BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

You are right I can not site one economist. Just over 500 hundred!

Judged:

1

1

1

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
Not having any education the really stupid posted doesn't even know the types of accounting methods; yet somehow he thinks it is good for the government to take in more in taxes than it spends.
Notice he proved his lack of education by failing to name any reputable economist who supports his childish misunderstanding of macroeconomics. HOW PATHETIC to be so uneducated. Ha Ha Ha Ha

Judged:

1

1

1

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
You wrote that Amendment XIV contains the phrase "not subject to any foreign powers." This a complete lie.
=
AMENDMENT XIV
[Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.]
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

Romney’s plan as based on “proven principles”

Judged:

1

1

1

Terri Tanna wrote:

Terri Tanna wrote:
"Please name any treaty that the United States of America has ever made with the 'subject of a foreign country.' Thank you."
====
<quoted text>
SADLY, you are so stupid and uneducated that you don't even know why your original post made you a laughing stock on this site. Ha Ha Ha Ha

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

that is one thing Obama HAS created is more poor people. we now have more poor people than we had during the Great Depression!
And Terri can't prove me wrong either.

Judged:

1

1

1

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
Class, please ignore what rube says and pay attention to what he means (rube is similar to Joe Biden in that regard): "If we had no poor people, our murder rate would be cut in half." That utopia of no poor people certainly will not occur during the next four years under Willard.

Judged:

1

1

1

Terri Tanna wrote:

Terri Tanna wrote:
"Who gives a damn about the unemployed? They are all the uneducated little people. High unemployment is good because it keeps corporate profits high, so we don't have to have special assessments at our great nation's exclusive private country clubs."
====
<quoted text>
Who is Stephanie?
Why would anyone try to come after me in my gated community with the police station across the road? I am merely stating the true conservative Republican perspective. The little people aren't going to vote for our Willard anyway.

Judged:

1

1

1

Grand Birther wrote:

<quoted text>
Except that most all of my posts emanate from Louisville, Ky, MORON!

Judged:

2

2

2

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
The Class is betting you can't state any two of those "proven principles" because you don't know anything about Economics and can only recite uncritically what others say. Prove the Class wrong.

Judged:

2

2

1

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
Gosh you're good at distorting.
DARE YOU to find any post in which I write that "all economists back Obamanomics."
What I challenged YOU to do was to find ANY economist who backs up YOUR economic ignorance.
Please tell the Class how many semesters or equivalent you have had of (1) integral and (2) differential calculus.
If none, you cannot understand any Economics and are guilty of what LRS accuses those who go to college: you just repeat what others say.

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:

sure it does, subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, simply means not subject to any foreign power.

Judged:

2

1

1

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course no one can, because you were too intellectually deficient to define "poor." Please give the Class you precise definition.
For purposes of waiving tuition, Yale and Harvard are defining "poor" as families with annual incomes under $125,000. Where does that put most truck drivers?

Judged:

2

1

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
most? So you do post from other, ahem, "locations". Oh, ask your bosom buddy and alike twin LRS was he thinks "Ottawa means". Isn't that the same guy, your alter ego, who told me to go back across the pond, lol lol? He thought, still thinks Canada's part of Europe. France, even.

Judged:

1

1

1

Dale wrote:

I see you can't answer my post, so you just dance!

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
And what's more is that Terri Tunna thinks all economists back Obamanomics where that is a total LIE!
<quoted text>
Well Toosie, semantics does work as everyone knows you have never used the word "Obamanomics "before!
Hey Tootsie, I can cypher so I know the chances of O'Bummer Boy being reelected in November is next to NONE!!!
Oh, I am old school so I still use slid rulers. But my plane does have a partial "glass-cockpit". Oh, it still has the good old steam gauges but I did have an Aspen Evolution 100 installed too.
http://www.aspenavionics.com/products/general...
Ya know a Maule M9-235 is a bush plane. Not that I will ever consider myself to be a bush pilot. A long time I ago I learned self-assessment and I have a pretty good idea what my current skill levels are and I know that when you ego is bigger than yours skills.... you are dead! Just like John F. Kennedy Junior!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy,...
Yep, the most dangerous thing for a lawyer or doctor to do is buy a plane! They should leave the flying with us guys that have only half a brain!

Judged:

3

2

1

Terri Tanna wrote:

<quoted text>
That's your way of acknowledging that you LIED when you wrote that the exact words "not subject to any foreign power" appeared in Amendment XIV? How pathetic.
=
Could you be any more stupid than to embarrass yourself and your poor parents by writing: "subject to the jurisdiction simply means not subject to any foreign power." Were you this stupid all through school? Your statement is not only preposterous and incorrect, but it shows that you are totally ignorant about the most basic legal concepts.
Please find any source (other than your own feeble "brain") that holds "subject to the jurisdiction simply means not subject to any foreign power." If you can't, just admit that you have never studied The Law and know absolutely nothing about The Law.
It is appalling that there are people as ignorant as you living in these United States.

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:

when all it does is expose the fact that she has NO FACTS!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

Terri Tanna wrote:

Terri Tanna wrote:
"Please name any treaty that the United States of America has ever made with the 'subject of a foreign country.' Thank you."
====
<quoted text>
Let me explain what another poster tried to get into your pea brain about your incredibly poorly written sentence:
The United States does not make treaties with individuals as you stated so stupidly in your post -- it only does so with other sovereign nations. It is not the fault of Topix or those who post here that your skills in the English language are so woefully deficient. Were your parents also linguistically deficient such that you never grew up without proper English being spoken in your home?