Natural Born Citizenship
Quote: weaselmanSeriously? Does it really make sense to you to have a special provision in the Constitution to legalize riots, unrest and civil war?
Where are riots, unrest, and civil war allowed in the constitution? Why do you connect people who legally ownn guns wih violence? People who legally own guns are among the safest to be around.
Quote: rxwineI think it's the same here as it is in Libya right now. When a tank can run over your house, a gun is not much protection against an oppresive government. You need much of the military with the respective more powerful weaponry on your side too.
I feel you are somewhat correct, having military-grade weaponry doesn't hurt. But it does not have to be a Libya-level thing. I was watching a little bit of "Alaska State Troopers" the other day and the cop mentioned that in the area he was patrolling somewhere on the order of 80%+ of the population was legally armed. For this reason they were very cautious on how they approached a situation. Now I am not advocating lawbreaking. But if enforcement agents know everytime they have to enforce a law they are likely going into an armed situation it means they are less likely to make more and more laws restricting freedom.
Here is a potential example. Some folks make their own bio-diesel by befriending owners of restaurants and taking used oil then doing the chemistry at home. Some John Q Senators get POed about this because of lost tax revenue. So say they make a law that states you cannot do it. If 80% of the population is armed law enforcement is far more likely to tell that senator, "Hey, Bo, just forget it. The revenue loss is little and we don't need to go raiding people for something so silly." If the population is unarmed they would be more likely to get a "no-knock" warrant and break the door down.
"Libya in the USA" is not likely, but freedom is lost an inch at a time.
Quote: weaselmanWe, "the Birthers", aren't as ignorant about google, as someone suggested :)
713,000 results
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Google alone doesn't mean much, and that quote appears to have been generated from World Net Daily, which I, and many others, would consider questionable as a news source. The vast majority of what appears to be in those Google results is blogs or comments on forums. When I switched to Google News I could not find a single "traditional media" source that covered this issue. Even if you considered the remote possibility that the "liberal media" was suppressing this story, you would think you would still find some references from the traditional media.
In this particular instance, WND appears to be relying on this Hawaiian Star article, which doesn't really seem to say exactly what WND implies it does. This section at the bottom appears to be the only portion of that interview with any relevance, (taken as is from the page, including the first sentence in parenthesis, but no explanation of why that is written that way and not expressed as a quotation) :
Quote: Hawaiian Star Advertiser(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)
It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down ...
...What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.
I think it is quite a leap from:
"It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down"
to
"Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Which is probably why it wasn't picked up by traditional media and the the majority of Google hits you find about it are on places like "www.teapartybrewing.com".
Quote: AZDuffmanWhere are riots, unrest, and civil war allowed in the constitution? Why do you connect people who legally ownn guns wih violence? People who legally own guns are among the safest to be around.
I don't connect them to violence, I thought, you just did.
Did not you propose to fight oppressive government using your right to bear arms, guaranteed by constitution?
Quote: PaulEWog
Google alone doesn't mean much, and that quote appears to have been generated from World Net Daily, which I, and many others, would consider questionable as a news source.
I don't speak to the credibility of this (or any other of 713,000) sources. Wizard asked for the source, I gave the answer, that's all.
My understanding is that some people question the credibility of factcheck.org (at least, when it comes to its statements pertaining to the authenticity of the birth certificate, provided by Obama's campaign).
Quote: weaselmanI don't connect them to violence, I thought, you just did.
Did not you propose to fight oppressive government using your right to bear arms, guaranteed by constitution?
I didn't issue a call to violence. What I said was an armed citezenry keeps government from being oppressive. Just like Israel having nuclear weapons makes her neighbors think long and hard before an invasion.
What I would rather know is why you are against the right to bear arms? If you don't want a gun, don't buy one.
Quote: AZDuffmanI didn't issue a call to violence. What I said was an armed citezenry keeps government from being oppressive.
How? Not by maintaining a threat of violence?
Quote:Just like Israel having nuclear weapons makes her neighbors think long and hard before an invasion.
Exactly.
Quote:What I would rather know is why you are against the right to bear arms? If you don't want a gun, don't buy one.
I am not against it, I said it before.
I just don't see any reason it should be mentioned in Constitution, because I don't think it is a "basic human right", like freedom or equality. I think this about many other rights as well, including the right to smoke pot, or the right to access internet at work. Doesn't mean I am against them either.
Quote: WizardSource, if you please.
Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?
A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.
(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)
It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down ...
...What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.
If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president." Honolulu Star Advertiser
Quote: weaselmanHow? Not by maintaining a threat of violence?
Owning a gun is not by itself a threat of violence.
Quote:
I just don't see any reason it should be mentioned in Constitution, because I don't think it is a "basic human right", like freedom or equality. I think this about many other rights as well, including the right to smoke pot, or the right to access internet at work. Doesn't mean I am against them either.
How is the right to protect yourself not a "basic human right?"
Quote: PaulEWogEven if you considered the remote possibility that the "liberal media" was suppressing this story, you would think you would still find some references from the traditional media.
That has been a recurring problem with many other news events.
Quote: PaulEwogWhich is probably why it wasn't picked up by traditional media and the the majority of Google hits you find about it are on places like "www.teapartybrewing.com".
Three months later, it is more than abundantly clear that if Abercrombie and his government had found the original they would have displayed it. Barring that, the sole logical conclusion is that the newspaper's parenthetical was accurate and remains so.
Quote: AZDuffmanOwning a gun is not by itself a threat of violence.
Agreed. But what exactly about it is it that keeps the government from being oppressive, compared to, say, owning a car?
Quote:How is the right to protect yourself not a "basic human right?"
Right to protect yourself is a basic human right, right to own a gun isn't.
Just like right to move from one place to another is, but right to own a car isn't, right to life is, but right to free food (or even to receive necessary medication, even not for free) isn't etc.
All these "basic rights" mean that the government should not prevent you from exercising them using means available to you, not that it somehow has to make sure that all imaginable means are available to everyone.
Quote: weaselmanWe, "the Birthers", aren't as ignorant about google, as someone suggested :)
713,000 results
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Shame after looking at the first 3 pages not one legitimate news source had this. All of these result's were either TeaBaggers or other websites reporting on Teabag delusions..
Here is another Search the "Birthers" might like.
200,000,000 results \
This may be why I keep tipping over
Quote: AZDuffmanPeople who legally own guns are among the safest to be around.
That so cute.
Quote: Wavy70not one legitimate news source had this. All of these result's were either TeaBaggers or other websites reporting on Teabag delusions.
The definitive newspaper of Hawaii is not a blogging Web site or Tea Party delusion.
Quote: weaselmanAgreed. But what exactly about it is it that keeps the government from being oppressive, compared to, say, owning a car?
I have already posted an example, reply to it if you wish to discuss.
Quote:Right to protect yourself is a basic human right, right to own a gun isn't.
Just like right to move from one place to another is, but right to own a car isn't, right to life is, but right to free food (or even to receive necessary medication, even not for free) isn't etc.
All these "basic rights" mean that the government should not prevent you from exercising them using means available to you, not that it somehow has to make sure that all imaginable means are available to everyone.
The government isn't "making sure the means is available." The government is not producing guns nor running gun stores. It is saying they (the government) cannot make a law preventing it. There is no "basic human right" to vote at age 18 vs some other age yet that is in the Constitution. It is there because it was felt important enough to mention it. In fact, that Ammendment could have easily just been a regular law. Laws are easy to change. Immagine if young people voted more Republican Party than Democrat Party. If this was the case and democrats had the power they did in 2009 a law raising the age to say 24 could easily have been changed by ram-thru and signed. But it couldn't because it is part of the Constitution.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have already posted an example, reply to it if you wish to discuss.
I must have missed it, sorry, not sure what example you are talking about.
Quote:The government isn't "making sure the means is available." The government is not producing guns nor running gun stores. It is saying they (the government) cannot make a law preventing it.
Right. But why are you ok with the government being able to make a law preventing you from owning a car?
Quote:There is no "basic human right" to vote at age 18 vs some other age yet that is in the Constitution.
Equal right to vote, might not exactly qualify as a "human right", but it is a fundamental principal of democracy.
Quote:It is there because it was felt important enough to mention it.
Yes, it felt important to affirm one of the principles this country was founded on.
Quote:Imagine if young people voted more Republican Party than Democrat Party. If this was the case and democrats had the power they did in 2009 a law raising the age to say 24 could easily have been changed by ram-thru and signed. But it couldn't because it is part of the Constitution.
Yeah, right. They could have easily passed a law granting the right to vote to (illegal) immigrants too, I imagine - the Constitution does not forbid it, and it would guarantee them a win by a landslide :)
But anyway, what's your point?
It sounds like we agree that it makes some things to be parts of Constitution rather than regular laws. I am just not buying the implication that the right to own a gun (or anything else for that matter) is one of those things.
Quote: weaselmanI must have missed it, sorry, not sure what example you are talking about.
NP, it is in this thread.
Quote:Right. But why are you ok with the government being able to make a law preventing you from owning a car?
Not OK with that at all. The EU is trying to ban cars from cities by 2050 and I am totally against it. Not sure where you got the idea I was OK with it.
Quote:Equal right to vote, might not exactly qualify as a "human right", but it is a fundamental principal of democracy.
Yes, but the right to vote at age 18 is not. Why not 16, why not 22? I'm not trying to debate the age, I'm just saying they felt it was important enough to make it a Constitutional Right. (It falls into the "old enough to fight but not to vote" theme of the 1960s.)
Quote:Yeah, right. They could have easily passed a law granting the right to vote to (illegal) immigrants too, I imagine - the Constitution does not forbid it, and it would guarantee them a win by a landslide :)
Don't give them ideas lol. But seriously, look at how Obamacare was passed over so much objection. Don't think anything can't happen.
Quote:But anyway, what's your point?
It sounds like we agree that it makes some things to be parts of Constitution rather than regular laws. I am just not buying the implication that the right to own a gun (or anything else for that matter) is one of those things.
That is what it sounds like, but I am just always interested in why people get so worked up about the right to own a gun.
Quote: AZDuffmanNP, it is in this thread.
Can you point me to it? Or just quote it again?
Quote:Not OK with that at all. The EU is trying to ban cars from cities by 2050 and I am totally against it. Not sure where you got the idea I was OK with it.
By "OK with it" I mean you do not think it should be included into Constitution. Or do you?
Quote:Yes, but the right to vote at age 18 is not. Why not 16, why not 22? I'm not trying to debate the age, I'm just saying they felt it was important enough to make it a Constitutional Right.
The exact number is not important. The Constitution could not just say that everybody has a right to vote, because then the infants would demand it, so they added the age provision that looked reasonable.
Quote:Don't give them ideas lol. But seriously, look at how Obamacare was passed over so much objection. Don't think anything can't happen.
My point was there are other things besides the Constitution that prevent the Dems from going completely nuts.
Quote:That is what it sounds like, but I am just always interested in why people get so worked up about the right to own a gun.
Well, I am not worked up about it at all actually. If anything, it actually seems to me that you are worked up a bit more than I would think is reasonable.
All I said was that I did not think that clause belonged to the Constitution, and here you are trying to start the argument with me about the right to own a gun, despite my repeated remarks that I have absolutely nothing against that right whatsoever.
It is simply not possible to be less worked up about it than I am, because I don't care about it at all. I don't need that right, and never will, but having it does not bother me a tiny bit either. I just think it is a bit silly to have the Supreme Law of The Land deal with an insignificant issue like that, that's all.
Quote: EvenBobI don't think the dispute is about where he was born. His parents may or may not have been married in the eyes of US law. It would be extremely harmful to a presidents image if he was born out of wedlock. Thats all this can be about, what else is there, if he was indeed born in Hawaii.
No, this whole hoopla is about the natural born citizen requirement to be president. Nobody cares about wedlock here. People are looking for a away to demonstrate that Obama cannot be president. If he were born abroad some incorrectly think that makes him not a natural born citizen.
Quote: bbvk05No, this whole hoopla is about the natural born citizen requirement to be president. Nobody cares about wedlock here. People are looking for a away to demonstrate that Obama cannot be president. If he were born abroad some incorrectly think that makes him not a natural born citizen.
Should it turn out he is no eligible there would have to be an impeachment.
Quote: weaselmanCan you point me to it? Or just quote it again?
If this works right, here it is: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/4898-natural-born-citizenship/11/#post63979
Quote:By "OK with it" I mean you do not think it should be included into Constitution. Or do you?
Right to a car? No. Because mode of transportation changes. I think there is the right to "locomotion" listed somewhere but do not know where. Also what we would be looking at is saying the government can't BAN cars. In any case, the fewer *specified* rights the better, the more general the better. Ever read the failed EU Constitution? Amazingly long and short parts. "Everyone has a right to 'x'," "Everyone has a right to 'y'." It is though they tried to enumerate every good right. But methinks that is the difference between "code law" and "common law." The USA is common law, most of Europe other than the Brits are code law. Common law more sets the generalities and worries about speciffics if it goes to court. Code law tries to be more speciffic. So if the Founding Fathers who intentionally set up a common law system but such a short and speciffic ammendment in, they surely felt it important.
Quote: pacomartinShould it turn out he is no eligible there would have to be an impeachment.
There is not such a pressing need for a trial, which is what the impeachment process is. A simple resignation would suffice. And we have already seen one of those in most of our lifetimes.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf this works right, here it is: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/4898-natural-born-citizenship/11/#post63979
This: I was watching a little bit of "Alaska State Troopers" the other day and the cop mentioned that in the area he was patrolling somewhere on the order of 80%+ of the population was legally armed. For this reason they were very cautious on how they approached a situation.?
I am still to get a direct response from you - why exactly were they cautious? What were they afraid of happening? Can you name a reason that calls for more caution in case of a lot of people owning guns as opposed a lot of people owning bunnies?
Quote:Right to a car? No. Because mode of transportation changes.
Well, the type of weaponry changes too. This is just semantics.
How about the right to own non-human-powered devices whose purpose is moving human beings from one geographic location to another?
Quote:I think there is the right to "locomotion" listed somewhere but do not know where.
I am not talking about the right to "locomotion" (that would be kinda akin to the right to self-defense), but rather about the right to own a device that provides you with a particular kind of means to exercise that right.
Quote:Also what we would be looking at is saying the government can't BAN cars.
Right. That's exactly what I am asking.
Quote:In any case, the fewer *specified* rights the better, the more general the better.
My point exactly.
Quote:So if the Founding Fathers who intentionally set up a common law system but such a short and speciffic ammendment in, they surely felt it important.
Yes, they certainly did. That's what I said in my initial post on this topic. Back then it was important. Now ... well, not so much.
Quote: weaselman
I am still to get a direct response from you - why exactly were they cautious? What were they afraid of happening? Can you name a reason that calls for more caution in case of a lot of people owning guns as opposed a lot of people owning bunnies?
Well, lets both knock down a door. I'll knock one down in a neighborhood where 80% of the people own bunnies, you can knock down one where 80% of the people own guns. Tell me why you might be concerned.
Quote: AZDuffman
Well, lets both knock down a door. I'll knock one down in a neighborhood where 80% of the people own bunnies, you can knock down one where 80% of the people own guns. Tell me why you might be concerned.
I would be concerned because I would be afraid of possible violence towards we.
But when I suggested that reason earlier, you objected and said that it was not it, so I am trying to find out what you think is my reason to be concerned in this situation.
(To remind the context, the conversation when something like this:
- you said that the gun ownership deserves to be in the constitution because it provides means for citizens to defend themselves from an oppressive government;
- I asked if it actually made sense to you that possibility of riots and civil unrest should be guaranteed by the constitution;
- You said that you never called for violence, and that people with guns are in fact more peaceful than others;
- I asked in that case what kind of protection from the oppressive government you had in mind
- You said that the government would be more hesitant to oppress people that had guns
- I asked what in your opinion was the reason for that hesitation.
)
Seriously, the British had a hell of a time in the revolutionary war because way too many Americans at the time owned guns, especially those living in the countryside. This gave the Americans both an armed force, and a countryside that could erupt in armed revolt after the Brits had subdued it. All this is aprt of the basis for the 2nd Ammendment.
In contemporary times no band of citizens aremed with what guns can legally be purchased in America has a prayer of standing up to a modern army. But they can give any modern army not hell-bent on outright slaughter a reason to pause.
Quote: pacomartinShould it turn out he is no eligible there would have to be an impeachment.
It will NEVER turn out that he is not eligible was because NOBODY disputes that his mother was a citizen when Obama was born. This bullshit is just noise pushed onto people that do not understand the 14th amendment and the 'natural born citizen' requirement.
Quote: bbvk05This bullshit is just noise pushed onto people that do not understand the 14th amendment and the 'natural born citizen' requirement.
Oh, civics is a subject badly known all over the world.
Here's a question: if a foreigner is arrested in the US, does he have a right not to answer questions asked by competent authorities? Does he have a right to legal representation?
Quote: NareedIn contemporary times no band of citizens aremed with what guns can legally be purchased in America has a prayer of standing up to a modern army. But they can give any modern army not hell-bent on outright slaughter a reason to pause.
BINGO! I will now retire from the thread since at least someone else gets the point.
BTW: They didn't stand a chance agsainst the Brits in field battle then, either.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe definitive newspaper of Hawaii is not a blogging Web site or Tea Party delusion.
OK after 3 pages I did not see the "Definitive" newspaper from Hawaii. Perhaps too much birther chatter has them buried.
Quote: SanchoPanzaA: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.
Why can't we have it? Is Obama anything other than an American in anyone's eyes, other than those of the right-wing loony fringe? Can we say by any stretch of the imagination that he would be unfit to be President simply because of a technicality about his birth, after he's grown up in America, served as a state senator, and been President for four years? So he was actually born on the planet Dweemo in the Horsehead Nebula, and teleported here by benevolent aliens. Who blanking bleeping blankety bleep CARES? Let's judge the man on his MERITS.
+10Quote: WizardMaybe it so the general population can be easily warned when a right-wing extremist is in our presence. At least it serves that purpose for me.
Quote: Nareed
In contemporary times no band of citizens aremed with what guns can legally be purchased in America has a prayer of standing up to a modern army. But they can give any modern army not hell-bent on outright slaughter a reason to pause.
Which army exactly is it that we are expecting to have to be deterred by our right to bear arms?
Quote: bbvk05It will NEVER turn out that he is not eligible was because NOBODY disputes that his mother was a citizen when Obama was born.
That is correct. But there is an additional requirement imposed on American parents' having children born outside the U.S. The birth has to be registered at the nearest consulate.
Quote: weaselmanWhich army exactly is it that we are expecting to have to be deterred by our right to bear arms?
The invading alien army for which Obama is an advance scout. Duh. I'm surprised you don't know that.
And we would have no chance against their gamma ray rifles and plasma grenades. Even if we DID all have bear arms instead of human ones.
Quote: AyecarumbaDidn't you see Red Dawn?
Yeah ... and also The Terminator. It looks like the Constitution needs an amendment, that guarantees every citizen a right to own a cyborg :)
Quote: NareedOh, civics is a subject badly known all over the world.
Here's a question: if a foreigner is arrested in the US, does he have a right not to answer questions asked by competent authorities? Does he have a right to legal representation?
It depends because there are two types of actions often pursued in those circumstances. If the charges are criminal their rights are essentially identical to that of an American citizen when it comes to the criminal process against them. In civil actions like a removal proceeding aliens are afforded no counsel. Both types are often used.
As a general rule of thumb all rights recognized in the constitution apply to to every single person unless it specifies otherwise. For example, foreigners have the same right to free speech here that American citizens do. It is largely similar in criminal proceedings.
To answer your question specifically: a foreigner has the right to remain silent and a right to counsel in criminal actions. They have to know that to exercise it, of course.
Quote: bbvk05As a general rule of thumb all rights recognized in the constitution apply to to every single person unless it specifies otherwise. For example, foreigners have the same right to free speech here that American citizens do. It is largely similar in criminal proceedings.
Right. Constitutions usually apply to a territory and everyone in it, not to a specific group of people. But you'd be surprised, and teddys too perhaps, at how many people believe otherwise.
Quote:As the top Hawaiian official in charge of state health records in 2008, when the issue of Obama's birth first arose, Fukino said she thought she had put the matter to rest. Contacted by NBC, Fukino expanded on previous public statements and made two key points when asked about Trump's recent comments.
The first is that the original so-called "long form" birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.
Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.
Quote:Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor's office's request. "Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret?" she asked.
Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated "certification of live birth" that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.
Quote:the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records.
"It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated "certification of live birth" form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.
more here
Quote: rxwineBecause of Donald Trump's recent comments, this is in the news again.
more here
Let's see The Don. Said he was going to run as a Democrat about a decade ago. When asked to show his financial records he refused. I think about 8ish years ago the Don announced hissself as an Independent candidate. Once again refused to show where he made his money or more importantly how often his Lawyers or family members have bailed him out.
Donald Trump. He is like those "Air Plants" Mist him daily with publicity and he will thrive. Never let him run your business unless you need a write off.
Quote: Wavy70
Let's see The Don. Said he was going to run as a Democrat about a decade ago. When asked to show his financial records he refused.
Yeah ... Obama, when faced with a similar question, did not refuse. He just said he did not have any records :) Wise man.
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_269c7239-603b-51e9-a660-a94bf109258f.html
Quote: Wavy70Let's see The Don. Said he was going to run as a Democrat about a decade ago. When asked to show his financial records he refused. I think about 8ish years ago the Don announced hissself as an Independent candidate. Once again refused to show where he made his money or more importantly how often his Lawyers or family members have bailed him out.
Donald Trump. He is like those "Air Plants" Mist him daily with publicity and he will thrive. Never let him run your business unless you need a write off.
Trump is doing an important service right now whether he runs or not. Namely he is showing that if you want to gain any traction you have to go after Obama's record and not run the miserable campaign McCain ran. Perhaps he does damage to the both of them and allows Newt to stay above the fray and look better and better.
The thing I am wondering is why with Obama in office you don't see all the sob stories in the media about peopel not being able to afford $4 gasoline. And about all the jobs created being "burger flipper jobs."
Quote: AltutWasn't gasoline something like $1.79 a gallon when Obama took office? Sean Hannity was talking about that a few weeks ago, but naturally you won't hear Brian Williams, Katy Couric, Harry Smith, or Rachel Maddow mention a thing about it.
Few people in the business world are as savvy as Donald Trump. Just by giving us a hint of what he would do as president to corral the budget mess and bring the deficit under control illustrates how confused Obama and his boys are. He uses bankruptcies as a tool of his wealth, and he uses women better than Hugh Hefner. Now if he could only do something about that mess on his head. But we don't elect hair (or whatever that is).
Trump has mixed business savvy. On one hand, his properties are immaculately maintained. OTOH, how can you run a casino bankrupt TWICE?
And Ivana sitll had quite a few good miles left when he left her.
Quote: AZDuffmanOn one hand, his properties are immaculately maintained.
Not that immaculately. Around the first bankruptcy, it came out at Casino Control commission hearings that the rooms at the Trump Plaza were not vacuumed daily--because of a severe shortage of vacuum cleaners
Quote: AZDuffmanOTOH, how can you run a casino bankrupt TWICE?
"How Many Times Has Donald Trump Filed For Bankruptcy?
By: Jennifer Mackin
Break Studios Contributing Writer
For legendary tycoons, Donald Trump tops the list, but how many times has Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy? The 90’s recession wasn’t picky about who it affected. Donald Trump felt the pinch as well. His decision to use high interest bonds to finance the assembly of the Taj Mahal casino caused life to get very stressful for the tycoon.
In 1991, unable to pay a $3.5 billion loan, he declared business bankruptcy. He also came close to filing personal ruin. At the time, his personal debt was estimated to be around $900 million. Due to the bankruptcy, banks and bondholders lost millions. They came to a compromise with Donald Trump. The banks gave him lower interest rates and a longer time frame to repay the debt and Donald Trump gave the investors half the ownership of the Taj Mahal. In mere months the casino was back in business.
Not even a year later, Trump Plaza Hotel folded and Donald had to declare bankruptcy. Again, he worked out a deal where he’d give up 49 percent of the hotel to Citibank and the other lenders and he’d get more time to pay the loan back. It took him two years to repay most of his debt with many sacrifices. He had to give up the Trump Shuttle.
The bankruptcy saga didn’t stop there. In 2004, Donald filed for bankruptcy protection and restructured his debt. He reduced his ownership of Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts to 27 percent and gave bondholders stocks to help lower his debt and then stepped down as CEO. In 2005, things settled down and Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts came out of bankruptcy with a new name, Trump Entertainment Resort Holdings.
Unfortunately the re-emergence didn’t last long. On February 17th 2009, Donald Trump filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy with a debt ratio of $50 million in assets to his $500 million in debt. This filing made the third bankruptcy for Trump Enterprises."made man
Quote: rxwineBecause of Donald Trump's recent comments, this is in the news again.
He needs the publicity. he has less chance at the presidency than I do, and I have none.
Negative advertisement would work too well on him, too. From the serious to ads showing him along with the legend "Would you buy a tupee from this man?"
But, what are we going to do? Every circus needsa clown.
Quote: Nareed
But, what are we going to do? Every circus needsa clown.
Absolutely!
I watched one of his shows on the Golf Channel and saw all of him I ever care to. You learn alot about a person playing golf with them. Trump seemed proud of the fact that he would not play with his son because his son was "not good enough". As a father, I find this incomprehensible.
The same episode showed a meeting where you got the sense that everyone there was scared to death that they would be fired at any minute just because he could. I know this was staged for the show, but I have never seen so much ass-kissing and boot-licking in my life.
Quote: timberjimbut I have never seen so much ass-kissing and boot-licking in my life.
Whats wrong with that? He's the boss and can and will fire them. Who wants friends working for you, there's no way to get rid of them.
