Omg

[easeltine]

President Obama did go to a Muslim School for a few years in Indonesia, with Islamic religion classes. - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

That is not enough evidence to prove that President Obama is a Muslim, (despite what my brother-in-law thinks). The President has not attended worship services on a regular basis, he is more agnostic then anything else.

[turtle]

Easeltine you just showed your bipartisan belief in a group that only gets their facts right when it is about something they agree with. I never believe snopes. That a personal view. YOu can go to the Whitehouse.gov site and get Obama biography. If the government is lying then it needs to be proven. Proven how. Well their discrepancies where Obama was born by the people that knew his grandmother overseas. However Obama worked for the CIA could those papers be false, after all it is the government. Perhaps, however one has to examine where Obama was for there would be passports records that could be check by the government. Was the family out of the USA. No of course not. However primary school in third world country that not catholic. HMM. What kinds of education would he have received in the 70s. If a good one then we have to ask is the mission programs of local churches lying to get aid and support for projects overseas? However we do not go by primary school, we look at his college degree and beyond. What kind of grades? Did He make the grades based on his own merit, or on the ability to get someone to do his work for him. Will one would have to ask his class mates. For computer technology was not like it is today for classes. It was a lot of book learning and reading. No one gets a law degree without reading.

[ba2]

President Obama did go to a Muslim School for a few years in Indonesia, with Islamic religion classes. - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

That is not enough evidence to prove that President Obama is a Muslim, (despite what my brother-in-law thinks). The President has not attended worship services on a regular basis, he is more agnostic then anything else.

Once again you connect the word "Muslim" with Obama. I understand what you are trying to do, which is to put the question of his faith into the mainstream thinking so that less people will be likely to vote for him. Why not focus on the record? or evaluate the promises Romney is making? Why not go around reminding the world that Romney is Mormon and discuss how that faith might affect his presidential policy?

I just read the snopes article you referred to. Did you actually read it? Snopes was responding to the claim. It actually states that the so called Muslim school was called Muslim only because the majority of pupils in attendance were Muslim. Little or no religion was taught there. Kinda like suggesting a public school in Skokie, Illinois was Jewish because the majority of attendees were Jewish. BTW: apparently the so called Catholic school didn't have religion classes either.

Go back and read the ENTIRE article and pay particular attention to the style of writing (numerous claims with a response after each claim). You might be confusing the claim with the response.

[dodge]

Easeltine -- Why would it be an issue if the President doesn’t attend church services regularly, or at all? In our Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) it states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for public office at state or federal levels. The Constitution also prohibits the establishment of an official religion, or favoring/disfavoring one religious view over another.

The only thing that’s mentioned is that Senators, Representatives, members of State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers shall be bound by oath to support the Constitution. Don’t you think that requiring the President to be Christian is in conflict with the intentions of the founding fathers of this country, imposing Christianity over other religions or non-religions? I’m sure there are many Christian Fundamentalists who would love to make the United States a theocracy based on the Bible. That would be something I would give my life to defend against.

[turtle]

Dodge how you deny unless you had no assist to the news that we almost lost our freedom a few years ago. Did you know that church were having some injunctions against it about fifteen years ago, because of the war. Did you know that churches were being watched because of war and that before Obama got in office that Bush straighten it out. That what caused the religious uprising we seeing in recent years. And the government trying hard to silence our churches, because of war in the gulf. It made the news. Something that should be able to research if nothing else at the news station.

[dodge]

Turtle -- What “injunctions?” What churches are being watched and what churches are the “government trying hard to silence?” What “religious uprising” are you referring to? What did George Bush “straighten out?”

What the hell are you talking about?

[turtle]

Okay Dodge are you not aware of what taken place since the war in our land. Government was afraid that cell groups would develop because of the war. Catch up it has a special name. Government began to watch our churches and organizations, it not really anything new, but it is a scare tacked to gain more control. Government found that many people were getting help through certain church groups I think and well that when the federal government decide it could give aid to church for disaster relief aid if churches would go. However some churches are not able to do these things.

[dodge]

Turtle -- Any attempt at communication with you here is pointless. Your posts reveal someone who, for some reason, is unable to express her thoughts in writing to the point of being understood; and your responses indicate that you don’t comprehend what others are saying. I don’t know why. It could be that English is a language you’re not adept at reading or writing. There may be other reasons for your inability to communicate your thoughts clearly through writing; but it doesn’t make any difference. I’m not going to spend any more time trying to decipher what it is you’re trying to say.

[turtle]

Dodge just fair warning, if it can happen in our churches it can happen in atheistville.

[easeltine]

President Obama is not really a person of faith at all, he is not a Muslim, may lean Christian, but really an agnostic Secular Humanist.
He was at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 2nd, but unlike almost any President in recent times he did nothing special for the National Day of Prayer on May 3rd.

I say, OMG, to the results of the President's Economic policies.

Ba2, gave a chart showing the Spending vs. GDP. The fact is that the United States would not have a serious problem if the Obama Administration kept spending at 36% Spending vs. GDP rather than the 41% that they are currently at.

$10 Trillion to $15.7 Trillion, that is $5.7 Trillion Dollars added to the National Debt in just 3 1/2 years. That $5.7 Trillion addition to the National Debt is over ONE TRILLION DOLLAR more than the Bush Administration did in 8 years...and that was too high.

You want to go on the record of Governor Romney? Governor Romney knows how to Balance a Budget, and to negotiate in a bipartisan fashion.

Even if you are a Liberal or a Democrat you should be able to comprehend that this type of WRECKLESS SPENDING NEEDS TO STOP! I an understand keeping spending at the same level as President Bush and trying a bipartisan Spending Package that would work, (rather than the 2/09 Democrat Disaster Stimulus Package). You are not getting an Ultra No Spending type of person here. I can see with the decrease under the Obama Administration for the war plus trying a Stimulus Package a $2.8 Trillion increase in the Debt at this time, BUT NOT A $5.7 TRILLION DOLLAR INCREASE! There is not any economic justification for this.

[ba2]

President Obama is not really a person of faith at all, he is not a Muslim, may lean Christian, but really an agnostic Secular Humanist.
He was at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 2nd, but unlike almost any President in recent times he did nothing special for the National Day of Prayer on May 3rd.

I say, OMG, to the results of the President's Economic policies.

Ba2, gave a chart showing the Spending vs. GDP. The fact is that the United States would not have a serious problem if the Obama Administration kept spending at 36% Spending vs. GDP rather than the 41% that they are currently at.

$10 Trillion to $15.7 Trillion, that is $5.7 Trillion Dollars added to the National Debt in just 3 1/2 years. That $5.7 Trillion addition to the National Debt is over ONE TRILLION DOLLAR more than the Bush Administration did in 8 years...and that was too high.

You want to go on the record of Governor Romney? Governor Romney knows how to Balance a Budget, and to negotiate in a bipartisan fashion.

Even if you are a Liberal or a Democrat you should be able to comprehend that this type of WRECKLESS SPENDING NEEDS TO STOP! I an understand keeping spending at the same level as President Bush and trying a bipartisan Spending Package that would work, (rather than the 2/09 Democrat Disaster Stimulus Package). You are not getting an Ultra No Spending type of person here. I can see with the decrease under the Obama Administration for the war plus trying a Stimulus Package a $2.8 Trillion increase in the Debt at this time, BUT NOT A $5.7 TRILLION DOLLAR INCREASE! There is not any economic justification for this.

So, if he is an agnostic, why is that a problem? Some of our founding fathers were agnostic, including President Jefferson. Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal.

The chart acknowledges high borrowing under President Obama. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html. The chart during the Obama years shows almost a mirror of what was experienced under 12 years of Presidents Regan/Bush and then 8 years under President Bush Jr. The economy under Regan/Bush did not need this stimulus. The economy under Bush Jr didn’t need the stimulus until the last year or two and the 2/09 stimulus package was created and pushed by President Bush, with little input from President Obama, nevertheless, Obama also supported it. So, I still agree, had the previous Republican administrations kept a balanced budget, like every president before them since WW2, we would not have the same economic problem now, even if President Obama borrowed at the same level. This economic disaster we are now in did not originate under Obama.

You don’t believe in borrowing for stimulus spending, fine, we can discuss macro-economics and probably disagree. But where were you when we were borrowing at such high levels before Obama was in office?

[turtle]

Ba 2 and EAseltine and whoever else wants to make claims, that may or may not be true. Here is a link, whether it be true or not, has to dow with your own interpetation is what is said here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3WCQ...&feature=share

[ba2]

Ba 2 and EAseltine and whoever else wants to make claims, that may or may not be true. Here is a link, whether it be true or not, has to dow with your own interpetation is what is said here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3WCQ...&feature=share

It was a nice speech. It sounds to me like he is a believer, but it is a political speech so one could never be sure. Could you at least give a hint as to what you are suggesting? I really don't care to listen to this 20 minute speech again without having any idea what you are getting at.

[turtle]

Ba it is more then a political speech. This Prayer breakfast iis in commemoration of 2009 when President enact the National DAy of Prayer for the first thursday in May of every year. Now atheist won't be pleased with this but people of faith will. However non believers are not require and neither are believers required to participate. But for believers it is a way as a nation to come together in corporate worship of God. Now Jews, Muslims and Christians believe in one God. Christians of couese believe in the Trinity. However it more then that it allow every believer to corporately worship God together. Now we don't all agree on who God is but . Now we worship God.

Let me continue it is effort to unite our nation under the rules of freedom even with those not in agreement with each other. Obama states His faith here, whether that political or spiritual or both, it not for you and I to decide, it is for God to decide. Why judge another man's faith unless his works are criminal or his action. Ba we all do it to some degree, but we should we do this. No! It is heresy. Yet we do it. Now Ba when I say we, I mean we, for it on this board by many. However my concern is more with accuracy of doctrine and teaching in the religious world. That is not crime. I hear false doctrine or someone here's it in me as well, it like a knife. We all teach falsely out of laziness, or out of ignorance. Is that a crime no. But it imporant to be as accurate as possible.

Point is we can not force people to believe like either one of us do, but what we can do is share what we believe with respect of others rights. And Obama by enacting the National Day of Prayer does just that.

[easeltine]

Ba2,

Looking at the chart:

Again, spending really takes off when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2007 under President Bush.

* Government should be at 30%-36% in Spending vs. GDP. From President Kennedy to President Bush Jr. that has always been the spending level. In 1996 under President Clinton, and 2006 under President Bush Jr. that was the exact same level at 36%. President Clinton was able to work with the Republicans in balancing the budget.

* The Federal Deficit of $161 Billion in 2007 under President Bush Jr., just 5 years ago, is quite a bit better than the $1,327 Billion in 2012 under President Obama.

* TARP was the correct way to proceed. Stimulus Spending is a good idea to stimulate the economy. The way that the Democrats decided to proceed in 2/2009 was incorrectly done in a Partisan manner. That Stimulus Package passed has not worked.

* The increase in spending is understandable considering the worldwide economic problems, but the increase of spending from 36% to 41% is too much.

* An increase of the National Debt from $10 Trillion to $15.7 Trillion, (almost there anyway), is too much!

* The Unemployment is due to too much Government Regulations. Examples: drilling a mile down in the ocean vs. Alaskan Tundra, holding projects like the Keystone Pipeline, (The President needs to listen to President Clinton for goodness sakes!)

Ba2, and Dodge, are you both actually trying to justify the Obama's Administration's $5.7 Trillion Dollar increase to the National Debt in only 3 1/2 years vs. the Bush Administration's $4.5 Trillion Dollar increase to the National Debt in 8 years?

Do people have their eyes closed to all these economic facts?

I am not suggesting a Congressman Ron Paul solution, or even a more moderate approach like Senator Rand Paul solution.
We need the Republican Spending Plan which is trying to bring Spending down to the 2008 level. The present level is too high, America is building up a Debt she can never repay.

[dodge]

Hi Easeltine. I’m going to recommend you for a seat on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, so that you can offer your expert advice on the formulation of economic policy based on your penetrating analysis, research, and empirical evidence. Of course, you would have to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate; but I’m sure if they saw what you write here at FACTnet it would be obvious that our country needs you to tell us what we should do to solve our economic problems.

[ba2]

Hi Dodge,
Speaking of Ron Paul: By 1987 Ron Paul was asking "How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? +++++++Ron Paul's 1987 Resignation Letter to the RNC: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ron_Pa...ter_to_the_RNC

I tore up my RNC card right after GW took office.

I don’t always agree with Dr. Paul, but this time he was right on. Reagan was a disaster with his economic policies. Had the party continued to follow the lead of all administrations since WW2, the current recession would have been a minor blip on the economy scale. Was the stimulus well thought out? The money probably could have been much better spent. But, the new Republican refused to take any part in the discussion when spending is exactly what was needed. The no tax pledge is killing us, especially the middle class. This group appears willing to let our country collapse because of their misguided ideology. They are fighting every attempt to fix the economy. As a group, I don’t believe they are very intelligent and they seem to refuse to take advice from experts in the economic field. They certainly don’t understand macro-economics.

[easeltine]

What is really not very intelligent is the Democrats yelling, "Raise Taxes," and the Republican yelling, "Cut Spending," and then the Democrats compromise with the Republicans and don't Raise Taxes, and the Republicans compromise with the Democrats and allow Big Spending.

How can you lower the Debt if you don't do either one?

...but we all know that when President Obama makes over 6 Million per year from his books he will not raise taxes on the rich...because he is now one of them.

[easeltine]

"I’m going to recommend you for a seat on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers."

No Poster on this board could screw it up any worse then the Obama Administration has screwed up the economy in just 3 1/2 years. Increasing the National Debt from 10 Trillion to 15.7 Trillion.

One of my cardinal tetras would do a better job then any of the Obama Administration people regarding the economy. Nothing is better then what they have done.

I am going to recommend my cardinal tetra for the job, at least it will look pretty!

[ba2]

The anomaly is that Obama has been just like the last 3 Republican presidents. This economic disaster did not start under Obama. It started with Reagan’s “trickle down” theory which Bush Sr. tried, but failed, to back out of and which Bush Jr. jumped right back into. You might be able to blame Obama for continuing with the disaster, but don’t blame him for the disaster. I will add, at least he has a reason to borrow, we need a stimulus. This is not a time to cut spending or give unfettered tax breaks to corporations. Added profits do not create jobs, demands for a product do.

Like I said, I tore up my RNC card during GW’s term. It was clear what was going to happen to our economy under his policies, which in reality were Reagan’s economic policies. “Trickle down” does not work and has never been seen to work anywhere in the world in any economic system. The “trickle down” tax breaks can only help an economy if the break is attached to economic development, like jobs. In addition, during good economic times, tax breaks need to be put in the context of a balanced budget. The tax breaks under Reagan and then Bush Jr, were attached to nothing.