Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Been covered today already, and over past few days..

Posted By: Yes, we agree....getting old, though. on 2009-01-12
In Reply to: Ann Coulter on The View (the spew) SM - MT777




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

There has been a big swing in past few days of
nm
I appreciate the deletion from this board in the past few days...sm
Especially when they come here just to bash.


interesting article, have read many similar these past few days...
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1231-23.htm
Yes, I have seen in the past few days the kind of party dems like to throw...
thanks, but no thanks. And what does Sarah Palin have in common with George Bush other than both are Republicans? None. But of course, there is that open-minded thing again...
The PAST says a lot about what you are today.
nm
That was then and this is now...He just said it today of ALL days!!! sm
WHY WOULD anyone in their RIGHT MIND say such a thing TODAY of all days???? Unless they were completely out of touch with the people of America and what they're going through.

He is another Bush - PERIOD.
You're a tad early in your post. It's still 17 days today..
ho hum....boring....
Nope, 4 years 11 days (1471 days or 1383 til 11/4/2012)
You do really need to learn how to count until 11/4/2012 or 1/20/2013.

Also, sorry to hear in four years you won't care anymore.
I believe all children should be covered.

health care plans.  My husband pays a portion just like everyone else.  We hardly use the health coverage, only for minor sinus infections, and I did have a hysterectomy last year. 


There are others walking around that have had multiple surgeries including bypass, and they pay the same amount towards the plan. 


How is that fair?  I feel the contribution should be paid on the usage, per se, and not so much (everyone is equal) because we are not.  I had a friend that had a lap band (fully covered), thyroid surgery, neck surgery, and goes the doctor every other week for something or other.  So, when we worked together, we both paid the same; yet, I did not go to the doctor or have any surgeries. 


Is that fair?  Why not look at something like that for cost effectiveness?  Would this turn people away from receiving the healthcare they need (not likely)?


Terrorists are not covered under
The Geneva Convention.  I don't know how many times I have to repeat that tid bit of information to you people.  What our government did was in an attempt to keep Americans safe and yet all you want is Bush and Cheney's head on a platter no matter what extra danger that might put our troops in.
Terrorists are not covered under
the Geneva Convention.
The ten's of thousands not covered by media
Perhaps that's why they declared open season on reporters who tried to get the truth out, especially about the heavy-handed police gestapo tactics, all too common in a post 9/11 Patriot Act world (where misdemeanors are ratcheted up to charges of terrorism), riddled with politics of fear and being promoted inside the convention hall.
yep. talk radio covered this. sm

Rush said that's why they went after him.  Seriously, for those who have never explored talk radio, it's like getting your doctorate in history.  It's so different than what many think.  Of course, I like all of it, but this is a fabulous encyclopedia for sources other than the "drivebys."  Of course, that's why the far-left Dems want that so-called Fairness Doctrine.  The centrists (what few are left flailing with little or now face time, for obvious reasons) know full well that if it happens to the conservatives, it'll come right back around and hit them in the butts, too. 


The Dems are very divided but put on a show for the cameras.  If a centrist or a new Rep. doesn't follow The Pelosi Principle, he/she will never get $ for another run, and certainly won't get to introduce anything of interest to that Rep.  The domino effect on that trickles down to the Rep's state, which in turn essentially gets nothing. 


It's quite refreshing to be able to have a friendly exchange here.  What on earth happened?  Let's hope it lasts!


The reason the media covered

Tiller like they did was so they could push this horrible accusation about how conservatives are to blame for this psycho gunning down Tiller.  However, this Muslim who attacked those soldiers doesn't benefit them by truly reporting on it.  Just like the Muslim who beheaded his wife because she was going to leave him....you barely heard a snitch about that story. 


I think the news should have covered Tiller's murder.  No one has the right to gun down anyone like that.  However, it would have been nice if they would have given the same respect to an American soldier who was gunned down as well.  It truly does make you wonder what is happening to our country.  Pretty sad when we care more about the death of a man who had no trouble killing babies and yet we have no problem with one of our soldiers being gunned down by a Muslim. 


No they didn't.....FOX covered it from minute one....
nm
Nah. Bush has already got the "socialism" thing covered!

(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS.  I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary.  I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that rambles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it can always run back to socialism to save it.  As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!) 


Tuesday, December 30, 2008


EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts


Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)


EXCLUSIVE:


Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.


Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.


"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.


"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.


See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?


If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.


The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.


In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.


This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.


"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."


North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.


"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."


"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.


House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.


White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."


Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.


Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.


"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.


The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."


The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.


The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.


The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.


The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.


"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."


"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"


Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."


The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.


"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.


But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.


Jon Ward contributed to this report.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/


Nah. Bush has already got the "socialism" thing covered!

(I think it happened when he decided to buy BANKS.  I remember the gist of his statement at the time, how he's a "free market" kinda guy, but this is absolutely necessary.  I guess that means capitalism is a toddler that toddles about, but when it's about to run out in front of a speeding car, it's up to socialism to save it.  As for me, I think Bush is runnin' around with a few trillion in his pockets, since there is so much secrecy surrounding the Wall Street bailouts, with transparency and accounting flat-out refused by the Bush administration from the get-go!) 


Tuesday, December 30, 2008


EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush's bailouts


Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)


EXCLUSIVE:


Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing "socialism," underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush's administration.


Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.


"We can't be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms," said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.


"The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama's proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives," while encouraging the RNC "to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform," said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.


See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?


If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.


The RNC usually plays a policy role only every four years when it frames the national party platform, which typically is forgotten quickly.


In 2006, some party members presented a resolution challenging Mr. Bush's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and enact a guest-worker program. Mr. Bush's lieutenants fought back, arguing that the party should not tie the president's hands on a policy issue, and the RNC capitulated, passing an alternate White House-backed resolution instead.


This time, the backers of the new resolution say they will not be deterred by a fight, and say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion.


"We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor" at the party's Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington, Mr. Bopp said. "I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision."


North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth said it's time for the RNC to end the disconnect between what the party platform says and what elected Republicans do.


"It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform," Mr. Emineth said. "Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it."


"If the party doesn't move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant," Mr. Emineth said.


House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the financial bailout but opposed the auto bailout, declined to comment.


White House spokesman Tony Fratto defended the Bush administration's actions, saying, "We understand the opposition to using tax dollars to support private businesses we also oppose using tax dollars to support private businesses. But this was the necessary and responsible thing to do to prevent a collapse of the American economy."


Several RNC members including some of Mr. Bopp's fellow conservatives are not pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.


Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party, said the party also can't be seen endorsing a do-nothing approach.


"We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue," he said.


The resolution says: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."


The financial sector bailout passed the House by a vote of 263-171 with 91 Republicans backing it, and passed the Senate by a 74-25 vote with 34 Republicans in favor. The auto bailout passed the House by a 237-170 vote with 32 Republicans supporting it, but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, with just 10 Republicans voting to advance the bill.


The RNC's sole job historically has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders. Policy has been set by the party's congressional leaders and, when a Republican sits in the White House, by the president.


The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.


The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.


"For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House," said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution co-sponsor who led the 2006 immigration fight and who opposed Mr. Bush's "economic policies promoting the 'ownership society' because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing."


"It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy," Mr. Pullen added. "If we don't do it now, when will we?"


Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, "We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year."


The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.


"In the long run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP," Mr. Yue said.


But it remains unclear whether the rules or the machinery exist for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.


Jon Ward contributed to this report.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/


Like phoney food stamp flyers covered with racial stereotypes,
Obama Halloween ghost hung in effigy to greet 5-year old trick-or-treaters weren't there? How about straight from the horse's mouth? Books have been written on the subject. Here's just one excerpt:

1. McCains use of the anti-Asian slur "Gook" publicly for 27 years before dropping the term for his current presidential run.
2. McCain's endorsement of George Wallace Jr., a frequent speaker at white supremacist events.
3. His vote against establishing a holiday for MLK's birthday and another vote to rescind the holiday, turning hypocrite to say "I was wrong" at a campaign rally.
4. While answering a question about divorced fathers and child support, McCain called the children "tar babies."

There is certainly no shortage of example of racial hatred out of the McCain camp? I could research the subject some more if necessary to prove this point, but I think you get the general idea.
What part of 60-plus days of his first 100 days...sm
don't you understand. I think it's obvious to anyone actually researching his movements what his main goals are - and I don't in my wildest dreams see how in the world he can keep spending as he has been and wants to continue doing and cut the deficit in half by end of his term. IMO his chances are running out quickly. God help us all!
They certainly have in the past. sm
but their headline didn't intentionally mislead like the one posted above. Oh, let's face it, the media is just not what it used to be.  I don't trust them at all.
from the past
I am so-o-o sick of the party bickering, finger pointing and verbal barbs blaming the other guy, I am remembering a line from my past "Alfred E. Newman for president." Back then it was a joke but it is starting to sound good again!
That's because most do not look at his past tax
//
You mean once we look past the
seas of humanity jumping for joy on November 4th, the rafters-busting crowds that are descending on DC for the inauguration and the hordes in the global bleachers cheering him on? Four years is sufficient time to build a slam dunk of a track record but in the absence of worthy GOP opponents, all he has to do is stay alive between now and then to get re-elected. Personally, I hope that they put SP, Hasselbach and/or Coulter up there, the dream team of certain defeat. Sure doesn't look like they have much more than that to offer at the moment.
Yes, definitely ignore the past if it does not...
fit your agenda. It clouds nothing. Somehow I cannot see you blasting JFK for Viet Nam. Just cannot see that happening...though you swear you would. You just can't bring yourself to be disguated about something that is not happening NOW? Wanna talk about Carter and Iran? Oh no, we can't do that, that was in the PAST.

Well hang in there piglet...as soon as Congress pulls funding, the troops are brought home because of it, Viet Nam revisited, the horror that will become Iraq when that happens making NOW look like a walk in the park...you will be able to ignore THAT as the past also.

Must be nice.
There is nothing in McCain's past...
of radical leftwing socialist politics. Nor does he think there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion, up to and including allowing babies who survive abortion to be left to die. Tell me...how do you reconcile your Christian principles with that? Do you think the Jesus you know would condone that? For ANY reason?
we have now gone way past rude..
to downright disgusting. It probably also take a MENSA brain to call someone else pathetic, little, loser because they don't think the same as you. Give it a rest already people.
No, I was responding to the past above yours, sorry,
did I get it wrong? yikes - I meant that for the 'first of all' post...
I have felt in the past...
that I was being attacked for saying something that was never really meant to be offensive. I feel that we should all be able to act like adults and refrain from personally attacking anyone. I just thought that the response was unnecessarily nasty. I hope you have a great evening! I hope the other person does, as well.
I think JM was up past his bedtime.

Past and future
Stop dwelling in the PAST.
Look into the FUTURE.
The last past 8 years did not work for anybody.
What we need is change. REAL change.
Summon it up, we do not need
your pagelong lectures. Who has time for this?
The election is tomorrow, thanks God.
Go, Obama!
Can't live in the past - have to look to

past that point
http://www.youtube.com/user/visionvictory



It's not the past administration?
What color are your eyes? Brown? Thought so.
They can't see past anything..... easily led!
nm
But you don't do that. You only discuss the democratic past.

In order to smear it.


No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush.


U.S. and past civilian deaths

U.S. and British forces bombed Dresden, Germany with the death of approximately 225,000 civilians, and it was intended as a purely civilian bombing. 


From a history publication (with references to LeMay also made by Robert McNamara in The Fog of War):


When news concerning the bombing of Dresden got out, it led to an uproar that had to be quieted by cynical denials that this was U.S. or British policy. But it was, and it continued, now against Japan. In March 1945, more than 100,000 Japanese were killed in a firebombing raid on Tokyo as “canals boiled, metal melted, and buildings and human beings burst spontaneously into flames” (John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War [Pantheon Books, 1986]). By August 1945, 58 Japanese cities had been firebombed and the bomber commander, General Curtis LeMay, had to curtail his raids because he had run out of incendiary bombs. After the war, Le May remarked “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.” Instead he was promoted, eventually heading the Strategic Air Command, where he advocated a pre-emptive nuclear “first strike” against the Soviets. During the Vietnam War, Le May notoriously called to “bomb them [the North Vietnamese] back into the Stone Age.”


It is nice to look to the future and not the past.
You are quite wrong about my stance on Vietnam. Don't make the presumption that you know me at all.

One thing that I do know is that you cannot change the past. You want to bog yourself down with useless information knock yourself out. Our government tends to not pay attention to those details of the past in the way they operate today. If they did, Bush would have never invaded Iraq. Perhaps you are making your speeches to the wrong audience? You will never convince a liberal that war is just.

As I have stated before, I am strictly anti-war, no matter who, what, where, and why. War does nothing but fund hate and line pockets of men who profit from them and kills the innocent as an after thought, and it's excused because, hey, that's war isn't it?

The longer our troops stay in Iraq, the more hate it is going to foster. This military pseudo occupation has to stop and the humanitarian effort needs to start, period.

Or better yet, why don't you go there and explain to the Iraqi people and our military men and women who are doing their fourth or fifth tour and tell them why they are still there. There's your audience, try and convince them.


Umm...2003...isn't that the PAST, piglet....
I thought you were interested in NOW. :-)
No need to go past the Malkin byline.
su
Look at his past political career....
while he was an organizer in Chicago he pushed through legislation with earmarks beneficial for his benefactors...Tony Rezko and the Daley political machine, because that is what it takes to get ahead in Chicago politics. He made a somewhat meteoric rise...and that only happens when you have the right kind of political support and you repay that support.

One of the first things he did as senator was steer over a million dollars in earmarks to his wife's employer...who had just previous to that DOUBLED her salary.

He has a long-standing relationship with William Ayers...a man who hates this country. Among his advisors are people on record as saying Hugo Chavez is a great champion of Democracy.

That is what I am talking about regarding his history. He is not going to change anything. He is a consummate politician, the most liberal senator in the senate, to the left of Ted Kennedy even. It will be politics as usual. He personifies Washington politics as usual, and so does his running mate...been there 30 years.

Sorry...I see past the bio the media has created and look at his political career. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

I invite you to get and read the book "The Case Against Barack Obama." It lays it all out there for you with verifiable facts about the earmarks, the Daley machine, William Ayers, the whole thing.

But only if you are interested in both sides. I am not trying to fight with you. Just offering a source.

Have a good night!
I would not put it past an extremist republican to put something...sm
like that out there and make it look like the democrats had something to do with it. Anyone who truly had the democratic party at heart would never think of lowering themselves to these kinds of tactics.
The truth about his past associations....
would be a good start.
sam's right on this one. Mainly the dems in power through the past several...sm
years have abused their power and positions, and taken advantage of the situation.

While I believe a few of the republicans stood by and let it happen, they are not the majority in this.

Rich liberal democrats on Wall street and in Congress/Senate, not to mention Bill Clinton and his cronies, are the ones that bear the most blame.


And some of them are crying the loudest blaming George Bush, when it's their own fault.




Sam has posted the names and dates and all. It is the truth. Research it yourselves. Just because you don't like what she has to say, means that it's wrong.







Ran this past my brother who is a lawyer and...sm
a republican I might add (much to my chagrin) and he said it is a frivolous lawsuit. He added, which I already knew, it does not matter where he was born, who his father was, who he was adopted by, or where he went to school. His mother is an American citizen and he is therefore an American citizen, period. This is all just smoke and mirrors, lies, diversions from the real issues.
the Right-to-lifers cant see past their own noses.
They oughta consider pulling them out of the bible every now and then and take a breath of fresh air. They sound like their brains are dying a 'slow and agonizing death' by asphyxiation. that's what happens to people when they choose to live and breathe that fairytale, with all of its voodoo. They all live in the Dark Ages.
Can't ge past the ignorance of the first sentence here.
the constitution is not a static document and is, in fact, a living, dynamic, changing, vital document. To wrap you brain around this concept, consider this. The orignal Constitution contained 10 amendments. Amendments 11 through 27 commenced over time as such: 1795, 1804, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1913x2, 1919, 1920, 1933x2, 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and 1992.

There. You see? The (progressive) authors of the constitution in their wisdom provided the mechanism of amendement, that would allow for change and growth. That makes it a living, breathing, dynamic document. Got it?

Next time you try to interpret Obama's book, watch your step.
my post was not talking about the past
My post was in direct reference to the OP "blaming" Bush for something that isn't his fault. DHL is looking to the future and that is why they are laying off people. Not because of anything that's happened in the past.
JTBB, you know where I have stood in the past.....sm
but don't you see, WE have to try to change this around, calling names and playing the blame game, inflammatory insults, may all look cool on a board, but we have to find a way to get beyond this putrid miasma that the political system has become and start over, banking overhaul, immigration overhaul, new corporate business overhaul, social overhaul, and if these people we voted into office would do WHAT THEY WERE SWORN INTO OFFICE TO DO, we could all steer this sinking ship in the right direction. I am not about to start singing KUMBAYA in a loud voice, just sick of insulting rhetoric that gets us NOWHERE!
You're just whistling past the
In order to secure these pathetic "signs" of improvement, Obama is taking us down the road of ruination. And, like the rats who followed the Pied Piper, it's very clear you don't have the faintest idea what's coming.
You will win nothing by continuing to obsess about the past. Move on. nm


When you can't defend the present why do you always bring up the past?