It's simple. Because they're not.
Posted By: We choose our battles wisely. nm on 2009-01-17
In Reply to: Yeah, and why do none of you make a big deal re: - so many of his picks being tainted? nm
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Closing Gitmo is not as simple as simple
nm
simple exercise or simple mind
ever heard of thyroid dysfunction, ever heard of drugs that cause weight gain (such as steroids) or any other cause for obesity? Don't be so self-righteous.
Here, here!!! It sure isn't that simple.
I remember when I used to be 18 and the world was black and white, and I thought I knew everything.
The older I got, the more gray I saw, and the less I knew.
I figure at this rate, in a few years, I'm not gonna know nuttin!!! LOL
I know exactly what you mean about screaming out at the TV, too!!! LOL. (I wonder, if I turned down the sound on the TV and opened the windows, whether I'd hear a bunch of other people screaming, too.)
I still don't know if I can bring myself to watch him. I just hope that every single soldier, whether seeing him personally at Fort Bragg or watching him on television somewhere, is able to return to their families safely and without injuries. I have a feeling it's going to be the soldiers who really attract my attention, and I always cry when I see them, knowing how they've been betrayed by their "commander in chief." Our military deserves much better than "chimpboy." (Laughing at and agreeing with that term.)
It isn't that simple. sm
When Chavez held Chomsky's book up at the UN, the headlines the next day said his book was selling out. Exactly who has the power here?
Yes, very simple.
Plainly speaking, why do you post in a political forum if your posts are not politically motivated?
Look, it is very simple....
Bush has not broken the law. Clinton did. He committed felony perjury. I don't care that he jumped Monica Lewinsky. Ihate it for her and I hate it for Hillary but that is nothing to impeach a man for. What he was impeached for is obstruction of justice and felony perjury. If Bush had done that you would be calling for his head on a pike. So let's not pretend you wouldn't...waste of time. That is the difference between you and me. Nixon, a Republican, broke the law. But he had at least one iota of integrity left and resigned. Clinton lied through is teeth, broke the law. If he had just said, yeah, I jumped Monica, sorry, no harm no foul, it would have gone away. But he chose not to. And even after the impeachment hearings proved him guilty, they all ADMITTED he was guilty, they did not (Congress) have the guts NOR the integrity to convict him, and I mean Dems AND Republicans. That is the difference, again, between you and me. If it is wrong, it is wrong, and the political party of the person makes no difference to me. If George Bush committed perjury on national TV I would be calling for his resignation as well. One would hope he would have the integrity to resign BEFORE he was impeached if he did so.
Bashing Clinton? Did I lie? I stated the truth, in response to someone posting, for no apparent reason, that Bush was a dumba$$ and an embarrassment. I countered and said that I felt like a morally bankrupt lying perjurer was just as embarrasing.
Why aren't you getting on the other poster for bashing Bush? Ohhhhhh I understand...okay to bash Bush, NOT okay to bash Clinton. What is that again about liberal tolerance, no bigotry, freedom of speech, we love everybody doctrine? How does that go?
Simple as that.
It's very simple
Obama is the #1 most liberal Senator, which you can check. He leaves Ted Kennedy and the rest in the dust by comparison. Many Democrats fear him. John McCain is pro-life, regardless what you think of him. I'm no cheerleader for McCain, but holy hanna would freeze over before I either voted for or sat idly by over something this serious, and I don't even have kids.
If you want to try to spin it so someone you think maybe, kinda could sorda be for this barbaric procedure, so ahead and either not vote or keep your head in the sand.
My guess is that you could track down this nurse if you really wanted. It's possible that she could no longer take it and then said "enough."
Like the old saying goes, if you don't vote, then don't complain.
When is enough enough?
Simple
Check his voting record. He voted with Bush 90% of the time on important issues that he VOTED on.
Simple...
He isn't a white flag waving wimp, he doesn't want to censor the media, he has experience, he can speak without needing a script, though he probably has some questionable associates, none are like the Obama associates, most military people respect him, and most importantly, he is not a Marxist or Socialist hiding in sheeps clothing in order to get everyone to follow him.
But still not simple enough
Many people refer to the SS system as a pyramid/Ponzi scheme for the very reason that the money paid to retirees now is not from the money they paid in, but rather the money current workers are paying in. In addition, your benefit payment is determined by what you earned, not what you paid into it. Wikepedia, while I'm not a big fan, does a good job of explaining this is in fairly simplistic terms. Theoretically at least, SS moneys cannot be used for anything but SS and even investment of it is limited to government-secured bonds.
And just to be clear, I don't want to take anyone's benefits or even end Social Security as we know it now. All I'm saying is that there is no money to fund an increase at this time and that at this moment in time, I would rather see each recipient's $30 SS increase go toward putting people to work so that next year, the increase can be funded without bankrupting the system further.
simple minded? Nah.
Nah, the simple minded and hateful are on the conservative board..you got the wrong board..sorry, sweet cakes..
Just that simple. No problemo, yea right!
Unfortunately, some of us do care that the prez would appoint a person to a position of that magnitude with a whopping NO EXPERIENCE. The leader of this organization has the ability and is required to make decisions that can save American lives, and many, and NO EXPERIENCE is just a no biggie to ya! Oh, OK.
Why I am relevant...very simple!
This is the liberal board and I am a liberal. You are not. You and your playmates enjoy degrading the liberal posters on this board. It gets really tiresome. You and your bully friends need to find a different group to pick on, as it obviously brings you very much perverted pleasure as you CANNOT seem to stop and you REFUSE to quit bashing the posters on this board even when asked to by the moderator multiple times.
It would be wonderful if it was that simple....
so let's just make it REAL simple. If you want on SCHIP, you have to pay an additional 3% off the top in your income taxes. Democrats in Congress want to expand it, 3% off the top of all their salaries from now on to fund it. That would probably take care of it for years to come. If not, then start down the registered Democrats' tax rolls and if they favor the program, 3% off the top of their salaries to pay for it. Don't force it on people who are not going to use it, who pay their own premiums, to pay for it. Let those who want to expand it fund it. Simple as that. Sounds fair to me.
yes, you sound simple.
nm
simple remedy
like someone posted earlier. Open. Close. Open. Close. Then you can read what other posters have to say because new posts are in blue.
Simple ? What does it say about a man's character when he
1. Dumps his crippled wife and mother of his children to have affair with wealthy heiress, then turns around to apply for marriage license before his divorce is final.
2. Calls his wife C-word.
3. While speaking at a biker's rally, volunteers his wife as a contestant in the "Miss Buffalo Chips" topless modeling contest, including it's legendary banana competition.
4. Tries to blame his wife for the Keating 5 scandal when it becomes public.
5. Screams at and thoroughly humiliates a young pub volunteer who set up his podium at a rally.
6. Jokes about ape rape and killing off Iranians with cigarettes and "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb."
7. Describes Arizona's elderly as "seizure world."
8. Throws temper tantrums, punctuated with the casual use of the F-word.
9. Calls fellow senators Aholes and sh-heads.
10. Ignites a culture war to get elected.
11. Questions the patriotism of his opponent and fails to renounce his supporters who question his faith, endlessly insinuate he lies about it and portray his wife as a militant with hidden agendas to stage a socialist/Black Power takeover of the country.
12. Embraces endorsement from a pastor who disparages Catholics, women, African Americans, Muslims and LGBT Americans, believes that Hurricane Katrina was punishment from God because "New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God," announced a "slave sale" at the church to raise funds and believes that "the coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty,"
13. Overlooks the Bush-Rove campaign strategy of unleashing a landslide of racist attacks on him, including calling his own daughter an illegitimate half-black love child, turns around in 2004 to campaign for W's second term, throughout it all supported 9 out of 10 of his disastrous policies that has brought the nation to it knees and then embraces Rove as senior campaign adviser in 2008.
14. Stood silently by while fellow war hero/veteran John Kerry was swift-boated without mercy.
Before any rebuttal ensues that would seek to deny, dodge and deflect, keep in mind that character assassination has been a benchmark of JM's campaign and of his supporters, so no whining allowed. Finally, this is legitimate inquiry, given that 90% is striving so diligently not to be 90% and has hawked character as his main qualification for presidential leadership.
Simple answer...
#1. Anything that passed Congress required votes from both sides to carry. So both parties did.
#2. Obama voted against. Biden voted for.
#3. Obama, according to his website it was January. Trouble is, Gen. Petraeus said to commit to some kind of a line in the sand date was the wrong thing to do. I vote with Gen. Petraeus.
#4. I imagine several Republicans lobbied against it...I think David Petraeus knows more about whether a timetable will work than Barack Obama does.
#5. Gen. David Petraeus said: WASHINGTON: General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, has said that US forces could hand over control of the entire country to the Iraqi military by the end of next year.
That could coincide with Obama's withdrawal timetable. If you are saying General Petraeus is trying to highjack Obama's timetable...I don't think so. It is his recommendation that drives what the administration says. Since he is the architect of the surge, which has worked "beyond anyone's wildest dreams" (Obama quote), he is in the best position to know what is feasible. But even he does not call it a timetable. COnditions on the ground dictate how something plays out. Or it SHOULD.
And that is the rest of the story.
A simple poll, sm
Who Would You Hire
You are The Boss... which team would you hire?
With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an ***unusually critical*** election year.
Let's look at the educational background of your two options:
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
(verified through Anchorage Daily News adn.com 1981-1987. 5 schools in 6 years!
vs.
Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
Now, which team are you going to "hire" ?
for simple god-fearin'
salt-of the-earth christian folk, you and your alter egos certainly disdain and/or hate many people.
Let's keep this simple this time around.
Here's a staight answer: Go here first and read the extensive fact check information and view detailed copies of the HAWAIIAN birth certificate which you can blow up and inspect if you like.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Naysayers will decry the source as biased. You can make up your own mind.
Mr Phillip Berg does not accept the authenticity of this valid birth certificate. We can go around and around about dual citizenship, age of mother, etc. Irrevalent. Certificate has been submitted and disputed. Bottom line. As in all legal actions heard in US courts, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the prosecution, not the defense. Berg now needs to prove not only that the BC is a forgery, but that Obama was born in Kenya. Good luck with that.
BTW, my husband is a foreign national. I was automatically given naturalized status from his country of origin by virtue of my marriage to him...did not even have to apply. Does not make me any less of a US citizen. Just got back from early voting. In terms of qualification to run for office, the dual citizenship arguments center on the Indonesian side of the assertions...another irrevalent point. What matters is whether or not the US recognizes dual citizenship. I am living proof that that argument is false. In fact, if you examine how many inconsistencies and irrevalant points have been raised during the course of this legal action and the contoversy that surrounds it, you may draw your own conclusions about the pattern that will emerge. Frivolous lawsuit.
See how simple the truth is. :-) nm
nm
Here is a simple equation
Sex = babies. Birth control = 99.9% chance of no babies. Don't want babies? Get on birth control. Don't want to take a chance of having a baby even on birth control? Don't have sex.
It's pretty simple
x
It isnt that simple. What you do is the same as
nm
I don't get how anyone can't get this simple point
More social programs don't work. MORE government does not work. Government interference in our lives DOES NOT AND HAS NEVER WORKED!
Explain to me how funding more crap programs with my money is going to MAKE someone lose weight, MAKE someone stop smoking.
You can't MAKE either happen!
Sorry, it wasn't quite that simple..........
My uncle lives in the NO area and years ago was telling us the fed govt DID give billions to the cithy of NO (the mayor was to work with the COE) for the levy project; however, that money disappeared like most free handout money, blown on heaven only knows what, and the COE was going after the mayor to get the whereabouts of the money answered for for YEARS. They never understood why the govt NEVER forced Negan or whatever his name is to cough up the money and give an explanation for the whereabouts of that money, which was to be utilized for the levy. Of course, it was the govt's place to demand answers but like so much crap that goes on, they never did. The Corp of Enginneers were to be issued their money by Mayor Negan but he never did and even the governor at the time had inquisitions as to the use of this money but still no answers. Too bad the NO residents were too busy doing nothing all day because as residents of this soup bowl, it would have behooved them to get off their butts and demand an answer......
One simple reason......... sm
the government lies. Always has, always will. I don't know for a fact (dare I even mention since I have no web site to copy and paste to support my claim, lol), but I would be willing to bet if you followed the trail long enough, it would trace back to someone or several someones in a high position of authority that has an interest in foreign oil. I have heard it saas (again, no proof on my own) that there is enough gas and oil held in reserves in this country to last us for several decades.
Here's the simple solution:
an email I received yesterday....
This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I thought this was the BEST idea....I think this guy nailed it!
Dear Mr. President,
Patriotic retirement:
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force - pay them $1 million apiece severance - no tax - with the following stipulations that they must do:
1) They must leave their jobs...... Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
2) They must buy NEW American cars....... Forty million cars ordered -Auto Industry fixed.
3) They must either buy a house/pay off their mortgage ..... - Housing Crisis fixed.
Can't get any easier than that! Way cheaper than the cost of what's going on now!
Simple answer
The diet industry rakes in the big bucks because it is human nature to look for a shortcut. A segment of the American public is like this.
Tell somebody they can lose an entire person's worth of weight by drinking some glop for six months and they will buy it. Tell them that they can learn a foreign language in six weeks by listening to tapes while they sleep, they will buy it. Tell them they don't need verifiable income or means to repay to buy a house, they will sign anything.
Tell us we have to actually WORK at something - losing weight, building our credit to get a mortage, whatever, we will just look for the guy who says we don't have to.
How about the simple fact that
if this had been Bush instead of Obama.....you would be saying that Bush made it worse instead of giving him praise for a job well done.
I admit that I'm glad Obama gave the order to do what was done whether or not it was actually him or others who came up with the plan. So congrats on that part but to totally praise Obama and no one else is ridiculous. The brave Navy Seals deserve the majority of the credit for actually doing what was done and risking their lives in the process.
You all cry and whine about us not giving Obama any credit and yet you did not give Bush credit on anything either. Just goes to show the double standards that goes along with politics.
Not a simple solution...
There's literally no simple action that can be taken with respect to offshoring - that train has left the station and it isn't coming back.
This is a global economy and we not only buy goods and services from other countries, we sell ours to them as well. Any adverse action will have an opposite adverse consequence of some kind - either direct or indirect.
Directly, a foreign government can restrict your exports to them, or impose excise taxes. They can restrict American companies from doing business altogether.
And there are indirect consequences. If the people in another country lose income as a result of some action we take, we restrict the market in that country for our goods and services. What that means is a powerful argument against restricting trade. The best we can hope for is to try to ensure that the playing field is as level as possible - and even achieving that has been extremely difficult.
When we imagine that there are simple solutions to complex problems, and then blame the government for not applying these imaginary solutions, we're living in a fanasy world and foreclosing the demand for whatever realistic actions we might actually be able to take - because they're never simple, and they're not going to be as satisfactory as we always imagine our simple solutions would be.
Plain and simple............
If you're black or minority in this country, you can run your mouth all you want and make racial jokes and say nasty things and we are all supposed to look the other way but if you make a joke or say anything that is remotely considered racial (which is anything when speaking of someone black), then AL Sharpton and every other nutjob comes out of the wood work to run their huge mouths. No one is going to probably do anything about Letterman, because he is a loud mouth liberal piece of crap and Palin seems to be an obsession with him. Why doesn't he make nasty jokes about the Obama girls and see where that gets him. For that matter, why is everyone in such an uproar over the gorilla remark if blacks and liberal whites are allowed to get by with their nasty racial and biased remarks?
Always a double standard! They want their cake and eat it too!
It is just the simple fact that
when McCann mentioned this during the campaign Obama did nothing but ridicule it and tell the American people how crazy an idea that was. If a pub would have flip flopped like that, JTBB, you would have smelled blood in the water and would have been all over them. As for him not liking it but going along with it and wait and see what is actually in the bill before I get my feathers all ruffled......we won't know what is in that bill. Look at how many things have been passed when the very people who voted on it had no clue what all was in it. They didn't read it all and, even though Obama talks about transparency all the time......the public wasn't given time to read it either before it was voted on. Obama is trying to rush this through just like everything else and we will all be taxed one way or another. Which is another thing I don't get about some of you people. Obama said no taxes of any kind for 95% of American people and that was such a blatant lie and yet you refuse to acknowledge that lie. Just like Bush Senior and his "red my lips....no new taxes." Well....we all know what happened to him when he lied about that. He didn't get elected a second term. So why aren't you holding the president accountable for his lies? Why?
Simple question....(sm)
Have your taxes gone up since Obama has been in office? With the exception of cigarettes (which is not an across the board tax), mine have gone down. In fact, my daughter is getting a huge break now. She works a full-time job, but because she is also a full-time student she pays absolutely NO fed income taxes.
Taxes are definitely going to go up on the wealthy, in fact, that's what Obama said he would do. However, as far as those who are not wealthy all I have come across is speculation of what might happen, when in reality the only thing that has happened is that those people have seen a tax reduction.
It's called fearmongering from the right, not based in reality, only based in speculation....which is the case with saying he will tax healthcare.
Simple question....
how is he going to pay for all this if he doesn't raise taxes? He has tripled the debt. He will have to pay for the health care plan somehow. He acknowledges that. What income does the government take in OTHER THAN taxes?
It's quite simple and doesn't need an explanation...sm
Get your hands (control) in areas that product oil, i.e., Iraq.
You are a liar, pure and simple
While parts of this may be from a court brief, they are taken wholly out of context and your entire posting is a cut and paste from a neocon website article. Time to 'fess up!
Your source of "facts" will always be totally different from the liberal board's source of facts so we are never going to agree on much of anything in general. SO therefore we cannot debate.
Simple answer. Because there is no money in...
providing contraception. There is money in abortions. With 200 mill from the feds (your tax dollars and mine) and all the abortions they perform (it was 200,000 a year in 2005, no telling how many now)...that is where the money is. It is the only thing in Planned Parenthood they won't take a check for...cash or insurance up front. No checks for abortions. That is their cash cow. People complain abot high oil company profits but profiting from killing babies is okey dokey in their books. Good grief.
I asked a simple question...
Your only response is getting your panties in a wad. Throw yourself a pity party and get your panties out of that wad. You will live longer that way!
Simple, he doesn't have a clue either.
He's just giving lip service and hoping us dumb little, wrapped-up-in-our-own-lives citizens, will just be so complacent and compliant, that we just accept his ridiculous response and go on with our lives, being screwed at every corner, thinking, "WHEW, at least our government is going to take care of it".......right!!!!!
There is a simple answer to that, anon....
again, when you think something has been distorted or made up, say so. I for one, when I am proven wrong on something I have posted as fact and not opinion, I have apologized and owned up to it. I am assuming I am one of the ones you are talking about, so please...if I post something as fact (not opinion) and you prove to me it is distroted or made up, I will certainly own up to it. Thanks.
Simple solution, DON'T LISTEN TO
HER! Your know you are not going to vote for her, so why punish yourself?
Because it's a lie, pure, plain and simple...
We do have free speech but it is wrong to make things up about people. Didn't your mom teach you that? The stuff about Palin and Bush are facts. What you put about Obama being compared to Hitler is trouble making slander and liable and hateful. I won't even respond to you anymore on this board because it gives attention to a person who doesn't deserve it. All I can say is OBAMA WON AND THAT MEANS THE MAJORITY WANTED HIM SO TOUGH NOOGIES.
It's not quite that simple. (Please see article inside.)
I'm certainly no McCain fan; however, when I first heard about this possible "controversy" concerning his birth, contrary to this article, I thought it was frivolous at least and outrageous at most, considering his father was a soldier at the time, and I felt it was a slap in the face to soldiers everywhere.
Just as McCain was vetted about this issue, so was Obama, and both men were found to be eligible to run for President.
McCain's birthplace prompts queries about whether that rules him out
By Carl Hulse
Published: February 28, 2008
WASHINGTON: The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
"There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent," said Sarah Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. "It is not a slam-dunk situation."
McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of McCain's closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.
"He was posted there on orders from the United States government," Graham said of McCain's father. "If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can't be president if they take an overseas assignment."
The phrase "natural born" was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to "declare expressly" that only a natural-born citizen could be president.
Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.
Duggin favors a constitutional amendment to settle the matter. Others have called on Congress to guarantee that Americans born outside the national boundaries can legitimately see themselves as potential contenders for the Oval Office.
"They ought to have the same rights," said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. "There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what 'natural-born citizen' means."
McCain's situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare McCain goes more to the interpretation of "natural born" when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.
McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.
It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility.
Quickly recognizing confusion over the evolving nature of citizenship, the First Congress in 1790 passed a measure that did define children of citizens "born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States to be natural born." But that law is still seen as potentially unconstitutional and was overtaken by subsequent legislation that omitted the "natural-born" phrase.
McCain's citizenship was established by statutes covering the offspring of Americans abroad and laws specific to the Canal Zone as Congress realized that Americans would be living and working in the area for extended periods. But whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications —— a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence.
"I don't think he has any problem whatsoever," said Nickles, a McCain supporter. "But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if somebody is going to try to make an issue out of it. If it goes to court, I think he will win."
Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.
In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be "unpredictable and unsatisfactory."
"If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain," Pryor said in a recent interview. "But it is certainly not a frivolous issue."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/america/28mccain.php
why are u so touchy over a simple question?
nm
Our economic situation is in no way as simple as that...wish it were!.....sm
What Mr. Rogers (love the name!) does not take into account in this equation is that in our particular case, which he did not forsee before his death, I believe, is much different. There are many hardworking, ethical, proud Americans who are very reluctantly receiving "handouts" from the government because there ARE NO JOBS to be had, the bills are due, the house is on the auction block, cannot afford medicine for a sick child, food for a starving family, heat and shelter....there are definitely people who abuse the system and use it as their piggy bank, but nowadays it can be me, you, your neighbor, anyone, no matter how many years you have worked hard, no matter how you have tried, we are in a crisis of almonst UNPRECEDENTED proportions, and still gettin worse. As for the rich, please do not get me started....TAKE from them???? don't you think that they are robbing all the American People and the System when they use all types of tax loopholes not to pay their fair share of taxes, when they move operations overseas for cheap labor and once again to avaid American taxes, when they pay lobbyists, who pay politicians, to look the other way in Congress on bills that would hurt big business but might HELP Amerfican workers???? Okay, I could go on, but I guess you get the idea how this poster feels about that particular quote. All for freedom, yes. But Free Enterprise has become the Evil Empire, as in Star Wars, (okay, hokey analogy!), and until we get that particular 2000 pound elephant out of the room and roasted, we are sunk as a nation.
I agree. In simple words:
Two same-sex persons having sex is just NOT 'normal.'
A man having sex with multiple women is accepted as NORMAL.
Excuse me for being conservative and oldfashioned.
No bashing and insulting, please.
A simple "I refuse to hear the truth" would do.
What Conyers is doing is playing by the rules. This is a HJC hearing, not a congressional hearing. There have been a number of ridiculous restrictions on what they can or cannot say imposed on this process. For example, they are not allowed to utter the word "impeachment" and Bush's name in the same sentence. Absurd. In spite of all the obstacles, he opened the hearings and has vowed to see it through and to bring the truth into the public discourse once the investigation is concluded. He is quite aware of the fact that he is putting his reputation as a senior member of Congress on the line, so it would make sense that what goes on there is compelling. He is doing nothing to distract or circle around THE ISSUES. He is moving the process along. He is chairing the committee. All the details of the restrictions, who put them there and why, Conyer's position, etctera, can be found in the numerous links that have been provided and is well summarized in DK's interview.
The difference between him and you? Are you serious? He is familiar with every single player, position, stance, viewpoint, piece of evidence and rebuttal. He is a fact checker. He is not considering this evidence on the basis of hearsay. He is evaluating the integrity of the proof as it is presented. You, on the other hand, say you know all you need to know because you have "heard it from other democrats." In other words, you are not willing to even listen to the prosecution case or its evidence as it is presented directly from the source. Instead you talk all around what is really taking place inside those chambers. You are still doing it, trying to twist this into something it most definitely is not. Here's the deal. When you can't win on the issues, out comes the smear and smut.
No one said anything about your having made anything up about Niger. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make this about that one single subject. There are literally scores of talking points and hundreds of pieces of evidence to sift through. You are not the least bit interested in any evidence. If you were, you would watch the interview and post you rebuttals. You're not doing that. You are obsfuscating. It's what you do. What possible difference could it make in terms of valid claims and conclusive evidence whether this process occurs in formal or informal impeachment hearings? Truth is truth. Proof is proof.
You are not interested in hearing from all the witnesses or seeing all the proof. Exactly the opposite. You want to see no witnesses and no proof, unless of course it backs your own contentions. Stop trying to imply that the process is rigged. In the post 9/11 politics of fear world, the republicans would classify the White House address, if they could get away with it. Preponderance of the evidence usually is all that is required to achieve majority vote. If that evidence is incomplete, you have the republicans to thank for that. Do you really think that all that info held in secret is vital to national security? The only thing it is vital to is covering the neoCONS behinds.
You doest protest too much. More obstacles. Be honest. This is not about you want this and you want that. It's what you DON'T want that is plain to see. You don't want to face the reality that they just might be onto something. Another pot shot at Clinton. You really think that lying about an affair is a more serious impeachable offense than misleading an entire nation on the reasons for going to war? One thing is for sure here. As long as you continue to refuse to view the process as it is happening, instead of what you speculate about what may or may not be going on, you really do not have any way to justify anything you are saying about it. You say you have heard what DK has said. Okay. Did you watch the interview? What was in it? You must have skipped over the stuff about the live blogging from inside the chambers. The information is available for those who are interested. Go to the links. It's all in there….including information on how to follow it on a day-to-day basis.
Since the rest of this post has disintegrated into non-stop personal attack, I will not waste my time with it. Clearly, you will not engage yourself in any direct, honest, informed dialogue on this subject. This is still about your comfort zone. This just goes to show how extremely intolerant you are whenever anybody tries to challenge your ideas and how terrified you really are with what might be coming out of those chambers.
What is baiting? It is a simple question. Would they support...
him or would they attack him like they are attacking Bush? Why is that baiting? It is a simple question.
Obama is just trouble....plain and simple.
There are so many things that I don't agree with him on. You can't raise taxes for small businesses in this time of crisis. You can't have all of these government assisted programs and only tax the rich because that won't be enough to cover all the expenses. He will have to tax us all including the middle class which he professes to want to help even though "spreading the wealth" will keep us down in the middle class because we won't be able to afford to make it into the upper tax bracket. Basically his plans are aimed to help the lowlife scum who don't want to work. As for his healthcare......like Oldtimer said below.....you can't make insurance companies pay for pre-existing conditions like that. If no one wants to pay for health insurance until they have a major illness.....these insurance companies are supposed to pay for a pre-existing condition when this person is just now paying insurance premiums. The insurance companies won't have any money to pay out if that is how it will work because no one will want to pay for insurance until something major happens. It just won't work that way because it can't.
Obama is a socialists through and through. I'm tired of the media and his supporters ignoring his associations. I'm tired of people throwing up the race card. It is just absolutely ridiculous. Just because I'm a white woman not voting for Obama....that doesn't make me racist. Yet you never hear about the people voting for Obama just because he is black.....is that not also racist?
This whole election is just screwed up. I hope to God that this next debate has something in it worth watching and I hope McCain tears Obama a new butthole!
|
