Posted on 08/16/2008 10:09:13 PM PDT by cdchik123
..
A muslim apostate?
I smell a fatwa in his future.
the sheet hits the fan....
Bump
I’ve seen it said that to be adopted when and where he was, his “parents” had to renounce his US citizenship for him.
“I smell a fatwa in his future.”
I do, too. And it stinks to high heavens.
At least he’d be a head in the poles...
That was bad! LOL!
LOL...what wit! :-)
[the sheet hits the fan....]
LOL!
HOLY SHIITE
Exactly as I reported in January of 2007
I said it many moons ago and almost every week... “he is a muzzie Jim”.
LLS
BTW, I clicked on your blogspot (again) in response to your post--I am a sporadic reader of it, since you're not as attractive to me as Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin ;-)
You wrote the following:
To quote Ayn Rand, "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes." That includes the free men and the shareholders of companies like Exxon Mobil or General Electric and of men like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.
True, but a subtle distinction shows up.
It is not that Exxon Mobil, GE, et al did not make contributions to the public good -- it is that they utililzed Adam Smith's invisible hand. They served the public good, but were allowed (intellectual property, lack of red tape) to be rewarded for doing so (profits), and to keep the reward (low taxes).
The problem comes when the corporation uses its wealth to buy legislators, so that not only are they granted de facto (or sometimes de jure) monopoly status, but that they can them morph from serving the public to "fleecing the public". (For example, offshoring tech support to India accelerated despite the LOUD COMPLAINTS from the customers, since entire industries adopted the model at the same time, and customers had nowhere else to go. And the increased profits were not used to give larger dividends to shareholders, but mainly to give larger bonuses only to the executives who thought of it.)
Cheers!
In an ideal market with an "infinite" number of suppliers, the quantity of a good produced by any given supplier is irrelevant to the price because that quantity is too small to have an effect on total supply. The evil of monopoly is that it enables an individual entity to increase price by limiting supply.When Democrats (almost exclusively) in Congress prevent the oilcos from drilling in Alaska and offshore, they are limiting supply and thus increasing price and the profits of (mostly foreign) crude oil suppliers. Democrats then blame the high price on domestic oilcos who, at that point, are actually mere messengers.
So, Barack Obama is a nick-name or assumed name if his legal name is actually Barry Soetero. Has he legally changed it to “Barack Obama”? Is there documentation for his name change?
Will the ballot read:
Barry Soetero “Barack Obama”?
I’ve never heard him say he was baptized in the Christian church. He will say he was married there, and his children were baptized, but he never says that HE was. IIRC
So, Barack Obama is a nick-name or assumed name if his legal name is actually Barry Soetero. Has he legally changed it to “Barack Obama”? Is there documentation for his name change?
Will the ballot read:
Barry Soetero “Barack Obama”?
I’ve never heard him say he was baptized in the Christian church. He will say he was married there, and his children were baptized, but he never says that HE was. IIRC
--The difference between "light, sweet crude" and sour crude, and the countries which supply each
--The presence of middlemen: both 'legitimate' hedgers, such as airlines, who are attempting to regularize costs to make future planning easier, and 'johnny-come-lately' hedgers, such as investment funds, who buy at relatively small margin, have no personal interest in the use of the product, and merely hope to profit off of mass *changes* in price in either direction
--The role of "pump and dump" and rumor mongering and its relationship to the 'johnny-come-lately' hedgers
--The role of *expectations* of future demand (both in the US, and BRIC) and its relation to price
--substitution (trading in the SUV, carpooling, moving closer to the job, and staycations) on demand
I wasn't trashing the oil companies, but the US car companies and certain financiers: recall a time when Americans bought (not leased) "New Every Two" and the increase in Universal Default and scads of "nickel and dime" fees on every transaction; or that people used to use layaway and checks to purchase items, rather than unsecured debt.
Incidentally, the destruction of credit bubbles will reduce effective purchasing power, thereby aiding deflation. But if this is coupled with producer price increases based on commodities, the net result is a textbook case of "falling standard of living" (greater % of income on necessaries, smaller % on luxuries).
Cheers!
The MSM will cover this during the GOP convention in order to keep obama in the news and McCain off the TV screen.
Please include some information about the youtube clip, like who produced it, when it was produced and when it aired, also what the subject matter is. Thanks.
obumpa
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Somebody please pass the popcorn.
We’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves here because it hasn’t yet been proven that Lolo Soetoro legally adopted him. Its quite possible that Soetoro is the nickname, not Ombama (or Dunham for that matter, since we haven’t really seen any legitimate birth certificate).
I recall seeing that information way back then. That thread should be bumped. Hopefully you saved it in your "links?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.