Posted by: graemebird | November 28, 2008

That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President Is A FACT Not Open To Dispute.

FIRST POSTED NOVEMBER 2008. BROUGHT TO THE FRONT END OF SEPTEMBER 201O. NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN FINALLY ADMITTED THAT OBAMA WAS NOT BORN IN HAWAII. THIS ARGUMENT WILL BREAK OUT AGAIN. BUT THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WERE CLEAR AS A BELL RINGING, WELL BEFORE HE TOOK THE OATH. YOU KNOW THE OATH WHICH THE JUDGE COULD BARELY ADMINISTER FOR THE SHAME OF KNOWING HE WAS DOING THE WRONG THING. AS I SAY THE FACTS WERE CRYSTAL CLEAR. SO WHY THE DENIAL? PERHAPS THE CATALLAXIAN AND OTHERS CAN EXPLAIN THEIR DENIAL IN THIS MATTER? WHY NOT SIMPLY GO WITH THE EVIDENCE? HERE IS THE ORIGINAL POST.

Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States Of America. This is a FACT. Now it might surprise young philosophy students that there is such a thing as an indisputable FACT but then there you are.

The reason why this is a fact, independent of what is written on his birth certificate or anything else, is that in all cases where there are eligibility criteria the person must be WILLING to prove his eligibility.

We see then that its not OK, merely to be ABLE, to prove ones eligibility in these situations. There is also the fact Fact FACT!!!!!!!!! that one must be WILLING to prove eligibility. If one is unwilling to make an effort to prove eligibility then one isn’t eligible unless one is of unsound mind. Maybe you can find an exception to what I say above. Go ahead. That would be good.

So that therefore if you show up at Prague international airport and you have a passport, a Visa to enter Prague international airport. You have your pants on, and you are not carrying any illegal drugs…… well it still remains the case that you lack eligibility to get past the gates, if you refuse to do those simple things that would prove your eligibility.

So you show up at the gates. You refuse point blank to tell them who you are. You won’t show them your Visa. You refuse to wear your pants or underwear. And you’ve stuffed your shirt with all this gear and are telling everyone its hardcore drugs…… Well it doesn’t matter that your Visa would check out, you could CONCEIVABLY put your underpants and your pants back on……. you could CONCEIVABLY demonstrate that you were only joking around about the drugs…. and so forth… Well the fact is you are still not eligible to get through the gates.

So there is not use disputing this matter of Barry-too-white not being eligible. The man who would be President “Obama” is not eligible and there is not even the slightest uncertainty to this matter. And what we see with the people disputing this matter is a coalition of liars. This is yet one more thing that draws his supporters TO the fraudster. The fact that his supporters are dishonest too. They are dishonest. He is a conman. They are drawn to him.

Now another thing. Since the preferred method of Obama’s mindless bunch of messiah-followers for dealing with the FACT-FUCKING-FACT of Obama’s ineligibility….. Since the preferred strategy of the enemy is to lie, play the race card, and to filibuster… Since we know precisely what the dishonest sector of the community will do and how they will behave……. Well because of this we can see in advance that there is some things to look out for.

1. Very much like the WMD nonsense that the left pulled we will find that EVERYTHING WILL RETROSPECTIVELY BE HELD TO HAVE DEPENDED ON THE ONE THING THAT CONSTITUTIONALISTS AND PATRIOTIC AMERICANS SPECULATED WRONGLY ABOUT IN THIS MATTER. So if the certificate, fake or otherwise, claims that he was born in Honolulu…. well the shitrain of leftist jamming-propaganda will be that the whole case rested on the birth place alone. RETROSPECTIVELY it will be claimed that the birthplace was all there is to it. Like Clinton betraying the West by selling military technology to the Chinese and retrospectively it was held that the whole thing came down to blowjobs.

Retrospectively it will be held that the only thing that mattered was the one thing that it is claimed that most people on the rational side of the debate got wrong.

in reality the whole case rests on Obama being willing and ability to prove his eligibility. It rests on both his willingness and his ability to prove his eligibility and not any micronised part of the substantial case that he has to make.

2. An attempt will be made to say that we are discriminating against the Usurper. That no other candidate has had to go to such lengths to prove his eligibility.  Well yes we ought to expect a HUGE, AWESOME AND EXHAUSTIVE AMOUNT OF VERIFICATION since no other candidate has acted as dishonestly as this criminal ass-clown fantasist. No other candidate, to my knowledge, has ever forged two documents relating to himself and hidden all the rest of his documents. Hence its only the forgeries that we appear to know about. So of course if you’ve faked up one document we have to assume that any further documents tended are BETTER-FAKES. Thats obvious and only an idiot would think otherwise. Each document must be checked with immense forensic overkill.

3. They will attempt to play the race card. But Pastor Manning has sized that nonsense right up. He’s gives a very good psychological explanation as to why its the Obama supporters that clearly are the racists. And his explanation really seems to accord with anecdotal  evidence. The same people who wouldn’t give Alan Keyes the time of day, are precisely the same sort of people who are now devoted to that long-legged Mac Daddy who is skinflinting around pretending to be the President-Elect.

By the way. Clearly google is the best search engine there is. Just not for this subject. You will probably get better results going with other search engines or even in this case with YouTube.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The mainstream non-regional news has only just picked this story up. They must have thought they could not keep it down anymore. So anyway MSNBC picks up the story only to screw it up. No doubt on purpose. In fact if they weren’t going to lie about it they surely would not have talked about it at all.

YOUTUBE ADDED MARCH 2009

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Bailout funding committed is now up to 3.5 trillion. This has happened in broad daylight and amounts to the greatest single example of arbitrary government stealing in world history.

    No economic justification can be found for this. In fact it runs totally opposite to the direction of good policy.

    THIS IS ALL THE RESULT OF LEGAL NIHILISM, WHICH IS PART OF THE SAME PHENOMENON THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE NO LONGER THINK THEY NEED TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

    The constitution is no old hat. Rather it is MORE VITAL AND NECESSARY THAN IT EVER WAS IN THE PAST. This is because it must contain a government that lords itself above a population of 300 000 000 people. To contain such a vast thieving machinery with that much firepower is something that only a very powerful adherence to the constitution, bordering on religion, could even achieive in theory.

    Its essentially our most important ally destroying itself in right in front of our eyes. Its very distressing. And its got the same root cause as the Obama scandal. LEGAL NIHILISM.

  2. Seems clear cut to me, Barack Obama cannot become President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution. Please listen to the linked youtube, and if you can, point out exactly where its conclusion is erroneous. Since the United States Supreme Court will be under the same Constitutional constraints with regard to the cases now before it, I don’t see HOW the Supreme Court can find otherwise. But, again, if anyone’s got a legal theory Obama can use to get out of checkmate, have at it:

  3. You would think so wouldn’t you Ted. Its true that Obama cannot RIGHTFULLY AND LEGALLY become President. But it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court and the electoral college will behave will sufficient courage and reason to stop him. Its important for many reasons. But not the least of which is the fact that a two-bit conman like this fellow couldn’t have made it this far without more or less unlimited foreign resources backing him up.

    Surely the Supreme Court judges must see that things are running out of control and that its time to put their foot down in favour of constitutionalism.

    I expect that Clarence Thomas will act with great courage. And I hope that Scalia will too. But one truly wonders if they will get the numbers. This is not something that can be left until after he’s sworn in.

  4. Fuck me dead you people are thick. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, Jackson, W.H. Harrison were all born british you morons. It doesn’t prevent him being a naturalk born citizen of the US.

  5. You are a MORON Edney. Go read the article. It excludes present company. I’ll go get the wording you dimwitted idiot.

  6. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    So you got that wrong Edney. And you ought to turn over a new leaf and admit it quickly this time.

  7. Your last mentioned example was William Henry Harrison:

    “Harrison was in fact a scion of the Virginia planter aristocracy. He was born at Berkeley in 1773.”

    See that? Born well before the adoption of the constitution. Now which dumbass leftist site did you get this bit of misinformation from?

  8. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qFbamPP0o&feature=related

  9. fine. But it doesn’t exclude dual citizens.

    1773 was before the constitution bird. They were all brits before then.

  10. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nqxmn1ZuMw4&feature=related

    Obama A Homo. Pastor Manning alleges that the Reverend Wright is a homo also and that they had a homo relationship.

  11. Sure it excludes dual citizens. But thats not something you can say one way or another without the historical research necessary to determine exactly what was meant by the phrase at the time.

    And I happen to know that Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia are willing to do that research when they have to.

    On the other hand that won’t matter since Obama is an undocumented alien and not a dual citizen.

  12. “1773 was before the constitution bird. They were all brits before then.” That was my POINT you idiot. And the whole idea of this law, a very good law in my view, was to stop anyone with dual loyalties finding their way to the office.

  13. So are homosexual presidents banned byt the constitution as well?

  14. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=lSc3Q_INPKo

  15. They don’t mention homosexuality in the constitution. So no he’s not banned on those grounds. But that he is not banned on those grounds doesn’t change the fact that he’s banned on any number of other grounds.

    Its alleged that the choirmaster who got murdered in his church. Well this choirmaster was called Donald Young. He was choirmaster in reverend Wrights church. And he was murdered in December 2007. And its alleged that Obama had something going on there. If you are sponsored be bigshots in terrorist nations nothing can be ruled out. This is all in a days work for some intelligence outfits. To squash one scandal the Sauds appeared to have had three of their cousins killed in the space of a week. One died of thirst funnily enough. See Gerald Posner for that story.

    But in any case if he’s a homo then he’s open to blackmail and thats a pretty scary prospect in and of itself. Notice that no-one has come forward as some sort of former girlfriend from University days. And this despite the fact that he’s become a sex symbol. You would have expected at least a dozen sheilas to have gone for bragging rights. But nothing much going on in that rumour department.

  16. ROFL

    you are hilarious you fat Kiwi

    so these communists were smart enough to get Obama into the presidency but dumb enough that they made their manchurian canidate a gay illegal alien

    LOL

  17. You take it up with them. The CIA helped Saddam one time or another before he got into power. But they weren’t smart enough to nuance matters perfectly either. There is nothing strange about that at all. Why would that be strange? What would be strange is if they were God on the throne rather than people making a limited investment on a bit of a wing and a prayer.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgvxn6Y4gUM&feature=related

  18. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZORkM5OZNLU&feature=related

  19. “according to Birdshit, Obama is gay and killed some choirmaster”

    I wouldn’t think that Obama would kill a former queer friend like that. What I said was that if your backers are Saudi bigshots obviously OBVIOUSLY!!!!!!! nothing can be ruled out.

    That ought to be obvious even to someone like you Jason. A dummy who cannot think for yourself.

    The Americans spend X amount of dollars on warmaking. What happens then is that the rest of the world sets up shop in Washington to influence that power. Thats just a fact. Hence nothing can be ruled out. You’d have to be really fucking stupid to think otherwise.

    What do you even imagine intelligence agencies are for?

  20. so let ,me get this straight

    these wahhabis are not only in alliance with communists but are backing a gay man?

    LOL

    some wahhabis

  21. I don’t know that? How can I possibly know that? I’m just reporting what the witness says. And pointing out why its not as strange as it sounds. I wasn’t there. What could I know.

    What if I told you that the Americans gave hundreds of millions to a Jew-Killing homo?

    Well Arafat was a Jew-Killing homo and the Americans gave the PLO, fundamentally Arafats personal sidearms, hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only that the Europeans gave this terror outfit BILLIONS of dollars.

    You have got to get it out of your head this IDIOCY that people don’t co-operate.

    The Sauds are Wahabis who are known for their incredibly un-Islamic life-styles. This homo-Wahabi thing is in no way odd or strange or anything else.

    As stated Arafat was queer. The story is no less or more out of whack for the homo element.

  22. I think its like quantum phenomena, Obama can’t be both a wahhabist and a gay till me make the observation and put him in one state or another.

  23. Tell us your idiot theory on inter-group co-operation Jason?

    You ought to make explicit this theory. Now in your view socialists and Islamic types don’t co-operate right?

    WHERE’S THAT COMING FROM.

    Guys are just going to know you are a dumb cunt if you are unable to be quits with dumb ideas like that.

    Nobody co–operates with homos in your view? Except you believe that J Edgar Hoover was a homo without any evidence whatsoever. No eyewitness testimony nothing. Just a dumb left conspiracy theory.

  24. What was the point of that comment Edney?

    These are not mutually exclusive. You can be a homo and a commie. You can be a marxist and an Islamacist. You can be a Christian commie like Mark Bahnisch. These are not contrary points of view in their entirety.

    There are many objectivist-lite Christians for example.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=redxWMNMS0U

  25. but can you be a gay wahhibist?

  26. Of course you can.

    The Sauds lead the most outrageous anti-Islamic lifestyles at the same time as spreading this puritanism on steroids. Sexual scandals are always breaking out in churches. You wouldn’t think you could be a paedophile Catholic but we know all about that don’t we.

    Guys. Get with reality. The thing to admit here is that nothing can be ruled out. Once wahabi backers are involved nothing can be ruled out.

    Saudi Arabia isn’t a country. Its a family oil business run by the spawn of wahabist desert bandits. Ergo if Obama has one of the richest Saud princes as one of his backers that fellows richness is a bellweather of his standing in the family business. Note that the family business has a very accomplished intelligence outfit and a massive prescence in Washington.

    So lets not go the moron-left talk where only stupid leftist conspiracies can ever be valid.

    Once you get criminal regime backing anything is possible.

  27. America was practicing rendition torture using enemy terrorist-sponsor Arab regimes as its partner in this matter.

    Just wake up and get it through your thick heads that people of all types co-operate.

  28. No I said it looks like he’s got at least one Saudi prince as a long-time sponsor. You really are a dumb bastard aren’t you Jason. Yes you are.

  29. we can’t all be obese but brilliant Kiwis, Graeme

  30. cuz
    are these insinuations by the chinese communist SOON true?

    have you put on yet more blobber?

    you know cuz we in the Bird-Macquarie clan are inclined towards being BIG BONED if you know what I mean.

    and we must take due account of this in our diet and lifestyle.

    i sez again

    WE MUST TAKE DUE ACCOUNT OF THIS IN OUR DIET AND LIFESTYLE

    so don’t let that city living weigh you down cuz

    the bird-macquarie must keep up his level of FIGHTING FITNESS

    especially in these end-of-days with quislings determined to sell us out and communists at the helm of the US

  31. Thats the danger of it all. That it fits into the pattern of what people will think is this “end of days” business.

  32. Glad I found this site. Excellent content here – keep up the good work!

  33. “he point is Graeme you are worried about imaginary problems and strategic enemies whilst using dodgy economics.”

    No its your crowds economics that is dodgy. Its crony-communist changeling economics. Your economics is crap. There is not a great deal to be gained by freeing up airports, ports, natural resources and roads to be sold to strategic military competitors and those who might try to influence our policy and our elections.

    Economic theory DOES NOT SUPPORT the idea that there is much gains to be made in that department. Rather the gains are to be made by finding good ways to make infrastructural markets more competitive and abundantly-supplied such that they are no longer strategic resources.

    Coming from another angle we say that the gains are to be made NOT by flogging what we have off. But RATHER by sorting it out that we have people CONFIDENTLY BUILDING THE NEW STUFF.

    When we look more closely at the Kirchner article and the thief-economics consensus we will find that its all about flogging off the old stuff and nothing about developing pseudo-property-rights leading to the confident building of these goods by people and companies of middling wealth and size..

    We will find that there is no emphasis at all at making this country a SMALL BUSINESS START-UP PARADISE that people all over the world will come to take advantage of. Rather we will find that you, Jason’s, Humphreys, Sincliars and Kirchners emphasis will all be about flogging off stuff WE ALREADY HAVE to the deepest of pockets.

  34. OK. I will proceed to prove what I have said above by analysis of the comments of the culprits on the website catallaxy.

    STEVE KIRCHNER SEZ:

    If FDI is to be regulated at the border, then reform efforts should focus on further liberalising and improving the existing FDI approval process. The thresholds for review of FDI proposals should be raised to reflect recent trends in bilateral free-trade agreements.

    STEVE KIRCHNER IS BUSTED. CRONY-COMMUNIST EMPHASIS. HE’S ONLY REALLY INTERESTED IN THRESHOLDS FOR THE DEEP-POCKET BIGSHOTS. THIS IS NOT THE FOCUS OF ECONOMIC LIBERTY. ECONOMIC LIBERTY WOULD BE FOCUSED ON MAKING US THE NEW BUSINESS STARTUP CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. AND ALSO A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME TO BUY A SMALL BUSINESS, EXPAND IT AND SELL IT. PEOPLE FROM ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE. BUT NO WITH THESE GUYS ITS ABOUT THRESHOLDS FOR OUR AIRPORTS, OUR AIRLINES, OUR PORTS, OUR COAL, OIL, URANIUM, IRON ORE, COPPER, DIAMONDS, GOLD, AND ALL OUR NATURAL GAS RESERVES.

    NOTE ALSO THEY ARE NOT THE LEAST BIT INTERESTED IN SMALL COUNTRIES LIKE BAHRAIN, TANZANIA, SINGAPORE, PARAGUAY, OR A PROVINCE IN JAPAN. OR THE CITY OF CHANG MAI. ITS BIG COMMIE CENTRAL THAT REALLY TURNS THESE GUYS ON. THRESHOLDS. WE MUST RAISE UP THE THRESHOLDS. WE WANT BIG VOLUME. THEY WANT BIG CORPORATE COMPANIES FROM GIANT SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. THEY WANT BIG BOYS AND DEEP POCKETS. KEEP ALL THE POLTICIANS BRIBED AND ALL THE CONSULTANTS EMPLOYED.

  35. CAMBRIA QUOTES AN ARTICLE;

    “A QANTAS bid to convince the Rudd Government to lift overall restrictions on foreign ownership appears to have foundered.

    But the airline may get concessions that will make consolidation with another airline easier.

    Sections of a draft copy of the federal Government’s aviation green paper, obtained by The Australian, suggest the Government is looking at making some concessions to Qantas but not the main break for which it was lobbying.

    The draft copy says: “The Government will maintain the legal requirement for the majority of Australian ownership of Australia’s international airline, including Qantas, to ensure a strong Australian-based aviation industry continues into the future.

    “It may, however, be timely toconsider whether the additional ownership restrictions currently imposed on Qantas are appropriate.”

    The Qantas Sale Act limits overall foreign investment in the airline to 49 per cent.

    However, it also restricts any foreign “person” to a relevant interest of no more than 25 per cent and says other airlines cannot own more than a combined 35 per cent.

    Eliminating those requirements would make Qantas a more attractive investment

    target.

    The green paper was initially due to be published in September, but is now due to be released at the National Press Club in Canberra on Tuesday.

    SPEAKING OF THE LABOUR PARTY CAMBRIA INTRODUCES THIS ARTICLE, THAT HE APPEARS TO THINK IS DEEPLY OFFENSIVE, BY SAYING:

    “Remind me next time I give any of these fuckers an even break to go have a cold shower club myself into a coma”

    APPARENTLY CAMBRIA FINDS THE ABOVE POLICIES SELF-EVIDENTLY PUTRID. AS IF BLOCKING THE MAJORITY OWNERSHIP OF OUR NATIONAL CARRIER IS AMONGST THE MOST-OFFENSIVE, RATHER THAN AMONGST THE LEAST-OFFENSIVE, FORMS OF INTERVENTIONISM.

    CHANGELING LIBERTARIANS. IN SOBER FACT LEFTIES AND CRONY-COMMUNISTS. INTERNATIONALISTS. NOT LOYAL TO THIS NATION.

  36. MARK HILL GIBBERS ON.

    AFTER CONGRATULATING CAMBRIA FOR HIS DEEP CONCERN WITH US KEEPING MAJORITY OWNERSHIP OF QUANTAS HE DITHERS ABOUT AND THEN SAYS:

    “Inflows are tricky. Often, FDI is seed capital and capital is raised in local markets and a lot of reinvestment is made.”

    WELL THATS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED ON AUTHENTICALLY FREEING THINGS UP. BUT ITS NOT CLEAR WHAT MARK IS TALKING ABOUT. IS HE TALKING ABOUT KENTUCKY FRIED AND MACDONALDS. IF HE IS THEN HE’S LIKELY QUITE RIGHT. BUT THAT IS NOT WHERE HIS HEAD IS AT. BELIEVE ME I KNOW. HE NOT INTERESTED IN THESE GUYS COMING HERE FOR SEED CAPITAL. HE’S DOING A BAIT AND SWITCH AND TRYING TO APPLY THE ADVANTAGES THAT COME FROM SMALL BUSINESS FREEDOM TO FLOGGING OFF STUFF WE ALREADY HAVE.

    This infers not a lot of investment in new ventures is being made.

    IT INFERS THE OPPOSITE. BUT THIS MIGHT BE JUST MARK NOT WORDING THINGS WELL ENOUGH. HE’S TALKING ABOU THE REAL STUFF THAT WE WANT. THE NEW BUSINESS INVESTMENT. THE NEW SMALL FACTORY START-UPS. OR EXISTING FACTORY EXPANSION. THE HANDS-ON SMALL STUFF. AND NOTHING TO DO WITH INFRASTRUCTURE. NOT THAT WE CANNOT SORT THAT DOWN THE TRACK BUT CLEARLY THE IMPLICATIONS OF FREE MARKET MODELS CANNOT CURRENTLY BE GRAFTED ON TO GOODS OF AN INFRASTRUCTURAL NATURE OR THOSE TYPES OF FIRMS THAT LIVE AND DIE ON THIS INFRASTRUCTURE….. (FOR EXAMPLE AIRLINES AND SHIPPING).

    (This of course makes it difficult to gauge the impacts of FDI to both the host and investing country).

    With onerous restrictions and uncompetitive pricing……”

    BUSTED RIGHT THERE. UNCOMPETITIVE PRICING. HE’S TRYING TO GRAFT FREE MARKET MODELS ONTO FLOGGING OFF INFRASTRUCTURE. WHAT ELSE COULD HE MEAN BY UNCOMPETITIVE PRICING.

    “…………, I think the lack of Greenfield investment hints that we should liberalise regulations surrounding investment in real estate for starters.

    YOU KNOW AT FIRST THAT SEEMS SENSIBLE. BUT NO REALLY ITS MISSING THE POINT. ITS NOT FOREIGN INVESTMENT DOLLARS BIDDING UP OUR LAND PRICES THAT ARE GOING TO DO ANY DAMN THING.

    SO NO HE’S BLOWN IT. ITS ABOUT THE EASE OF STARTING NEW BUSINESS OR BUYING AND EXPANDING EXISTING SMALL BUSINESS THAT COUNTS. AND ALSO WE WANT TO LEARN HOW TO GET BY WITHOUT ZONING OR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON BUILDINGS EVERYWHERE. SO MARKS TOTALLY BLOWN IT HERE. THE OUTCOME OF HIS FOCUS WOULD BE PASSIVE INVESTMENT BY FOREIGNERS. RATHER THAN PEOPLE COMING FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD TO START A SMALL BUSINESS HERE. OR TO BUY A MIDDLING BUSINESS AND EXPAND IT.

    People will stop dreaming up bogeymen when you tell them the bogeymen might make their rent cheaper.

    SEE HOW HE BLOWS IT? PASSIVE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT WOULD LIKELY JUST BID UP OUR LAND PRICES AND IF ANYTHING INCREASE, RATHER THAN DECREASE OUR RENTS.

    NOW IF HE HAD HIMSELF SOME FOCUS AND HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BUYING FARMLAND TO PUT NUCLEAR-COAL-LIQUIFICATION PLANTS ON THEM WELL HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A GOOD POINT. BUT IMAGINE IF HE WAS THINKING OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT. HE THEN, ALMOST AS IF HE HAS BIPOLAR DISORDER, SKIRTS ACROSS TO STANDARD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT. BECAUSE NOTICE HE’S TALKING ABOUT RENTS GOING DOWN. SO HE LOSES THE POINT OF HIS ORIGINAL THOUGHT (BEING CHARITABLE) AND THEN GRAFTS A BOGUS INFERENCE ON IT BY FOCUSING ON THE PHRASE HE HAS USED (IE “REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT”) RATHER THEN THE THINKING HE HAD ALIGHTED ON TO DO WITH “GREENFIELD” INVESTMENT.

    “….This also infers our resources are tapped out……”

    A COMPLETELY BULLSHIT INFERENCE. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHAT MARK IS THINKING ABOUT HERE. AND IF HE LEFT IT FOR A WEEK HE’D FORGET HIMSELF.

    “I don’t think this is true, i think the restrictive regime has more to with this….”

    HE’S JUST FUCKING LOST IT. HE’S THINKING ABOUT WHAT SOME OTHER CUNT SAID. SOMETHING HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND.

    “Personally, I think on costs and several other “push” variables that affect vertically integrated firms have been ignored in the literature.”

    IT WOULD BE OK IF HE KNEW PRECISELY WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

    “We have very high personal and corporate tax rates, capital gains….taxes were ignored for a while in the literature…..”

    I don’t THINKso! I think people have dealt quite well with capital gains taxes IN THE LITERATURE. I think he’s could be right about HIS DOPEY PROFESSORS in regards to corporate taxes. Since I found myself writing an article or two about how taxing profits ought to be outlawed. It ought to be a really bad sin. Amongst the most stupid tax imagineable even from an enlightened thieves perspective. Really stupid stealing. We ought NEVER tax profits. But I doubt Mark is endorsing my essays here, so its hard to know what he is talking about.

    “…………………(transfer pricing seemed to eliminate the significance) but their importance is being rediscovered in the last decade and paticularly in the last few years.”

    Transer pricing would not make taxing profits seem less significant…. unless…. Unless….. UNLESS!!!!! UNLESS YOU WERE TOTALLY FOCUSED ON BIGSHOT MULTINATIONALS who can avoid taxes by shifting their profits and losses around. And this IS-IN-FACT Marks focus. And so he imagines that perhaps transfer pricing made people ignore the company tax and so forth. Well yes. His crowd would. Because Marks crowd works for crony-town.

    “Inflows might start going up again if we don’t have an overvalued dollar, but an undervalued dollar (in relation to long run real effective exchnage rates).”

    THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. BECAUSE THE INFLOWS WOULD THEN OVERVALUE THE DOLLAR. HE’S CONFUSED HIMSELF AGAIN.

    “It would be interesting to see if inflows are less due to a slowdown in international labour migration to Australia – recent research suggests that FDI/capital follows workers.”

    I’D WANT TO KNOW THE START AND FINISH DATES TO WHAT HE IS CLAIMING HERE AND TO HAVE THE DATA. INFLOWS WILL HAVE SLOWED LATELY BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

    YOU CANNOT REALLY BUST MARK TOO MUCH ON THIS ONE POST FOR HIS CRONY-COMMUNIST, CHANGELING, THIEF-ECONOMICS, FOCUS. NOT IN THIS SCREED ANYHOW. BECAUSE ITS SUCH A FUCKING DOGS BREAKFAST. HE’S ALL OVER THE PLACE LIKE A DRUNKEN SUICIDE BOMBER.

    “….But our outward FDI is increasingly rapidly. We could just be heading towards the final stages of the investment development path….”

    CRIKEY? WHAT IS THE SILLY FUCKER TALKING ABOUT HERE? THE END OF DAYS? THE FABLED SINGULARITY? DUDES GOT ALL THESE BOGUS ECONOMICS IDEAS JUMBLED TOGETHER WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION IN HIS DISORGANIZED BRAIN.

  37. Look fella. You cannot come here and just tell lies. Justify the above idiotic statement or I will wipe it.

  38. graeme
    name one person on catallaxy who takes your ravings on obama seriously?

    Not even CL

    It’s time you came in from the cold of your madness

  39. Big Contributors to the Clinton Foundation and Terrorist Organizations too… Saudi’s and the Prince of Morraco as well as other Arabic interests. Shouldn’t one be curious to research those that cuddle up to the problem? Jason is a typical libtard… doesn’t state his sources, just blows steam and uses insults in place of facts. Fox news reported on the connection with the Clinton Foundation by the way.

  40. Do a google search on the Clinton Foundation and see what comes up!

  41. SOMEWHAT EARLIER I MADE THE FOLLOWING CLAIM:

    “This is where your forum is at right now Jason. The exaltation of everything stupid, mindless and wrong and the putting down of anyone left who thinks straight.”

    LAST NIGHT JASON SEZ:

    “graeme
    name one person on catallaxy who takes your ravings on obama seriously?”

    SO I SEZ:

    Kind of proving my point aren’t you Jason? I’m afraid that winning points from anonymous Catallaxy dummies is not the final game in town when it comes to epistemology.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Lets go over the theory of it shall we? The US spends an enourmous amount on the military. Its is not cost-effective to outspend them $3 dollars to their one to neutralise that lethality. Hence the main order of business, for any nation whose interests are fundamentally irreconcilable with the Americans, is to influence decision-making in Washington. The History of World War II and of the communists would seem to prove that the US is a uniquely easy city for foreigners to at least manipulate. To at least skew decision-making.

    In our country the Chinese seem to hold immense influence. But right now in Washington it is the Sauds who appear to have incredible influence. And why wouldn’t they?

    Americans were always highly susceptible to communist influence and this may be a part of the intense idealism in the culture. You wouldn’t have thought that Americans would be a piece of cake for extremist Islamists to influence. And in earlier times that would have been unthinkable. But Post-Modern types are ethical skeptics and fundamentally they can be turned into whores. They can be pimped easily enough.

    I’ve busted you Jason for falling for the lamest leftist Jive and one of these mantras that you would carry around with you is the idea that the Lewinsky affair was all about blowjobs and puritanism. Nobody cared about that side of things. What it was really about was CORRUPT DEALINGS WITH CHINESE INTELLIGENCE.

    Clinton is a traitor. There is no doubt about that. The meat of the Ken Starr investigation was about Clinton selling out his country and Western Civilisation to the Chinese. Once we know that then nothing is off the table. Since while it would be very hard to get your own intelligence outfit to kill Americans it would be a piece of cake to get the Chinese to do it.

    Dealing with these people might well involve murdering their nationals by bombing a radio station and an embassy. Retaliation on the Chinese side might well mean murdering someone in the Clinton camp and making it look like Clinton did it. Or alternatively getting rid of someone Clinton wanted to get rid of.

    When you are facing someone who you cannot hope to beat militarily then all you have is influence, STEALTH, more STEALTH, corrupting political officials, MORE STEALTH, misinformation and YET MORE STEALTH.

    When non-Post-Modern regimes get into a struggle with another regime they are determined to win by any means necessary. Its the way of things but our leftists aren’t the least bit interested in winning. But only in satisfying the electorate.

  42. wow. the comments-especially those of the obviously inbred and ill informed author- have been all across the board. one even said Obama was a homosexual and had a relationship with the dreaded rev. wright. WHAT’S YOUR POINT. HE’S GAY. OR YOU POINT OUT SOME OF HIS FORMER GIRLFRIENDS you people really need lives. really.

    NO HE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN AWAY IN CHAINS.

    but all of this is a moot point since the man IS the president of the united states,

    NO HE’S NOT. HE’S A USURPER. THATS NOT THE SAME AS BEING THE PRESIDENT. THERE’S NO LYING ON THIS SITE. LIE AGAIN AND YOU’LL GET WIPED. and will be re-elected. the sad part is that all this posturin’ y’all been doin’ isnt gonna change that fact.

    toodles*
    dGb!

  43. The idea is to go with the evidence you retard.

  44. This sums up my view of climate change perfectly. How would you refute the argument, Graeme?

    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/we-must-act-on-climate-change-even-if-you-dont-believe-in-it/

  45. Well its a lie. And we’d soon run out of resources if we responded to every lie that was out there. Whats the logic? Lets have it in your own words. Its important to put it in your own words, so that you are forced to trip over and then respond to your own failure of logic.

  46. Lets say white house-nigger one says we need an insurance policy because CO2 cools. And white house nigger 2 says we need an insurance policy since CO2 warms. And then someone comes along and says “buy your own insurance policy” ……

    …. How can this possibly affect your view of policy? If you do the decent thing and follow through on the logic, then you will see that there is no basis for policy at alil.

  47. Supposing all authentic science turns out to be wrong and we face a massive overheating? How will the damaging of our economy assist in this warming crisis? Buggering our hydrocarbon industry will hurt our ability to deal with the extra heat. This will hurt our situation and not help it.

    You cannot link, by a process of logic, the idea of restricting CO2 output, to INSURANCE FOR A heating crisis. Where is the link Jason? Don’t fucking go silent on the subject. You’ve been running this lie for several years, and its a failure to be explicit about your reasoning that leads you to being stuck on stupid.

    Explain this insurance bullshit. You will see its bullshit as soon as you go to explain it. But if you chicken out you’ll be stuck on the same lies a year from now.

  48. There is no logic whatsoever to the contention that we can restrict CO2 as insurance for a heating crisis. Believe me the logic isn’t there. No-one can do it. Because it ANTI-INSURANCE. A wealthy country will deal with a heating crisis and a cooling crisis better than a poorer country.

  49. Apart from a coronal mass ejection, where we’ve just got to be under cover, and stop our electrical equipment from shorting out, there is no prospect of a heating crisis.

    Nonetheless we have truly excellent ways of dealing with a heating crisis. Whereas we have no good way to deal with cooling.

    So once again. Explain the insurance argument, BECAUSE ITS NOT FUCKING THERE.

    Just explain it, and if you cannot, admit you are wrong, and change sides.

    This is 5+ years of stupidity and betraying your adopted country. And it boils down to arrogance and bad character, and a failure to be explicit about your reasoning.

    You ask me for an explanation ….. what have I got to respond to. I assure you there is no logic to the insurance lie. And you sort of feel there is. You have a liver quiver that there is some logic there. Well just do your best to explain the insurance meme, and so you will see that the logic isn’t there.

    There are two ways to deal with a global heating crisis, one is cheap and nasty. Another is expensive but excellent. The cheap way is simply to piggy-back

    MORE LATER

  50. No look I won’t get into it. Because you irrationally think there is a heating crisis. So you will compare the real solution to a fantasy heating crisis to a phony solution to a fantasy heating crisis THAT YOU BELIEVE IN ….. And you’ll see them as alternatives. They are not alternatives. Because if we have a heating crisis, the very worst thing you could even possibly do is scuttle your hydrocarbon industry.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: