I'll show you Obama's Birth Certificate when...

[Doc Com]

Insurance companies, those same entities that

raise your rates
raise your copay
deny you treatment
deny coverage

are the ones that made $12.9 billion IN PROFITS last year during one of the worst times in American history.

Most major hospitals in my area have, at one time or another, have STOPPED TAKING Blue Cross/Blue Shield because BC/BS WOULD NOT PAY THE BILLS!

Instead, they would ask to renegotiate THEIR OWN SET PRICES!

They pulled this little stunt and maneuver at one major hospital at a time rather than all at once. Meanwhile, that created an overburdened conditions at the other hospitals. It was a tactic and a strategy.

Twelve billion dollar PROFIT in a time of recession and depression.

Something wrong here???

[JMJ]

Nobody ever said the current system is perfect. But do you really think giving the government a blank check and control is going to improve things? Please do give me an example of where this has happened. Negative $39 trillion in medicaid/medicare? Negative $10T in social security? Negative $8T in prescription drug liabilities? Where did the trillions from the last blank check the bailouts go?

I don't know if you are really a doctor. But tell me this Doc. What about all of those services which aren't covered by most insurance policies. Laser Eye surgery? Breast Implants? Are those going up or down?

[DomainsInc]

Originally Posted by PRED

hes been in power what , 7 months?

the fallout is from the years prior, all this and worse was to come, no avoiding it
trillions spent on wars too
the blame is at bush's door

it's like me racking up huge credit card debts by wasting money here there and everywhere,
then disappearing at end of it all, and leaving my wife to pay it. then people blaming 'her' for struggling to pay the bill
ludicrous

what a situation to inherit

as far as bush is concerned, the history books wont lie, however much you fool yourself

Exactly. These people claiming bankruptcy did not just create it in the past 7 months. You can thank Bush for the change in bankruptcy laws as well as he bent over and basically let mbna write the bill he passed.

Originally Posted by Raider

Yes, that poor excuse we call our President has been in office now for 7 months, he's had 7 months to try and stop the bleeding and hasn't succeeded, instead, all he's done is open more wounds.

As for the 2 years prior, your right, When the Democrats won control of both houses, that's when things started to go bad, real bad... That we can agree on.

How can you be so quick to blame Obama after 7 months in office when you are very quick to blame Clinton for 911. Bush was in office almost the same amount of time. Shouldn't he of fixed Clinton's mistakes by then, according to your logic?

[Doc Com]

There is no money to be made in fixing something.

Think about it.

Healthcare.

Billions are made by the Pharmas and the Private insurance. If price controls are in place, who loses?

A broken healthcare system did not magically appear in the spring of 2009.

So, why did a republican congress and a republican president not fix it? Why did they not propose to fix it? Why did they CHOOSE to ignore it?

The answer is simple...follow the money.

And what is the republican answer (or fix) to the Democrats healthcare proposition?

They have no answer. They would rather leave everything alone.

Follow the money.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

There is no money to be made in fixing something.

Think about it.

Healthcare.

Billions are made by the Pharmas and the Private insurance. If price controls are in place, who loses?

A broken healthcare system did not magically appear in the spring of 2009.

So, why did a republican congress and a republican president not fix it? Why did they not propose to fix it? Why did they CHOOSE to ignore it?

The answer is simple...follow the money.

And what is the republican answer (or fix) to the Democrats healthcare proposition?

They have no answer. They would rather leave everything alone.

Follow the money.

Price controls are the main problem. That isn't a free market. It's a price fixed manipulated market. What drives prices down? Competition. If the prices are fixed there's no competition and motivation. That's why Elective care prices decrease. Primarily because government and insurance companies alike aren't involved with their price fixing activities.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by DomainsInc

How can you be so quick to blame Obama after 7 months in office when you are very quick to blame Clinton for 911.

Bush was in office almost the same amount of time. Shouldn't he of fixed Clinton's mistakes by then, according to your logic?

Judging by what Obama's done in the past 7 months, do you really believe he's capable of turning the economy around? Yes or No?

And to compare 7 months of reckless spending to defending the US against an attack the Bush Administration knew nothing about, is just plain idiotic.

[Poker]

Originally Posted by Raider

Judging by what Obama's done in the past 7 months, do you really believe he's capable of turning the economy around? Yes or No?

And to compare 7 months of reckless spending to defending the US against an attack the Bush Administration knew nothing about, is just plain idiotic.

Tell us about Bush's spending during the 1st bailout. Does not sound like you know anything about it at all.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Poker

Tell us about Bush's spending during the 1st bailout. Does not sound like you know anything about it at all.

Even though it wasn't addressed to me. Do you mean the one which was spearheaded by Rahm Emanuel and disbursed by Timothy Geithner?

[Poker]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Even though it wasn't addressed to me. Do you mean the one which was spearheaded by Rahm Emanuel and dispersed by Timothy Geithner?

A swing and a miss. For someone that seems to take pride in research, I am surprised.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Poker

A swing and a miss. For someone that seems to take pride in research, I am surprised.

How do you figure? Because you believe that Henry Paulson was the main man? Better dig a lot deeper. Rahm was known for his thug like tactics in getting bills passed which is why he was one of the main people behind getting that one done. Timothy Geithner was the head of the NY Fed during disbursement as well as the collapse itself. He was right in the middle of all the meetings with Lehman, Goldman, etc. as they were about to go down. Don't get me wrong I don't want to give Bush any credit. His administration's hands are just a dirty in all this. But don't fool yourself for one second believing that anything has changed just because Obama is in there. They just moved the pieces of the chess board around while you weren't looking.

Here's one of Rahm's speeches in case you missed it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7-6A-1A5CQ

Typical BS. We're doing this for the people. It might not be the best but it's what we've come up with. We'll get those dirty bankers.

Another Rahm pushing the bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHk7BOp6MzY

Another Rahm playing a head role

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_sYrlcsHc8

In the meantime

Wall Street bankers are still raking in billions in bonuses
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...-bonuses_N.htm

[Poker]

Originally Posted by JMJ

How do you figure? Because you believe that Henry Paulson was the main man? Better dig a lot deeper. Rahm was known for his thug like tactics in getting bills passed which is why he was one of the main people behind getting that one done. Timothy Geithner was the head of the NY Fed during disbursement as well as the collapse itself. He was right in the middle of all the meetings with Lehman, Goldman, etc. as they were about to go down. Don't get me wrong I don't want to give Bush any credit. His administration's hands are just a dirty in all this. But don't fool yourself for one second believing that anything has changed just because Obama is in there. They just moved the pieces of the chess board around while you weren't looking.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 became Public Law in 7/08. The bill was passed during the Bush admin and it's main architects and salesmen were Bernanke and Paulson, both of whom were hired by Bush. As is always the case in American business, the boss gets both the credit and the blame for his staff (unless he fires them), that's how business works. Add to this the fact that not one of the three could see any of this coming even though it is their responsibility to do so. Quite the contrary, they even acted as cheerleaders the whole way down saying the economy and markets were sound as major wealth was being destroyed all around them.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Poker

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 became Public Law in 7/08. The bill was passed during the Bush admin and it's main architects and salesmen were Bernanke and Paulson, both of whom were hired by Bush. As is always the case in American business, the boss gets both the credit and the blame for his staff (unless he fires them), that's how business works. Add to this the fact that not one of the three could see any of this coming even though it is their responsibility to do so. Quite the contrary, they even acted as cheerleaders the whole way down saying the economy and markets were sound as major wealth was being destroyed all around them.

You're confusing the Housing bill which gives home owners money to purchase homes and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which was the bankster bill. It was triggered by a $550 billion dollar draw down on the money markets on Sept 18th. Now you might want to ask yourself who has the power to draw down that much? Maybe George Sorros, Obama's handler, who also happens to run the largest money market fund in the world? Why hasn't anyone investigated who it was?

[Poker]

Originally Posted by JMJ

You're confusing the Housing bill which gives home owners money to purchase homes and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which was the bankster bill.

It's one bill: The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Poker

It's one bill: The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

No two entirely different things

Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
July 30, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing...ry_Act_of_2008

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
October 1, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...on_Act_of_2008

[Raider]

Originally Posted by Poker

Tell us about Bush's spending during the 1st bailout. Does not sound like you know anything about it at all.

No, since this thread is about Obama, I let you do the honors and tell us about the BILLIONS in TARP money Obama wasted on Wall Street and the Auto Industy, How he continued to throw good money after bad, And when your done with that, you can tell us about the $787 billion dollar spending bill, oh sorry, I meant the "Stimulus" Bill .. where he promised it would create new jobs in the private and public sector, you remember that, don't you Poker?

Maybe Obama Stimulus II will work, what do you think?.... LMAO.

[Poker]

As I said, Bush's spending during the 1st bailout...it's clear you know anything about it at all.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by Poker

As I said, Bush's spending during the 1st bailout...it's clear you know anything about it at all.

It is un-American to bash Bush.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Poker

As I said, Bush's spending during the 1st bailout...it's clear you know anything about it at all.

What a cop out. A tax rebate for house purchases to the people after the many years of artificially inflating home prices is entirely different than getting a blank check and stealing trillions of dollars. Yes I said trillions it's not $700 billion. Last estimate of actual theft figures was around $14 Trillion. Expected to go as high as $24 Trillion.

Do you not see how this works? They give us a few dollars and give themselves 1000x that.

Originally Posted by Doc Com

It is un-American to bash Bush.

Bush is a P.O.S. scumbag just like Obama.

There is no difference between Bush and Obama. They both work for the same people. Just selling a different con. Two sides of the same coin.

Not everyone is Pro-Republican or Pro-Democrat. I know it's hard to believe but some of us have our own minds. Pretty sure it's referred to as Independent. We don't all have to be Left Nut or Right Nut hanging from a phallus. Which is all these pricks are.

[jberryhill]

You obviously didn't read my post on how the term "natural born citizen" came to be. Until you know the difference between a "citizen" and "natural born citizen" you can't argue the facts.

The birther argument based on de Vattel is utterly bankrupt, as are many of your peculiar legal theories in another thread.

Under the 14th Amendment, there are two ways to be a US Citizen. One is to be born here, and not be born to diplomats. The second is to be naturalized by immigration. That's it. Being born in the US makes one a natural born citizen.

de Vattel was a Swiss political philospher who wrote the book you reference in French. Its first English translation did not even include the phrase "natural born citizen", but does note that under English law, being born in England was a sufficient condition to be an English subject, which is most germane in understanding the founder's intent because "natural born subject" is the term at English common law (on which US law is based) to refer to a person born in England.

As noted by Madison, one of the principle architects of the Constitution, in a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

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


( Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States. Congress, Thomas Hart Benton)

Here is, specifically, where you have been lied to about Vattel.

You've seen this quote:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

Those words, however, are quoted from a translation of de Vattel that first appeared in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification. Did the framers know Vattel’s work in the French? If so, there is a problem because the literal phrase “natural-born citizen” is not present in the original French which says:

Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

For those who don’t speak French, the word “citizen” (Citoyen) appears only ONCE in the sentence.

Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”.

...and if you want to see those translations, they are more extensively treated here:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/...ted/#more-3446

This notion of "natural born citizen" as some third category of citizenship has been developed whole cloth by birthers using legal theories which are not only wrong, but dishonest.

[Doc Com]

Merci!