Why Obama was disbarred.

[Diogenes]

I would suggest that someone who struggles to pay for 6 years of college is not the same as someone who pisses off 6 years using their parents money. And don't expect me to have anything good to say about Bush.

Someone that takes 6 years to get their undergrad in my experience either isn't trying or simply isn't that bright. I've not come across many that aren't bright enough either, so my money's on just not trying. And I do have a higher opinion for the person that gets a Masters from Harvard in 6 years, over the one that needed those same 6 years to get a bachelor's out of Idaho. That said, I know plenty of folks with no degree at all I'd take over any PhD. For president though, I'm willing to ask for someone with BOTH common sense and decency, plus enough education to find Yemen on a map before deciding to run.

And yet we have the most educated idiot as a prominent counter-example. 57 states anyone?

I've got a lot more bad than good to say about Bush as well. His two biggest decisions though, Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd say he got right, and in a way I'd expect most other candidates would've failed. Removing the Taliban and Saddam were huge, positive decisions, whether or not they were popular or in America's own self interests. The manner of conducting and planning for them is another matter, but I don't think it entirely negates the decision to persue them in the first place, as I'm sure most would not have.

This is pretty much my opinion as well.

Firstly, the term "Tea Baggers" is a pejorative. It is just like saying "N*gger."

Well, if you ask me anything that lumps one into the voter base of Palin is by definition a pejorative.

Since the current occupant of the White House is inferior to a wind up toy monkey, I dare say that the very opposite of him is about as good of a choice as could be made. Right now the field looks like Palin and the Seven dwarfs. At this point I regard Palin as a REAL person, and competent. I regard the bulk of criticism against her as contrived by Leftwing media and elitist snobs. Till something comes along to dispel that notion I will have no trouble voting for her as President.
That being said, I have a few misgivings, and would prefer someone else at the moment if I could see a better choice. (Fred Thompson was my guy, but I think he's too old now.)

Secondly, she is effective entirely BECAUSE she is competent. She points out the flaws in a bad idea with just a few words. "Death Panels" is STILL damaging obamacare.

Pandoring to populist unrest isn't a competency I place a high value on. "Death Panels" was part of the problem, when the solution America needed was a discussion, by adults, about the benefits and costs of publicly funded health insurance. What America got instead was nuts like Palin screaming on about "Death Panels" and how public insurance is going to kill your grandma.

From my perspective, America doesn't need a conversation about the benefits of publicly funded health insurance. The Socialist minded people in American Government need to be told "NO!" I regard the government's attempts to do anything other than to protect the nation by paying for defense and administering the laws as a violation of the founding document. The government has NO BUSINESS tampering with society.

The reason health care is CURRENTLY such a mess is because of government tampering which distorted the market. (started with price controls on wages, medicare, welfare, the great society,Judicial interference, subsidies etc.)

Don't believe me? Look at the prices and quality regarding elective procedures such as lasic eye surgery or breast enhancement. The price trend has been downward and the quality trend upward. The reason? It isn't paid for by insurance and the government pretty much stays out of it.

In summary I agree that phrase was one of her defining moments. I disagree strongly with your characterization of it. Even those vehemently opposed to public health insurance should recognize the damage in an insistance on sabotaging any attempts to discuss the issue.

I regard the discussion of socialized medicine as I would regard the discussion about an impending rape. I am not being unreasonable when I refuse to discuss being raped. I am against even the concept of socialized medicine because I regard it as Sabotage of some very important and fundamental American principles, not the least important of which is that the government should not be involved in social engineering. It should be focused on what it was created to do, and not trying to create another budget busting ponzi scheme like social security.

Eisenhower had a great plan for invading Cuba and making it a free country. Kennedy not only botched it in the worst possible way (by betraying friends and allies) he nearly got 30 million Americans killed as a result of botching it!

And the Afghan mission took it's worst hit when Bush pulled troops out to deploy them in Iraq. I don't want to attack or defend Bush on that, but merely point out that the Afghan effort had been dropped well before Obama even announced his candidacy.

Bush made a series of blunders. None of them were even close to what John Kennedy did. But Barack started early in trying to out do Bush. (in blunders) Remember the Rules of Engagement changes? Remember announcing the date of withdrawal? Fortunately, he backtracked on both of those after an adult (General Petraeus) managed to get his attention.

Anyway I don't think that point is worth quibbling about. Afghanistan will only be an albatross if it looks as though we're losing. It doesn't matter who is President at the time, that will be the perception if the war turns sour. It may not be fair but that's the reality of politics.

I say the Liberal Media have been steering the country for the last 60 years. It's way past time that their ideology and assumptions go unchallenged.

I just wish I could say that Fox was challenging them. A little more time discussing the trickle down benefits of capitalism and a little less time discussing Obama's birth certificate are in order, and Fox isn't delivering.

You gotta be kidding? I have not seen any evidence that Fox is pursuing the birth certificate story even slightly. I wish they would. The evidence is overwhelmingly AGAINST him being legitimate.

Fox and MSNBC counter one another, rhetoric for rhetoric. I don't see the polarizing effects of the two being a positive, what's really needed is a sane middle ground, and CNN is too busy making pretty holograms and studying Michael Jackson's funeral arrangements to provide it. Is that us marginally agreeing?

Marginally. I regard Fox as simply a counterweight to one aspect of the liberal bias in media. The movie and entertainment industries are also heavily biased, and have a stronger impact on the electorate than does the news services.

Do you think Tina Fey didn't have a huge impact on the "Palin is an idiot" theme? Conversely, do you think that celebrities like Ron Howard, Andy Griffith and Henry Winkler didn't have an impact when they came out and begged people to vote for Obama?

The movies and Television programs are heavily biased to the left. The Right has nothing resembling that kind of access to the living rooms of America.

If it weren't for the fact that REALITY is on the side of the right, all hope at stopping the left from a complete takeover would be lost.

[hanelyp]

The 0 in his first year far surpassed Dubya's blunders in 8.

As for the birth certificate issue, even if the 0 was born on US soil, he was raised in his early years overseas, away from American influences, in gross violation to the spirit of the natural born citizen clause.

[bcglorf]

And yet we have the most educated idiot as a prominent counter-example. 57 states anyone?
...
At this point I regard Palin as a REAL person, and competent. I regard the bulk of criticism against her as contrived by Leftwing media and elitist snobs.

Come on, your better than this. You have clearly demonstrated that you are able to hold the same standard against either side, so why bring up quotes of Obama misspeaking? If we get to bring up misspoken quotes then I get to claim that Palin doesn't know the difference between North and South Korea. Or perhaps even worse I can take her "our North Korean Allies" as proof not of her ignorance, but of her deep ties with communist china. Let's talk like intelligent grown ups instead.

That being said, I have a few misgivings, and would prefer someone else at the moment if I could see a better choice.

And I've got much more than a few misgivings. I used to be all in favor of a prinicpled person being the best choice for president, no matter how lacking their other qualifications may be. I'd like to think my view has since matured to realize that there are enough snakes among top advisors, like Kissinger, that a certain degree of education and awareness of foreign affairs is a prerequisite as well to forestall a well meaning president being led off by trusting the wrong 'experts'. I do not belief that Palin was at all well versed on foreign affairs prior to running for VP, and I have yet to see enough from her to persuade me she's covered the gaps since. She seems to have put more time and energy into either getting elected or attacking Obama instead. I don't credit the stupid misquotes about her not knowing North Korea from the South, but I do seriously question if she even appreciates that the importance of Afghanistan has nothing to do with Afghanistan and everything to do with it's influence on Pakistan's governance. With the extreme visibility of Afghanistan I have even less comfort with Palin's likelyhood of knowing anything about Europe, Africa, China, South America or the rest of the Middle East.

From my perspective, America doesn't need a conversation about the benefits of publicly funded health insurance. The Socialist minded people in American Government need to be told "NO!"

In a democratic nation you need to get a majority to vote with that overwhelming "No!", and Palin's blatant misrepresentation of the other side's position is driving people AWAY from listening to those on her side. I see all the "Death Panel" talk as damaging to the side arguing against socialized medicine. To use a pejorative, it gets them all dismissed as ignorant "tea baggers".

Don't believe me? Look at the prices and quality regarding elective procedures such as lasic eye surgery or breast enhancement.

I'm Canadian, so no I don't entirely believe you. I most assuredly am familiar with the deep problems with socialized medicine, and have been fighting against it here at home. Generally I am looking to replacing it with a baseline government health insurance instead. Still wasteful, but much less so. With the added benefit that kids in a family that risked not having insurance don't miss out on clinic visits for things that really need early treatment. It also gives the benefit that kids in families that couldn't afford insurance can get cancer treatement without watching mom and dad suffer financially for the next 2 decades as a result.

Afghanistan will only be an albatross if it looks as though we're losing. It doesn't matter who is President at the time, that will be the perception if the war turns sour. It may not be fair but that's the reality of politics.

But it makes it a false claim to throw onto the President unlucky enough to be in office when it goes under. I'd say the same of a nations economy as well. If the nation runs into a financial crisis in a President's first term he eats all the criticism for it. Would you be as down on Palin for both those reasons if she'd happened to have traded places? Do you honestly beleive that either the economy or the Afghan mission would look so terribly better if Palin had been running the show in Obama's place?

The evidence is overwhelmingly AGAINST him being legitimate.

Wow, then the left wing conspiracy really must run very, very deeply throughout the nations entire structure. I do not believe you, and the extent of your claims puts the burden on YOU to present very, very convincing evidence of the claim.

The movies and Television programs are heavily biased to the left. The Right has nothing resembling that kind of access to the living rooms of America.

Agreed. It seems the whole of Hollywood consists of hippy like morons who think their physically pleasing appearance lends credibility to their ideas on geo-politics. Worse still, a great many people seem to believe them. The majority of the right leaning folks in Hollywood seem to know better and stay out of politics, comendable but it does also contribute to the left (even if it's the nutty part) getting more influence.

All in all I would agree that Obamacare is his biggest blunder. Not because it such a fundamentally horrific and terrible concept and nefarious plot. Instead because it was an enormously divisive issue, requiring enormous political capital to even propose it, let alone attempt to get it to pass a vote. At a time when America was facing two wars, heavy economic pressures, and enormous left/right divisions within the nation. He was a wildly popular president. He needed to spend that good will making hard decisions to address those three big issues. Instead he squandered all his good will chasing a fourth idea that very much should have been dealt with much, much later. Quite likely long after even both his terms were he to even be re-elected.

[KitemanSA]

From my perspective, America doesn't need a conversation about the benefits of publicly funded health insurance. The Socialist minded people in American Government need to be told "NO!"

In a democratic nation you need to get a majority to vote with that overwhelming "No!",

This thought pattern will be the death of America. This is NOT democracy, this is plurocracy (aka mob-ocracy) and has little to do with the founding principles that made America great.

So sad!

[bcglorf]

From my perspective, America doesn't need a conversation about the benefits of publicly funded health insurance. The Socialist minded people in American Government need to be told "NO!"

In a democratic nation you need to get a majority to vote with that overwhelming "No!",

This thought pattern will be the death of America. This is NOT democracy, this is plurocracy (aka mob-ocracy) and has little to do with the founding principles that made America great.

So sad!

Come off it.

Can you explain how spending tax dollars on basic level medical coverage differs so radically from spending them on say infrastructure like roads, sewage and water treatment and research at post secondary institutions?

[kunkmiester]

Can you explain how spending tax dollars on basic level medical coverage differs so radically from spending them on say infrastructure like roads, sewage and water treatment and research at post secondary institutions?

I don't want the fed.gov stealing my money(tax dollars) to do it? Most of this can be taken care of at lower levels, and what little can't will be taken care of anyway. Colleges have been doing research for decades before the fed got involved in paying for it, and stuff like defense research I do view as a legitimate use of government money, though current practices do distort what's important and need to be reformed.

Find me a proper libertarian country and I'll move in a heartbeat, but until then, I'll take the country closest to, and try and improve it. Let the socialists move to Kalifornia, and tax all they please, and leave me alone in Wyoming to invent whatever I like without stupid licenses, taxes and regulations to slow me down.

[bcglorf]

Can you explain how spending tax dollars on basic level medical coverage differs so radically from spending them on say infrastructure like roads, sewage and water treatment and research at post secondary institutions?

I don't want the fed.gov stealing my money(tax dollars) to do it? Most of this can be taken care of at lower levels, and what little can't will be taken care of anyway. Colleges have been doing research for decades before the fed got involved in paying for it, and stuff like defense research I do view as a legitimate use of government money, though current practices do distort what's important and need to be reformed.

Find me a proper libertarian country and I'll move in a heartbeat, but until then, I'll take the country closest to, and try and improve it. Let the socialists move to Kalifornia, and tax all they please, and leave me alone in Wyoming to invent whatever I like without stupid licenses, taxes and regulations to slow me down.

My point was simply that if it's the principle of using tax dollars for something other than defense that's unAmerican and unconstitutional the bar has already been breached on multiple other fronts, so what makes base level health insurance so radically different?

I don't outright disagree with a lot of the principles, I don't understand the vehemence and outrage that the topic is even being discussed.

[jnaujok]

Can you explain how spending tax dollars on basic level medical coverage differs so radically from spending them on say infrastructure like roads, sewage and water treatment and research at post secondary institutions?

Simple. I cannot go out and pay to build a road through my neighbor's property. Nor can I dig tunnels under other people's properties to run power, sewer, gas, and electric through their properties to serve me. I cannot purchase my own power plant in order to run my home. So we choose to do this collectively, because roads are a benefit not just to me, but to my neighbor as well. A power plant powers not just my home, but every home in the neighborhood/city. Sewage is a benefit not just to me, but to the entire city, and even to distant cities as I will no longer be dumping raw sewage into waterways. If one were to walk from house to house and show the benefits to all, they will often form a cooperative in which each contributes to the benefit of the whole. This is how and why governments are formed. Eventually, when we find that certain people want to take the benefits without paying the costs, we give that cooperative government the power of force to extract payment from those who receive the benefit of the infrastructure. This is called taxation. It is no less than the forced removal of money from a person at the barrel of a gun to make them pay for the infrastructure which they use as a benefit to themselves.

On the other hand, medical treatment is something that I *can* purchase without interfering with my neighbors. I do not need to steal their property rights or infringe on their home or happiness to receive it. And they gain NO benefit from my health care.

You cannot build a public road from point A to point B without some benefit to all people, because they can now reach point B (even if they never actually take advantage of it.)

But whether you live or die, live healthy or instead choose to smoke, become obese, and have arteries like concrete has absolutely no real effect on me, or on those around you (other than direct relationships.) It is up to you to take care of yourself. It is not my job to take care of you. That steals my freedom and my rights.

[bcglorf]

I cannot purchase my own power plant in order to run my home. So we choose to do this collectively
You could run your home off the grid if you really wanted to be free. Generators the right size to run a residential home aren't even that ridiculously expensive either. I'm afraid I don't quite follow where the electric grid crosses the line of plain old common sense, and oh my goodness no, SOCIALISM!!!!! Aren't hospitals with properly trained surgeons and staff a little difficult for an individual to afford as well? Is it really so radical to discuss possibly doing so collectively without being accused of wanting to rob you at gunpoint?


Simple. I cannot go out and pay to build a road through my neighbor's property. Nor can I dig tunnels under other people's properties to run power, sewer, gas, and electric through their properties to serve me
...
It is not my job to take care of you. That steals my freedom and my rights.

Ah, that makes good sense, and is very logical. We shall promptly do away with the criminal public education system for stealing your rights and freedoms. After all, unlike infrastructure items, schools can be easily built and funded privately. Propping them up with tax dollars is in everyway just as much an affront to freedom and liberty as any form of basic public health insurance.

If your willing to declare the need to axe publicly funded primary education as equally important to stopping publicly funded health insurance I am at least willing to accept the consistency of your position, even if I do still disagree with your view.

[Diogenes]

The 0 in his first year far surpassed Dubya's blunders in 8.

As for the birth certificate issue, even if the 0 was born on US soil, he was raised in his early years overseas, away from American influences, in gross violation to the spirit of the natural born citizen clause.

Yes, but he doesn't even meet the LETTER of the natural born citizen clause. All research i've seen to date indicates that the father being an American citizen is an absolute must.

[KitemanSA]

Come off it.

Can you explain how spending tax dollars on basic level medical coverage differs so radically from spending them on say infrastructure like roads, sewage and water treatment and research at post secondary institutions?

No, but that had nothing to do with my statement so I don't feel the need to argue that. My comment was regarding your conflation of "democracy" and "majority vote". Seems to be a result of modern "education". So sad!

[bcglorf]

The 0 in his first year far surpassed Dubya's blunders in 8.

As for the birth certificate issue, even if the 0 was born on US soil, he was raised in his early years overseas, away from American influences, in gross violation to the spirit of the natural born citizen clause.

Yes, but he doesn't even meet the LETTER of the natural born citizen clause. All research i've seen to date indicates that the father being an American citizen is an absolute must.

5 seconds of Google and wiki 'research' came up with the following:

May 1789, James Madison: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

Or perhaps more relevant to the case at hand. In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. The AG's response:
our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

Or more recently, a 2009 memo to Congress from the Congressional Research Service states:
Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth"or" by birth.

Furthermore, and lest there be any more deliberate confusion, under the 14th amendment all persons born within the United States are citizens at birth.

[bcglorf]

Come off it.

Can you explain how spending tax dollars on basic level medical coverage differs so radically from spending them on say infrastructure like roads, sewage and water treatment and research at post secondary institutions?

No, but that had nothing to do with my statement so I don't feel the need to argue that. My comment was regarding your conflation of "democracy" and "majority vote". Seems to be a result of modern "education". So sad!

There was a call for an emphatic NO to be thrown at the leftists wanting to socialize medicine. I replied that such an emphatic NO would require at least a majority of society to get behind the NO in order to make it emphatic enough.

edited to remove unneeded personal vehemence.

[Diogenes]

And yet we have the most educated idiot as a prominent counter-example. 57 states anyone?
...
At this point I regard Palin as a REAL person, and competent. I regard the bulk of criticism against her as contrived by Leftwing media and elitist snobs.

Come on, your better than this. You have clearly demonstrated that you are able to hold the same standard against either side, so why bring up quotes of Obama misspeaking? If we get to bring up misspoken quotes then I get to claim that Palin doesn't know the difference between North and South Korea. Or perhaps even worse I can take her "our North Korean Allies" as proof not of her ignorance, but of her deep ties with communist china. Let's talk like intelligent grown ups instead.

The mispeak by Palin (and quickly corrected) which you refer to has been exploited out of context by every left wing operative in the nation. (Namely the media) (she had accurately designated north as the enemy and the south as our allies numerous times prior to making that slip, and also subsequently.)
Obama's slips, in contrast are far more numerous,(and worse) yet get far less play, and NOBODY in the media is asserting he is an idiot for making such slips. I would contend that the type and quantity of slips made by Obama are far more serious than the example for which everyone chastises Palin.

That being said, I have a few misgivings, and would prefer someone else at the moment if I could see a better choice.

And I've got much more than a few misgivings. I used to be all in favor of a prinicpled person being the best choice for president, no matter how lacking their other qualifications may be. I'd like to think my view has since matured to realize that there are enough snakes among top advisors, like Kissinger, that a certain degree of education and awareness of foreign affairs is a prerequisite as well to forestall a well meaning president being led off by trusting the wrong 'experts'. I do not belief that Palin was at all well versed on foreign affairs prior to running for VP, and I have yet to see enough from her to persuade me she's covered the gaps since. She seems to have put more time and energy into either getting elected or attacking Obama instead. I don't credit the stupid misquotes about her not knowing North Korea from the South, but I do seriously question if she even appreciates that the importance of Afghanistan has nothing to do with Afghanistan and everything to do with it's influence on Pakistan's governance. With the extreme visibility of Afghanistan I have even less comfort with Palin's likelyhood of knowing anything about Europe, Africa, China, South America or the rest of the Middle East.

In this regard, she could hardly have been worse than Bush who did not know the difference between Shite, Sunni and Kurd till AFTER he'd already committed US troops into the conflict. She could likewise, hardly be worse than Hillary's state Department who couldn't even correctly translate the word "Reset" into Russian. I do know that Palin has long been an acknowledged supporter of Israel, and I am inclined to think she would do far better listening to their experts than anyone that comes from an Ivy league school.

My point is, Bush WAS President, and Hillary WAS proffered as a Presidential choice, so with those two as the standards for knowledge of Foreign Affairs, how High should the bar be?

From my perspective, America doesn't need a conversation about the benefits of publicly funded health insurance. The Socialist minded people in American Government need to be told "NO!"

In a democratic nation you need to get a majority to vote with that overwhelming "No!", and Palin's blatant misrepresentation of the other side's position is driving people AWAY from listening to those on her side. I see all the "Death Panel" talk as damaging to the side arguing against socialized medicine. To use a pejorative, it gets them all dismissed as ignorant "tea baggers".

We are supposed to be a Republic. Not a Democracy. Supporting ideas which are completely in contradiction with our established laws (as Outlined in our US Constitution) is not consistent with our form of government. In a Republic, when the people (the majority) attempt to trample on our rights as established by law, the only reasonable answer is to tell them NO! If they don't want to listen any further, So What? When does a greedy mob ever listen? At some point we are either going to take the asylum away from the inmates or let it burn to the ground.
The "Death Panels" meme is like a slap in the face to a hysterical person. It helps to wake them up a bit. I personally feel the country isn't going to mend until a lot more lefties get a reality slap.

Don't believe me? Look at the prices and quality regarding elective procedures such as lasic eye surgery or breast enhancement.

I'm Canadian, so no I don't entirely believe you. I most assuredly am familiar with the deep problems with socialized medicine, and have been fighting against it here at home. Generally I am looking to replacing it with a baseline government health insurance instead. Still wasteful, but much less so. With the added benefit that kids in a family that risked not having insurance don't miss out on clinic visits for things that really need early treatment. It also gives the benefit that kids in families that couldn't afford insurance can get cancer treatement without watching mom and dad suffer financially for the next 2 decades as a result.

Your laws and constitution are obviously different from ours, so my above (constitutional) argument is moot regarding your situation. However, my argument regarding lasic and breast surgery is not. When the free market is allowed to work (without being co-opted by monopolies and rent-seekers) it produces a better product, in higher quantity and at a better cost, than does any form of govermental run program.

This is not the best article on this subject i've seen, but it came up in a quick search.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/margi ... belie.html


Cost went from $2,200.00 per eye, down to $1,350.00 per eye in ten years. Why did costs decline? Because it's not covered by insurance.

Afghanistan will only be an albatross if it looks as though we're losing. It doesn't matter who is President at the time, that will be the perception if the war turns sour. It may not be fair but that's the reality of politics.

But it makes it a false claim to throw onto the President unlucky enough to be in office when it goes under. I'd say the same of a nations economy as well. If the nation runs into a financial crisis in a President's first term he eats all the criticism for it. Would you be as down on Palin for both those reasons if she'd happened to have traded places? Do you honestly beleive that either the economy or the Afghan mission would look so terribly better if Palin had been running the show in Obama's place?

Yes. Palin has a son in the conflict. She's also not a Keynesian. You may have noticed that the Stock market went from 11,000 down to 6500 in the first few months of Obama's Presidency. That was caused by DREAD of the insanely stupid things that people expected Obama to do to our economic system. I have read repeatedly that the subsequent gains back to 11,000 are not real, merely representations of computers trading small volumes of stocks with each other. The human investors have mostly closed up their pocketbooks.
So yeah, I seriously think that everything would look better if she and not he were running things. This does of course, discount the effect of the fifth column news and entertainment media types intentionally sabotaging anything she attempted to do. You have enough partisans chanting propaganda long enough, it will have an adverse impact. I saw what the media did to Bush Sr. They ruined him with their partisan and unfair coverage. They kept gloom in place as long as they could, and miraculously, the day after the election Peter Jennings announced " The Recession ended back in March!"

The evidence is overwhelmingly AGAINST him being legitimate.

Wow, then the left wing conspiracy really must run very, very deeply throughout the nations entire structure. I do not believe you, and the extent of your claims puts the burden on YOU to present very, very convincing evidence of the claim.

What conspiracy? The left DON'T CARE if he meets article II "Natural Born Citizenship" requirements or not. H*ll, When did the left EVER care about strict interpretation of the US Constitution? As for proof? I've got proof out the wazoo, but most people don't give a rat's @ss whether he meets article II requirements or not. He's BLACK! It's sooo important that America have a Black President, that they are willing to overlook a few matters as trivial as meeting the actual requirements. ( or having any experience running anything whatsoever.)

If you want to see the proof, just peruse this topic thread, and perhaps this one as well.

I've got much more beyond that, but I never got a chance to post it all because people really aren't interested in this issue. Just for kicks and grins, I'll mention that Hawaii (the only state that has Access to his "theoretical" birth certificate) refused to certify him as qualified.

The movies and Television programs are heavily biased to the left. The Right has nothing resembling that kind of access to the living rooms of America.

Agreed. It seems the whole of Hollywood consists of hippy like morons who think their physically pleasing appearance lends credibility to their ideas on geo-politics.

I've got to interject this. Joan Rivers commented on these people.

A lot of Hollywood stars aren't aware that adopting a child isn't just a photo op. I was at a dinner party where one actress had adopted a child from Africa and she was saying: "I want my children to know their heritage." I said: "Lock them in a room and throw them a jar of flies."

Worse still, a great many people seem to believe them. The majority of the right leaning folks in Hollywood seem to know better and stay out of politics, comendable but it does also contribute to the left (even if it's the nutty part) getting more influence.

The right leaning folks are a weak minority compared to the left. We have very few members of the glitterati. Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight comes to mind. Sly Stone recently outed himself as conservative leaning. Schwarzenegger was a joke. The most amazing thing is when actors go to congress and pretend to be experts on something because they "acted" that role in their past. Sheesh.

All in all I would agree that Obamacare is his biggest blunder. Not because it such a fundamentally horrific and terrible concept and nefarious plot. Instead because it was an enormously divisive issue, requiring enormous political capital to even propose it, let alone attempt to get it to pass a vote. At a time when America was facing two wars, heavy economic pressures, and enormous left/right divisions within the nation. He was a wildly popular president. He needed to spend that good will making hard decisions to address those three big issues. Instead he squandered all his good will chasing a fourth idea that very much should have been dealt with much, much later. Quite likely long after even both his terms were he to even be re-elected.

Many of us saw exactly what happened two years before he even decided to run. When he first came on the public scene, I said that the Democrats would attempt to run him for President. I really didn't think he could win because of the racists voting against him, but after I saw the efforts that the news and entertainment people put into getting him elected, as in the manner they viciously attacked Sarah Palin and to a lesser extent John McCain, I realized the racist voters would be offset by the inspired black voters and starry eyed dreamers.
I, and others knew that if he got elected, (we were reading the stuff you couldn't find on the regular news services) he would be a horrible disaster. You simply couldn't get the truth on the regular news services. They never mentioned how his campaign disabled the address checking and identification software on his donation website. They didn't point out how a huge chunk of his donations were illegal foreign contributions. We knew he was corrupt and incompetent long before anyone else because we were digging into his past, and it simply kept coming up bad.

Hopefully he'll pull a Clinton and stop trying to go towards the insanity of the left. Hopefully Nothing too terribly bad will happen in the remaining two years.

[Diogenes]

Can you explain how spending tax dollars on basic level medical coverage differs so radically from spending them on say infrastructure like roads, sewage and water treatment and research at post secondary institutions?

I don't want the fed.gov stealing my money(tax dollars) to do it? Most of this can be taken care of at lower levels, and what little can't will be taken care of anyway. Colleges have been doing research for decades before the fed got involved in paying for it, and stuff like defense research I do view as a legitimate use of government money, though current practices do distort what's important and need to be reformed.

Find me a proper libertarian country and I'll move in a heartbeat, but until then, I'll take the country closest to, and try and improve it. Let the socialists move to Kalifornia, and tax all they please, and leave me alone in Wyoming to invent whatever I like without stupid licenses, taxes and regulations to slow me down.

My point was simply that if it's the principle of using tax dollars for something other than defense that's unAmerican and unconstitutional the bar has already been breached on multiple other fronts, so what makes base level health insurance so radically different?

I don't outright disagree with a lot of the principles, I don't understand the vehemence and outrage that the topic is even being discussed.

1. The Cost. Social Security is already killing us. By some estimates, we would have to pay 100 trillion dollars to cover all the liabilities this program engenders. Medicare and Medicaid are likewise serious financial liabilities that are very likely already bankrupt.

2. The producers having to carry the parasitic part of society. We object to the notion that people who won't pay into the system till they need it (preexisting conditions) will be cared for as if they had been full contributors to the program all their lives.

3. The principle. We are sick of government expanding any further. It is already far larger than it ever needed to be to address the purpose for which it was created. Many of us fear that the expansion of government is a form of creeping socialism/communism, and it will destroy what is good and unique about the USA.


4. The camel's nose in the tent. If you allow Government to control your health care, how long will it be before they can demand to control your health? In England, there was a story about doctors refusing to treat patients who smoked. Suppose that today it's smoking, but tomorrow it's drinking? What if the next day it's over eating? Lack of Exercise? Insufficient bathing? Driving a dangerous motorcycle?

There will be no end to the insufferable government busybody mandating the government approved method of living with the threat of fines and imprisonment if you don't obey.


5. There are other reasons, but it would take too long to cover them all. Suffice it to say, the above represent some of the important ones.