patrick.net

BOBK wrote : It was also inexpensive because third party payers didn’t exist as they do now. You didn’t bother even addressing that in your statement completely agree ! third party (esp monopolies) are market killers.

There's the principle and the practicality. In principle it matters quite a bit. The constitution is clear on the eligibility requirement for the position. The practicality is that even if it were found out that he is not a US citizen by birth 1) by the time all the litigation is said and done, he may very well be at or near the end of his first (if not his second) term. Second, what recourse would we have? Would Biden become president? Would Obama serve out the remainder of his term anyway? Would there be a special election to replace him? Would they consider changing the constitution? Who knows? If they weren't smart enough to check at the beginning, there isn't much that can be done now.

Perhaps its part of a bigger conspiracy to establish a precedent, thereby letting the Governator run in 2016. ;)

The bottom line is Obama promised, hope, change and transparency. Like a fool, I fell for it. You reap what you sow. So far, he's shown us to be a politician, just like all the rest.

Yes. The Rock is cooking DOW 6000. Hmmm...biflation stew with a dash of skyrocketing credit card rates. Food, energy up. Everything else, down, down, down.

The DOW will climb. Houses will stay inflated and the world is still round. Giddy up.

Realblue says

The DOW will climb. Houses will stay inflated and the world is still round. Giddy up.

I needed a good laugh today. Thank you!

What is it in birther psychology that makes them want to believe that Obama is not legitimately president?

I think that's the real question.

So, you're saying you believe in imaginary conspiracies as a kind of revenge against imaginary enemies, like "libs"?

You really don't see you're being played, do you?

When you're bankrupt from "free market" medical care costs you have no free choice about, and when the country is bankrupt from bank bailouts you ignore to spend your time protesting imaginary paperwork conspiracies, even then, you won't get it.

Obama may be going along with the bank bailouts, but Paulson was Bush's treasury secretary. You think most of those bankers are Democrats?

Well drats. As of the press releases from the obama administration Sunday and Today I guess there will be no public option for healthcare in america. My plans to populate the planet are foiled. I know my kids would get free food, free housing, free K-12 education. They'd also get fre medical until age 18. But some moderate democrats decided that my kids have to suffer after age 18 with no free healthcare. Including preventative stuff ....... I am not going to have kids now. Thank you republicans and moderate democrats!

How old is Barack Obama? Let's see: http://www.myspace.com/barackobama
52??? I am totally confused!

I hope that link is still up by the time you click on it.
I have saved a snapshot of the top of the page just in case.

chrisborden says

The lie of debt=wealth is necessary to keep you enslaved in your passive comfort zone.

I hate to point out the obvious, but do you realize that you just railed against the debt culture of the US for a paragraph and complained that it was the only way to get ahead, then stated that you refused to participate, and finally claim that "debt=wealth" is a lie? One of these things has to be true: 1. Your strategy will prove to be a brilliant one and you will be much better off than others in the long run (so your complaints about the debt culture are pointless) 2. The debters are the smart ones for taking advantage of cheap and easy credit, and in the long term they will be far ahead and you'll be far behind (in which case your strategy is a bad one and you should change it) So pick one. If you believe that the debters get all the advantages, why not join them?

interpretame says

THIS current president is the most openly CORRUPT leader America has ever witnessed. EVER.

You clearly know nothing about U.S. history. I can think of at least 5 off the top of my head who no president in the last century holds a candle to.

interpretame says

Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I support birthers, the klan and ANYONE ELSE who wants this asshole out of office or in jail or deported to Kenya.

I'm going to ignore the obvious stupidity of this part of your post and just ask you this:

What do you get if you remove Obama from office?

Meditate on that idea for a few days. Let it stew around in whatever is left of a brain between your ears. Once you realize what a completely moronic stance you're taking, perhaps you could have a rational discussion instead of this pointless one.

So pick one. If you believe that the debters get all the advantages, why not join them?

In the short term, debters might enjoy some benefits - like eating a meal and paying for it in tiny bits over a period of several months. Not to answer for Chris, but I'm guessing he might be the guy wringing his hands while he sits on his earnings, saving up toward X, because he sees his brother or neighbor spreading himself as thin as possible across as many minimum monthly payments as possible. And in the event of a bankruptcy or default, Chris and co. are on the hook. As for joining them...the parable of the cricket and the ants comes to mind.

Went to an open house recently. The realtor said that it is on the market for a couple of weeks. BUt I had a redfind print out that showed this home have been 'relisted' 10 times. The look on her face was priceless! :-) I am waiting for the IPHONE app from REDFIN....

For those who do not wish to pay for the health care of the unwanted (illegal aliens, smokers, fat people, 7-11 clerks, etc), I believe we are in fact already paying for all of the above. To criticize these health care reform bills because it means we will pay for the unwanted is silly. We already do. And dearly. With all the advances in genetic research, do you really want a health care system that charges premiums for your lifestyle? It's a fine line between check yes/no as a smoker, and revealing that you carry a gene marker that increases your chances of Parkinson's Disease. Is that what we really want? Reminds me a bit of 'Gattica'.

interpretame says

1) Name ‘em! And THEN provide an argument as to how THEY they took this country to THE VERY BRINK of self-destruction ..as your beloved Hussein is doing

Adams (the younger), Tyler, Pierce, Fillmore, and Grant, for starters.

I love the "most corrupt" meme. Every single president has gotten this label from the party out of power during my life. When I was a child, it was Reagan and Bush who were the most corrupt. Then it was clinton, then bush, and now Obama. Funny how that works, isn't it?

The truth is that it's a giant load of bullshit. You know absolutely nothing.
interpretame says

Getting rid of Obama would momentarily decapitate Goldman Sach’s attempted putsch.

Oh yeah, because I'm sure that Joe Biden would follow a radically different policy than Obama. Do you know anything about how the US government actually works?

interpretame says

You assholes TALK and TALK and TALK ..as if the U.S. government GAVE A FLYING FUCK about what YOU people think about health care, the bailouts, the economy or ANYTHING for that matter. They’ll always DO WHAT THEY WANT until you fuckheads START THREATENING VIOLENCE. OR at least start talking IMPEACHMENT.

Of course, since Americans are a BALL-LESS society whose sole use for their beloved ‘right to bear arms’ is so that you can shoot each other at the malls & in the schools, you needn’t fear; you’re genetically INCAPABLE of violence. UNLESS it comes to violently raping 14 year old Iraqi girls.

Meditate on THAT for a few days. Fill a washtub with it, then sit in it AND LET THE IDEA SLOWLY SOAK ITS WAY UP YOUR ASS and into your brain.

You don't strike me as a mentally stable person. You should get help. OTS and his ilk are assholes, but at least they're sane assholes.

On the Sidelines says

Food, energy, housing, health care. All basic necessities of life. Why does the free market only work for the first three?

Food, energy, and housing are "free market"? What country do you live in? Food is the most heavily subsidized industry in the country, energy is the largest government owned sector, and housing is run by the likes of Fannie Mae and the FHA.

Your argument makes no sense. The typical stance of centrists of all stripes is that regulation is to be used when the market is not meeting the needs of the people. At present, few people are asking for more involvement in food and energy because they seem to be operating reasonably well to meet the needs of the people. A lot of people are asking for more involvement in housing and health care because both seem to be failing to meet the needs of the people. It really is that simple.

Oh bullshit. There are plenty comments on the NYT that are critical of the administration from both the left and the right. If you got banned, I can just about guarantee because you were doing the same sort of inane trolling that you're doing here. Remember, the NYT has a substantially different definition of 'acceptable' than patrick.net does. And blocking an IP address (even "an entire IP address", as you meaninglessly dribbled) isn't some black magic, either. Other than trying to get attention, why are you claiming that this is some how a "cumbersome process"? Oh look, the big bad NYT is out to get little old you! CONSPIRACY! I grabbed the first article that I could find that seemed like it might elicit any controversial comments. There's plenty of dissent here -- what might have thrown you off is that it's actually civil: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html TPB: Huh? I listen to NPR pretty much 24/7 and I've never once heard anyone get hung up on who was being reasonable, and there are certainly a lot of people criticizing Obama on there (admittedly, mostly from the left, but it's NPR -- what do you expect? I don't think Republicans actually know how to tune their radios to FM frequencies). Now, I know this might come as a shock to some of you, but all media outlets are biased in some way. If you don't like the bias of the NY times, try Fox news. Want something less mainstream? Try any of the literally millions of websites out there that cater to whatever niche political viewpoint you hold. After that, get over yourself. Nobody gives a shit what you have to say, and nobody is going to prevent you from saying it as long as you aren't being an obnoxious asshole.

If a person CHOOSES a lifestyle/activity that is a know cause of major health risks, then the carrier should have every right to demand higher premiums Good idea; we can finally get folks who keep guns around the house to pay their "fair share" (as this statistically increases the chance of personal injury to a loved one)... oh, that was a cheap shot Bapster, but I couldn't resist :-)

There is a REO house by me I pass every day, and it's been there vacant for about 10 months. It had been for sale as an REO at around $750,000, but they took down the sign about 2 months ago and de-listed it back into the shadow inventory. Here is the sales history: 09/09/2008: $1,100,000 10/03/2006: $1,350,000 07/18/2005: $1,200,000 Apparently the last buyer abandoned it like 2-3 months after purchasing it, because it was empty by like 11/08. Bear in mind, this is a home that looks like a Lancaster tract house spliced with a 1930's one bedroom bungalow. Its landscaping is basically weeds, and it is located next to a pair of apartment buildings that look like excellent places to buy weed and maybe meth (which as far as I know isn't considered a major "selling point"). Oh, and according to Zillow in 2000, it was worth around $280,000. So the bank couldn't sell it for 45% off its peak price DESPITE mowing the weeds and hanging used bed sheets in the windows. Then they got desperate and planted two $5 lavender-type plants in the dirt "bed" in front of the house. Shockingly, still no buyers. What DO buyers want these days? Finally they had to pull it from the market and pretend it was still worth $1,350,000 (thank you Financial Accounting Standards Board! No more mark-to-market!) But if anyone is in the market for a $750,000 "bargain", and you happen to be hooked on weed or meth, this might just be the place for you!

$325k for a '40's house with a dinette area with naugahyde seating? Yuck!

same goes for having too many kids. i don't want to pay for somebody else's kids. kids are non-prodcutive for a long time. i don't want to pay for the schooling of a kid or roads on which they drive. everybody who "chooses" to have more than 2 kids should pay more taxes. also, govt should also tax people who "choose" to drive gas consuming SUV's because the society has to bear the effects of climate change and pollution. I don't want to pay for cleaning up the mess that these polluting vehicles cause. everybody should be accountable for thier actions. personal responsibility should be made more popular.

On the Sidelines says

And you think this is a good thing?

I think that there are flaws in our food, energy, housing, and medical policies, but I don't believe that keeping government completely out of it is the answer, either. I don't support our current farm policy, but I do think that there are cases where subsidies to farmers make sense (for instance, to prevent problems like the dust bowl).

On the Sidelines says

But this debate isn’t even about regulation; it’s about theft on a grand scale in order to give the product away for “free”.

So why aren't you protesting insurance? "Insurance" for something that is guaranteed to happen makes no sense. Our current medical system is robbing people blind. It is inefficient, incompetent, and extremely expensive. Direct payer may actually be a viable alternative, but the status quo is not.

A single payer system would most likely result in you paying less in taxes than you do today. We currently pay more in taxes for medical care to cover 70% of the population than most other countries pay to support 100% of the population. Get your argument straight, at least.

The people who would lose under a single payer system are private insurance companies. You can argue about the relative merits of a government run vs. private enterprise run system all day, but stop peddling the lie that you're going to be paying more in taxes if we have single payer vs. the mostly single payer system that we currently have.

On the Sidelines says

here is no “single payer system” for food, energy, or housing. The overwhelming majority of Americans pay for what they consume — the way it should be.

That's because, barring the recent housing debacle, those markets have been pretty good at meeting the needs of the people. If the health sector was meeting the needs of the people, nobody would be talking about these issues. You seem to have this bizarre notion that every sector of the economy has the same forces affecting it, which is simply not true.

80 years ago, the food sector was NOT meeting the needs of the people, so it got a lot of new regulations, government takeover of farms, and various sticks and carrots thrown out to fix it. Today there are still problems with the food supply, but we don't have 45 million people starving to death either.

interpretame says

1) We SURVIVED Adams, Tyler, Pierce, Fillmore, and Grant. Your messiah on the other hand has only been in office 200 days to date and he’s already equaled or surpassed ALL the damage wrought by the sum total of all the aforementioned. What you heard as a child you understood thru a child’s mind. And -twenty years later- you STILL DO.

Do you lace your weed with PCP? Seriously. You're comparing Obama's policies to those of men who stood by idly while we plunged into Civil war. Men who openly took bribes and murdered people to stay in office. Men who staged covert operations to wipe out entire populations. Which of Obama's policies has approached that level of corruption? Spending an extra 30% on medical care? Bailing out some banks and insurance companies? You're either trolling, or a complete idiot.

8 years from now, after Obama has completed his second term, I guarantee you that the United States will not be a whole lot different from today. We might have a national health plan, but that's about it.

interpretame says

Has it ever occured to you that each succesive president WAS in fact becoming progressively MORE & MORE corrupt with each passing administration? That each was pushing the limits of presidential power further & further beyond what was originally envisioned by our Founders?

Two points here:

1. No, they're not progressivly becoming more and more corrupt. I will say with 100% certainty that Warren G. Harding was more corrupt with than Richard Nixon, and both were more corrupt than any of Carter, Reagan, either Bush, Clinton, or Obama. You're just clueless.

2. Our founders also didn't want anyone but land owning white males to have a say in government, accepted slavery, and believed that we should not have any standing military. Times change. The founders were just men, not some divine beings who were infallible. Most of the constitution was a clusterfuck of compromises to get the rag tag union to stay together. Nothing more, nothing less. It framed a government that was fairly unique at a time of empires and monarchies, but that is a time that is long passed. The world of today is largely social democracies with very similar government frameworks and constitutions. It isn't the 1700s anymore, and nobody is trying to oppress you.

interpretame says

If Biden doesn’t get the message regarding what the American people want then WE TOPPLE HIS ASS TOO and then move on to the NEXT candidate.

Then you get Nancy Pelosi.

Your statement contradicts itself. "what the American people want" and "Ron Paul" aren't even in the same league. Just because people don't like taxes or government involvement in their personal lives doesn't mean that they want to give up public schools and medicare. Most americans (and the world at large...) are centrists, and our government reflects that. You're woefully out of touch with what America is if you honestly believe that somebody in the mold of Obama or McCain isn't exactly what the country wants. Perhaps you should go live in another country, because that has been the reality here for a very long time and it will continue to be forever.

Not that I've got anything against RP, mind you -- but it's absurd to think that what americans want is what Paul promotes. Only a clueless moron who knows nothing about America would make such a claim. Not even Dr. Paul believes that he represents mainstream American thought.

interpretame says

The U.S. government “works” by keeping its citizens in fear. People shouldn’t fear their government, governments should fear their people.

Yeah, because Americans are so afraid of the government! Why, I make sure that I police my every word because the FBI might come and arrest me at any moment. I dare not gather in large groups or read unapproved literature. Have you ever even been inside the US? The only people afraid of the government are crazy people. Plenty of people dislike the way that the government works, or disapprove of specific administrations and policies, but nobody is afraid, except possibly you. Maybe you should grow a pair.

Misstrial says

$325k for a ’40’s house with a dinette area with naugahyde seating? Yuck!

All those dead little naugas and all you can do is talk price?

interpretame says

Kevin says

Oh bullshit. … …inane trolling .. as you meaninglessly dribbled…… Oh look, the big bad NYT is out to get little old you! CONSPIRACY! ……get over yourself. ….Nobody gives a shit what you have to say, …nobody is going to prevent you from saying it as long as you aren’t being an obnoxious asshole.

Thank you Kevin for that great lesson in ‘civility’. I see what you mean about “obnoxious assholes”.

I just sneezed my coffee laughing so hard! Thanks, I needed that!

I prefer mine deep fried, stuffed inside twinkies. Funnel cake for desert. Too many naugas were killed in the quest for pleather sofas. I'm sitting on one now, as we speak. A mixture of leather, naugahyde, and plastic. Pleather. But it was free, and looks lovely with duct tape holding it together.

Back to the original topic: Where is the original long form birth certificate?

Two weeks after the inital post and not a single explanation from Obama supporters on why is it that the long form birth certificate is still hidden from public.
You surely have some idea on why is Obama handling this issue by spending >1M$ on law firms fighting the eligibility issue.

What would you answer to a military person who is not sure that the Commander-in-chief is actually a legitimate one? Are they supposed to follow the orders blindly?

The Justice System is becoming a joke. More than a year since eligibility lawsuits have been filed and no court has even reviewed the evidence?
Lets have a hearing, put Obama's birth documents to the scrutiny of the court. This should have been done last year before the Democrat Party convention. It is not a complicated issue; if you truly want to have a transparent government.

interpretame says

I’m WAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaay beyond talking about RE issues like this. What I need is a website that discusses how to organize an armed militia that can storm the White House and take back our government from Goldman Sachs.

So create a forum. Patrick made one, so can you. Meantime in the Housing forum - hey, there is a property gossip forum here too - some of us have been posting LOTS of these kind of examples. The RE pushers are on the wrong side of history, RE information will eventually be readily available and their little MLS empire will eventually faill.

People seem to have forgotten Rawanda where people were egged on to commit heinous crimes by elected officials on radio and tv. The only question is where are the machetes stashed that are going to be handed out?

Once again, I owe you no explanation. I'm sorry you're spending your hard-earned dollars on hiring lawyers to "review the evidence" or however you spend them. To a Military person I would say that the man is his commander in chief and yes, their job is to blindly follow orders. Just as Bush was the commander in chief...

BobK says

I’m not talking just about overhead. I’m talking about the huge increase in demand for medical care simply because someone else is paying for it. In economic terms, the demand curve shifted to the right and prices went up.

Oh, I get it, you think it's OK for people to not get health care as long as it's cheaper for the few who can afford it. BobK says

ou don’t have to know biochemistry, biology, surgery, and animal medicine? Interesting. I’m glad that’s not using hi-tech stuff. And dentistry and Vets requires a doctorate degree (D.D.S and D.V.M respectively) I’m sure you don’t have either of these, and probably believe you can get one easily.

A doctorate degree? Really? Wow! If only I worked in an industry where Ph.Ds were common place. Oh, right, I do -- and we all get paid a hell of a lot less than physicians, or dentists for that matter. If you're ignorant enough to think that all doctoral degrees are the same, it's no wonder why you hold these other bizarre beliefs. I can assure you that there's a very large gulf between the doctoral degrees held by Dr Hunter S Thompson and Dr Ron Paul. BobK says

ike now? Where taxpayers are going to be in serfdom and the monarchy is the political elites?

Not even fucking close my friend. You have no idea what you're talking about. Ordinary people are better off today than the were at any time prior to the second world war. Get real. BobK says

Of course. It is good to enslave taxpayers, and medical professionals by having a government run program. Higher taxes + keep the wages for doctors and nurses low = recipe for disaster morally speaking.

Oh please. Have you ever been to a country with a single payer system? The doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals are doing just fine. "Enslave the taxpayers"? In the words of Barney Frank, on what planet do you spend most of your time? BobK says

’ve argued that religious charities do a better job of providing care for the poor than secular governments. Secular governments only care about politics and will declare people not worthy of human rights routinely.

Quick, find me a country where the majority of medical care for the poor comes from charity. Congratulations, you just found some shit hole in Africa.

Terri Schiavo was not an aberration. That’s what secular governments do when they have control over the health care of the people - they use it to deny human rights.

So you'd prefer a theocracy? Awesome. Let me know how your next visit to the middle east goes. Prefer Christian theocracy? How about Europe in the dark ages? BobK says

nd they also are the ones who provide funding for the charities to serve the poor.

And destroying any chance that they have for bettering themselves. No education? No medical care? That's ok, we'll give you a sandwich every Friday! BobK says

It does matter. It is the secularists preaching the anti-gospel of moral relativism. They’re the ones telling us there is no such thing as morality. So any moral arguments don’t work with them.

Really? "They're" telling you that there is no such thing as morality? What a load of bullshit. Religion doesn't create morality, it just defines it in completely arbitrary ways (don't masturbate or eat shellfish -- especially at the same time!)

elliemae says

Once again, I owe you no explanation. I’m sorry you’re spending your hard-earned dollars on hiring lawyers to “review the evidence” or however you spend them. To a Military person I would say that the man is his commander in chief and yes, their job is to blindly follow orders. Just as Bush was the commander in chief…

What is new - you have no logical explanation; otherwise you would have provided it, just like you did for other questions.

Where did you get the idea that I am spending any money on lawyers?
It is Obama who is hiring high priced law firms to fight eligibility lawsuits. If he could produce a trivial document like birth certificate there would be no need to spend money on lawyers.

According to your logic, soldiers who commit war crimes following an order should not be prosecuted - they are just doing their duty!?
Soldiers should not be mindless robots. They took an oath to defend the Constitution. As a minimum, Obama should earn their trust on the eligibility issue. After all, he is signing orders to send them to war.

In Bush's case there was no doubt about his Constitutional eligibility to serve. This is not true in Obama's case. He should have been eager to prove his eligibility. The perfect opportunity was the first lawsuit by his fellow Democrat, Phil Berg.

yawn.

elliemae says

yawn.

Your one word reply shows me that you learned a lesson. No responses to other questions, because you do not want to show that you cannot answer the first one.
Unfortunately, in short term it ends our debate.

If you'll ever have any questions or would like to challenge any claims by "birthers", let me know.

I would also like to hear from anyone on this forum if you found something wrong with my reasoning about the eligibility issue.

i know some folks who made tons of money ( in the stock market). unfortunately i am not one of them. These guys are same ones who made money when the market was going up , then when it dived and now when its again going up....and we have been wining and scratching our heads all this time thinking why the world is not perfect. At the end of the day, its the guys who make money who win ! When we met for coffee to discuss the derivative crap , the first thing they use to talk about was on taking advantage of the coming crash and making money out of it, while i was complaining about how unjust the system is and that we have to bail them out...etc sometimes i doubt my attitude.

sometimes i doubt my attitude.

The rationale of If you can't beat 'em, join 'em so often turns into the defense of Everyone was doing it.

nosf41 say:
"Your one word reply shows me that you learned a lesson. No responses to other questions, because you do not want to show that you cannot answer the first one.
Unfortunately, in short term it ends our debate."

My one word reply - yawn - actually showed that you're boring me. No responses to other questions, because you are boring me. It ends our debate - because you're boring me."

I'll bet you're the one at parties that everyone tries to get away from.

elliemae says

nosf41 say:
“Your one word reply shows me that you learned a lesson. No responses to other questions, because you do not want to show that you cannot answer the first one.
Unfortunately, in short term it ends our debate.”
My one word reply - yawn - actually showed that you’re boring me. No responses to other questions, because you are boring me. It ends our debate - because you’re boring me.”
I’ll bet you’re the one at parties that everyone tries to get away from.

If that is your opinion - fine. I can live with that.
My goal when when started posts on this thread was to challenge all those who ridicule "birthers" and respond to them in a calm manner using logical evidence pointing to the contrary. So far it seems that none of Obama's supporters could defend his behavior on eligibility issue.

So, you are into betting - Would you put your money on Obama's birth hospital being:
a) Queens Medical Center (Honolulu)
b) Kapiolani Hospital (Honolulu)
c) Outside the USA

Few months ago, Obama's campaign (web site) switched answer from (a) to (b). They did it only after World Net Daily published an article pointing out to an inconsistency in birth hospital claims. His sister claimed (a) few years ago.
My guess is (c), but we cannot be sure because original documents are hidden from public. Obama does not want courts involved in resolving the issue. Why?
Kids cannot play in the Little League without proving their age. They have a higher verification standard than US presidential elections.

Can we file a law suit against MLS for misleading (aka outright lie) the public like this?

Ronald Reagan was very liberal in spending money that the government did not have.

Some Guy says

LOL, by the standards that some right-wing nuts now consider “conservative”, Ronald Reagan would have been a liberal.

Fair enough. But would today's left wing nuts consider "liberal" JFK a conservative?