do you have any proof if your statements? It seems to be a lot of speculation on your part. It's amazing you won't take the word if the President but you have no issues believing people that can only offer at best wild speculation and delusions of grandeur.

"Barrack's grandmother, among others in Kenya, say he was born there and that they witnessed it."

That story was debunked almost as soon as it came out, so why use a false story as proof?

"The certificate of live birth is a substitute form, not a real birth certificate. The one posted online for viewing has been digitally altered recently--many believe it was his sister's and was altered to put Barrack's information on it."

There is absolutely no truth to this statement what-so-ever. There is no copy. The certificate of live birth is the actual document released by the state of Hawaii. Add on top of that the fact that all of the certificate of live births that Hawaii releases are done digitally on a computer makes it impossible to make alterations that can be seen.

"But the Democratic Party failed to do their due diligence concerning Barrack's eligibility to run for president. The various state election officials also failed to do their jobs."

Since Obama is an American like you I would say that everyone did their jobs just fine.

"The clippings from the 2 newspapers on the announcement of his birth could easliy be produced by government forgers."

This is nothing but pure wild speculation. But let's think about this the government is hiding the fact (in your mind) that Obama is not American, so they produce a fake certificate of live birth that is so bad that even when done digitally you can tell that it has been altered and was more than likely his sister's document yet they turn right about and completely fabricate two birth notifications that look like they were taken directly from the newspapers. THink about that for a minute.

"I think the real question is why wasn't the budget handled last year like it was supposed to."

Simple answer it was blocked and had to be tabled.

"When people, usually on the left, complain about nuclear energy, coal energy, oil energy, etc. what is the alternative? People complain about how bad everything is but don't have any legitimate suggestions. Are we supposed to go back to candles and horses?"

Again simple answer, the solutions are out there and have been out there for years, but because you apparently don't think that anything having to do with nuclear, coal, or oil is legitimate then it is extremely hard to even give alternatives.

But the most common are the three that for the foreseeable future will not run out; sun, wind, water. Can you imagine if the amount of money that has been spent on finite resources had been spent on renewable resources instead how efficient they would be now? We don't want to spend the money we have to now to fuel up our vehicles but we also don't want to spend the money so that we won't have to fuel up our vehicles anymore. It's a Catch-22.

Mike - Why has Obama not simply posted a copy of his birth certificate? I had never heard of a certificate of live birth before this. I have a birth certificate. Obviously Obama has one also as he was born in Hawaii and traveled to a foreign country as a child. Therefore, he HAS to have one because by law he has produced it to obtain his passport that he used to travel as a youngster.

Do you see why people are curious? By Law He Had To Produce It When He Was A Small Child To Travel. So Therefore He must Have one.

Unless of course he was not born in the US then he would not need a US passport.

Wallis

Mike,

Why do you always demand everyone else "prove" their statements, but have no problem with making unfounded claims of your own?

"Why has Obama not simply posted a copy of his birth certificate?"

What is the miscommunication here Wallis? In Hawaii, by law, only the certificate's of live birth are released to individuals. By law, Obama, can not just "simply" post his birth certificate. I really do not know where the disconnect is. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. Maybe you need to call or email someone at the correct department in Hawaii and ask them.

most of you who read my postings know me to be conservative. I am very weary of this "birther" controversy; I dont have a clue as to why the conservatives cannot get over this issue. Suppose Obama doesnt have the certificate you all demand; I, for one, believe it is on file. If it isnt, if he is not a legitimate citizen, what are you going to do about it at this point?

question Michael: you stated that the budget bill was blocked. By whom? Didnt the Democrats have control of the House, Senate and Presidency at that time? I heard Charlie Rangel say there was no burning desire to get it done in October '10. You dont suppose the Dems were worried about election losses, do you?

"Why do you always demand everyone else "prove" their statements, but have no problem with making unfounded claims of your own?"

I could ask the same of you but I know you would just throw in a petty insult, call me a name, and call it a day. Oh and I don't demand that everyone else "prove" their statements, I ask that people prove their statements.

Yes the Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate but there were enough Democrats that could defect to block any real effort to get a budget done. As political as Congress has gotten in the last 20 years I wouldn't doubt for a second that the reason there was no burning desire as Rangel put it because the Democrats knew they were going to lose at least one majority and if the Republicans wanted to put up the effort to block any attempt to get a budget done then the Democrats would be happy to push it down the road and let the Republicans take the heat for a federal shutdown.

Right now the mood in Washington, in both parties, is to position yourself for the next election.

Mike- I think Obama was born in Hawaii.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Apr 12, 2011, at 7:25 PM

Unless of course he was not born in the US then he would not need a US passport.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Apr 13, 2011, at 3:21 PM

Clearly spoken by someone who believes someone was born in the United States. If you actually believe something Wallis, there is no need for a "but" statement.

"I could ask the same of you but I know you would just throw in a petty insult, call me a name, and call it a day"

Aren't you just continuing to do what you told Sir Didymus you find repugnant? You are using your perception of someone else's behavior to excuse your own. By the way good job running away from my question........again. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Thank you doodle bug for illustrating the point I was hoping Michael was secure enough to address on his own, I'm not surprised he didn't. Perhaps Michael only takes offence when the Repugs play politics.

Michael, how many times does it take for a question to become a demand in your opinion? Personally, I think you are trying to spin again in your fear of answering a question. Demand/ask really a matter of semantics imo. Why do you ask people to "prove" their statements when you have no problem making unfounded claims of your own? Especially when you then do not answer questions or try to support your claims.

Just goes to show how easily manipulated people and the media are and by Donald Trump of all people since this is the only reason anybody is mentioning this again. Issue is done for me so moving on...

"Right now the mood in Washington, in both parties, is to position yourself for the next election."

Right now? Haha. When was the last time it wasn't?

"Can you imagine if the amount of money that has been spent on finite resources had been spent on renewable resources instead how efficient they would be now?"

The difference is that oil and nuclear energy didn't have near as much money spent to make them feasible as what we've already spent on renewable energy. The reason why, you ask? It's because they already work efficiently and were already feasible. With so many renewable resources, you not only have extraction issues such as the building of the infrastructure and process to extract the energy but you have feasibility and efficiency issues on top of that.

The point is that government and private companies weren't doing even half of what they are now to develop oil, natural gas, nuclear, coal, etc as a viable energy source like they are with renewable energy. It's like investing in a company with no business plan, they have to show they can cashflow first. Companies developing renewable energy get subsidies and so do oil companies but the government needs to stop subsidizing both. People don't want alternative energy, they want a replacement energy. Anything we develop must take us forward not back.

Mike if I accused you of not being born in the United States how would you prove me wrong? You would go pull out your birth certificate and shove it in my face. Obama has been having people accusing him of not being born in the United States for years and the movement is picking up momentum.

Just shove your birth certificate in their face Barry. You would Mike - I would -we all would. We all would except the President of the United States.

I do think that he was born in Hawaii. Because the damage to high ranking individuals in power would bring this country to it's knees if he wasn't. People will go to jail. None of the laws he signed would be valid. None of his appointees would be valid. It would cause a nightmare.

Mike,

Here is an interesting hypothetical for you. Using your argument: "Under the United States Constitution and and later a 1795 law passed by Congress a person born to a US Citizen, no matter where they are born, is a US Citizen. The Constitution states that a "natural born citizen" shall be eligible for President. Had the founders explicitly meant that the person had to be born on American soil they would have no doubt stated that. The 1795 law states that "the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States." In 1934, a new law was passed that made children born to female American citizens outside the United States, citizens as well."

You seem to be making a case that the founders would not approve of the children of non-citizens, born on the soil of the United States being declared citizens. After all shouldn't they be citizens of thier parents' country of citizenship, just like American's born abroad?I patiently await your spin....err response.

Since apparently any answer I give you SW you have already determined to be spin there really is no need to answer any of your questions.

He is an American citizen Wallis no matter how you want to slice it.

If there was anyway shape or form to prove that Obama was not an american citizen for all the crazy conservatives out there who hate him with a passion (congress members included) who have the power and authority to do something about it they would.. but by their silence you can tell there is nothing they can do as all alley ways have bee tried and failed... you really think the republican party would let some democrat be the president of the united states who they hate if he was not an american citizen???

He is period.. done end of story... close the book already.. otherwise something wou;d have been done by now...

"Since apparently any answer I give you SW you have already determined to be spin there really is no need to answer any of your questions."

Run and hide, Michael just like you usually do. And you call me immature. Although you are following a maxim of Abraham Lincoln, for that I applaud you.

I don't think the issue is his citizenship so much, although to be sure there are plenty of fools who question it. My concern would be why someone who promises transparency spends so much effort and money to remain opaque.

Mike,

So far I'm made about 5 post on here asking you serious questions, without any of the name calling that you say I do every time and yet you still refuse to answer. Why are you so afraid of debate or someone questioning you?

for all you liberals who(and for you clueless), "love" Obama; the vast majority of conservatives believe that Obama is a citizen. Why do you have the terrible need to keep rising to the bait whenever Obama's citizenship is brought up? Are you not able to relegate the loons to the irrelevance that they are? In my estimation, you only give them traction.

Doodle,

My opinion is this is a function of their incredibly thin skin. As Michael has said several times, when he believes that someone is insulting him, he will respond.

thank you doodle, I agree with you and obama. Why rise to the bait? I just laugh as im sure obama does everytime he hears about it,.

I have ask doodle, what is with the quotation marks around love?

I do disagree with your traction statement though, and this is why. The reason I do it is because it brings out the ridiculousness of the whole thing. Unfortunately the main stream media (that supposedly believes that Obama is God, judging from comments on this site and Sam) continually puts these people on the air when they bring it up.

I agree with you that it is a non-story, but as long as the media continues to give air time to fringe people who continually bring it up I will answer to it.

Mike is right about the media. The worst on this issue, by far, has been CNN. They seem to wait for the slightest whisper of anyone mentioning the issue and they dedicate an entire segment to it. They were rehashing this thing even before Trump came along but well after everyone else had given up on reporting anymore.

the quotation marks around love was in response to clueless commenting that conservatives hate Obama. I dont hate the man but I strongly disagree with his policies.

And Michael, in my opinion, responding to fringe elements only puts you on the fringe too.

Doodle,

You forget that Michael proudly puts himself in the fringe.

Mike is a "Proud" fringe Robot.

I'm really interested in anyone's opinion on Michael's argument about the Founder's and citizenship conferred by the citizenship of parents. He is apparently too cowardly to respond, but I would be willing to entertain opinions from anyone else. Does anyone know if other nations have similar laws?

McCook, CNN has become the worst of the three networks. I don't watch any of them anymore. None of the channels care about reporting the news, just rumors and speculation and beating each other to a story first regardless if it is true or not.

For someone who doesn't insult, you sure insult a lot SW.

But since you asked so nicely (yes I am actually rolling my eyes) you should really attempt to read our Constitution and amendments sometime. Amendment 14 states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

There's my spin ... err response for you.

FactCheck.org, says" FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."

We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. "

Then where are the photos of the "original birth certificate"?

Why did FactCheck.org only post a "prima facie copy"?

Can you accept the truth that FactCheck.org has committed wire fraud by implying they posted the original, while posting a "prima facie copy"?

Look at the back of Edith Coats' Birth Certificate and look at Obama's COLB.

Edith Coats Hawaii Longform 1962 #151- 62 - 08498

http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg

http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_rear.jpg

http://passportsusa.com/?page_id=209

Edith Coats' Birth Certificate is stamped on the rear:

"I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH""

Edith Coats has displayed a true copy of an original birth certificate, which contains public and confidential information.

Barack Obama's COLB:

http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/barack_rear.jpg

Barack Obama's COLB is stamped on the rear:

"I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE IN THE HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH""

Obama displayed an abstract. Do you believe in Obama?

If Senator Obama, a US Citizen, wants to be a US President, then the US Constitution says he must be a natural born citizen.

Obama, by admitting his father was born in Kenya and never naturalized to a US Citizen, has already proved he is not a natural born citizen.

Aliens within the US, are under "consular jurisdiction" of their nation.

Foreign consulates are authorized in the US under treaty.

The requirement that for consular registration within one year of birth applied only if the father was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC) by descent only and the child was also to become a CUKC by descent rather than birth in the UK or colonies. As Barack Obama Sr, was born in the colony of Kenya, he was a CUKC by birth rather than descent. Thus, Barack Obama II was capable of becoming a CUKC by descent without the need for consular registration.

British Nationality Act, 1948

(11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.

Part II Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Citizenship by birth or descent.

5. Citizenship by descent.

"5.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless--

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or"

When trying to articulate the qualifications for the Office of the US President, it is important to remember s/he is also the Commander in Chief of the military, the militias, and can declare martial law. It is therefore imperative to narrow the possible candidates who from birth on the soil and of the blood of two citizens, would derive loyalty to this soil and people. The natural born citizen, owes loyalty to no foreign nation or people, and is the only pool of candidates for the Office of the US President.

A natural born U.S. citizen can choose dual citizenship at majority, but must relinquish foreign nationality before taking political office in the US, and anybody previously a dual-national is ineligible for the US Presidency and Commander of the military.

A person born a dual-national is not eligible to ascend to the presidency.

Kenya Aviation

Obama's parents married on February 2, 1961, and by estimation of gestation (based on the published date of birth) she was 3-months pregnant with Jr. These two were college students and newlyweds. His kin and her in-laws were in Kenya. There were three airports in the British Kenya Colony and Protectorate, as early as 1938, at (East to West) Mombasa, Nairobi and Kisumu. His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Luo from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. The Kisumu airport is about 6-miles from where Obama's family lives. If the parents went to Kenya on school holidays, and boarded a flight home in Kisumu-Nairobi-Mombasa. Pregnancy complication could have forced a stay in Mombasa, with delivery in Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, British Kenya Colony and Protectorate. Classes started in September.

Michael,

Well, I suppose I should give you partial credit, you did finally produce an answer. Unfortunately, but predictably, you answered a question that wasn't asked. I believe this is a function of the spin you must apply in order to convice yourself you are right and being picked upon. Mr. History Student at prestigious university, when was the 14th ammendment passed?

What did you find insulting in any of my first 5 posts?

Typical I give you a straight response tour line of questioning and without any analysis if what I actually said (did you even actually read my response? Or re-read your own line if questioning?) you declare that I am spinning and not even answering your questions. So typical.

Michael,

My question was about the Founders and was drawn directly from your blog. Your response did not address the Founders, rather you brought up an amendment that was over 3 generations removed from the Founders. Coincidentally your response cites law from the time that you have declared coincides with the Fall of the Republic. Using that as a basis, I felt maybe you would be willing to have a historical discussion on what you view the intent of the Founders and thus the Republic. Instead you addressed a time that I didn't question. Perhaps you think I am so unintelligent that I cannot read or understand the law and that is why you engage in trite offhand answers that do not lead to debate.

That is why I said you, once again, answered a question that wasn't asked. You have a troubling tendency to do this. When I ask you a simple direct question, you filter the question in your mind into something I didn't ask then respond to your altered perception.

FactCheck.org, says" FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate."

We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. "

Then where are the photos of the "original birth certificate"?

Why did FactCheck.org only post a "prima facie copy"?

Can you accept the truth that FactCheck.org has committed wire fraud by implying they posted the original, while posting a "prima facie copy"?

-- Posted by borderraven on Fri, Apr 15, 2011, at 2:04 AM

I don't know where you get some of your information but this is patently false. IF you will follow the link below you will clearly see the certificate of live birth with even a, GASP, raised seal. So Wallis and Boomer with this document President Obama could and did get a drivers license and passport. This also invalidates your Edith Coates claim raven:

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

If Senator Obama, a US Citizen, wants to be a US President, then the US Constitution says he must be a natural born citizen.

Obama, by admitting his father was born in Kenya and never naturalized to a US Citizen, has already proved he is not a natural born citizen.

-- Posted by borderraven on Fri, Apr 15, 2011, at 2:12 AM

Under US law you are once again pushing patently false information. US Citizens only need one parent to be a resident of the United States for that person to be a resident as well. Obama's mother was from Kansas, so it doesn't matter where his father was from.

Mike is a "Proud" fringe Robot.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Apr 14, 2011, at 8:00 PM

Who's the true fringer, the person that agrees with 99.9% of all scientists that global warming is real, or the person that not only disagrees with those scientists but believes that our warmer temperatures are directly related to sunspot activity?

Who is the true fringer, the person who once looking at all the evidence believes the President to be a United States resident, or the person who once looking at all the evidence, still wants more proof?

Then again, if disagreeing with anything you say or believe makes me fringe, then I am a VERY proud fringer. (can't wait until this is taken out of context)

Bravo Michael,

You are once again utilizing the infallable "I know you are but what am I?" school of debate.

"then I am a VERY proud fringer" Are you saying that you are a side order at Runza's? How's that for out of context :)

Yeah mike, you are not a robot, way to show your individuality.

BTW, I think that your scientist numbers are off. I understand that the number is lower than 99.9%

I am pretty amused at how you react to stimuli. I would like to believe that someone as irrational sounding as you were spreading disinformation and engaging in spin. But I am starting to wonder if you are really unhealthy.

Mike,

I wonder why you are seeming to be so offended by being associated with the fringe. Haven't you said a number of times that you are "extreme far left"?

Mike - I have now concluded that you are not ignorant. You are something else..............

You contradict yourself within the same sentence sometimes.

The Robot continues to answer questions with the only programming that he has.

Sir Didymus,

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!! Even to suggest that in your opinion Michael is incorrect is intolerable! Don't you know by now that he is correct and any contradictory statements are LIES made by non-liberals (remember liberals can't lie).

Wallis,

"Mike - I have now concluded that you are not ignorant. You are something else.............."

I hope you aren't suggesting that Michael isn't as intelligent as he thinks he is or you too will be on his naughty list. See above for reference to liberals and inaccuracies.

SW,

So sorry sir, I should know better. Or Perhaps I was just lying, as I am not a "fringer" ...Mmmmm... frings.

There goes that group think again. You guys excel at that.

I must apologize I was slightly off on my numbers. The numbers are actually at 90%.

yes Michael, almost 10% is only "slightly" off.

As for group think, when I mentioned you and dawg were writing back and forth, didnt you call my attention to the fact that those who think similarly usually do write back and forth to each other?

Michael,

I don't know what you mean by group think, I agreed with you and am trying to defend you from the LIES of the conservative hordes since bigdawg wasn't around to do it for you, wait, does that mean we share group think now? Awesome!

Although to be fair, I agree with Sir Didymus that frings are tasty as all get out.

Even you gotta admit, Michael, that your argument with Wallis about the fringers came off just as I described it.

Michael is engaging in group think with the frings. Man, I could make so many insulting comparisons....Nah, Ill leave it alone. That wouldn't be nice.

And from what I can gather, Mike's 90% is still pretty high for all scientists. I was looking around last night and some Green sites listed lower numbers.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warmin...

Michael,

One thing that was interesting from the article you posted is that 47% of petroleum geologists in 2008 thought man effected global warming. Since Wallis says he is a petroleum geologist or some such thing, it certainly isn't odd that he doesn't seem to think there is man effected global warming. He seems to be with the majority in his field.

Although to be fair to Sir Didymus' point, that article is from a study almost three years old and I believe that lately the pendulum is swinging the other way.

As for group think, when I mentioned you and dawg were writing back and forth, didnt you call my attention to the fact that those who think similarly usually do write back and forth to each other?

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Apr 16, 2011, at 12:57 PM

That's not group think doodle. Group think occurs when a catchphrase or description is used and soon other people begin to pick it up and use it to describe someone, or something. In this case, I was called a fringe robot after you pointed out that when I do answer the fringers I become a fringe element as well, as soon other posters began to call me different variations of fringe as well.

Now, I know that because I said (in full context)"Then again, if disagreeing with anything you say or believe makes me fringe, then I am a VERY proud fringer." that Wallis, SW, or Didymus will try to take those words out of context (or as Didymus already has done) and insist that I called myself a fringer.

It has nothing to do with two people (or more) having similar beliefs talking back and forth. Group think is always directed at other people or objects.

SW, Please point out at any given time that you have EVER agreed with me.

I get the feeling, though, that you have no idea how the whole "I know you are but what I am" actually goes. But it is funny that you, of all people, would ever chastise anyone else about school yard tactics when you thrive off of them.

Although to be fair to Sir Didymus' point, that article is from a study almost three years old and I believe that lately the pendulum is swinging the other way.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Apr 16, 2011, at 4:22 PM

I know you are not going to, because even though you demand everyone prove their points, you never yourself seem to have to prove your points, but...

Do you have any proof that the pendulum is swinging or is this your own un-scientific opinion.

By the way, SW, great way of taking the poll and the article completely out of context. That 47% believe that global warming is immaterial to this argument. That's not what the argument is about SW. The argument is over global warming (climate change) not what causes it.

What you left out is that 82% of the respondents believe that man has had an affect.

of course Michael, I stand corrected.

lol I "believe" most conservative posters on here are generally trying to get your "hackles" up and very seldom do you fail to rise to the bait. "Rise to the bait" - - a catchy phrase but I have been over-using it. I will attempt to refrain.

Michael,

"I get the feeling, though, that you have no idea how the whole "I know you are but what I am" actually goes."

Please illuminate me oh sage of the playground, how does it go?

"Do you have any proof that the pendulum is swinging or is this your own un-scientific opinion."

Pure opinion and I agree it is not very scientific (here is at least one time I agree with you since you demanded proof). You see, the middle of the sentence that you are addressing has a big clue, right there in black and white are the words: "I believe". That separates it from the part of the sentence that expressed fact: namely that the article you cite is from a study about 3 years old. I believe (ANOTHER OPINION HERE FOR ANYONE WHO STRUGGLES WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE) that you so often state your opinion as fact that you assume others do as well.

Michael,

In RE: to the article and the poll. I think (OPINION ONCE AGAIN FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T TELL)you are yet again not reading what I write, that you spin what I say in your mind into whatever you've decided I must mean without reading the actual words.

I'm not really sure what this means:"That 47% believe that global warming is immaterial to this argument." Are you saying that 47% (of who I don't know) think that the subject of global warming is immaterial to the argument? Because you then say the argument is about global warming, perhaps you can see my confusion.

However, I would like to address my actual words, and not your perception. I merely said ONE thing I found interesting, I didn't disregard anything I just chose not to summarize the entire article. I was pointing out that Wallis is well in line with those of his profession, since you continue to bring up his global warming beliefs I thought you might also find it interesting that amongst his peers he is not at all a "fringer". So when you imply he is a "fringer" you should perhaps recognize that he is also amongst the majority of his profession. How do you think mentioning something from the article is taking it out of context?

On the subject of "fringers" (I can't help but think of Runza) does anyone have a percentage that they would consider a fringe? Any statisticians read this pap?

I don't see how you justify your argument SW. The article only states that 47% believe it to be man made in his field. The article gives no indication of what the numbers are that believe that global warming (climate change) is occurring per field. To suggest that he is in the majority with missing information is a classic case of adding value.

The reason you are taking it out of context (as I have previously stated) is because you are taking a percentage that believe man has a hand in global warming and changing it to mean those that believe in global warming, which is not the case.

I wonder Mike. With Monday being tax day are you one of those that pays no Federal Taxes at all? If that is the case than you sure are sorry for trying to tell the rest of us how the government should spend our money.

So tell me Mike - Is it our money or some of yours to??

Wallis

Micheal,

Seriously dude, read what I type please.

You said:"The reason you are taking it out of context (as I have previously stated) is because you are taking a percentage that believe man has a hand in global warming and changing it to mean those that believe in global warming, which is not the case."

Please read here what I posted, which you then spun in your mind to be something I didn't say.

"One thing that was interesting from the article you posted is that 47% of petroleum geologists in 2008 thought MAN EFFECTED global warming. Since Wallis says he is a petroleum geologist or some such thing, it certainly isn't odd that he doesn't seem to think there is MAN EFFECTED global warming. He seems to be with the majority in his field"

I capitalized the pertinent context which you spun out in your reading. Go ahead and look back at my post, I haven't changed any thing other than to provide greater emphasis for people who like to make accusations without reading what is written.

I didn't say anything about whether global warming existed or not, that was all you buddy. I think this whole episode is a classic example of your inability to read for content and tendency to try to make everything fit in your preconceived ideas.

I await your apology.

SW,

Hope you packed a Lunch for your wait for an apology. And since frings don't keep very well you better pack some of those little peanut butter filled pretzels for a snack later. It will probably be a while.

I am sure that mike will have to write another paper or something. At least untill wallismarsh postes something different so he can do another blog.

Mike " Do you pay Federal Income Taxes?"

Wallis

Full Disclosure -

I pay Federal Taxes

I pay Property Taxes

I pay Payroll Tax

I pay Severance Tax

I pay State Taxes

and we all pay sales tax.

So are you in the 50% of American households that pay no Federal Tax at all?

Paid my taxes in February, thanks for asking.

You need to pay a little more attention SW. Wallis isn't arguing that global warming isn't manmade, he is arguing that global warming doesn't exist. After all, as he said, it was 29 the other day in McCook and that is all the proof he needs.

Mike,

I think you need to pay more attention yourself. From what I read, SW was basically saying that it isn't suprising that Wallis doesn't buy into human effected global warming because the majority of folks in wallis' field doesn't. You seem to have to turn everything into an argument, even observations.

As a side-note, I find it interesting that you, and many on the left, use global warming and climate change interchangebly.

Wallis, I believe you just been caught misrepresenting the truth about taxes. Not only is your 50% mark wrong, but so is your myth about paying no taxes.

The truth is about 45% of Americans will owe no taxes this year. Now there is a huge difference between paying no taxes and owing no taxes as I am sure you well know.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm?hpt=T2

Now I know you would never purposely misrepresent or mistake information, so I will just chalk this up to a careless mistake.

That's probably because global warming and climate change are the same thing Didymus. Both describe the same occurrence.

By the way that is why SW needs to pay more attention when he feels the need to interject himself into an argument. Wallis doesn't believe in global warming period. So to say that he is in the majority of his industry based on a poll that only showed what percentage those in his industry believed had to do with manmade is misleading at best and using the information out of context. The poll in question does not break down what those in wallis' field believe when it comes to global warming itself. With the overall number in the poll being 90% once could estimate that those in the petroleum field is above the 47% mark.

Michael,

Interesting you address Wallis' mistake but not your own.

I initially had thought you had made a mistake when you misrepresented what I said. Now, because of your persistence in clinging to clearly false information, I feel you must be "outright" lying and too cowardly to admit when you are wrong.

Item 1: "You need to pay a little more attention SW. Wallis isn't arguing that global warming isn't manmade, he is arguing that global warming doesn't exist"

This contradicts a comment you made earlier in this thread: "Who's the true fringer, the person that agrees with 99.9% of all scientists that global warming is real, or the person that not only disagrees with those scientists but believes that our warmer temperatures are directly related to sunspot activity?"

It appeared to me that you were arguing that Wallis is among those who believe that changes in temperatures are related to increased or decreased solar activity, because you clearly imply some people believe that is the cause of global warming, not man's effect.

Item 2: Even if I was mistaken about Wallis' belief that the temperature hasn't changed at all over the past 200 years as you indicate, this doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented what I said. Look at what I said please. I clearly laid out that Wallis would be with the majority of his peers if he did not believe the MAN WAS THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. I did not say he would be in the majority with those who say the temperature hasn't changed as you falsly said I did.

Item 3: You tried to conflate two opinions where only one opinion existed. As I have said several times now, I was only referencing those who don't believe that MAN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING.

I still await an apology, I wonder if I shall have to wait several weeks similar to another time when you made clearly false statements but refused to back off of them, you remember don't you, the Giffords shooting.

If you continue to persist in this, I believe you will be shown to by a liar and coward. After all, it takes a small man to make accusations but a bigger man to recognize when he is wrong.

"By the way that is why SW needs to pay more attention when he feels the need to interject himself into an argument. Wallis doesn't believe in global warming period. So to say that he is in the majority of his industry based on a poll that only showed what percentage those in his industry believed had to do with manmade is misleading at best and using the information out of context. The poll in question does not break down what those in wallis' field believe when it comes to global warming itself. With the overall number in the poll being 90% once could estimate that those in the petroleum field is above the 47% mark."

Funny, how is noting an interesting tidbit from an article you posted, "interjecting" myself into an argument. You posted the article for all to read, I just shared something interesting I thought about it. If you would read my words, (why do I feel I'm talking to the walls here) you would see, I never made a claim about global warming reality, just the cause, the harder you try to lie and say I did, the weaker you appear.

It's amazing how you can exclude just one or two words in your attempt to change what I said. But I understand, everything must fit your preconceived notions.

Still waiting for my apology.

Michael,

"Since Wallis says he is a petroleum geologist or some such thing, it certainly isn't odd that he doesn't seem to think there is MAN EFFECTED global warming. He seems to be with the majority in his field"

See the context, which you ignored that clearly states my position that if he doesn't think MAN CAUSES global warming, not "if he doesn't believe temperatures have changed" like you say I said. Funny you complain about people taking things out of context when you are such an old hand yourself.

Still waiting for my aplogy.

perhaps he would aqpoligize if you had not called his blog a waste if time. Be the bigger person transplant and say your sorry first.

bigdawg,

I have apologized when I have said inaccurate things about people. I cannot in good conscience apologize for something I believe to be true. Why do you think blogs are not a waste of time? I've asked you before and don't remember getting an answer. What is a blog for other than wasting time? I think you are confusing "waste of time" with "waste of space", I'm not making any judgement call on the quality of the blog, all blogs are for wasting time in my opinion, perhaps you missed my discussion about that previously.

However I disagree with you here, I don't think that is the reason Michael will not apologize, I think he cannot bear the idea of having to apologize to me under any circumstances. I think this is apparent especially in light of the clear evidence above and his persistence in trying to spread false information.

Michael,

I was wasting some more time this afternoon when I came across this nugget:

"The Earth is constantly changing with heating and cooling so your claim of climate change is a statement of fact.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jan 20, 2011, at 5:55 PM"

OH NO!!!!! Not only are you lying about what I said, you are also lying about what Wallis said while you are lying about what I said. He clearly said on Jan. 20 in response to your blog that the climate changes. Therefore, I don't believe I was mistaken about his beliefs, I think you were lying to try to play "gotcha".

This brings Sir Didymus and your discussion about ethics back to me, when you essentially said that it is ok to lie when you feel it is neccessary. It begins to make more sense to me.

Apparently they don't work too hard on either ethics or reading for content at prestigious ATU.

Oh yeah I forgot,

Still waiting for my apology

SW,

Hope you had some pretzel nuggets for a snack. Try them with pickles. You might want to plan out several meals while waiting for mike's apology.

Mike,

So, what you are saying is...the next ice age will be global warming? It is the same thing right? Or what about that mini ice age a number of centuries back. That was global warming too? Mike you are too smarts for me I guess.

See the problem here SW is, that you stated that this blog was a waste of time. When you were questioned why, if you thought that this blog was a waste of time, did you continue reading and posting you pulled a classic SW and claimed that you never said it. When it was pointed out that you did, in fact, say that this blog was a waste of time, you quickly pulled another classic SW and claimed that wasn't what you meant.

"I have apologized when I have said inaccurate things about people."

That's strange, because I don't remember you every apologizing for anything and you make a lot of inaccurate statements about people, for instance: "you essentially said that it is ok to lie when you feel it is necessary."

You know very well that I made no statements or made any statements "essentially" saying that, yet you have no problem assigning that very inaccurate statement to me as if I did.

I'm not lying about what wallis has said. This conversation has been on-going for a few years now. I'm not lying about what you said. You took poll percentage out of context in an effort to show that wallis was in the majority in his field and therefor could not be on the fringe of anything. That is where you added value. What you left out is that I have never questioned wallis on whether he believes that this global warming has to do with human activity (which is what that particular part of the poll was asking about)

Wallis has stated on several occasions that global warming isn't happening (he has even stated that if anything we are witnessing global cooling). It goes to reason that if he doesn't believe in global warming, he certainly doesn't believe that humans have had an affect on it.

The quote you used by the way, was Wallis being facetious. I'm almost surprised you missed that but considering that it's obvious that you have not been paying attention to the on-going back and forth between Wallis and myself.

I guess you could always ask him yourself that if you believe he does believe in global warming (climate change) then why is he constantly trying to disprove it. It's a thought.

I think the only person trying to play "gotcha" is you and it really doesn't work when you use a non-serious comment as your proof.

I'll tell you exactly why I will not apologize SW. I have nothing to apologize for. You have seen for yourself that when I am actually proven wrong or mistaken I have no issues apologizing.

I expect no apologies from you because that isn't in your repertoire. You always expect everyone else to play by the rules that you lay down, yet you never, ever, play by your own rules. It doesn't upset me that you called my blog a "waste of time". I know what you meant, no matter how many twists and turns you try to make on your own statement. There is a huge difference between "waste of time" and "time waster". You chose to go with the former and we all know why. But congratulations on getting so deep into your own twisting that you would even go as far as say that you were "wasting time" today (note that you clearly said wasting time, not that today was a waste of time).

I apology, I thought I was posting the following statement on here an unfortunately posted it on one of my other blogs:

Why is it, SW, you can rarely type posts without some form of insult or intelligence questioning?

Of course when you base a rather serious libelous statement based off a statement of mine that was never made just you can claim that I have no ethics it's not really surprising. Just the same old tired games from SW.

Michael,

"See the problem here SW is, that you stated that this blog was a waste of time. When you were questioned why, if you thought that this blog was a waste of time, did you continue reading and posting you pulled a classic SW and claimed that you never said it."

When did I say this? Please cite it as I cited support for my statements.

"You know very well that I made no statements or made any statements "essentially" saying that, yet you have no problem assigning that very inaccurate statement to me as if I did."

On March 20 you said: "I do not see it as being unethical to call in sick to go protest (I have stated this clearly time and time again yet for some reason you seem to be stuck on it), I also do not see it as being unethical to call in sick to go to family members funeral.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Mar 20, 2011, at 11:21 AM"

If you tell your boss you are sick, when if fact you are not, is that being honest or lying? You have given at least two instances when you feel lying is ok to get what you what. I apologize if I overstated your opinion. However, I have serious doubts that you feel it is only ok to lie in these two circumstances. Are these the only two times you feel it is ok to lie to get your way or are there others you care to share?

"You took poll percentage out of context in an effort to show that wallis was in the majority in his field and therefor could not be on the fringe of anything."

I don't know whether I should believe you are stupid or blinded by your spin. I didn't say he wasn't on the fringe anything, way to expand one example far beyond the bounds of common sense.

"What you left out is that I have never questioned wallis on whether he believes that this global warming has to do with human activity"

You may be right here Michael, I haven't found you asking Wallis whether he believes global warming is man made, however, I also haven't found you asking him if he believes that the climate doesn't change. I have found several times in your discussion with him where you seem to indicate that you acknowledge his statements that the climate changes and that he just doesn't believe man is causing it. Interestingly enough, that is exactly what I said I found in the article you posted, which you then lied about what I said. Here are some examples:

"You keep wanting everyone to prove that man is causing climate change, but you can prove that man is not?" Why did you ask him to prove that man is not causing climate change rather than asking him to prove that there is no climate change, since that is the opinion you are assigning to him here.

"I know you don't like actually proving what you claim to be fact, but a little evidence to support your claim that climate change isn't being affected by man would be helpful.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 2:13 PM"

OH HO! what's this? You seem to be saying that Wallis says man isn't causing climate change just as I did (see we agree again!). Again you aren't saying that he claims the climate isn't changing which would be more in line with the lines (pun intended) you are spewing today.

"The quote you used by the way, was Wallis being facetious" Why do you say it is not earnest, I see nothing in the post I drew it from to imply he isn't serious, can you support this claim or will you back away from it?

"I have nothing to apologize for." If you contend you have nothing to apologize for please show where I said wallis doesn't believe in climate change and that opinion is in the majority. You can't because that isn't what I said, any time you quote my words "man effected" will always be there showing your lie.

"I expect no apologies from you because that isn't in your repertoire" I have apologized several times over the course of these blogs, I did so again in this post. Yet another lie on your part I guess.

"Why is it, SW, you can rarely type posts without some form of insult or intelligence questioning?" Simple answer, I'm apparently not a very nice person, but at least I'm honest.

I have wasted of my time to go back and find citations that support my claims from your own words. I notice you have not done so, but instead rely on, once again, stating your opinions as fact. I guess I would say I'm saddened that someone who says they are a historian, or historian in training or whatever you say you are, plays so loosely with primary sources, especially when they are so plentiful. Perhaps that is just another indicator of the educational standards at ATU. When I was in school, we were taught to not make claims you can't back up with appropriate citations. Admittedly, there is a lower standard of documentation on message boards, but the fact that you can do none is telling.

Still awaiting an apology.

"When I was in school, we were taught to not make claims you can't back up with appropriate citations."

Here we go again with you laying down rules by which you expect everyone else to play but you don't play by the same rules yourself. When was the last time you cited anything from outside the website?

You say that I play loose with the rules, you don't even play by the rules you expect everyone else to play by.

Michael,

"Here we go again with you laying down rules by which you expect everyone else to play but you don't play by the same rules yourself. When was the last time you cited anything from outside the website?"

This doesn't make much sense, I am only talking about things that people have said on these blogs, what would you like me to post. I recall posting an article or two on some responses but I don't remember when, I think the last time was when your buddy Rich was still posting.

Still awaiting an apology.

You haven't even tried to cite what I have said, rather you just make more accusations. I don't understand how you think I'm not playing by my rules, I just posted a response with like 5 citations, that's all I ask, is that if you are going to say I said something, please be prepared to back it up. Next time I bring some extraneous material to the boards and you feel I need to cite it, please let me know and I'll do what I can.

I do notice that you are attacking my methods and not my arguments, this might mean you don't have a a response to my arguments.

I forgot about the third act, complete denial of ever saying anything of the sort.

Michael,

Speaking of different rules for different people:

"Wallis, I believe you just been caught misrepresenting the truth about taxes. Not only is your 50% mark wrong, but so is your myth about paying no taxes.

The truth is about 45% of Americans will owe no taxes this year.-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Apr 18, 2011, at 8:17 AM"

I could be wrong, but I interepreted Wallis' comment about taxes to be referring to the well used 45% who pay no federal income taxes. True he was either exagerrating or has faulty information. But how Michael, do you jive your attack on him with your own earlier inflation by twice the percentage of scientists regarding global warming? ie: "Who's the true fringer, the person that agrees with 99.9% of all scientists that global warming is real"

Still awaiting an apology

Michael,

It is quite simple, please show me where I made a "complete denial of ever saying anything of the sort." and I will address it.

Darn I forgot my new tag line,

Still awaiting an apology

Ocho,

Hmm, good question about it being copyrighted, I didn't give it any thought really. I think as long as I don't try to pass it off as my invention I think I should be ok. Otherwise, yes, I believe we should all make an effort to get along. Unfortunately that doesn't mean we always succeed.

Michael, I checked out the link on 45% of people not paying ANY tax in 2008. The title of the article said 45% OWED no income tax but the stats reveal that 45% actually paid no tax and also, did not owe any tax.

The top 1% of taxpayers by income pay 38% of the individual income tax; the top 5% pay over half and the top 10% pay about 75% of the income tax. Yet we are told over and over that the rich don't pay a "fair" share. For those socialist among us, nothing will be "fair" until everyone gets paid the same and since this not possible they want to redistibute the income of the nation until they deem it "fair".

Fair is a week in August, friend. Other than that it, like love, is in the eye of the beholder.

Since I know you will want links to back up what I said above, here is a link to 2002 income taxes paid by the top 1%, top 5%, top 50%.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost

Here's a great study of the matter:http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

The bottom half of taxpayers pay virtually nothing, and this has been true for a very long time.

What seems unfair, to me, is that the votes of the bottom half count just as much as the folks in the top half, who are paying for everything. Sorta like going to the bar and expecting one half to buy drinks for everyone. You get a free drink if you don't make too much money. Encouragement to become a slacker?

Boomer are you suggesting that we start restricting votes in the manner of how much taxes they pay? That seems rather undemocratic of you.

Thank you for the links, though it does make me wonder, if certain posters think that data from 2009 is outdated what are they going to think about data from 2002?

Hey, Michael, neat idea! One vote for each $1,000 of income tax paid. That might be undemocratic as you say, but think of the evils that would cure. People might stop voting benefits for themselves out of the public largess.

You would have people wanting to pay some tax so they could vote. Just show your tax return, sir, so we can count out your votes!

I would be sincerely interested in Michaels take on the national debt; the deficit and whether or not a higher tax rate on the wealthy would have any effect on the national debt or would it just be more money for POLITICIANS to spend. At this point I have asked for an opinion on only four points; please do not respond with wars, foreign subsidies, etc. etc. etc.

And I know my questions are off topic but hope they are only slightly so.

Boomer,

I hope you are making that suggestion in jest, that's a terrible idea right on par with eliminating the electoral college and using popular vote to elect president.

Still awaiting an apology

Those who love "income redistribution" and "social justice" are really thieves, in that they use somebody else's money for their own purposes, through public takings.

When I pay my taxes these days, I view it as similar to charity, but without the charitable feeling I have when I actually get to choose who I contribute to. Forced charity can hardly be called charity, at all.

A growing portion of the national budget is for transfers from one group (those who pay taxes) to another group (those who do not). When one half of the country is on the dole or works for the various govt entities, the other half really struggles to pay for it all.

doodle bug, honestly, a higher tax rate on the rich would have very little effect on the national debt. Unfortunately, we all know that when there is actually extra money laying around (and even when there isn't) politicians almost always come up with pet projects to send that money (the bridge to nowhere).

It is interesting though, that this country from day one has always had a national debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

It's the deficit that we normally focus on and a higher tax rate would have a great effect on the deficit, in my belief.

I completely agree with your concluding statement. And being from the opposite political philosophy, I bet that we have a 180 degree difference on the effect. I believe it would be deleterious.

Mike did you ever answer my question? Do you pay any Federal Income Taxes?

Wallis

Wallis, loathe as I am to defend Michael, yes he did answer your question. Dated 04/18/11 in this thread.

Wallis,

I am in the 45% who didn't pay any Federal Income taxes, silly laws aren't they.

Still awaiting an apology