BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 196922 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#104694 Sep 1, 2012
Las Vegas Oddsmaker Predicts Obama Will Have a Landslide Loss
Submitted by may on June 22, 2012 - 1:31am
Las Vegas Oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root predicted that Barack Obama will suffer a massive loss in the General Election even though the current polls do not show Obama necessarily losing. Root stated,

Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.

Root laid out the rationale for his prediction. He does have a history of successful political predictions.

Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.

But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.

Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?

First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.

Root then went on to an analysis of specific groups of voters, for more go to;
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/m...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#104695 Sep 1, 2012
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you see D’Souza on Bill Maher looking like he just got released from a mental hospital? LOL
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/b ...
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Bill Maher is a real POS!
D'Souza made him look like the fool that he is.
Poopo is a typical Libtard. He can not attack the man's facts but he can attack him personally. Sad, very sad.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#104696 Sep 1, 2012
Another example of Libtardian logic. Why does not Ford Motor Company develop a car that can be driven by blind people? But someone has to make an ebook that blind people can read?!?

DOJ Targeted Public Library for Lending E-Books 'Inaccessible' to the Blind
By Elizabeth Harrington--August 31, 2012

( CNSNews.com )– The U.S. Justice Department says it has reached a settlement with the Sacramento (California) Public Library over a trial program the library was conducting that let patrons borrow Barnes and Noble NOOK e-book readers.

DOJ and the National Federation of the Blind objected to the program on grounds that blind people could not use the NOOK e-readers for technological reasons.

The Justice Department said the settlement is aimed at stopping discrimination:“Emerging technologies like e-readers are changing the way we interact with the world around us and we need to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from the programs where these devices are used,” said Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez in a news release.

A DOJ official told CNSNews.com it interviewed a woman who could not participate in the library's e-reader program due to her disability and concluded that the program had violated the ADA.

Amy Calhoun, an Electronic Resources Librarian at the Sacramento Public Library who helped launch the ebook reader project, said she was unaware of any objections from a blind person regarding the program.“I have not heard of a specific complaint directly from a patron,” she told CNSNews.com .“But I do know that patrons who are part of the statewide Braille and talking-book program do get in touch with us for audio books.”

The Sacramento Public Library Authority, which operates 28 libraries, partnered with the book store chain to provide at least one NOOK e-book reader to each of its libraries, pre-loaded with roughly 20 books in all genres.

The library describes the program as a “pilot project,” and it requires patrons to fill out a feedback survey as the program works through its initial stages.

But the Justice Department says a state or local government program that excludes people with disabilities violates the ADA, regardless of whether it is a “pilot” program.

As part of the settlement agreement, the Justice Department directed the library system to purchase at least 18 e-readers that are accessible to the blind, something that comes in the midst of budget cuts that have forced Sacramento libraries to implement one employee furlough day each month for two years.

The library says it will add iPod touch and iPad devices, which read e-books aloud with a computerized voice.

Adding the Apple devices could cost the library anywhere from $3,582 with the purchase of 18 of the most inexpensive iPod Touch models, to $14,922 if they wish to provide the high-end version of the iPad, which cost $829 a piece.

According to an article posted on NFB's website, while e-books "are an especially exciting development" for blind readers, Nook's "bookstore, desktop software, mobile software, and dedicated hardware reading devices are all inaccessible to blind users."

The settlement agreement also directs the library not to buy any additional e-readers that exclude blind or disabled people; and it requires the library system to train its staff on the requirements of the ADA, the DOJ said.

“We are pleased that the Sacramento Public Library Authority worked so cooperatively to adopt measures that will allow patrons with disabilities to avail themselves equally of the library’s programs and services,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, Benjamin B. Wagner.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#104697 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
And what was perverse about MY zoo comment? Is it not well known that zoo monkeys are prone to doing "that" all the time? Was my choice of words in any way perverse? Can you please quote one of those words?
You see, LRS, it's possible for me to discuss "non-discussable" things without using "perverse" language. This is something you are not able to do. Hence, the needs for lessons. And no, but I'm sorry, I cannot give lessons that would increase your intelligence.
TaTa Buttune. You deserve no more of my time on this great day.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104698 Sep 1, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
This is typical New York Times Liberal spin. You see just before this came out there was a report from a Right-Wing source that said that since 2009 family incomes drop 11.1% but the only way the NYT could rebut it was to go back to Clinton's time and then adjust it for inflation.
Yep, more Progressive Smoke and Mirrors to make it sound like the economy is humming along. Just try and convince the 25 million Amercains are out of work!!!!
Family Net Worth Drops to Level of Early ’90s, Fed Says -- By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM--June 11, 2012
WASHINGTON — The recent economic crisis left the median American family in 2010 with no more wealth than in the early 1990s, erasing almost two decades of accumulated prosperity, the Federal Reserve said Monday.
A hypothetical family richer than half the nation’s families and poorer than the other half had a net worth of $77,300 in 2010, compared with $126,400 in 2007, the Fed said. The crash of housing prices directly accounted for three-quarters of the loss.
Families’ income also continued to decline, a trend that predated the crisis but accelerated over the same period. Median family income fell to $45,800 in 2010 from $49,600 in 2007. All figures were adjusted for inflation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/business/ec... [AhfTco]
Well, Rogue, last straw for me. No more NY Times followng his latest Liberal spin. It's WND.com , globe.com , patriot.com for me now. Why? On account of their unfailing unbiased reporting.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#104699 Sep 1, 2012
The best I recall is that while Carter was president they passed a law that said the military must accommodate 90% of the people who want to enlist. Well, this included Mental Category IV's who had IQ's under 90!!!
Yep, and I got a few of them to supervise too. Professional privates, that is what the Army needs. And then you need one sergeant to supervise every one of these intellectually challenged soldiers. That makes a lot of cents!
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104700 Sep 1, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Insinuations jokieboi. You're really not very bright. Are you ignoratn??? LMAO
Insinuations are perverse? YOUR interpretation of insinuations? Oh boy, you do take the cake, poor little judeo-christian guilt-ridden boy. Ahhhh, there there now, not to worry, you know where the meek go. Ask your bosom buddy, American er hmm Our Father Lady,she'll tell ya, boy.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104701 Sep 1, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
The best I recall is that while Carter was president they passed a law that said the military must accommodate 90% of the people who want to enlist. Well, this included Mental Category IV's who had IQ's under 90!!!
Yep, and I got a few of them to supervise too. Professional privates, that is what the Army needs. And then you need one sergeant to supervise every one of these intellectually challenged soldiers. That makes a lot of cents!
Why don't you call a spade a spade, flaming hypocrite (rogue TM reg'd), did you mean "tards"? You have no hesitation using it elsewhere, why not now?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#104702 Sep 1, 2012
In the 1970's I was an Evaluation Instructor Pilot and helped supervise the civilian contract. One day I was inspecting a class room when I noticed a female lieutenant who was real small. I asked her if she was having problems flying the TH-55 Osage and she said the stick was pretty forward when she flew solo. I asked her her weight and she said 90 pounds.
I then too a SF 364F from an aircraft log book and did a weight and balance on the aircraft assuming the petite lieutenant had 20 pounds of clothing and gear. When I completed the 365C I realized that her aircraft was one inch behind the aft Center of Gravity limit. Now the aircraft had a MAXIMUM cockpit limit of 400 pounds but no minimum but no minimum.
Being a Eval IP I had a lot of power so I immediately restricted her from flying solo and took my case to my boss who concurred. The fix was a 20 pound horseshoe shaped sandbag which had to be strapped into the other seat when she flew solo.
The only aircraft I flew that had a posted minimum cockpit weight was the OH-58A Kiowa which was 170 pounds. And yes, when I flew solo in a Kiowa the stick was pretty far forward as I was right at 170 pounds with my clothing and gear on.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#104703 Sep 1, 2012
Wong Kim Ark’s Ship Comes to Port - Justice Horace Gray’s miscarriage of justice

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment reads:“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which largely ignored that clause, female illegal aliens in the U.S. now give birth to 300,000–400,000 infants annually, who are automatically U.S. citizens.
It doesn’t end there. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, we had 160 million legal non-immigrant admissions. They included tourists and short-term admissions across our Mexican and Canadian borders. They included longer-term entrants like students and temporary workers and their spouses and children. We don’t know how many individual persons were admitted — many admissions are of the same person — but among all of them are bound to be tens of millions of women of child-bearing age. It would be unrealistic to imagine that deliberately or serendipitously there are not a great many who bear children during their time here.
These children are U.S. citizens, not immigrants. They have the same political rights and welfare eligibilities as all other Americans plus the option, eventually, to bring in their foreign-born relatives. Moreover, they are likely to be citizens of their mother’s country, as well — a gold-plated advantage in a global economy (and a convenience for potential terrorists).

Finally, these births far understate the potential. Any woman on Earth who can manage to get here and deliver can join the “anchor baby” club. This absurd arrangement threatens American sovereignty.
Justice Horace Gray’s opinion in U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark reasonably granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark based on his birth here to domiciled, non-diplomat parents. I will try to mark out how he severely overstepped when he then extended citizenship to anyone born on American soil based on what I call the Coke catechism.

...

Justice Story . As evidence of America’s move away from jus soli, I cited the Snug Harbor opinion of Justice Joseph Story and the distinction he drew in Conflict of Laws between citizenship of children born to domiciled alien parents and those born to parents just passing through.

Emer de Vattel . Enlightenment philosopher Emer de Vattel in his “Law of Nations”(1758) resurrected the Roman concept of citizenship by blood or descent ( jus sanguinis). For him, a child’s membership was determined by the parents’ loyalties regardless of the happenstance of the child’s place of birth:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens....

Declaration of Independence . Americans broke from the English design. Thomas Jefferson advanced the notion of citizens as equal members of a republic, whose leaders derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed ...” in a land absolved “from all Allegiance to the British Crown.” Thus did we express our repugnance for monarchy.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publ...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#104704 Sep 1, 2012
Oh, the OV-1 Mohawk had a maximum pilot height of 6'2" and I knew a Mohawk jockey who was 6'2" and he was concerned as with his helmet on his was two inches about the ram on the ejection seat. Soooo, if he had to eject and the canopy did not blow first, his helmet would hit it before the ram on the back of the seat would. Can you say "Ouch"!!!
I guess they did not account for the height included the helmet.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#104706 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true? How the hell do you argue with campaign contributions?
Obama also PROMISED public disclosure of all bills for a period of 5 days for public discussion before he would sign them.(If elected)
Didn't happen.
Obama used executive privilege to keep congressional investigators from getting more Justice Department documents on the agency’s failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-tracking effort.(More transparancy.)
What happened to televised health care debates?
The meat of his esoteric system was done behind closed doors.(too much money involved)
How about banker bailout 2.0?(evidence)
News agencies can't seem to get the freedom of information act to work.(more transparancy)
I could go on and on...but you get the point. Obama may SAY anything he wants. He has proven he will say ANYTHING when it comes time for an election.
It is ACTION that should consern Americans.
When you conflate Republiscum with Democrats then it is NOT TRUE.

It is said that Sheldon Adelson is putting $100M into the Ryan/Romney/Antichrist campaign. It is said that the Kochs are putting in $500M.

17 billionaires own the GOPUX.

Period.

Citizens United is pure Republiscum.

If you are worried about buying and paying of politicians - they are pretty darn cheap btw - then go with Obama who, at least, is saying to get a constitutional amendment to kill Citizens United.

I am for 100% publicly funded campaigns - so many fewer nonsense ads - and for treating ANY gifting of ANYTHING to ANY public official as bribery.

Are you?

You might get this from the Dems but never, ever, ever, ever from the GOPUX.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#104708 Sep 1, 2012
1 Peter 3:14-17

14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. 17 For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.

<3
American Lady

Danville, KY

#104710 Sep 1, 2012
ballantine wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are dense. The law of nations is part of our law but only with respect to international disputes. Obviously, none of your citations say anything about citizenship as neither Marshall, Ginsburg nor anyone else of significance has ever said the law of nations was relevant to citizenship. Can't you get anything right.
Justice Story . As evidence of America’s move away from jus soli, I cited the Snug Harbor opinion of Justice Joseph Story and the distinction he drew in Conflict of Laws between citizenship of children born to domiciled alien parents and those born to parents just passing through.

Emer de Vattel . Enlightenment philosopher Emer de Vattel in his “Law of Nations”(1758) resurrected the Roman concept of citizenship by blood or descent ( jus sanguinis). For him, a child’s membership was determined by the parents’ loyalties regardless of the happenstance of the child’s place of birth:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens....

Declaration of Independence . Americans broke from the English design. Thomas Jefferson advanced the notion of citizens as equal members of a republic, whose leaders derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed ...” in a land absolved “from all Allegiance to the British Crown.” Thus did we express our repugnance for monarchy.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publ...

Moron :)
ballantine

United States

#104711 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Wong Kim Ark’s Ship Comes to Port - Justice Horace Gray’s miscarriage of justice
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment reads:“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which largely ignored that clause, female illegal aliens in the U.S. now give birth to 300,000–400,000 infants annually, who are automatically U.S. citizens.
It doesn’t end there. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, we had 160 million legal non-immigrant admissions. They included tourists and short-term admissions across our Mexican and Canadian borders. They included longer-term entrants like students and temporary workers and their spouses and children. We don’t know how many individual persons were admitted — many admissions are of the same person — but among all of them are bound to be tens of millions of women of child-bearing age. It would be unrealistic to imagine that deliberately or serendipitously there are not a great many who bear children during their time here.
These children are U.S. citizens, not immigrants. They have the same political rights and welfare eligibilities as all other Americans plus the option, eventually, to bring in their foreign-born relatives. Moreover, they are likely to be citizens of their mother’s country, as well — a gold-plated advantage in a global economy (and a convenience for potential terrorists).
Finally, these births far understate the potential. Any woman on Earth who can manage to get here and deliver can join the “anchor baby” club. This absurd arrangement threatens American sovereignty.
Justice Horace Gray’s opinion in U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark reasonably granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark based on his birth here to domiciled, non-diplomat parents. I will try to mark out how he severely overstepped when he then extended citizenship to anyone born on American soil based on what I call the Coke catechism.
...
Justice Story . As evidence of America’s move away from jus soli, I cited the Snug Harbor opinion of Justice Joseph Story and the distinction he drew in Conflict of Laws between citizenship of children born to domiciled alien parents and those born to parents just passing through.
Emer de Vattel . Enlightenment philosopher Emer de Vattel in his “Law of Nations”(1758) resurrected the Roman concept of citizenship by blood or descent ( jus sanguinis). For him, a child’s membership was determined by the parents’ loyalties regardless of the happenstance of the child’s place of birth:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens....
Declaration of Independence . Americans broke from the English design. Thomas Jefferson advanced the notion of citizens as equal members of a republic, whose leaders derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed ...” in a land absolved “from all Allegiance to the British Crown.” Thus did we express our repugnance for monarchy.
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publ...
So you troll the internet to find nobodies who agree with you and claim all our courts and scholars are wrong. Justice Story made clear as can be in Inglis that the English common law determined our citizenship law. In his Conflicts of law, he said he thought it was reasonable to exclude children of temporary residents for purposes of international law. However, he said that was not the accepted rule of international law at the time and never said it was US law. With each post you look dumber and dumber.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#104712 Sep 1, 2012
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) Chief Justice Waite.

'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship)reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.'"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of whichthe framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdictionwithout reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have beendoubts, but never as to the first.”.
==========

Sticks and stones
may break my bones.
BUT your words
will NEVER hurt :)
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104713 Sep 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Part 1 done. I was aware of most of what's in the video, and so interesting it is, but I confess did not know about Wilson's statement. Frankin's statement was idealism, well, socialism at best, but yes, partly the reason for the war of Independence. Most of the message is true, though a bit biased. Who produced it? An insider friend told me that if we really really knew how government really works, and the point at which govt is run by a few people, we'd implode out of just plain worry and hopelessness.
I read part II. I'm curious, would like to know who made those videos. Much of what is aired is hard to dispute, yet, it gives one side of the story onlyu I know, and I've always said so, governements are not happy when its citizens are happy and prosperous. It worried them, makes them uneasy. So, the economy is manipulated, with the help of brokers and bankers, of course, how well we saw that during the last year of GWB's term. The chickens had come home to roost. Banks foreclosed mortgaged homes when they didn't really have to, relishing the profits to be made when the markets picked up - Terri is right on that score. The Lisitania excuse mentioned n the video for entering the war, for example, is totally incorrect. The ship was sunk May 1915, video tells us the US went to war a short while later. Not so. It went to war a full TWO YEARS LATER, after a number of other provocations. Commonwealth of nations and France fought on until the Americans got into the fight the last year of the war. Now, if the rest of the information in this video is as correct as the Lusitania...

In any case, we are stuck with the system we have, duplicated in almost every country worldwide. What to do?
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#104714 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
1 Peter 3:14-17
14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. 17 For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.
<3
Then you can't be suffering very much, now can you?
ballantine

United States

#104715 Sep 1, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) Chief Justice Waite.
'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship)reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.'"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of whichthe framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdictionwithout reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have beendoubts, but never as to the first.”.
==========
Sticks and stones
may break my bones.
BUT your words
will NEVER hurt :)
I guess the truth never hurts people too dumb to understand it. As you point out, Justice Waite merely said some unknown person had doubts about children of aliens which the court expressly declined to address until taking up the issue in Wong Kim Ark. He didn't say the doubts had merit or that they were talking a type of citizenship other than natural born citizenship. It is simply a lie to say Justice Waite said native born children of aliens were not natural born and no legal authority in history, other than dumb birthers, have ever claimed such case is relevant to the status of children of aliens. Why do you keep pretending you understand law when it is clear you don't even understand what you cut and paste? Why do so many ignorant people pretend to be legal scholars on the internet?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#104716 Sep 1, 2012
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
2)"Free" health care for all couldn't be further from the truth. You are forced to BUY said insurance UNDER PENALTY OF LAW! Exactly how does this translate to freedom?
Find me a founding father that would be cool with that.
It is spurious to assume anyone might know whether the founding fathers would or would not be "cool with that" social contract of the 21st century popularly known as Obamacare. The founders were "cool" with the idea that people enter into a social contract with the body that governs them. Obamacare was enacted by the the Congress, elected by the people and signed by a President who ran on the issue of dealing with the serious issue of health care access in the present time. The law was upheld by the Supreme Court, which is vested with the judicial power of the United States per the very constitution that the founding fathers drafted.
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
It's at first strange, weird even, that a man who could write so knowingly on science, the cosmos, subjects I am not familiar with,(and thank you, I've learned so much from you, forced me to do some research too) could be so clueless and naive when it comes to politics. Your view of Obama is obviously prejudiced, nothing will change that, no more than the speed of light. From up here, and as concerns medicare, we see it as right wing politicians who want their country the only one out of step in the industrialized world. You stick up for those who more or less say " Hey, eventually, free universal health care for ALL citizens, rich, middle class and poor alike, is not a good thing and we'll cancel obamacare as soon as we're in power. And the fact that the actual fractured system in place, where 55 million have no chance to get medical care unless they are dying...and even then, their wallets
and purses rifled for Visa card numbers --- cost them more per capita than any publicly-financed medical insurance system in the world."
Obama is far from perfect, as he has done some whoppers, yes, but if you consider the list of achievements in an uncertain world and a mess that god himself could not fix in 20 years, the tally is not so bad after all. And, let's face it, consider the alternative. brrrrr

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 11 min Denny CranesPlace 193,888
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 29 min RealDave 1,276,643
News Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP a... (Oct '10) 16 hr IBdaMann 22
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 17 hr Earthling-1 34,468
News Obama, Romney prepare for first debate (Oct '12) 17 hr swedenforever 49
News China, the Fed and Obama: U.S. presidential can... 18 hr Synque 16
News The case for Joe Biden to run in 2016 19 hr Go Blue Forever 1
More from around the web