Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Sandbox - National
The Sandbox - National The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 645
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 398
Jon Bon 385
Harley Diablo 373
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 266
sharkman29 253
George Spelvin 251
Top Posters
DallasRain70467
biomed160975
Yssup Rider60189
gman4453024
LexusLover51038
WTF48267
offshoredrilling47733
pyramider46370
bambino40441
CryptKicker37105
Mokoa36487
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
The_Waco_Kid35624
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-05-2012, 02:04 PM   #16
Jackie S
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 14,818
Encounters: 15
Default

I am 65 and I cannot remember the term 'African American' being used untill the late '70's. All through the '50's and 'early '60's, the terms "Colored" and 'Negro" seemed to be the most prevailent, followed by "Black' in the late 60's and 70's.

I wonder if someone has gethered up multitudes of Birth Certificates from the early '60's and seen just what they have on them. I would be willing to bet that none have "African American" the way the Presidents so called "birth certificate" does.
Jackie S is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 02:44 PM   #17
Iaintliein
Valued Poster
 
Iaintliein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 6, 2010
Location: In the state of Flux
Posts: 3,311
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie S View Post
I am 65 and I cannot remember the term 'African American' being used untill the late '70's. All through the '50's and 'early '60's, the terms "Colored" and 'Negro" seemed to be the most prevailent, followed by "Black' in the late 60's and 70's.

I wonder if someone has gethered up multitudes of Birth Certificates from the early '60's and seen just what they have on them. I would be willing to bet that none have "African American" the way the Presidents so called "birth certificate" does.

Makes you want to say "hmmmm" doesn't it?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2962878

So does it say "African American" or just "African"? If "African" it's understandable even though it isn't a "race" per sae.
Iaintliein is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 03:00 PM   #18
Munchmasterman
Valued Poster
 
Munchmasterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 3, 2011
Location: Out of a suitcase
Posts: 6,233
Encounters: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn View Post
I guess Hillary's people have won a victory.
Her people won because after initially examining the evidence, they knew it was a non-issue and to drop it. Plus they won because the birthers are still running with it. The Donald even screwed the birthers by saying the investigators he sent to Hawaii found no proof Obama was born there. Except Trump didn’t send any investigators or hire any there.

Those birthers believe anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm View Post
http://www.infowars.com/birthers-hai...-depose-obama/

Looks like the birthers finally scored with this judge. From the looks of it, Obama will have to testify in court to disprove the allegations.
This is simple. Hawaii uses a certain document as proof of birth in their state. They will give it to the court.
Will the court say “no, we want the “X” version”? Hawaii will say “sorry, that’s the document we use”. Like they already have.

You gotta love the folks who don’t believe the Hawaiians themselves. They will submit the same documents they already have shown numerous times. They will swear to it in court they are real. The birthers will then have to prove them wrong. Where will they get evidence the Hawaiians are lying? Why from the Hawaiians, of course.

Obama won’t have to step foot in court.
Munchmasterman is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 03:05 PM   #19
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default Donald Trump wants his investigation money back if you homo's still do not believe the birth thingy

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaliLama View Post
BO is purposely making this a controversy. He adds fuel to it on purpose.

This way he can keep calling people that disagree with him racists.
No , we can call you ignorant and if you weren't so ignorant , you'd know the difference


Hey all you birthers, I just got a call from Will Smith of Men in Black fame. He said for me to inform all you ignorant birthers to meet him at area 51 next Friday for a William Shatner meet n greet. Zulu will be there for all you Log Cabin birthers....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xSOuLky3n0




WTF is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 03:59 PM   #20
i'va biggen
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 28,773
Encounters: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bloe View Post
It's ironic to equate the "birthers" with the swift boaters. The so called swift boaters destroyed John Kerry's presidential hopes by telling truth about his bogus war record. To equate the two groups is a badge of honor for the birthers.

You guys on the left don't usually appreciate irony.
I see you were one of the Kool aid sippers.Tom Olliphont(sp) of the Bosotn Globe researched this when he( Kerry) ran for the Senate.at that time there was only one .By the time of the campaign there were a hundred actors hired for the political ad.Was the same as the book Unfit to serv.the author was on PBS and when he was confronted that the book was untrue his reply was "It didn't matter we got it out before the election"
i'va biggen is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 04:01 PM   #21
i'va biggen
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 28,773
Encounters: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaintliein View Post
Amazing isn't it? I put ekim on ignore the day he posted that he wasn't right or left, just a middle of the road moderate, roflmao, some road he's in the middle of.

Weak weak typical birther response
i'va biggen is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 06:08 PM   #22
joe bloe
Valued Poster
 
joe bloe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 5,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ekim008 View Post
I see you were one of the Kool aid sippers.Tom Olliphont(sp) of the Bosotn Globe researched this when he( Kerry) ran for the Senate.at that time there was only one .By the time of the campaign there were a hundred actors hired for the political ad.Was the same as the book Unfit to serv.the author was on PBS and when he was confronted that the book was untrue his reply was "It didn't matter we got it out before the election"
\

The authors of "Unfit for Command" are John O'Neil and Jerome Corsi. As far as I know neither one of them has retracted any allegation made in the book.

I think you are a liar.
joe bloe is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 06:42 PM   #23
Munchmasterman
Valued Poster
 
Munchmasterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 3, 2011
Location: Out of a suitcase
Posts: 6,233
Encounters: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie S View Post
I am 65 and I cannot remember the term 'African American' being used untill the late '70's. All through the '50's and 'early '60's, the terms "Colored" and 'Negro" seemed to be the most prevailent, followed by "Black' in the late 60's and 70's.

I wonder if someone has gethered up multitudes of Birth Certificates from the early '60's and seen just what they have on them. I would be willing to bet that none have "African American" the way the Presidents so called "birth certificate" does.
Who cares what they were called............wait for it..............
anywhere besides Hawaii? Just there.
Any place else is just a matter of idle curiosity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaintliein View Post
Makes you want to say "hmmmm" doesn't it?
CNN tracked down the guy listed within 1 or 2 places of Obama on the birth announcements in the paper. They followed him as he gathered documents and ulitimately got a copy of his birth certificate. They went to 5 or 6 agencies and at each one they asked if any "investigators" had been by checking on documents for Obama. None had visited the offices. So much for Trumps claims.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2962878

So does it say "African American" or just "African"? If "African" it's understandable even though it isn't a "race" per sae.
Read much guys?
African is used to describe his father's race. On the Certificate it lists Kenya, East Africa under father's place of birth.
There is no indication of race of the child on the certificate or the certification.
Munchmasterman is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 06:58 PM   #24
budman33
Valued Poster
 
budman33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 30, 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bloe View Post
It's ironic to equate the "birthers" with the swift boaters. The so called swift boaters destroyed John Kerry's presidential hopes by telling truth about his bogus war record. To equate the two groups is a badge of honor for the birthers.

You guys on the left don't usually appreciate irony.
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-...ar_record.html

equating the two is actually quite similar other than who's writing the checks
budman33 is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 07:27 PM   #25
Liliana
Pending Age Verification
 
User ID: 110314
Join Date: Nov 24, 2011
Location: Plano
Posts: 280
My ECCIE Reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie S View Post
I am 65 and I cannot remember the term 'African American' being used untill the late '70's. All through the '50's and 'early '60's, the terms "Colored" and 'Negro" seemed to be the most prevailent, followed by "Black' in the late 60's and 70's.

I wonder if someone has gethered up multitudes of Birth Certificates from the early '60's and seen just what they have on them. I would be willing to bet that none have "African American" the way the Presidents so called "birth certificate" does.
You also have to realize that black =/= African American. Some black folks are strictly African, West Indian, Hispanic [You can be latino and black they aren't mutually exclusive] Black is in reference to a skin tone while african american is an ethnicity.
Liliana is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 07:35 PM   #26
Munchmasterman
Valued Poster
 
Munchmasterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 3, 2011
Location: Out of a suitcase
Posts: 6,233
Encounters: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by budman33 View Post
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-...ar_record.html

equating the two is actually quite similar other than who's writing the checks
The main difference between the 2 is the birthers refuse to see what is in front of their face. The swift boaters put spin on events from 30+ years before that they never bothered to say shit about before the money showed up.

Boaters? Birthers?
Both start with a B and both have ulterior motives.
Munchmasterman is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 09:59 PM   #27
CuteOldGuy
Valued Poster
 
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
Encounters: 20
Default

This is stupid. Who gives a rat's ass about the birth certificate at this point? If he were to be removed from office based on his birth certificate, he would be a martyr, and people would flock to him. I'd rather have him exposed for the fraud he is, and sent packing in disgrace. People need to rise up and say "Hell No! You won't take our freedom away!" "You will NOT indefinitely detain us without habeas corpus!" "And you will not flaunt the Constitution just because OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS disagree with your programs!"

Forget about the birth certificate, and deal with the issues at hand. This is too important to be led around by these morons and their "birth certificate" pseudo-controversy.
CuteOldGuy is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 10:01 PM   #28
dilbert firestorm
Premium Access
 
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
Encounters: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman View Post
<snip>

Obama won’t have to step foot in court.
of course, his lawyers will take care of that.
dilbert firestorm is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 11:27 PM   #29
Liliana
Pending Age Verification
 
User ID: 110314
Join Date: Nov 24, 2011
Location: Plano
Posts: 280
My ECCIE Reviews
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy View Post
This is stupid. Who gives a rat's ass about the birth certificate at this point? If he were to be removed from office based on his birth certificate, he would be a martyr, and people would flock to him. I'd rather have him exposed for the fraud he is, and sent packing in disgrace. People need to rise up and say "Hell No! You won't take our freedom away!" "You will NOT indefinitely detain us without habeas corpus!" "And you will not flaunt the Constitution just because OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS disagree with your programs!"

Forget about the birth certificate, and deal with the issues at hand. This is too important to be led around by these morons and their "birth certificate" pseudo-controversy.




TL;DR The President’s opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don’t seem to realize they’ve been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.
He signed it because if he didn’t, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I’ll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President’s wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.
You’ll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn’t coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President’s stated mandate - they are effectively a giant ‘fuck you’ to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President’s support with his own base. Observe:
Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.
Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.
Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)
Here’s where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party’s base and the opposition’s. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to ‘Keep America safe’ and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent’s liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that’s what they care about most. You’ve designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don’t even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.
Pass the ‘parent’ legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military’s operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent’s base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won’t matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.
Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It’s a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.
This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don’t know or don’t care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this ‘corporate shill’, congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don’t seem to see that. You don’t have to like your country’s two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it’s being used like this.
EDIT: thanks to Reddit user Mauve_Cubedweller for this post
Liliana is offline   Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 11:32 PM   #30
Munchmasterman
Valued Poster
 
Munchmasterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 3, 2011
Location: Out of a suitcase
Posts: 6,233
Encounters: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm View Post
of course, his lawyers will take care of that.
Just like mine or yours would.
Munchmasterman is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved