I would say a big no on that one why are people trying so hard to get her in

I am curious to know how many of this people who...sm [2008-11-30]
question Obama's citizenship have a passport. If he has an American passport, which I know he does, it is virtually 100% sure that he is legally a natural-born citizen and eligble to be president. The process is quite strict.

No. People who act worse than animals [2008-11-29]
nm

At first I thought these people pushing the b/c issue [2008-11-29]
were just plain ole MTs with inquiring minds, however, wrong they might be. The poster above who said put your money where your mouth is finally got a light bulb to come on in my brain. These people have an agenda, whatevier it may be, but it is NOT the Constitution or they would have trampled Bush a long time ago. I doubt they are MTs. I believe they have an agenda that is way darker than the birth certificate issue and I am going to keep posting to their posts so that hopefully unsuspecting, well-meaning MTs might THINK and see them for what they are.

Our local news showed some people [2008-11-29]
who waited outside for 5-6 hours in freezing temps just to save maybe $50. Lord have mercy. I guess I'm thankful I don't need or want anything enough to do that!! You People will kill each other for a dollar!!

no laws don;t trample people [2008-11-29]
shoppers do. We need to think our way out of the greedy consumerism that has been force fed to us by the republicans. A democracy needs reasoning participants. In times of economic crisis, saving $49 on a big screen TV should be laughable.

These are some of the same people whose [2008-11-29]
mortgage we are probably all going to be paying for. The normal, civilized people in our group of friends don't worry about having to stand in line to save a few bucks on something everybody else has already.

The "level-headed" people here voted for McCain. [2008-11-29]
nm

Most people who voted for the O will never admit [2008-11-28]
they were wrong. Even as they are being led to the camps they will never come out and say they were wrong if they believe they were.

most people [2008-11-28]
think I shouldn I am going to agree with them.

Exactly. Some people prefer sticking their fingers in their ears to [2008-11-26]
x

Coincidence - people are manipulating the market [2008-11-26]
DH has been working in the stock market for close to 23 years now. He knows how it is manipulated. I used the same argument to him that whenever Obama appears on TV it goes up. He told me it has nothing to do with that (even though he supported him). He said remember back to the campaign and whenever John McCain was ahead a little in the polls or there was good coverage of him (whetever little there was) the stock market went up and when Obama was ahead in the polls or news the stock market went down. He has two computers. One he watches the market and the other computer he tracks the news all over the world, so he sees what affects and doesn't affect the market. He told me that it's just a coincidence with Obama in the news and the market on the rise because that is the way the media is making it look. He said there are literally thousands and thousands of bankers, investors etc (including overseas investors) that are pourind and dumping millions of dollars on different things to manipulate the market and that's what causes the ups and downs (of course DH takes 3 hours to explain this all to me), but that is it in a nutshell. He said just coincidence. - Darn!

People keep insisting BC issue has been debunked [2008-11-26]
You really do need a reality check here. Obama could be the next president? The electoral college is going to confirm the WAY more than comfortable 192 electoral vote lead he holds over McCain (365 vs 173). I hate to break this to you, but the pubs' October surprise is not going to be a November surprise, December surprise, a 2009 surprise or any other kind of surprise. I have answered your BC ramblings before and will not take any more of my time to try to get this through your thick skull again. Like I said, if I were you I would not hold my breath. Everything else in your post is pure fantasy. I prefer to take my politics with some semblance of substance.

I would say he has shown it to the people that he needed to -- nm [2008-11-26]
x

Gay people are not sexual deviants - see message [2008-11-25]
And my knickers are not in knot. LOL (I did laught at that). This is one subject we will disagree on. There are plenty of straight people who are sexual deviants. There are a lot of gay people who are way more normal than straight people. All those child molesters, predators who hack up women, pornography predators, etc. - never once have I ever heard any of them were gay. You may not agree with their lifestyle but it doesn't make it wrong. They are human beings with feelings and emotions. As for anatomy being created for that type of behavior - their parts fit just fine with each other. Marriage is more than just sex anyway. Their lifestyle may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't make it wrong for them and I believe people should let them live their lives whatever way they want to. Would you want the gays coming in telling you how to live your life? As for what the bible says (or your interpretation of it)...I know that would kind of be considered to be for the faith board but it is pertaining to the conversation here. The bible has been used throughout history to fit the viewpoints of the ones trying to make a point. As for it's validity there are too many unanswered questions for me. You are correct that you have the right to post your opinion, the same as I do mine. I just found your comments so...not offensive but more of shocking that anyone even thought this way, let alone publicly stated it. And I guess I did find it offensive to put gay people in the same category of pornographers and people who want to marrry animals, etc. All of us are unique people made by our creator. We all have our flaws and none of us are perfect. The creator knows this and for some reason he created everyone with different lifestyles. Not all gay people are the ones you see running around the streets dressed in makeup and costumes dancing in the parade, or like that girl that was on the news skipping and throwing leaflets in a church yelling it's okay to be gay. I just say if they want to marry, let them marry. It's their life and we have no right to deprive them of the same human rights we want to enjoy. It all boils down to we are all people. Don't tell me what I can and cannot do in my home and I will not tell you what you can and cannot do in yours. Letting them marry whomever they want will not affect me in my personal life. It's funny because I was raised the same way you are thinking, but times are changing and after being out and around in the world I became more intelligent, independent, open minded, tolerant and thoughtful of others. Just wish we all could.

Guess other people see it too - see message [2008-11-25]
Wish I had found this link when I submitted the original post. http://186-kps.com/blog/2008/11/07/obama-ego-the-office-of-president-elect-wtf/

too many people = higher premiums?! [2008-11-22]
Wow, not that I want to spend all week talking about insurance, but I'm really amazed by things I'm hearing. The whole point of insurance is to lower your individual cost by adding in lots and lots of people. If you and I are the only ones who have insurance, and you have a heart attack, I'm effectively paying half your bill, right? But if we could average that bill over millions and millions of people, it'd be much easier to bear. The ideal situation, then, would be for everybody in the country to have insurance, so we could average the costs over 300 million people. (This would also lead to a better ability to negotiate drug prices, and encourage hospitals not to spend millions on useless equipment like surgical robots that drive the costs skyward.) Read Obama's plan, or Baucus', or Kennedy's, or Wyden's, and you'll find that people who can't afford even those new low premiums, are helped out with subsidies, NOT FINED. It's far, far cheaper to help subsidize poor people's premiums, than it is to have them show up to the ER for every cold and flu symptom, you know? Not to mention that they'll then be able to get preventative care, and not so many of them will wind up with horribly costly illnesses down the road, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Affordable health care isn't just an easy fix, it's a moral one. And it has been tried a million times--I think Truman was actually the first president to suggest it. But you and I don't have the kind of lobbying money that big pharma has, that the doctors have, that every other player has, and they have worked for *decades* to keep Americans from getting the healthcare system they deserve.

I know more than you! Some people post under sm..s/m [2008-11-22]
And you posted under 'm'. I know that sm means see message and NM means no message. Why do you then enter 'sm.. m'....this is very confusing. Pick another posted-by name and STICK TO IT. So that you can be identified by other posters. Coward. It is very inappropriate when posters just jump into the middle of a thread with an answer, out of context, not knowing what was going on from the beginning. People just putting their nose into everything. YOU NEED SOME REST!

Not what most people want to see BUT [2008-11-21]
Let's face it, most of us are having turkey for Thanksgiving and I, for one, don't believe my turkey dinner died of natural causes.

People have been buying foreign cars [2008-11-19]
for years. What does that have to do with losing our jobs due to fewer patient visits to doctors or hospitals? Actually, a lot of so-called American-made cars are made in Mexico, like the PT Cruiser. In fact, a lot of cars are made in Mexico because of cheap labor, includingVW.

obama won...he wouldn't really because people won't really vote for black and lie to polls [2008-11-19]
x

I have a hard time with bailing [2008-11-19]
them out, but when I think of my mother who will lose my late dad's pension and her medical benefits.....I can't help but push for a bailout so my father's hard work of 35+ years wasn't for nothing. I personally feel that this is a combination of things. These companies made bigger vehicles and trucks because that is what people wanted to buy....that is until gas prices went up and that changed. I believe management there hasn However, I must state that it seems to me that some of the same people who professed to vote for Obama and had no problem with robbing from hard-working Americans to redistribute that wealth to others.....so why now are some of you so he!! bent on letting the automakers go belly up? Wouldn I just find it ironic that some people say we should give our money to less fortunate and yet scream and yell when their money could go to saving millions of Americans jobs.

If you look hard enough you'll find ignorance on both sides...(sm) [2008-11-18]
It http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/125753.html

I've always heard people say... [2008-11-17]
...If you don I guess that option would no longer be open. This all seems to be going on right in front of us. Maybe thatcontrol those of us who never agreed, voted or signed on to this deal. There might be no escape from the one-world government, but I did come upon one very unique way to leave this earth. (To the MOON, Alice!) US funeral company plans to launch moon cemetery

I've always heard people say... [2008-11-17]
...If you don I guess that option would no longer be open. This all seems to be going on right in front of us. Maybe thatcontrol those of us who never agreed, voted or signed on to this deal. There might be no escape from the one-world government, but I did come upon one very unique way to leave this earth. (To the MOON, Alice!)

This silly diversion only shows just how hard [2008-11-17]
Do you not care anything about death threats and assassination plans against the president-elect of your country? Does it mean anything to you at all that there is a visible, palpable cause to this effect? Would you be this dismissive were the shoe on the other foot and it was McCain we were talking about? Grow up, for God's sake. This is serious business this threat to life thing.

It's called........... sm [2008-12-02]
disillusionment and resignation, GP. The more I read about the whole BC thing and now hearing that the SCOTUS has delayed the hearing another 5 days, I guess I am resigned to the idea that nothing is going to stand in the way of Obama....not the Constitution and not the voice of the people. I kind of look at the Constitution as I do the Bible and sin. A sin is a sin to God (excepting one) and breaking one part of the Constitution is breaking the whole thing. Call me gloom and doom if you want, but I have come to the realization that we are not living in a democracy or a republic. We are living in a political machine that operates at its whim without regard for our country's most basic foundations. On the Clinton-Obama front, like I said. It should be interesting, to say the least, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Hillary is getting something more out of this than just the letters SOS out beside her name. There is more that goes on in Washington than is dreamed of by mere residents (I woncitizens) of this once great nation. Pardon my sardonic pessimism this morning. lol

I hope you feel better later in the day. s/m [2008-12-02]
What I Both are corrupt. I don I think it was started by (whomever) to defocus the attention from the REAL issues and what is going on in our government. Oh yeah, Obama talks a great talk but I expect he will walk the walk he is TOLD to walk. I don It is plenty hard to fight evil when you know the source but when the source is unknown, then you can talk scary.

$70 hr autoworker [2008-12-01]
The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker Itthe average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs. The nugget was part of a column in which Sorkin argued that the government should not bail out the ailing Big Three automakers and that they instead should embrace bankruptcy. Sorkingold-plated benefits -- and that during bankruptcy, the auto companies could address those runaway wages. As I mentioned, it's been one week since the column appeared, which seems like plenty of time for Sorkin and the Times to correct the misleading $70-an-hour claim. But to date, there's been no clarification from the newspaper of record or from Sorkin himself. And he isnhourly wage of Detroittowards $80 an hour. Somebody at the Times needs to clarify the record, because the average United Auto Workers member is not paid $80 an hour. Or even $70. Not even close. Yet (thanks to the Times?) the issue has become a central talking point in the unfolding national debate about the future of America's automotive industry. Indeed, that $70-an-hour meme, actively promoted by the anti-union conservative media, has ricocheted around the traditional press as well as the political landscape, where it was picked up by congressional critics last week during hearings and used to argue against aiding GM, Ford, and Chrysler. For the record, I'm not from Michigan, and I don't have friends or family members who work in the auto or auto-supply business. And honestly, I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the question about whether to bail out the U.S. auto industry. So I'm genuinely torn on the issue. But what's obvious to me is that it's harmful to public discourse when the press, on such a central issue facing our country, fails to clearly state the facts and instead perpetuates misinformation with sloppy reporting -- reporting that seems to hold blue-collar workers to a different standard than their white-collar counterparts. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that automotive executives should return to Washington in coming weeks to make their case, to the Congress and the American people, for a federal bailout. And as Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner for economics Paul Krugman wrote recently, [M]aybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it [emphasis added]. But having the media echo conservative misinformation and bandy about urban-myth salary figures about allegedly high-on-the-hog GM workers does not constitute a careful review of the facts. Question: Is the press just being sloppy on this issue of supposedly pampered autoworkers, or are there other elements in play? Because honestly, I i.e., These autoworkers get paid that?! Answer: No, they don't, so please stop reporting it. (And why has the press been so reticent to note that Big Three autoworkers recently made significant concessions to management?) And it's funny, because I don't remember hearing much coverage in the press about AIG workers' six- and seven-figure salaries when the U.S. government announced it was bailing out the insurance giant. And I haven't seen or heard a single press reference to the annual salaries pocketed by Citigroup employees, even though the government has moved in quickly to bail the banking giant out of a hole its executives dug. As Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) pointed out during congressional hearings last week, There is apparently a cultural condition that That cultural condition seems to extend to, and be embraced by, today's white-collar press corps. Make no mistake: The $70-an-hour claim represents a classic case of conservative misinformation. It's also a very dangerous one. The falsehood about autoworkers is being spread at a crucial time, when a make-or-break public debate is taking place, a debate that could affect millions of American workers. Lavish contracts granted to the United Auto Workers, for instance, put GM on the hook for more than $70 an hour per worker. [New York Post] The United Auto Workers are keen on saving their jobs and the $70-an-hour paychecks that go with them. [National Review] [T]here [James Gattuso, from the conservative Heritage Foundation, appearing on MSNBC] Given that we [Right Wing News] The bailout as proposed today is a bailout of the UAW; it [Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, appearing on the syndicated television show Inside Washington] Companies at which union workers make $71 an hour in wages and benefits -- compared to just $47 an hour at Toyota [Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, writing at Human Events Online] Big Three union workers, with their gold-plated health care plans, make about $73 an hour in total compensation. [Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com] When you [Conservative radio host Lars Larson] The average Detroit autoworker makes more than $100K each year. [On-screen Fox News graphic] Let's note that any suggestion in the press that most UAW workers earn, or are paid, $70 an hour is spectacularly dishonest. Period. (As one Daily Kos diarist pointed out last week, according to the UAW website, the base pay for a worker in a UAW plant is about $28 an hour.) What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos. Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.) Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not. Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play: The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers. [emphasis in original] Indeed, according to this Associated Press report, a chunk of GM's $70-an-hour labor costs goes toward paying current retirees' pensions and health-care coverage. In other words, that's money that's not going to end up in the pocket of any autoworker when he cashes his paycheck this week. That's money GM has to set aside in order to pay off costs associated with workers already in retirement. That money has absolutely nothing to do with calculating the hourly wage of a full-time UAW employee today. None. So, no, UAW workers don't make $70 an hour even if you factor in benefits, because a portion of those benefits are going to people who retired years ago. Nonetheless, that formulation (wages+benefits=$70 an hour) has been widespread. ThatThe average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs. Not only is that inaccurate, but there's also a problem in terms of perception. It's true that autoworkers don't earn annual salaries and that when calculating hourly wages, the cost of benefits paid directly to the worker can be included. But some media outlets have been so casual and sloppy in presenting the facts that news consumers are left with the false impression that GM workers pocket $70 an hour. That's not true, and it seems some in the press are doing very little to correct that misperception. For instance, BusinessWeek also used the same convoluted language: Older UAW members make more than $70 per hour in combined wages and benefits. Dallas Morning News columnist Cheryl Hall did it, too: GM Why does the press use that convoluted equation when calculating how much autoworkers supposedly make? I have a hunch it's because that $70 an hour is a real eyepopper. It makes a very deep impression within the space of just a few words. Igold-plated benefits UAW workers enjoyed. (They were off the charts, he stressed.) And since ithealth care and pension costs. The takeaway from Sorkin's column was quite clear: GM is mismanaged, and its workers are wildly overpaid. By the way, hereneed to bring their labor costs, which average $72 an hour, closer to the Honda or Toyota level of about $45. Note how Nicklaus never implied that labors costs equaled take-home wages. Why? Because they don't. (And kudos to Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein, who refuses to use the $70-an-hour figure because it's so misleading.) How much money GM's workers make is certainly relevant when discussing the unfolding automotive crisis. But the press should stop confusing the issue, and tainting the perceptions of news consumers, by casually suggesting that $70-an-hour labor costs represent what UAW workers pocket every 60 minutes. That's misleading and dishonest. And that's why it's still not too late for Sorkin and the Times to correct the record. � E.B. Posted to the web on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 03:12 PM ET

No he is not perfection, no human is. In the current...sm [2008-12-01]
climate, no, he probably will not be able to accomplish everything, but his is going to try to do his best, and I think that the people who elected him realize that.

LOL - I agree with you totally but this did give me a chuckle [2008-11-30]
Especially Heck, let as I'm sitting here picturing all the people from every country around the world applying. I say if Arnold Schwartenegger could not run then Obama should not be able to run either.

Why blacks voted for Prop 8 [2008-11-30]
Interesting column from the Times, written by a black. I bring this here just as a matter of interest. I found it to be quite interesting. Op-Ed ColumnistGay Marriage and a Moral Minority By CHARLES M. BLOWPublished: November 29, 2008 We now know that blacks probably didn�t tip the balance for Proposition 8. Myth busted. However, the fact remains that a strikingly high percentage of blacks said they voted to ban same-sex marriage in California. Why? There was one very telling (and virtually ignored) statistic in CNN�s exit poll data that may shed some light: There were far more black women than black men, and a higher percentage of them said that they voted for the measure than the men. How wide was the gap? According to the exit poll, 70 percent of all blacks said that they voted for the proposition. But 75 percent of black women did. There weren�t enough black men in the survey to provide a reliable percentage for them. However, one can mathematically deduce that of the raw number of survey respondents, nearly twice as many black women said that they voted for it than black men. Why? Here are my theories: (1) Blacks are much more likely than whites to attend church, according to a Gallup report, and black women are much more likely to attend church than black men. Anyone who has ever been to a black church can attest to the disparity in the pews. And black women�s church attendance may be increasing. According to a report issued this spring by Child Trends, a nonprofit research center, weekly church attendance among black 12th graders rose 26 percent from 1993 to 2006, while weekly church attendance for white 12th graders remained virtually flat. In 2006, those black teenagers were nearly 50 percent more likely to attend church once a week than their white counterparts. And it is probably safe to assume that many of them were going to church with their mothers since Child Trends reported that around the time that they were born, nearly 70 percent of all black children were born to single mothers. (2) This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let�s just call them Afropublicrats. (3) Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can�t find a man to marry might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other. Proponents of gay marriage would do well to focus on these women if they want to win black votes. A major reason is that black women vote at a higher rate than black men. In the CNN national exit poll, there were 40 percent more black women than black men, and in California there were 50 percent more. But gay marriage advocates need to hone their strategy to reach them. First, comparing the struggles of legalizing interracial marriage with those to legalize gay marriage is a bad idea. Many black women do not seem to be big fans of interracial marriage either. They�re the least likely of all groups to intermarry, and many don�t look kindly on the black men who intermarry at nearly three times the rate that they do, according to a 2005 study of black intermarriage rates in the Wisconsin Law Review. Wrong reference. Don�t even go there. Second, don�t debate the Bible. You can�t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement. Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday�s sexual morality to today�s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn�t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky. For instance, most blacks find premarital sex unacceptable, according to the Gallup data. But, according to data from a study by the Guttmacher Institute, blacks are 26 percent more likely than any other race to have had premarital sex by age 18, and the pregnancy rate for black teens is twice that of white teens. They still have premarital sex, but they do so uninformed and unprotected. That leads to a bigger problem. According to a 2004 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, black women have an abortion rate that is three times that of white women. More specifically, blacks overwhelmingly say that homosexuality isn�t morally acceptable. So many black men hide their sexual orientations and engage in risky behavior. This has resulted in large part in black women�s becoming the fastest-growing group of people with H.I.V. In a 2003 study of H.I.V.-infected people, 34 percent of infected black men said they had sex with both men and women, while only 6 percent of infected black women thought their partners were bisexual. Tragic. (In contrast, only 13 percent of the white men in the study said they had sex with both men and women, while 14 percent of the white women said that they knew their partners were bisexual.) So pitch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories. The more open they are, the less likely black women would be to put themselves at risk unwittingly. And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.

Don't try to blame the economy on Obama. [2008-11-30]
The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the so-called legitimate President Bush, who continues to make sure that he and his buds on Wall Street squeeze every penny from middle-class and lower-middle-class people. As I write this, Bush is in a frenzy, changing laws in order to make Obama (See article below.) So there The economy is probably the biggest problem at the moment, and that's a gift TO Obama and the American people FROM Bush and his Wall Street BFFs. Bush aides push for rule to hamper worker health protections 11/29/2008 @ 6:59 pm Filed by RAW STORY Bush administration aides are rushing to pass a safety rule which would make government regulation of workers a rule President-elect Barack Obama opposes. Public health officials worry the decreased protections will result in additional, unnecessary deaths. It is just one of about 20 controversial Labor Department proposals being pushed by large business interests, according to a published report.Other proposals would allow power plants to be built closer to parks and wildlife preserves, and further limit the role of environmental and animal experts in determining where major infrastructure projects may be carried out.President-elect Obama has long been critical of the Bush administrationI think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country, said John Podesta, co-chair of ObamaI think that��s a mistake.

I don't tihnk a BC proof of citizenship is stupid. [2008-11-30]
Let the stupid crap go on until it is cleared up. I to run our country. I want to know the truth and, so far, that truth isnIt opens a whole 'nother can of worms if he is not a citizen, yet becomes president anyway. It would mean a constitutional rule struck down and, (I shudder to think of this)even terrorists could run our country if they so desire and could pay off people who's vote count. Gee, do you want Chevez or Putnin to run our country? How about Ayers or Wright? Ivisit his sick grandmother. Truth is all I want and I dontoo perfect. There is no one perfect in my eyes.

" I will embrace the O as a president until he screws up" sm [2008-11-30]
which, eventually, he will. Do you hear yourself? First of all, you DO NOT support him nor give him a chance to prove you wrong. You are against him from the get-go. Let's be clear on that. Second of all, you would not know the truth if it bit you in the tush. You have made up your mind and anything that doesn't agree with your vision of what should be will ultimately be some kind of conspiracy in your mind. All I can tell you is to open your mind and consider everything that is happening in the here and now, open your heart too. History shows that many great men and women endured rejection and even martyrdom when, against all odds, they stood up for what they believed for the greater good of all mankind, with the devil always in the background trying to dissuade. We have not seen someone like that in a very long time and I think people are very discouraged and find it hard to trust. The Chicken Little philosophy is getting us little people nowhere. Yes, we have to be vigilant and cautious, but we also have to bring our country together in this very precarious time. Always remember, if you don't like what he does, you can vote him out in 4 years. What a great country!

No, i abolustely belive he will screw up [2008-11-30]
He did it in his campaign, and he will do it as president. He is NOTPERFECTION in my eyes. He is humanand he cannot achieve what he wants to do. We shall see what happens. He is a puppet of the party and will have to let the party lead him, as all presdents do. There is no way he can accomplish all he states he wants to do. Wake up and smell the coffee. His change is all every president in the past 30 years has been spouting, yet ityoung and campaigned mostly where college students. black people, hispanics, or any voter who did not do their reseach,he got their vote. Ask anyonewhy they voted for the O and they will tell you because of change. Thesevoters did not resarch his background, they went by what he spouted on the campaign trail. I think, in the long run, they are going to be sadly dissappointed. I am hoping I am wrong, but I donby the people and for the people.We shall see, that's all I have to say.

Source not credible [2008-11-29]
This is an article published by msnbc. We all know msnbc is a left-wing liberal rag. They have a lot to lose if the O is found ineligible, hence, they use their positions in the media to lie and try to sweep the issue under the rug. The judge that ruled against the case was from Philadelphia. This judge was also afraid to rule against Obama. Judge R. Barclay Surrick is also a Clinton appointee. Hence, he wants a democrat president. Additionally, this was not Judge SurrickConflict of Interest. It is most obvious that the order to Judge Surrick was written by DNC laywers. My my...what a small world. The case is being brought to the Supreme Court to include the above reasons. Additionally, Berg stated... What happened to ��Government of the people, by the people, for the people,�� Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863. Additionally, the people in Hawaii who keep claiming theyit is okay (take my word for it, I are none other than Obama supporters and backers. I for one am glad this is going to the Supreme Court. If they determine it is not okay and the O is ineligible, you will still have a democrat as President, so what is everyone whining about.

GP - how many times do we have to repeat [2008-11-29]
It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Obama, Bill Ayers, and Factcheck.org all have ties to the Annenberg Foundation. Obama has ties to Factcheck.org. In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge - A branch of the Annenberg Foundation. Factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation. Factcheck was also chosen by the Obama campaign as the arbitrar of Obama's birth certificate. Anyone can put two and two together and see that Obama and The Annenberg Foundation pays Factcheck.org to put out the false information. Factcheck claims it has verified the O's bc, but other sites has found several inconsistencies which call into question whether the certificate is authentic. Before you tell anyone they should quit reading blogs that have any useful information, you should not be citing a website that is clearly misleading people and feeding them false information, and that is paid for by the Annenberg Foundation which = Obama.

Questioning is one thing [2008-11-29]
going on and on and on and on and on is ridiculous. There is nothing that is going to convince some of these people that Obama is going to be the next president. I think we are in quite enough trouble in this country without adding to the division and that is exactly what is going on. Anyone with eyeballs in their head can see the b/c is authentic. I don He has run this country down the tubes. I don Remembers WMD????

Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable [2008-11-29]
You keep citing Factcheck and we keep having to tell you Factcheck is not reliable. Why is it not reliable? Because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation in which Obama is part of. AND because Obama was Chairman of the Board. It really is like talking to a wall. So let me repeat and read this nice and slow. Factcheck...not a reliable source. Cheese-o-Pete...you might as well just say you asked Michelle Obama and she said it's real. Additionally....the b/c they put up there was found to be a forgery. So...once again...factcheck not reliable...b/c submitted was a forgery. So are you a fortune teller? You don't know if he will be elected or disqualified and neither do I. If the SC comes back and says he is legite I will drop the subject. If they find anything out of the ordinary then I will most likely say I told you so. If they say he's not legite but we'll change the constitution just for him, then I will be madder than a hornet and you'll hear from me. But all in all I will be satisfied with what the SC says. We won't know what their decision is until they make it. If it comes back that he is ineligible and he lied, he better do some explaining to this country about why and he better calm his worshippers down. I think overall the country will be okay. For as many supporters that he has there are an equal number of people who don't support him and view him to be ineligibile. There are even people who support him, but are saying...wait a minute here, things are not adding up. Just show us the certificate and be done with it. In fact more so now since all this info came out and many people upset about it that they didn't know ahead of time. As for what I think will happen. I really don't know. I do believe that quite possibly Hillary will step in and become President because she is the one that he wronged by campaigning when he knew he did not meet qualifications. So I believe probably she will become the next President and Biden will remain VP, or Biden will step in as President and she becomes VP. I highly doubt the SC will just elect McCain because the republican party did not win and now that we have a congress/senate that's all democrat (or mostly democrat) they would prevent that somehow. As for McCain? Heck no I didn't want him in there. I wanted one of the following - Chuck Baldwin from the constitutional party (but he had no chance whatsoever). I was also interested in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I really like Dennis Kucinich. I agreed with a lot of his ideas (especially impeachment of Bush) and I have agreed with a lot of what he has voted on in the past. So maybe what I would really like to see happen is if the O is disqualified to have another mini campaign. All the candidates can run again and then the public decides after one or two months of campaigning. So, instead of having a President inaugerated in January they could be inaugerated in February or March. It would be different, but nothing like this has ever happened before. I'll just say this on the whole b/c issues and this is why I say this and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. 1. Let me first say I voted for Obama in the primaries. So in no way do I hate him or a racist or whatever else people want to throw out. I voted for him because he has some ideas I thought were good (thought is the key word). 2. After he was elected I read about the stolen election from Hillary (even though I was way so not supportive of her). I started learning about his lies to the people. His dealings with Ayers, ACORN, Wright, Farrakhan etc, etc. 3. He funds different groups who create websites to detract from the issues. 4. The media treated him like a prince while trashing McCain/Palin. I was no fan of theirs by all means but what happened to them was uncalled for. 5. The b/c he put up on the factcheck site was found to be a forgery. 6. We find out he's born in Kenya and legally goes and has the records sealed, along with his school records. He is hiding something and that is not very reassuring for over half the country here. 7. His grandmother was in the room when he was born along with his sister and brother. 8. His sister mentions multiple hospitals he was born at, while Obama mentions something totally different. Those are only a few of the issues that are my concerns about his legitimacy. On the other hand you have the issues/policies of his that I don't agree with and am finding out more and more how unsafe our country is going to be. The incident in India has the you know what scared out of me and the thought of that happening here in our country is a real issue for me. I was in the US Army. I spent 8 years in the service defending the country. It just makes me a bit upset to hear that people don't care if the Constition is not upheld, just so Obama gets in no matter what. All I want is the Constituion protected. That's all I'm asking for. Our founding fathers created it for a reason and we need to abide by it and not change it. I saw where Barney Franks tried to change it so that a foreign born could become president as long as they had been a citizen for 20 years (it was quite odd timing because not too much longer after that Obama decides to run and then we find there is a forged b/c. Timing of all this is just way too suspicious. All I say is let the supreme courts decide. That is what they are there for. I have read articles that say The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution and even if it means that a decision they make is not going to be popular, they are bound by their duty to defend the Constitution and they will. So, once more I want to repeat that Factcheck is not reliable source because Obama/Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck are one in the same.

Obama birth certificate. What you can do. [2008-11-29]
For those that feel strongly that Obama is ineligible to be the president due to unanswered questions regarding his birth certificate, there is something that you can do about it. The key here is that you need to be very proactive. Posting about Obama Many here have written extensively about this issue, and seem quite knowlegable regarding the actual facts surrounding his birth certificate, and the fact that he, in reality, is legally disqualifed from serving as president. The many posters here who are deeply concerned about this issue, need to take thiings a step further than merely posting about this. Here is what you need to do. Make an appointment to consult with an attorney and state your concerns to said attorney. For a retainer fee the attorney will accept the case on your behalf.Retainer fees are not that high, usually for a case such as this the retainer fee would run a couple of thousand dollars, plus whatever hourly fee the attorney charges. The more people that take this proactive approach, the higher the likelihood that the case will be heard and ultimately Obama would be removed from office due to this birth certificate issue. In the event that the case is heard and dismissed, the next step is to file an appeal. The retainer fees for an appeal runhigher than the initial retainer fee, however again it is not that expensive, withthe ballpark figureof approximately $5,000.plus whatever hourly fee your attorney charges, and here again the more people that do this the higher the liklihood of Obamabeing removed from office due tothis sovery important issue. On December5, 2008,this issue will be addressed bythe Supreme Court and likelythere will be no furtherance on this. As many of you already know, a federal judge dismissed this very important case, and the Supreme Court is likely to follow suit in this coverup regarding Obama and his birth certificate. I urge all whopost about this so often and feel very strongly aboutthis issue to takeaction, retain an attorney and follow through with the case to its conclusion.In the end, with your collective efforts and knowlege about the real issues regardingObama and the birth certificate, you will have prevented, or caused the removal of,a person from serving inthe highest office in the nation who, in fact, is not legally qualified to serve in that capacity. In doing this you will have performed the ultimate act of patriotism. Sometimes in life you have to put your money where your mouth is, and this is one of those times.

Greedy, materialistic freaking animals... [2008-11-29]
gotta have something so badly that mob mentality rules, all for an XBOX, a TV, or some other item people probably can't afford anyway. Christmas, it's the most wonderful time of the year and brings out the best in people!

There are also other far more credible sites...sm [2008-11-29]
which give valid information as to why it is not real. The whole point to this, GP, is not JUST the birth certificate. This plays into a much larger picture in which Obama appears to be unqualified in terms of foreign policy and experienced in so many other areas. It has to do with past associations and shady current assoociations, who is backing him, how he rose through the ranks so quickly, some if not all of his campaign platform and plans for this country, some of the statements he has made that sound positively socialist if not marxist and the way the American people have been so capitivated by him. It's not even about McCain being POTUS because I can tell you that, even though I voted for him, I have some doubts about him just as you do about Obama. It is about the safety of our nation, laws being upheld on EVERY level (yeah, I know all about Bush, this isn't about him) and the future of our nation. The BC is just the tip of the iceberg.

Factcheck may or may not be a [2008-11-29]
credible source. I happen to think it is. I am satisfied with the b/c photos there AND the certification. What would it take? Does Obama need to go door to door with the b/c? I really don The lawsuits are obviously brought with people who have an axe to grind. As for the Constitution.........George W. Bush would have destroyed it, didnit Why no uproar about that? Think for a minute of what would happen if Obama were to be disqualified as you and others seem to want.The election was held. It is over. People had ample time to study the candidates BEFORE the election. The PEOPLE spoke. We I have researched probably as much as you have...including Factcheck. One thing is sure, I don't watch Fox News!

Exactly what is a "vault copy?" [2008-11-29]
I believe the only thing he would be able to get is a certified copy of the b/c on file with the state, the same as what I or you would be able to get. He produced it. Still you people arenforgery. I have to wonder...are those of you who keep these posts going...are you really MTs or are you a part of a rebel rousing group who does nothing all day except post their agenda on every forum they can find?

Re FactCheck, I'm a [2008-11-29]
democrat, and there have been plenty of times through the years that FactCheck and Snopes have posted facts/findings that I haven't liked and that were none to flattering, so I do believe both sources try to stick to FACTS. And as far as everything else you posted, I agree 100%! How can ANYONE with a brain still argue against a certified birth certificate AND an old birth announcement from the newspaper archives?! People are grasping at straws. But then again, these are people who think the country was doing great under republicans, that Iraq attacked the WTC, and who don't even recognize the impending DEPRESSION Bush threw us into, which McCain would've continued exactly the same, so what else can you expect from these people.

At first I thought these people pushing the b/c issue [2008-11-29]
were just plain ole MTs with inquiring minds, however, wrong they might be. The poster above who said put your money where your mouth is finally got a light bulb to come on in my brain. These people have an agenda, whatevier it may be, but it is NOT the Constitution or they would have trampled Bush a long time ago. I doubt they are MTs. I believe they have an agenda that is way darker than the birth certificate issue and I am going to keep posting to their posts so that hopefully unsuspecting, well-meaning MTs might THINK and see them for what they are.

I agree with you TNTC [2008-11-29]
Following the post that suggested MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTIONISTS just hop on down and plunk out $5000 to hire an attorney.....well, no doubt in my mind THAT person is not a working MT and has no knowledge whatsoever what is going on in the industry. If real MTs were to have $5000 I believe they could find a more useful use for it than plunking it down to help these people carry out their agenda.

I've posted enough [2008-11-29]
you shoudl know that I research everything but my decisions come from credible soruces...the horse I ended up voting for Obama, not that I supported him, but because we sure didn Has no one researched him????? John McCain bragged he had agreed with him more than 90% of the time. I still have reservations about Obama but time will tell. It has become obvious to me that the posters who continue to post on this forum and probably any other politics forum they can find, have an agenda and it is not the Constitution they claim to be protecting. I hope you have researched the people who are fostering these frivilous lawsuits.

That's it? sm [2008-11-29]
That McCain agreed with Bush 90% of the time? While I believe Bush has made mistakes and I donstudied the candidates and made informed decisions when voting in this election. I say horse hockey! I bet of you stopped 10 people on any street in any city of this country and asked them to tell you what Obama's platform or who his running mate was, they couldn't tell you. Oh, wait..... Howard Stern already did that. As for other political forums, I do read some of them but I donresearch and as a way to understand what people think of the current state of politics in our nation. I read both pro Obama sites and anti Obama sites to try to understand the mindset of each side and make my decisions based on what I believe to be true. I also read news sites of both genres. You are not the only person who does her research.

Obama [2008-11-29]
He is not even in his official capacity yet. There will never be a candidate you can please 100% of the people 100% of the time. Do you not see this!? Let Obama first get in the Whitehouse...jeez.