The Barnyard

Excellent logical post...absolutely on target. I, personally, don't believe in mad-made climate change...but I can't say for certain. Those who do believe, realistically, can't either.

One thing I do know for certain is that every country in the world would like to reach a little deeper in our pockets...I believe the climate change movement is seen as an excellent vehicle for this. This makes me skeptical, of course.

This board doesn't allow multi-quoting so I'm going to cut and paste your pargraphs and respond to them.

______________________________________________________________________
" "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man really is king." What does that say about the people in the land of the blind? "

To me it say that when faced with a choice between a one-eyed man and a blind man, the people chose the one-eyed one.
______________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
"The theme of your rebuttal seems to focus on Clinton was accused of nefarious wrong doing and his poll numbers improved; the republicans are going to nominate Romney who is to the left of Dukakis (should improve his polling numbers among the left); the economy sucks and were in a mess and anyone who has doubt about his background is involved in a Muslim extremist conspiracy that he was raised in secret Indonesian indoctrination camps to one day impose Sharia law on America."

No the theme of my rebuttal was that after being told by you people for six years that Bill Clinton was a drug-dealer, a murderer and a rapist, learning he was an adulterer and a perjurer didn't seem that bad. And you and your ilk are doing Obama the same favor.
_____________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
"Those are interesting points however they do not address my concern. Which is the lack transparency concerning his background and the media’s apparent complicity in the redaction of all pertinent historical fact regarding his life. As a citizen, subject to his policies, I don’t think it unreasonable to be factually familiar with his history, his writings, his formative years, his background."

Where is the substantive evidence that we knew less about Obama's life than the average presidential candidate's? I've never seen John McCain's or Dubya's or Romney's or Reagan's or Nixon"s or for that matter Lincoln's birth certificate. How come the GOP always hides their nominees' birth certificates? Prove to me Lincoln wasn't Muslim and do it now.
______________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
"I have not made any comments positive or negative regarding his governance. He may prove to be the best president ever and he may win reelection. My issue is solely based upon his lack of transparency and the sealing of all his historical records. I would much prefer those in his corner would say, His background doesn’t matter. Rather than addressing one of his first executive orders, the sealing of all his records, his supporters often take the more condescending position that those who want answers are somehow conspiratorial, villainous and as some imply, racist haters. "

Well, I can make plenty of comments on Obama's governance. On the whole it's been pretty lousy. But he benefits from his predecessor being worse and his opponents talking about his birth certificate, his love of Sharia Law, and what grade he made in middle school instead of the lack of improvement of the economy. I don't take the position that "those who want answers" are anything other than paranoid and damaging to the GOP cause. As they were during the Clinton years. And as a frustrated Dem, I beg you don't change. Your nuttiness is all we have. God bless you everyone. Channel your inner Glenn Beck early an often to every undecided voter you meet.
______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
"You are correct – McCain was not born within the continental borders of the United States. He was born in a United States military hospital on a United States military installation in the Canal Zone – a United States Territory which I believe qualifies him. He was fully vetted. I’m not sure the same could be said of his challenger. "

McCain was not born in the Canal Zone. There was no Canal Zone legal entity in 1934. He was born on sovereign Panamanian soil. But guess what, it doesn't matter!!!!!! As former Bush Solicitor general Ted Olson showed in a legal opinion(Google it and read it yourself)in 2007 the fact that McCain had at least one parent who was an American citizen was enough alone to make McCain a natural-born American citizen. Do you birthers deny that Obama's mother was an American citizen?
_________________________________________________________________

Hope my format made sense and I apologize to anyone annoyed by it.

I'm not angry, I'm having a blast watching you start new theads about me and following me to other threads and fact-checking me(or maybe you're just a big Canal Zone history buff).

I've never been cyberstalked before. It's kinda cool.

As far at the Canal Zone, take it up with Ted Olson, the guy the McCain campaign hired to research it. I'm sure it's out here some where in Google land. And when I read it a few years ago, Olson's point was that it was irrelevant whether the soil where McCain was born was American, because he had an American parent, just like B.Hussein Obama(my addition, not Olson's)

BTW, are you a birther?

Here's a link I googled on the hiring of Olson. Sorry I can't find the brief itself. Maybe someone else can. Or maybe everyone else has a life and doesn't care?

I am fine to admit when I'm wrong, I was basing things off of my memory of the Olson thing several years ago and there was something about where he was born? Maybe the location of the hospital.

Anyway, you are right based on a cursory search and I'm sorry that I got it wrong and appreciate you making it right .

As any child could see, my point to John was that the point that I recall Ted Olson making, namely that the location of John McCain's birth was irrelevant to the question GOP primary challengers were making about his eligibilty to be President because McCain had at least one parent who was a citizen.

Having debated with John a few times, I think he'll pick up on the subtlety of my remark, unlike you. Why don't you let him speak for himself?
BTW, you didn't answer my question. Are you a birther?

John, go enjoy the game. Not for a moment was I casting dispersions on McCain's citizenship. I was referring to the questions raised by GOP challengers in the 2008 campaign that were answered by Ted Olson's legal arguments that it was irrelevant where he was born because of his parent's citizenship, and using that to point out the absurdity of caring where Obama was born.

As an aside, while I think McCain has long passed into the realm of crazy old man and shouldn't be trusted to run a Dairy Queen, his extraordinary courage while a POW in refusing the offer from the North Vietnamese to release him because of his father's rank and staying in the Hanoi Hilton with his men is reason enough to consider him no matter where he was born and to whom.

I voted for him in the 2000 SC GOP primary and I was never prouder of a vote.

I apologize for linking you to Beck, et. al. I just never met anyone concerned about Obama's birthplace, Social Security Number, so on and so on who wasn't an acolyte of that bunch. if you say you're aren't one, so be it. .

McCain is maybe more reckless than crazy, IMO.

I voted for him 2000 and If he'd not run on a 100 year occupation of Iraq, indefinite war in Afghanistan, possible war with Iran and also had the single worst campaign in history (palin? Really?) ...maybe I'd have voted for him over Obama.

The Olson brief gets more deeply into the question of whether being a citizen because you're born in a US territory is the same as being the "natural-born US citizen" eligible for the presidency upon reaching the age of 35.

Gets into British Common Law and a lot of other "inside baseball" minutae. In fact as Olson points out the reality is that the Constution didn't spell out just what a naturalized citizen is. IIRC correctly, Olson argues that it's long tradition that if you have a parent whose a citizen you are too.

This is why I brought it up. Because unless the Birthers have decreed that Obama's mother wasn't a citizen(and God knows they probably have) his place of birth, or anyone's with a parent whose a citizen, is irrelevant to whether he's eligible to be President according to Ted Olson.

IMHO, botton line is McCain and Obama are eligible for the presidency and only loons see otherwise.

i went to bed. i dont stay up for ball games anymore, unless they are football games. i get up early every day.

plus, i have found that going back a couple of years, if i went to bed early, most of the time when i woke up, we had won in stunning fashion.

so its a combination of old age and superstition. hey....dad gummit......come to think of it that pretty much sums my life up....sob....boo hoo..

at any rate, looks like the yardbirds are ready to roost and crow and maybe fly