Palin is a birther...

Sarah Palin declared on Thursday that the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate is "rightfully" an issue with the American public, and that it is "fair game" for politicians to question Obama's citizenship.

The comments came during an interview with conservative radio host Rusty Humphries, who asked Palin whether she planned to "make the birth certificate an issue" if she runs for president in 2012.

"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue," Palin said. "I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers."

Didn't Democrats McCain's having been born in the Panama Canal Zone?

I don't think that McCain's birthplace generated the huge attention that for some reason Obama's has. I think Sarah Palin diminishes her credibility by continuing to question this. There was no doubt that he was born in Hawaii. The one African birth certificate someone produced was proven to be fraudalent. In my opinion this is just an attempt to illegitimize Obama's presidency that has no true basis in fact.

Hello and welcome, Andrea.

I agree that this is a non-issue, but probably for different reasons. I unabashedly think Obama is a disaster, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't born in Hawaii.

I think this can largely traced to the irrational hatred of Bush 43. Bush became "perfect evil" to many on the left, such that no rumor went unbelieved. I think many on the right are treating Obama the same way.

Whatever their political opinions, I think it obvious that BOTH Bush and Obama are decent folks who mean well. I also look forward to neither of them being President in 2012. The best way for conservatives, of which I am one, to deal with Obama is at the ballot box, and not through these conspiracy theories (or with Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, for that matter). Obama's policies are silly enough, no sense in attacking the man rather than his policies.

Good evening Sheik Ben. It is my pleasure to meet you. I am a moderate to a liberal on most issues. I wonder sometimes about 'conspiracy theorists', whether they be on the left or the right. You could take a crowd of them into Area 51 and allow them to search it for twenty years with infrared equipment. Some of them would still come out and say that somewhere in the facility there was a secret chamber with a space ship and tanks with dead aliens floating in them. Those would be the liberal conspiracy theorists. The conservative ones are the same with the birthing persistance.

What the next election will bring is still a ways off. My heart would like to see Obama make a success of his first term and be re-elected. Only time will tell.

Hello, Andrea. We have not seen many moderates or liberals here. I hope you feel at home here. We desperately need some new blood. May yours be it.

Hi Ohio County. I hope so too. Lots of the smaller forums need a revival sometimes. Maybe I can be of help with that.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:
What the next election will bring is still a ways off. My heart would like to see Obama make a success of his first term and be re-elected. Only time will tell.

Welcom Andrea although I'm curious as to whether I've seen you someone where in cyber land before. You seem familiar.

As for our President, time thus far is showing that he's screwed the pooch big time, from massive debts to a national health care that's not even a good liberal plan.

I'm afraid OC was right on another thread in that his damage likely will be irreparable and this is just one more step down the path that leads to America becoming a second class nation.

I find the birthers frustrating....not quite as frustrating as those who insist he's a Muslim or bitch that he didn't go to church this Sunday. Obama is a socialist hellbent on destroying the American way of life. Now that's something to bitch about.

Hi Andrea.........I'm with Aaron. You seem eerily familiar.

That's strange. A deja vu? I don't know why though as I haven't been on here before? Do any of you go on other political forums? I belong to the Fox News, CBS News, and the ABC forums.

I don't think of Obama as a Socialist. I think he believes that health care should be a right not a privledge. Why are we the only major industrialized nation that views health care as a commodity such as buying a house, a car or groceries? Does not believing that medicine for an illness, treatment for an injury, radiation for a tumor should be viewed like the ham I bought for dinner make you a Socialist? If so why? Or is medical care and access to it a different kind of moral question? I believe it is.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:I don't think of Obama as a Socialist. I think he believes that health care should be a right not a privledge.

Do you share that belief and if so, how do you reconcile that belief constitutionally? The rest of the conversation depends on how you answer that as well but I will say that it seems to me that we're buying houses, cars and groceris as well.

Perhaps that why we face a $12,000,000,000,000.00 debt, don't you think!!!

It's redistribution of wealth.......socialism.

You have the right to your life. You have the right to your thoughts and to express yourself. You have the right to the fruits of your labors. You don't have the right to demand somebody else provide your medications for you or pay for your pap smear or your radiation therapy.

You want meaningful reform? Let's first kill all the lawyers!

I do believe that health care should be a right not a privledge. Do I believe that view is constitutionally supportable? Yes I do. Do you believe Aaron that Social Security is acceptable under the Constitution? I don't believe that the Constitution in any of its sections prohibits the spending of tax dollars for social programs. I know that is the viewpoint held by some. Are you saying that it is not supportable? How would you support your viewpoint if that is so.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:I do believe that health care should be a right not a privledge. Do I believe that view is constitutionally supportable? Yes I do. Do you believe Aaron that Social Security is acceptable under the Constitution? I don't believe that the Constitution in any of its sections prohibits the spending of tax dollars for social programs. I know that is the viewpoint held by some. Are you saying that it is not supportable? How would you support your viewpoint if that is so.

Do you believe that automobile insurance should be a right and not a privilege?

Stephanie wrote:It's redistribution of wealth.......socialism.

You have the right to your life. You have the right to your thoughts and to express yourself. You have the right to the fruits of your labors. You don't have the right to demand somebody else provide your medications for you or pay for your pap smear or your radiation therapy.

You want meaningful reform? Let's first kill all the lawyers!

I had a train of thought I didn't want to lose. (Occurs more frequently during menopause) I took note of your quote "You have the right to your life."

You Stephanie are walking down the street. As you go to cross you are struck by a car. Your injuries are significant, but you remain conscious and alert. When the ambulance arrives the EMT's ask you if you have any health care coverage. (They probably wouldn't-just for this case. Though they would when you reached the ER.) You say no and that you are also unemployed at present a casualty of our present bad economy with no job prospects in sight for the forseeable future.

As stated your injuries are significant. You will require emergency care, then surgery, medication to ease your pain, a long convalescence in the hospital, equipment to fascilitate your recovery (walker, crutches, immobilizer), and finally a regimen of physical therapy to complete your return to a productive life. Because you have no health care coverage or monetary possibilities for payment, you can apply for free care. Which means your medical care will be paid for by tax dollars. So under what you posted should the EMT's climb back in their ambulance and drive away leaving you in the street to die? Or does the right to your life include saving it even at the taxpayers expense?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:I do believe that health care should be a right not a privledge. Do I believe that view is constitutionally supportable? Yes I do. Do you believe Aaron that Social Security is acceptable under the Constitution? I don't believe that the Constitution in any of its sections prohibits the spending of tax dollars for social programs. I know that is the viewpoint held by some. Are you saying that it is not supportable? How would you support your viewpoint if that is so.

Do you believe that owning a car should be a right and not a privilege?

Armon Ayers wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:I do believe that health care should be a right not a privledge. Do I believe that view is constitutionally supportable? Yes I do. Do you believe Aaron that Social Security is acceptable under the Constitution? I don't believe that the Constitution in any of its sections prohibits the spending of tax dollars for social programs. I know that is the viewpoint held by some. Are you saying that it is not supportable? How would you support your viewpoint if that is so.

Do you believe that owning a car should be a right and not a privilege?

Once again we are comparing owning a vehicle and health care as equal commodities. I do not believe that health care is the same as having a vehicle. Good health is not a material thing. If it were those of us who have it would be truly prosperous.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:I do believe that health care should be a right not a privledge. Do I believe that view is constitutionally supportable? Yes I do. Do you believe Aaron that Social Security is acceptable under the Constitution? I don't believe that the Constitution in any of its sections prohibits the spending of tax dollars for social programs. I know that is the viewpoint held by some. Are you saying that it is not supportable? How would you support your viewpoint if that is so.

The constitution doesn't prohibit Congress from buying me a new Road King with hard shell saddle bags, a trunk, ferring and a kick arse sound system either. I'll take a red one with ivory trim. When can I expect it?

Please tell me you can do better then "prohibits the spending of tax dollars on social programs."

The driver of the car that hit me would be financially responsible for my medical bills.

Stephanie wrote:The driver of the car that hit me would be financially responsible for my medical bills.

Plus, without spending a trillion dollars or sinking us farther into socialism, NO ONE can be refused emergency treatment in ANY emergency room NOW.

Stephanie wrote:The driver of the car that hit me would be financially responsible for my medical bills.

Not if they were a hit and run driver. Armen are you saying that then you believe that there should be free treatment in emergency rooms for catastrophic injury? Does it include all the treatment described in my previous post to return to a normal life?

I'd like a blue road king Aaron with tooled saddlebags. I'll have my Constittution out and ready shortly. What type of Constitutional discussion did you have in mind? Did you plan on defending your side of it?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Stephanie wrote:The driver of the car that hit me would be financially responsible for my medical bills.

Not if they were a hit and run driver. Armen are you saying that then you believe that there should be free treatment in emergency rooms for catastrophic injury? Does it include all the treatment described in my previous post to return to a normal life?

I'd like a blue road king Aaron with tooled saddlebags. I'll have my Constittution out and ready shortly. What type of Constitutional discussion did you have in mind? Did you plan on defending your side of it?

People get free emergency treatment NOW. It is called charity care--which all of us pay for. Do you believe that people should pay for this right? Do you believe that people should be forced to have or to provide the premium for this riight? If one does not purchase health care, will this right be provided for free?

Why are we the only major industrialized nation that views health care as a commodity such as buying a house...

Why are other kids allowed to stay up past eleven PM? Isn't this the same argument?

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Stephanie wrote:The driver of the car that hit me would be financially responsible for my medical bills.

Not if they were a hit and run driver. Armen are you saying that then you believe that there should be free treatment in emergency rooms for catastrophic injury? Does it include all the treatment described in my previous post to return to a normal life?

I'd like a blue road king Aaron with tooled saddlebags. I'll have my Constittution out and ready shortly. What type of Constitutional discussion did you have in mind? Did you plan on defending your side of it?

Seems to me when I ask you yesterday how you reconciled it constitutionally you would have got your copy of the constitution out. Perhaps before you worry about my argument, you could make a one based on reason and knowledge instead of just what you think. After all, that’s how President Pelosi is doing it and she doesn’t know what the ell she’s talking about either.

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:

Stephanie wrote:The driver of the car that hit me would be financially responsible for my medical bills.

Not if they were a hit and run driver. Armen are you saying that then you believe that there should be free treatment in emergency rooms for catastrophic injury? Does it include all the treatment described in my previous post to return to a normal life?

I'd like a blue road king Aaron with tooled saddlebags. I'll have my Constittution out and ready shortly. What type of Constitutional discussion did you have in mind? Did you plan on defending your side of it?

Seems to me when I ask you yesterday how you reconciled it constitutionally you would have got your copy of the constitution out. Perhaps before you worry about my argument, you could make a one based on reason and knowledge instead of just what you think. After all, that’s how President Pelosi is doing it and she doesn’t know what the ell she’s talking about either.

To answer Armon yes I do believe that health care should be paid for. I utilize the following argument to promote my position-

Cornell

From Nebbia v New York decided March 5 1934, Mr. Justice Roberts delivering majority opinion.

Thus has this country from the early days, affirmed that the power to promote the general welfare is inherant in government. Touching the matters committed to it by the Constitution, the United States possesses the power, as do the states in their sovereign capacity touching all subjects jurisdiction of which is not surrendered to the federal government as shown by the quotations above given. These correlative rights that of the citizen to exercise exclusive dominion over property and freely to contract about his affairs and that of the state to regulate the use of property and the conduct of business are always in collision. No exercise of the private right can be imagined which will not in some respect, however slight, affect the public, no exercise of the legislative perogative to regulate the conduct of the citizen which will not to some extent abridge his libery or affect his property. But, subject only to the constitutional restraint, the private right must yield to the public need.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:That's strange. A deja vu? I don't know why though as I haven't been on here before? Do any of you go on other political forums? I belong to the Fox News, CBS News, and the ABC forums.

I don't think of Obama as a Socialist. I think he believes that health care should be a right not a privledge. Why are we the only major industrialized nation that views health care as a commodity such as buying a house, a car or groceries? Does not believing that medicine for an illness, treatment for an injury, radiation for a tumor should be viewed like the ham I bought for dinner make you a Socialist? If so why? Or is medical care and access to it a different kind of moral question? I believe it is.

Andrea you've generated a lot of activity here, thanks!

And now, why I think you are wrong:)

The word "socialist" is a term whose definition changes depending on who is speaking. Obama's policies sound eerily familiar to the Weimar Republic which preceeded Hitler (note that I am comparing Obama to Weimar and not to Hitler, by the way). Under Weimar, the German people had a "constitutional right" to a job, pension, health insurance, and housing. Coupled with war reparations (or war debt, sound familiar?), Germany went into financial ruin which included hyperinflation. The other countries did not think much of deutschmarks, just as China is considering dropping the American dollar as the standard.

This road that we are on is not wise. First there will be insurance company employees losing their jobs. Now the insurance industry is one for which I have no love--they gamble that something horrible won't happen to you. So this first consequence bothers me a little but not terribly much, although it will create welfare or at minimum unemployment cases.

Second doctors will not receive as much for services. There are more MRIs in West Virginia than in Canada. Doctors in France are middle-class, and that is well and good, but there aren't going to be a great many Americans going to medical school and working their most vibrant years in schooling to become middle class.

Lastly the blood sucking lawyers will lose out as the pool from which they sue will dwindle. That is my silver lining.