patrick.net

I think tatupu assumed everyone EXCEPT you was bright enough to figure out which November the elections would actually be held in, therefore adding the word NEXT was not needed. He was right.

Since I'm new to this birther argument is there someone out there who can explain what the constitution says about eligability requirements to be president?

Okay, I unignored Shrek to read this, whcih isn't as easy as it used to be (thanks Patrick !!)

shrekgrinch says

No, as things stand all I’ve done is proven that I know what a luddite is and what ludditism stands for more than you do….and you’ve proven that you rather would stick to your fantasies of what you want it to mean so you can brainwash the little kiddies in school.

shrekgrinch says

Luddites don’t protest the existance of technology…only certifiable ignoramuses who otherwise should know that in order to really be qualified to teach our children believe that.

shrekgrinch says

marcus says

or even that it will displace publishing

Uh…YES…he makes that point. He mentions publishing obviously in the context of traditional PRINT publishing, not e-publishing…but I gather your poor comprehension skills didn’t pick that up, eh?

Unlike Shrek, if I were wrong, I would admit it. I would encourage everyone who hasn't seen the video to check it out, and let us know what you think.

I see Jackson pointing out that jobs in the printing world will be displaced by digital media. Something that everyone agrees is true (including Shrek). I do not see him lamenting this, or protesting it, he only points out the fact, in the context of requesting that the government invest more in the support of new technologies and policies that support the creation of jobs. (arguing whether this is an appropriate role for govt, is independent of whether Jackson is a luddite or not).

If someone says in essence, this technology is displacing jobs, we need to emphasize creating jobs, this is not the message of a luddite. Jackson is a little intense about it, but that's just sort of punctuation or emphasis of his opinion of the degree to which jobs will be displaced from publishing.

A truly intelligent person will admit when they are wrong. This is something I have never seen Shrek do.

Douglas says

what the constitution says about eligability requirements to be president?

must be a "natural-born citizen", i.e. holding US citizenship at birth. Becoming a US citizen later (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger) technically makes you ineligible to be president.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp

for one discussion of the can of worms this is. If Obama was not born on "American soil" then he would not be a US citizen at birth because his mother was too young to pass on citizenship under the law at that time.

So if the birthers can prove Obama was born in Kenya, they'll make Sarah Palin president. Or something.

Nomograph says

He might want to check out for a while and ignore politics completely

A ha aha aha ha a aha ha! You told a funny.

I'll repeat what I said before:

marcus says

Jackson is not protesting the existence of the technology, or even that it will displace publishing. You really are even far more of a fool than I ever realized.

If he were a Luddite, Jackson would probably be suggesting that congress should somehow act to block or prevent the negative impact that digital technologies are having and will have on publishing. This is not his message.

Is Jackson observing that digital technology will drastically impact publishing?
or
Is he observing it and protesting it?

I say it's very clear that he is making the observation only, but also talking about China's manufacturing edge, and ultimately it is in the context of saying that he thinks congress needs to address policies that affect job creation.

(edited)

Especially if O’Biden resorts to price controls a la Jimmy Carter did with gasoline

typically stunning un-understanding of economic history by our conservative friend here.

"The era of price controls is most remembered for long lines at gas stations. The controls were put in place by the Nixon and Ford administrations in reaction to a jump in fuel prices caused by cuts in production by the newly formed international oil cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries."

. . .

"By the Iranian oil crisis in 1979, the controls had grown unsustainable as oil prices escalated in global markets. With lines forming once again and fistfights breaking out at the pump, President Carter quickly waived most of the controls on oil and gas prices to make more fuel available."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/15/20060515-122820-6110r

How does it feel to be continually 100% wrong on everything, Shrek? Seriously, your brain must be made out of antimatter or something.

John McCain was not born in the U.S. Why did the birthers totally ingore that?

HousingWatcher says

Why did the birthers totally ingore that?

because we are supposed to get citizenship through our parents, and both his parents were certainly bona-fide Americans.

But the statutes in force when he was born left a gap for people born overseas. This was corrected the year after he was born, making him a citizen, but the (admittedly "academic") question remains whether McCain is a "natural born citizen".

Arguably, Congress would be abusing its powers to make Schwarzenegger a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to run for President. Or perhaps not.

Troy got it right. Article II of the constitution is clear about a natural born citizen. we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens. No matter where you are born. This disqualifies Obama entirely. The only reason these law suits are being thrown out of court is because you must file in state court to have standing, not federal court. That is why 15 states are now voting on legislation to require candidates to prove their eligibilty prior to accessing the ballot. Our lame congress has the requirement of enforcing federal law. Good Luck with that

One has to wonder how an un-named author was able to delete the reference wikipedia had to natural born citizen but it happened.

you must now go to an archive as of last week to find the definition. wayback.com has it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen.

please advise?

Without FHA loans(3.5 % down) that house drops 30%more.

Douglas says

Troy got it right. Article II of the constitution is clear about a natural born citizen. we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens. No matter where you are born.

Is that what you meant to say? That is, in order to be a natural born citizen, both your parents need to be natural born citizens ? I think that would mean that technically only native American can be natural born citizens. Think about it. (even native Americans, have ancestors that immigrated here, but for the sake of argument we can say they were always here.)

shrekgrinch says

Especially if O’Biden resorts to price controls a la Jimmy Carter did with gasoline to ‘deal with’ the inflation that is already upon us

Holy crap. I just called you on this lie a week or so ago. And here you are posting it again!

http://patrick.net/?p=688789#comment-733608

Douglas says

we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens.

Whoops! There goes Trump! You should really go away, re-think your argument here, and come back under another name.

ie. Cut your losses, 'cuz what you're writing now just doesn't make any sense.

The law in 1961 was clear -- anyone born in the US was a "natural born citizen".

If you can prove Obama was not born in Hawaii, he will have bigger problems than this Constitutional BS.

Douglas says

Troy got it right. Article II of the constitution is clear about a natural born citizen. we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens. No matter where you are born. This disqualifies Obama entirely.

Um, Douglas, your interpretation of the Constitution is really super cute. Might I point out that nowhere in the 61 words dedicated to presidential criteria does it say that the parents must be natural born citizens. It merely says that the dude, or dudette, who becomes President must be a natural born citizen of the USA - unless he or she is 224 or older... In that case, they'd still meet the age requirement, because there's a minimum age requirement but not a maximum. FYI.

Wikipedia say

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Nomograph says

Here come the AfterBirthers. Is it a full moon?

They're still crawling out of the woodwork to post this crap. What did we do wrong in a previous life to deserve this?

shrekgrinch says

Therefore, Jesse Jr’s tirade against the iPad is 100% luddite BS — especially given the details and ‘arguments’ he provided that match entirely with what luddites actually believe, as per the actual definition of what a luddite is.

shrekgrinch says

Wow! Shrekgrinch exposes the gross ignorance of all the chumps who really don’t know what luddites are and suddenly they all go silent. What a surprise.

shrekgrinch says

your poor comprehension skills didn’t pick that up, eh?

The video is right there for all to see and hear.

As mentioned in other threads, Shrek is what's called a bullshitter. I used to think the issue was that he lacked the comprehension skills he derides others for lacking. This is somewhat true, but what it really is, is that he has no use for the truth. I find this to be totally disrespectful of this form, and it's probably why he is one of the most ignored people on here.

Troy shared this the other day in another thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

why all the vulgarity? Because it becomes you!

Lets look at the facts,

what is the controlling law? These quotes are from the deleted wiki pages. they were removed from the web and it is becoming more and more difficult to access them even through the archive. They are quotes from the legislature and the courts. Say what you will about them.

the law suits and legislation concerning Obama are due to the fact that his father was not a citizen of this country, at least the legitimate suits.

His father being a subject of the UK, has particular requirements as dictated by his government.
In fact: the British Nationality Act of 1948

This act is what will ultimately be the basis of the legitimate lawsuits filed in state courts, Which states Obama's father has controlling jurisdiction and that makes him subject to the aforemention Act of 1948, this will lead to even more problems concerning his eligibilty. The case law will be the next factor.

I saw no comment about the states that are now voting on legislation concerning ballot access, why not?

Does this not concern you? It should

I certainly hope that you would carefully read what follows,

your vulgarity will not win the day! But I'm sure you will expose yourself!

Legislation and executive branch policy

The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or two U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time. Current U.S. statutes define various categories of individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," including (for example) all persons

"born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of

parents both of whom are citizens of the United States

and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person[s]."

Case law

Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case,

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'

Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen",

the majority adopted the common law of England:

The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries,

beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day,

aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign;

and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject,

unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language found in 14th Amendment was the same as that found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

On the meaning of “natural born citizen,”

the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations”:

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

The dissenters also noted, arguing that birth on the soil was not sufficient to grant citizenship at birth, that:
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.

The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President

The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii.

In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii

but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948

Douglas--

I encourage you to continue fighting this battle. Please don't vote for any Republican nominees that accept Obama's citizenship as a fact. And organize other like minded folks to demonstrate and protest.

Douglas says

These quotes are from the deleted wiki pages. they were removed from the web and it is becoming more and more difficult to access them even through the archive.

your copy-pasta just makes no sense. Argue in your own befuddled words, please.

Douglas says

The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii.

yes, if Obama was not actually born in Hawaii then he would not be a "natural born citizen", or at least would be in the same legal limbo as McCain, who was also not a citizen of the United States at birth.

But this is all just bullshit from the right to delegitimize Obama as an American.

Shame on you, shame on all of you. You guys have no positive message, it's just destroy, burn, and smear.

LOL, and the American people put the Republicans right back in power not 2 years after the crash.

I think everyone's stupid.

But it’s not at all what happened in Ireland and Spain, both of which had low debt and budget surpluses on the eve of the crisis.

I think their housing bubbles were papering over a lot of fiscal imbalances.

Like us, too, 2003-2007:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=qO

The blue line is Y-O-Y growth in household debt.
The red line is growth of Federal debt.
The green line is growth in business debt.

The Federal deficit declined slightly 2004-2007, but only because we were pumping $1T to $2T/yr in new debt into the system.

Shrek--

More BS from the crapmaster. I could have predicted what this article would say before even opening it.

Here's a clue if you want to really understand what is happening. What would the GDP have been with no stimulus? (hint: it wouldn't have been zero). The whole logic of the article falls apart once you realize that...

shrekgrinch says

Yes we do. It DIDN’T WORK. Keynesian theory says it WILL WORK. There is not ‘only will help’…it either works or doesn’t. As for baselines, yes we do there too… what part of ‘Given the Keynesian belief in “multipliers”, the result should have been to increase 1Q2011 real GDP growth significantly over that of 4Q2010′ do you deliberately refuse to acknowledge? That is what Keynesianism says will happen. It doesn’t. It NEVER does.

Wrong again. You need to do a little more study in Economics before you post Shrek.

You can't lump short sales and foreclosures together. What a bank accepts for a price may not be similar because it is probably different departments.

Short sale = Seller is the "owner" (defaulting borrower). This "owner" decides which offer he wants to negotiate or accept. Then his agent sends the offer to the lender requesting that the lender allow the offered amount to satisfy the loan balance. Negotiations end up going back and forth between multiple parties because the bank is going to try to squeeze more money out of somebody. The seller may have to bring some cash, or the buyer can up his offer, or maybe the buyer makes a contribution to 2nd lienholder.

Foreclosure = Seller is the bank. If it has been foreclosed then it is a REO or bank owned property. The prior "owner" is gone. Offers and negotiations are with a lender's representative.

I suppose this might be referred to as a pre-Foreclosure = Seller is the "owner". Property has not yet been foreclosed, "owner" is in default, but is not asking for a short sale. He may have cash to pay off the deficiency (unlikely or he would make his payments) or he still has equity. Sometimes people lose income but have equity tied up in a home through downpayment and years of payments. Offers and negotiations are with the "owner".

I've also noticed that the discount for buying a forecluisre is very small. However, sicne foreclosures gnerally require substantial work, they are actually MORE expensive than regular houses whn you factor in the cost to renovate.

shrekgrinch says

Prove I am wrong instead of just saying I am wrong as if that is it.

That has been proven many, many times on pat.net. In this particular case, your lack of understanding pertains to how the GDP would have reacted without the stimulus.

shrekgrinch says

The first one: You don’t know jack shit what you are talking about with regards to Nobel Prizes, let alone economics in general.

hahaha. So, your point is that because it was not one of the original prizes devised by Albert Nobel in his will, it isn't a Nobel prize? By all means, let's get it right then--Krugman is the winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Does that make you feel better?

Has it, at long last, really come down to this?

Paul Krugman Is Awarded Nobel in Economics

Patrick recently asked how to increase readership. Asking the several people spamming his site with bullshit 24/7 to leave might be a good start.

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says
That has been proven many, many times on pat.net
Prove it. I have never seen the proof. Show us.

OK... Let's start with your statement about Hawaii not having any Republican officials. Oops. Any need to continue?

shrekgrinch says

Uh-huh. The issue is what actually was done (Keynesian Bullshit) and what the actual results were compared to what said Keynesian Bullshit PREDICTS IT WILL DELIVER, not what fantasies you cook up because you don’t want to admit to reality.

No, actually you still don't understand the point. You don't know what the GDP would have been without the stimulus. The economy is not static--without the stimulus we might have been -3% GDP but the multiplier kept it in positive territory. Do you get it now?

shrekgrinch says

So what? That’s just some bullshit prize that tries to cling to being a Nobel Prize when it isn’t. Facts are facts.

I'm still laughing. You can call it whatever the hell you want. I don't care. It's generally regarded as the top prize an economist can get and he won it. That's the point.

thunderlips11 says

Sharing with who? Apple doesn’t pay dividends.

Apple employees have been sharing via political contributions, overwhelmingly to Democrats. However, the amounts of most of these contribution aren't really alot.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/apple_computer.asp

Shrek's response:

http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/15/mp3/191547_SOUNDDOGS__su.mp3

"Clearly Jackson has no idea about the iPad economy or the Apple ecosystem that has created thousands of jobs and pumped billions in to the global economy."

Yes, it certainly is pumping into other global economies but not our domestic economy. Not a fan of JJ Jr or Sr. But lets face it we aint making it here. Congress missed the ball back some 20 years ago with tech industries/mfg in general.

If Apple is so rich with cash and their margins on their products are so fat they can afford to build it here once again in the US. At one time we actually built these Apple and many other products back in day in places like Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Fremont, which did fuel the local economies.

Were you talking to BUYER agent? If so, it sounds like he's just trying to work you up to bid high.

"- even though he sells a lot of REOs and short-sales, he says getting a deep-discount is very difficult these days. Discounts are usually 5-10% of other regular sales."

Ban for profit health insurance.

Plenty of time for more drama beyond the 16th. From your article:

The U.S. is expected to hit the debt limit on May 16, but Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said the government could stave off a default until early August. The Treasury wants the authority to borrow an additional $2 trillion, which the department believes would last through the 2012 elections.

And what a coincidence... Brown's revised 'all cuts' California budget is scheduled for release this week as well.

My friend has been telling me for years how lousy the USA stock market is, and how it is poised to crash. Sorry, I do not believe it. I saw the Caterpillar and Deere equipment, the Abercrombie, McDonald's, Apple and Walmart stores in places like Mexico, Canada and China. I just saw pictures of the near riots in China of people clamoring to buy iPads. Verizon paid $1.92/share dividend and the stock is about $38. So, are people going to abandon growth and dividends from companies like Apple, Cat, Exxon and Verizon because the guys in Washington are fooling around too much? The latest data show there was some job creation in the USA recently. I worry much more about unemployment than whether they cut spending or hit debt ceilings. McDonald's makes money even if they still have some people who exclusively order from the "dollar menu."

This sounds like typical N.A.R. "insider" talk. We can ALL avoid paying more than a house is worth if we only would stand together and refuse to bid until the price becomes REASONABLE. What is reasonable? A price that reflects early 1990's market price in 90's dollars!

In order to kill the Vampire squid, you have to kill it one tentacle at a time. I noticed that when I Google the keyword "Patrick.net" using a different browser (where it is not yet a favorite or bookmark) ...I get a link directly to the Vampire Squids blood funnel ....with a large marketing piece about how NOW IS THE BEST TIME TO BUY a house. We must remember the words of Lloyd Bankfein was being grilled by congress....that "....G-S is a MARKET MAKER and NOT a bank....we just stimulate people to buy and sell..." ( regardless of the effect that has on their risk). But rest assured we will profit from EVERY TRADE...including those based on false information.

Strangle the squid and JUST SAY NO! No!...to buying houses with cash or with a debt via a mortgage from the beast that caused this economic disaster. Every day we wait...is a LOWER asking price. And if the asking price remains constipated...we will wait until the holder of the mortgage starts to quiver and squirm....and make them wait some more.

I would buy only after I see some perp walks of the banksters, and guilty pleadings, AFTER the prices are dropped to 1990 levels. Squeeze them hard until they beg for mercy...and them cut them off until they start jumping from the highest windows on Wall street. This is called capitalism by the people.

WE WILL NOT SEE A COLLAPSE IN THE STOCK MARKET!!! WE WILL SEE A US DOLLAR COLLAPSE IN 2011!!!! MARK MY WORDS!!!!

EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER IS PREDICTING A STOCK MARKET COLLAPSE!!! WE WILL SEE THE US DOLLAR GET DEVALUED WHICH WILL PROP UP THE STOCK MARKET AND GOLD AND SILVER TO THE MOOOOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RATES WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO SKYROCKET TO AND WILL CRUSH HOME PRICES!!!!!

The reason I do not believe this will happen is that the companies that I noticed making a fortune in other countries will continue to do so. Dividends suck? Compared to what? Lots of people would rather own verizon and get a 5% dividend AND have equity than make zero in a bank account or be scared buying bonds. Dividend paying stocks and gold are the things that the government clowns cannot ruin. The economy in the USA may be hurt by a slowdown in government spending, but this won't bother Mexico which has faster growth and lower unemployment than the USA, or China, or Canada. People won't stop building, farming, talking, watching entertainment, using energy, taking medicine, no matter WHAT. I have lived in a third world country that had a true economic crisis, we are not in nearly as bad a situation here. Everyone worldwide will all be buying 1. Deere 2. Caterpillar 3. Apple 4. Yum brand fast food 5. Walmart 6. Pfizer. 7. Microsoft (more like a dividend stock). 8. Merck 9. Procter and Gamble 10. Nestle 11. Toyota 12. Honda. etc, etc. etc. The world's economy will slow down in reaction to ours slowing, but over all they will not stop living. I have seen amazing feats of consumerism all over the world and see no signs of it abating.

Typical Krugman, getting practically everything wrong -- all in the name of the 2 things he truly believes: 1) The federal govt should spend endless money for job-creation, 'safety net' escalation and the myriad other fancies under Obama it feels like spending on, and 2) If we just taxed 'the rich' more, our deficit would shrink, or at least Krugman and the class-warfare adherents would feel better.
He's wrong that Bush tax rate cuts were mainly for the 'rich'. Nothing could be further from the truth. In short, the tax rate reductions were vastly larger for lower-paids. That's a fact. And he's wrong that the rate cuts were the primary cause of the current $1.7T deficit. Bringing back the pre-Bush rates for the 'rich' would only increase fed rev $75B/year. That's just 1/20th of the current deficit.
And he's even more wrong that the credit bubble was caused by 'under-regulation' of the financial sector. He provides NO PROOF whatsoever of that canard. Blame falls many places, but #1 IMHO was Clinton/Cuomo/Frank's 7/1/95 bank regulations that required 20% of home loans to go to lowest 20% paid people in the area, next 20%, etc. This was OVER-regulation at its worst and most dangerous -- politburo-style command and control by the govt to screw up lending practices. Needless to say, it caused millions of dangerous loans and escalated the home-buying mania, and troubled-asset swapping.
Krugman is basically getting his way, Obama-style. Since FY'09 and now for the 3rd-year in a row, the fed govt's spending $3.7T and it's creating havoc, mismanagement, waste, and fiscal budgetary crisis. It will end badly, that's a fact. And there's been no great job-creation by the idiotic DC spending, certainly nothing that spurs the private sector. Our children will not be able to repay these loans. If Krugman had more than a 'left-side' brain, he'd know that fed, state and local spending have gone WAY PAST the danger zone. And the rolls-royce pensions beginning in middle age are not affordable by the private sector. Simply not. We're in big trouble folks, and for Krugman to say it's because bankers aren't regulated enough, taxes aren't high enough, and fed spending isn't large enough, is just a simple 'strike-out'. Krugman is 'oh' for three.

sbourg--

I don't even know where to begin. You packed so much BS in that post...

I love where you post something that is completely incorrect, but then follow it by saying "That's a fact". Sorry, that's not how it works.

And I have no idea where you get the idea that 20% of the loans had to go to the lowest 20% of the area. Seriously, did you just make that shit up?