obama birthcertificate: this week or next.....

[Vigilante]

The millennials so laugh at you old fogies of the TP with your silly images.

We in the mainstream won again, and you on the far right lost again.

Tis what is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure thing, loser. Let's see, two budges, a deficit, and the HSA bill. Ok.

 

[emilynghiem]

Trump at CPAC Hillary was the 1st birther

1. I think most people go with the Hillary theory, that if even SHE couldn't find evidence to get this guy out of her way on the path to the Presidency, then no such evidence existed.

2. also the arguments still stand that as long as his mother was a US citizen, then he counted as a citizen also, regardless of location.

the best argument I heard against that is that Obama couldn't have attended schools in Indonesia unless he gave up his US citizenship and claimed Indonesian citizenship,
so he should have gone through formal procedures to reinstate US citizenship which he never did.

but the argument against THAT is he could still claim he ripped off the Indonesian govt by going through school there as a US citizen

That's as far as I got with that...

 

[Vigilante]

Sure thing, loser. Let's see, two budges, a deficit, and the HSA bill. Ok.

Yes, the Rep. House and Senate have folded like the GOOD CommiecRAT followers that they are.... Main stream Repub. will flush the leftist shit out in 2016... But thanks for playing Jakeass, always a pleasure showing the Forum just what a traitorous fool you are!

 

[Vigilante]

Trump at CPAC Hillary was the 1st birther

1. I think most people go with the Hillary theory, that if even SHE couldn't find evidence to get this guy out of her way on the path to the Presidency, then no such evidence existed.

2. also the arguments still stand that as long as his mother was a US citizen, then he counted as a citizen also, regardless of location.

the best argument I heard against that is that Obama couldn't have attended schools in Indonesia unless he gave up his US citizenship and claimed Indonesian citizenship,
so he should have gone through formal procedures to reinstate US citizenship which he never did.

but the argument against THAT is he could still claim he ripped off the Indonesian govt by going through school there as a US citizen

That's as far as I got with that...

obama birth certificate hillary started the birther movement foxnews Obama Birthplace Controversy

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure thing, loser. Let's see, two budges, a deficit, and the HSA bill. Ok.

Yes, the Rep. House and Senate have folded like the GOOD CommiecRAT followers that they are.... Main stream Repub. will flush the leftist shit out in 2016... But thanks for playing Jakeass, always a pleasure showing the Forum just what a traitorous fool you are!

Dear Vigilante thanks for posting and adding content here.
Only thing I ask to do without, can you please refrain from jumping so harshly
on JakeStarkey, cuz I HATE when he turns around and plays the nah-nah na na na
card, "oh too bad for you, sucks to be you" to mock people like me seriously trying to enforce consistent Constitutional standards. There is plenty of work to do there, without any need for rubbing people's faces in the dirt. I don't like when he does that to me, so I ask can we please agree not to do this to each other, and just stick with Constitutional arguments, principles and content. I want us to set better examples of what our govt leaders should do instead of playing the brat and bully cards as well.

I respect your other posts that help me a lot, but this personal stuff makes me cringe and distracts from what is really important here I find critical and not to be mocked.

Thank you for everything else ~

 

[Vigilante]

Sure thing, loser. Let's see, two budges, a deficit, and the HSA bill. Ok.

Yes, the Rep. House and Senate have folded like the GOOD CommiecRAT followers that they are.... Main stream Repub. will flush the leftist shit out in 2016... But thanks for playing Jakeass, always a pleasure showing the Forum just what a traitorous fool you are!

Dear Vigilante thanks for posting and adding content here.
Only thing I ask to do without, can you please refrain from jumping so harshly
on JakeStarkey, cuz I HATE when he turns around and plays the nah-nah na na na
card, "oh too bad for you, sucks to be you" to mock people like me seriously trying to enforce consistent Constitutional standards. There is plenty of work to do there, without any need for rubbing people's faces in the dirt. I don't like when he does that to me, so I ask can we please agree not to do this to each other, and just stick with Constitutional arguments, principles and content. I want us to set better examples of what our govt leaders should do instead of playing the brat and bully cards as well.

I respect your other posts that help me a lot, but this personal stuff makes me cringe and distracts from what is really important here I find critical and not to be mocked.

Thank you for everything else ~

Tell you what Emmy, when you are in a thread with that Manchurian Republican, I will refrain from exposing him for what he is.... BUT in all other threads, he's MINE to throw around like the dead rat he is! OK?

BTW, Hillary did this expressly so OTHERS, on both sides would pick it up and run with it. The only thing we didn't expect was to find out just how DEEP Soros's pockets were, and just HOW LONG they had planned for just that emergency and what to do about it. Not specifically that he wasn't born in Hawaii, which I still doubt, but about his schooling where he was always known as a FOREIGN STUDENT, and given the special treatment that being a foreigner brought with it to college life.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure thing, loser. Let's see, two budges, a deficit, and the HSA bill. Ok.

Yes, the Rep. House and Senate have folded like the GOOD CommiecRAT followers that they are.... Main stream Repub. will flush the leftist shit out in 2016... But thanks for playing Jakeass, always a pleasure showing the Forum just what a traitorous fool you are!

Dear Vigilante thanks for posting and adding content here.
Only thing I ask to do without, can you please refrain from jumping so harshly
on JakeStarkey, cuz I HATE when he turns around and plays the nah-nah na na na
card, "oh too bad for you, sucks to be you" to mock people like me seriously trying to enforce consistent Constitutional standards. There is plenty of work to do there, without any need for rubbing people's faces in the dirt. I don't like when he does that to me, so I ask can we please agree not to do this to each other, and just stick with Constitutional arguments, principles and content. I want us to set better examples of what our govt leaders should do instead of playing the brat and bully cards as well.

I respect your other posts that help me a lot, but this personal stuff makes me cringe and distracts from what is really important here I find critical and not to be mocked.

Thank you for everything else ~

Tell you what Emmy, when you are in a thread with that Manchurian Republican, I will refrain from exposing him for what he is.... BUT in all other threads, he's MINE to throw around like the dead rat he is! OK?

BTW, Hillary did this expressly so OTHERS, on both sides would pick it up and run with it. The only thing we didn't expect was to find out just how DEEP Soros's pockets were, and just HOW LONG they had planned for just that emergency and what to do about it. Not specifically that he wasn't born in Hawaii, which I still doubt, but about his schooling where he was always known as a FOREIGN STUDENT, and given the special treatment that being a foreigner brought with it to college life.

I will ask Jake to stay out of your way and off your threads.
I don't want him to pick up bad habits from you thinking he needs to do that to others.

As for the birth location issue, how does this matter if people are interpreting
the law to mean as long as Obama's mother is a US citizen then he counts as eligible?

Also, will it help to establish a public understanding that Constitutionalism is a political religion, and our beliefs about free market and states' rights are protected as a creed,
under free exercise of religion, and cannot be punished or penalized by govt by political bias or discrimination (as with ACA and people/parties like Obama who believe in right to health care). Can we prove there is political discrimination going on by creed, and this is in violation of Obama's oath of office and any other officials
who keep pushing these ACA mandates as a violation of our Constitutional rights and beliefs NOT to be treated differently due to our creed?

 

[Vigilante]

Sure thing, loser. Let's see, two budges, a deficit, and the HSA bill. Ok.

Yes, the Rep. House and Senate have folded like the GOOD CommiecRAT followers that they are.... Main stream Repub. will flush the leftist shit out in 2016... But thanks for playing Jakeass, always a pleasure showing the Forum just what a traitorous fool you are!

Dear Vigilante thanks for posting and adding content here.
Only thing I ask to do without, can you please refrain from jumping so harshly
on JakeStarkey, cuz I HATE when he turns around and plays the nah-nah na na na
card, "oh too bad for you, sucks to be you" to mock people like me seriously trying to enforce consistent Constitutional standards. There is plenty of work to do there, without any need for rubbing people's faces in the dirt. I don't like when he does that to me, so I ask can we please agree not to do this to each other, and just stick with Constitutional arguments, principles and content. I want us to set better examples of what our govt leaders should do instead of playing the brat and bully cards as well.

I respect your other posts that help me a lot, but this personal stuff makes me cringe and distracts from what is really important here I find critical and not to be mocked.

Thank you for everything else ~

Tell you what Emmy, when you are in a thread with that Manchurian Republican, I will refrain from exposing him for what he is.... BUT in all other threads, he's MINE to throw around like the dead rat he is! OK?

BTW, Hillary did this expressly so OTHERS, on both sides would pick it up and run with it. The only thing we didn't expect was to find out just how DEEP Soros's pockets were, and just HOW LONG they had planned for just that emergency and what to do about it. Not specifically that he wasn't born in Hawaii, which I still doubt, but about his schooling where he was always known as a FOREIGN STUDENT, and given the special treatment that being a foreigner brought with it to college life.

I will ask Jake to stay out of your way and off your threads.
I don't want him to pick up bad habits from you thinking he needs to do that to others.

As for the birth location issue, how does this matter if people are interpreting
the law to mean as long as Obama's mother is a US citizen then he counts as eligible?

Also, will it help to establish a public understanding that Constitutionalism is a political religion, and our beliefs about free market and states' rights are protected as a creed,
under free exercise of religion, and cannot be punished or penalized by govt by political bias or discrimination (as with ACA and people/parties like Obama who believe in right to health care). Can we prove there is political discrimination going on by creed, and this is in violation of Obama's oath of office and any other officials
who keep pushing these ACA mandates as a violation of our Constitutional rights and beliefs NOT to be treated differently due to our creed?

None of this matters IF we don't have a responsible opposition party that takes EVERY Unconstitutional move the Obomanation makes to court, and If that opposition party loses in a lower court, continues the fight up to and including SCOTUS.... Just as Bozo should be impeached for dozens of things he's done. We know he won't be found guilty in the feckless Senate, but damn it, tie his hands up so the damage he's done is not magnified with more of his dictatorship. The Repubicks, and here I'm talking about the LEADERSHIP, are afraid of losing whatever POWER they do have, and are letting the poser slide on everything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, I disagree with your idea of how the Constitution is supposed to work, but you go about you way nicely. That you are willing to go on a hunger strike, while admirable, will change nothing except for you. I hope you don't do it.

Vigilante, on the other hand, comes in strutting and then gets shut down every single time. I told him, for example, that the HSA was a done deal, that the EO is off the congressional board as is the ACA. Now I am telling him that only SCOTUS can effect either. Then he will yell about commies and manchurians and martians. The key to him is that he takes his talking points seriously, and that is just so laughable, like the post above. If he were to talk in realistic terms, that would be different, but he can't. He is a useful tool for his masters.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"obama birthcertificate: this week or next.....
started by washamericom, Nov 22, 2014"

lol

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, I disagree with your idea of how the Constitution is supposed to work, but you go about you way nicely. That you are willing to go on a hunger strike, while admirable, will change nothing except for you. I hope you don't do it.

Vigilante, on the other hand, comes in strutting and then gets shut down every single time. I told him, for example, that the HSA was a done deal, that the EO is off the congressional board as is the ACA. Now I am telling him that only SCOTUS can effect either. Then he will yell about commies and manchurians and martians. The key to him is that he takes his talking points seriously, and that is just so laughable, like the post above. If he were to talk in realistic terms, that would be different, but he can't. He is a useful tool for his masters.

Dear JakeStarkey and Vigilante

I see no reason to harass people for our political beliefs, force us to prove our beliefs "that must pass through courts before being recognized" etc. if we aren't trying to impose these on anyone else but just trying to exercise these ourselves. That shouldn't require Govt that isn't supposed to regulate religion.

Since everyone seems to impose their own political beliefs, and by nature cannot separate this from govt function, my solution is to make decisions by consensus.

Laws on murder, for example, agree with both church and state laws, so nobody argues about that. Only on terms where we DISAGREE such as if abortion is murder, or euthanasia, or if the death penalty should be authorized.

So why not form an agreement among citizens, and parties and govt,
to address matters of political beliefs by conflict resolution and consensus,
so that ALL views are protected equally, and NONE are put on the defensive,
which is NOT treating them equally. If the govt endorses one, and puts the other on the defense, that is NOT EQUAL.

I found this on a Duncan-Kennedy website:
American Constitutionalism as Civil Religion

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFIQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fduncankennedy.net%2Fdocuments%2FPhoto%2520articles%2FAmerican%2520Constitutionalism%2520as%2520a%2520Civil%2520Religion.pdf&ei=sIr2VImpPMOvggTjs4SwDw&usg=AFQjCNHV_JmFx4xrxI6eaGOtUmA0yw383g

when we have different interpretations, such as states' rights vs. right to health care or right to marriage, I propose to settle such conflicts by consensus to ensure equal inclusion and protection for all views.

But by the nature of consensus, this must be freely chosen and adopted. It cannot be "forced by law" as ACA was which defeats the concept of consent of the governed.

I think this is a bad dangerous habit to get away from, the notion that to get your political belief endorsed, you ram it through govt against the beliefs of others.

I think if a belief is really a better solution, people will choose it freely.

Anyone can abuse "force of law" to impose things that may or may not be fair.
If we work by free choice, then people are free to change their minds, so there is no coercion, pressure or duress imposed on the communication process, and this works better for resolving conflicts and addressing objections.

thank you

 

[JakeStarkey]

I got as far as "my solution is to make decisions by consensus."

That is what we do in our primary and general elections as we elect our representatives and senators, etc.. That is the republican way: the people elect others to make decisions for them. The courts protect minority rights. Losing an election and then having ACA enacted does not deprive you of any constitutional right, according to SCOTUS.

 

[emilynghiem]

I got as far as "my solution is to make decisions by consensus."

That is what we do in our primary and general elections as we elect our representatives and senators, etc.. That is the republican way: the people elect others to make decisions for them. The courts protect minority rights. Losing an election and then having ACA enacted does not deprive you of any constitutional right, according to SCOTUS.

JakeStarkey
Yes, but this consensus is limited to creating two opposing factions that don't reconcile, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T SET UP THAT WAY.
For example, pitting prolife AGAINST prochoice, or pitting "blaming the rich to mobilize the poor to vote" vs. "blaming the poor to mobilize the rich to vote"

Once people are pro or anti-: Christian, Muslim, Tea Party, war on women, liberal media, etc.

It is hard to negotiate to get a consensus out of hardlined divisions.
Obama intended to work by consensus, but by the time he had slammed and made enemies out of the opposing teams, they were put on the defensive and they both were rendered unable to work with each other.

ESPECIALLY after Obama had to use his ACA as a line in the sand to establish authority.
That has flaws in it, it's not just an issue of providing health care transition, but the BELIEFS about states' rights and free choice got crossed and that is going to cause rejection by people this is SACRED to, so that issue distracts and prevents the good ideas about health care from going through.

Once you make a public stance that "ACA is the law of the land" and it "establishes the right to health care"
You can't backtrack and negotiate or it is considered a political concession.

And that is the same mistake made by building up in the processes you point out
BASED ON ADVERSARIAL POSITIONS.

We keep picking candidates and issues BASED ON COMPETING
instead of COOPERATING.

So we are not even building to the same goal as a true consensus.
We use these party and media and govt systems to groom the "bigger bully"
and those people are not negotiators. the two sides don't want to change or compromise,
instead of selecting leaders who can form solutions that DON'T compromise anyone's views.

We don't even pick those people, value or promote them, because they are not bulldogs
willing to steamroll and bulldoze over the "competing party" and "opposing" views.

The legal and legislative system is abused just to bully one side over the other.

that is NOT how consensus is built. You cannot organize by Demonizing and Alienating
one side for the other and then expect to magically mediate and reach a consensus.

NOTE: there is NOTHING wrong with forming a party platform around like goals,
but those cannot be forced on people against their beliefs or it is hardly different from imposing RELIGION

If people form a consensus, then go ahead and implement that, at the highest level people agree to it.
Don't form a biased consensus that "only represents one side" and then RAM it over the other people.

It may work for purely secular issues, to have two different versions of similar bills and reconcile them.

But legislation like ACA, that was already fundamentally exclusive of beliefs against it,
has opposition based on points that weren't being recognized, addressed or corrected.
So that level of objection cannot simply be reconciled around. That opposition should have
been addressed head on instead of railroading right over it.

Same with grooming candidates to take hardline stances on issues of political beliefs to rally support around.
That isn't even honest, because in reality people will never compromise their beliefs anyway.
We could invoke the law directly on this and NOT rely on candidates to bulldoze these beliefs through
which is a life. Prolife cannot be bulldozed through because it is based on faith, and has to be chosen freely.
So it is exploiting voters for candidates to keep promising to defend this in order to solicit votes and funds, when the law should already defend it because it is a belief, period.

The whole focus would shift if we had an agreement to respect beliefs by law
and not rely on candidates or parties to bribe or bully to defend these. We could fund solutions
and quit fighting over beliefs that should be inherently protected like creeds and religions from discrimination.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your argument on ACA fails: not worth discussing.

The War of Independence was either or.

The Constitution was either or.

Our political system is either or.

I honestly think the American cultural psyche is not willing to think outside of that construct..

 

[washamericom]

heh... she's making you look bad man...

they don't have a torpedo emoticon... but you get the idea.

 

[washamericom]

heh... she's making you look bad man...

they don't have a torpedo emoticon... but you get the idea.

not worth discussing... in a discussion forum... i mean, why R U here ??

she's got U pinned key, sorry amigo

 

[JakeStarkey]

wash you are either intelligent or not, and the fact you are a birfer answers that you are short a couple for even a box of rocks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN TEA PARTY SYMPATHIZERS AGAINST SEVENTY FIVE" mainstream Republicans is a fair fight. Your far right sucks will not make it through the primaries.

Real America ever since the fall of 2013 have been whittling your numbers away, and more than a 100 of those votes will not stand up for you folks, They will use, abuse you, and then next election, lose you.

Since you are averaging 70 to 80 posts a day, at 5 cents post, you are making the most you have ever made in your life. Keep it up.

 

[emilynghiem]

"ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN TEA PARTY SYMPATHIZERS AGAINST SEVENTY FIVE" mainstream Republicans is a fair fight. Your far right sucks will not make it through the primaries.

Real America ever since the fall of 2013 have been whittling your numbers away, and more than a 100 of those votes will not stand up for you folks, They will use, abuse you, and then next election, lose you.

Since you are averaging 70 to 80 posts a day, at 5 cents post, you are making the most you have ever made in your life. Keep it up.

Dear JakeStarkey
the majority vote in Congress may have decided to pass ACA, but it still violated beliefs in conflict with the Constitution.

I would rather be on the side of what is right and consistent, even if that means only 2% of the population.
If Einstein is right, over all the others who don't see or even understand what he is saying, I'd rather be in the minority
rather than sell out to what is popular and be wrong.