There are 15.9 million college students in the U.S., so thanks for agreeing with me.
If Obama got good grades, he most certainly would have qualified...
Random speculation: the last resort of the person with no actual evidence.
Posted on 05/12/2010 8:47:16 AM PDT by curiosity
The origin of modern myths and legends is a side interest of mine, the birther myths among them.
Now I understand why Obama being born in Kenya made it into your belief system, despite it being physically impluasible (requiring around 5 days and five flights, most on propeller planes) and financially impossible (it would have cost about a year of her parents' combined salaries) for Stanley Ann & Obama Sr. to travel there for her to give birth. After all, Obama's Father was from Kenya, so if you are going to make up a myth about Obama being born abroad, what better place than Kenya?
Implausibilty, and even impossiblilty doesn't deter the making of myths if there is a strong emotional reason to believe them, as in this case.
What I don't understand is, of all possible places in Kenya, why make Mombassa the birthplace in your myth? If you look at the map of Kenya, it's on the other end of the country from Obama Sr.'s village, 762 miles away, which would make it a minimum 2 day train ride. Probably longer, since Kenyan trains were very fast in 1961.
I suppose you could argue that there were no hospitals in Obama's village, so they had to travel to a major city. But Nairobi was closer, and more modern.
So why Mombassa? Not only is it completely implausible; I don't see the emotional appeal. Why Mombasssa rather than his father's village? Or why Mombassa rather than Nairobi?
Help me out here, birthers. Why do you reserve this special place for Mombassa in your belief system?
Probably not, but she was taking UW extension classes. She was not a matriculated student at the UW. Now extension classes are pretty cheap today, and were even cheaper in 1960, and non-residents pay the same rates for extension classes as residents.
Just a little more at the University of Washington? What is your definition of "just a little more"? More than double?
Did you not even bother to read the link? The UW tution tables you quote give you tuition figure per academic year. The U of Hawaii figure I quoted you is per semester.
So yes, according to basic math, if the UW per-year amount is just a little more than double the UH per-semester amount, then I'd say the two tuitions are pretty close on an apples to apples basis.
We have great investigative abilities to discover the oblivious persons like you posting their flimflam here.
Loren is another leftist who cannot figure his way out of a wet paper bag.
That describes you and the entire birther movement to a T.
Let me ask you. How do you think Barry financed his college education? I'll admit, I don't know for sure, but minority financial aid is the most likely explanation, given his race and his family's resources.
How do you think he did it?
hmm sold drugs and male prostitution?
And where did I say otherwise?
which meant she would not be able to take advantages of the tuition breaks
If you look at lower right hand corner, you can see that all of her classes were EXTENSION classes. At other schools they're called "correspondence classes." That means she wasn't a matriculated student and she was taking cheap classes available to the general public. Even today it costs only $17 to take an extension class (nowadays they're called "online learning").
http://www.pce.uw.edu/resource.aspx?id=3853
Really? Please tell me about my random speculation, it seems that is all you have been doing throughout this entire thread.
Because U of Hawaii lists tuition by semester, not by year, and I figured you were smart enough to understand what that meant, so I listed it per semester.
You have been writing on and on about how they couldn't afford a simple trip to Africa
Which in 1961 wouldn't have been so simple, and would have been extremely expensive. U of H tuition, on the other hand, was cheap. Someone else above listed what it was in 1961, and it was peanuts, easily within the means of a bank teller and furniture salesman.
By my simple math, without a calculator, $24,000 is much more than triple $7000
Where did the $24,000 come from?
The key word is "aid", which in most cases will not cover most of the cost and certainly not any of the travel (especially trips to Pakistan),
What does Obama Jr.'s financial situation in 1981 have to do with his father's financial situation in 1961?
U of Hawaii was only $85 per semester, or $170 per year in 1961.
Now do you think a furniture salesman would have any trouble paying that?
Please.
Without suspending disbelief and making a huge leap of faith, I can't accept that there are any valid reasons for this activity, other than the simple fact that they wish to discredit and ultimately silence all discussion of the very serious issues that surround the background and Constitutional eligibility of the present occupant of the White House. The level of severity of this situation is very grave, arguably the most dangerous situation that has confronted our country since its founding. In my opinion, it is not too provocative or hyperbolic to acknowledge that we are currently living within the unfolding of a grave Constitutional crisis that began on November 4, 2008.
It is precisely the severity of this crisis, combined with the daily assaults on our Constitution, Freedom, Liberty, Society, and Economy that makes this an issue that no true Conservative would willingly battle against. I'm sorry, I don't buy any of the excuse or motives that I've read here. I've read that some people have been "insulted" in these threads so now the argument has become "personal" for them. I've read that some have motives since they are a parent of a child that doesn't meet the Natural Born Citizen eligibility requirements stated for the President and Vice President of the United States, so they somehow feel that they have a vested interest in somehow finding a way in having this sacred requirement subverted (just in case their child wishes to run for either of these 2 offices when they are 35 years of age). I've also read many times that they simply wish to redirect the efforts of fellow conservatives toward more "constructive" issues, causes, and pursuits (which absurdly presumes that no one can effectively multi-task at any given point in time). And of course we always hear about how "embarrassing" they believe it makes conservatives look to the "general public" and state-run media. (This last one is really a gem. What it presumes is that "if we conservatives just act normal and play nice, then the state run media will represent our issues, candidates, and politicians fairly." To me, this is as sane as hearing the left wring their hands and whine "if we would just stop oppressing those poor people, then they would stop terrorizing us." Both arguments are equally inane.)
I am not suggesting that every Conservative citizen, politician, or pundit needs to make this issue the forefront of their daily thought, deliberation, and speech. I respect the fact that some people may just not be "comfortable" with dealing with this issue, or speaking about it a public (or even private) forum. We all (still) have the right to what we deem important issues on which to direct our time, energy, and other resources. However, given the stakes of our collective situation, I can not fathom why any sane Conservative would spend an ounce of their energy trying to argue against a conclusion that would be of great benefit in our fight to overturn the oppressive tyranny that is being forced onto us on a daily basis. I readily admit that no one really understands how this issue may play out over time. At a minimum, hopefully it leads to more and more of our fellow citizens becoming more aware of the murky (to be kind) circumstances that surround virtually every aspect and period of the occupant's life and background. And perhaps this increased awareness will lead to them becoming more active in pursuing truth and better understanding the travesties that are being unfolded on a daily basis by this regime and its supporters and enablers. Beyond that I can not accurately speculate on what may ensue. However, for all true Conservatives the ultimate outcome would be the invalidation and nullification of all (or at least most) of the un-Constitutional, immoral, and illegal acts that the regime has inflicted on our great and beloved Country.
So regardless of how any of us may choose to spend our time and energies, regardless of how plausible or "credible" we may see these issues to be, the only reasonable and logical (which are key underpinnings of Conservatism) reaction to these issues would be along the lines of a simple "No thanks, not for me; but Good Luck in your chosen battle, I hope that you succeed!" for any of us that choose not to be active in this pursuit. I am sorry, I just can't make the leap from that sort of slightly apathetic (but still supportive) reaction to the incredible amounts of energy and time that we witness daily on these threads. I don't have any quantitative measures to use as illustrative data points, but I know that I am not alone in being absolutely astounded at the amount of time, energy, and (perhaps most revealing) passion that I see being expended by those that are ostensibly arguing against the sane resolution of a whole host of issues that can only serve to provide strategic and operative victories (even if they are incremental in nature) in our struggle against tyranny.
Obama bot:
“Birtherism is to Constitutional Law what Holocaust denial is to 20th century history”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So an American citizen who questions the fairytale “history” of the con-artist-in-chief is equivalent to a Holocaust denier?!
Bammy’s “boys” are really getting their panties in a bunch as of late.
Must be cutting off circulation to their brains!
STE=Q
That describes you and the entire birther movement to a T.
and yet you follow this statement by asking him to speculate how Obama paid for his college. In fact this whole thread was created by you seeking the speculation from birthers
BINGO...excellent post! Exactly what I’ve been thinking, which is why I call them trolls - conservatives they are not.
Interesting also that lately they are being exposed as posters at liberal sites, no surprise there. I suspect quite a number of them are probably on Rahm’s payroll.
Still fighting the good fight on here, I see. I barely ever log on here anymore. How’ve you been? How’s the little one? You need to post some new photos on FB.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.