Because there is absolutely no creditable evidence to support such a ridiculous statement...

I have no idea what those links are supposed to "prove"... For the most part they confirm what I have stated already, namely that the new law was arrived at through committee conferences... Those committees were staffed by members of both Parties... Just as I stated previously.

I know Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate during the time the law was being drafted and v**ed upon. Despite common references that Democrats held a "super majority" the first two years of the President's first term, the actual facts don't support that assertion.

I've made no comment to suggest the law wasn't passed almost exclusively with Democratic v**es/support, what I stated is that Republicans have indeed participated in writing the new law and that the law overall is primarily based on Republican/conservative ideals.

Even the links you provided talk about the public option, which is what most progressives and liberals feel/felt was the best approach to actually reduce premiums and was never included in the final approved version of the ACA. That alone should prove the point that the law wasn't crafted purely by Democrats and "shoved down Republican throats" as I hear repeated day in, day out...

Take the time to actually read the history and facts of the new law and I challenge you to then come back and make claims the new law is purely a Democratic idea/approach.

When you see the polls suggesting a majority of Americans disapprove of the new law... keep in mind that a significant number of those are people who don't approve of the private healthcare insurance aspect of the new law and want a purely single payer/public option arrangement. Only a minority want the law repealed because they think it is a bad idea overall... And I believe personally even the majority of those who do truly dislike the law, don't really understand the law because of the incessant lies and distortions that have filled the airways/Internet/media since it's inception.

This is a time of desperation for conservatives... despite the fact the law is based on conservative ideas, I suppose because it is associated with President Obama, they just have to oppose it regardless. They have gone into overdrive trying to enrage the public with story after story telling about the "horrors" of the new law... I predict with time, people will come to realize that most of this is bogus nonsense... and I don't think it will fare well for Republicans in next years e******ns... Only time will tell of course and any number of turns and twists will occur over the next 11 months... but let's see how it plays out...

I personally have mixed feelings about the new law and wonder if it can actually hold down costs going forward. I've never expected it to truly reduce premiums, but if it can bring the rate of yearly increases more in line with income increases, it will have to be considered a success.

What I do clearly understand is that what we currently have prior to the ACA taking full effect is NOT working and is the reason we see an increasing number of Americans not being able to afford healthcare insurance.

The Republican stated position of complete repeal and start over from scratch is nonsense... They have tried to maintain this air of it was a completely partisan law, which is only true if you look at it from a v**es for/against perspective. In every other regard, it's a Republican dream come true... maintain the private insurance market, expand competition, require everyone to participate (personal responsibility)... I don't know how it could get much more "conservative" than it already is...LOL...

In the revisionist version of history that it seems most "conservatives" live in, your view is widely held to be "t***h", when nothing about what you wrote is in fact true.

The ACA was drafted by members of both Parties and was principally based on Republican free market approach to reform healthcare. This principal espoused by the Heritage Foundation and heralded by them and Mitt Romney when it was first implemented in Massachusetts, has been demonstrated to be a workable approach albeit possibly not the best approach. Republicans offered over a hundred amendments to the law, including the change that required Congressional members and their "official" staff to obtain their coverage from the respective State or District of Columbia exchanges.

I don't think the insurance companies are against the ACA. They stand to greatly expand their customer base under the new law. There clearly are some insurance companies trying to take advantage of the changes by being less than t***hful with their current customers whose policies don't conform to some aspects of the ACA. It's a free market and they aren't breaking any laws to pad their bottom line during this t***sition period. Not very ethical in my mind...but not illegal.

It is true that not a single member of their Party has ever v**ed to support the new law...but it is not true to state they had nothing to do with it at all. Their united stance to v**e against what in essence was their own free market alternative to single payer proposals like what Hillary Clinton proposed while FLOTUS is purely political and a continuation of their blind obstruction of everything "Obama"... So even when the President tries to compromise and adopt their own plan, they v**e against it while making the most ridiculous attacks against it...

Well, certainly a common "rant"... but I guess I fail to see how it relates to the article that this thread was titled after.

I just replied on another thread that would seem to address your anger and talking points... I didn't mention Tort reform... but it's just another perfect example of the misdirection going on... Sounds plausible... but has little basis of reality to claim it's "where the most evil lies"... LOL... I don't care much for lawyers much myself, but to believe Tort issues are even a significant problem demonstrates little understanding of the fundamental problems we currently face...

What the President typically talks about is ending the redistribution of wealth that has been going on since the Regan era and returning to a more equitable economic structure where the middle class can earn a living that allows them to live in a reasonable dignified manner that shouldn't have to equate to needing subsidy to meet basic needs.

If you still believe the nonsense of "trickle down" economics, it should have become very evident that the crumbs that "trickle down" is hardly sufficient to support a family or even yourself on.

All economic policies of the past several decades have disproportionately favored the wealthiest and corporations. We have removed the safety steps our grand parents and great grand parents put into place to avoid another depression. This wasn't the fault or actions of any individual or political party. Rather it was a systemic eroding of controls slowly over time until the final step of repealing the Glass -Steagall Act, which led to the economic meltdown of 2007-2008 and the resulting fleecing of the middle class in this Country and worldwide.

This was a devastating blow to the world and US economies that we have struggled to recover from. Even though the stock market has regained all losses... the same can't be said for the middle class in this Nation or any other Nation.

But people like you have been subverted by the constant influence of money to suppress the facts and convince you all the problems have been caused by an undeserving poor population. You constantly accuse the President of lying, because you've been fed so much B.S. and it gets repeated so much and spread so many different ways, never being challenged by a disinterested media mostly intent on making money themselves.

President Obama is hardly a perfect man, nor is any of us. I do however believe he sincerely wants to help the middle class in this Country as opposed to those who create the never ending storm of misinformation to create anger in the general population.

It somehow has become a widely held belief among my own demographic (white male, 60+ years old) that President Obama is some horrible force intent upon the destruction of the middle class and even the U.S. This is baseless nonsense and I challenge you to provide pragmatic facts that prove any of the garbage you spew.

President Obama is clearly a Statesman... as far as leader goes... it's a mixed bag. My personal perspective is that he is an "idea" person, but not necessarily someone who excels at implementing those ideas. He was obviously somewhat of an outsider in the Washington sense of things, so he would naturally not have the extensive network of behind the scenes contacts and influence to make things happen in a town that has evolved over the centuries since our Nation was founded, into a web of special interests. Being a bit of a "loner", he hasn't met the expectations many have of being constantly engaged with the President on political matters. This has clearly hurt him in trying to deal with Republicans in Washington. But to be honest, it has been perfectly clear that Republicans have never intended to honestly attempt to work with the President at any level either. Effectively isolating him further. No honeymoon... no grace period... constant obstruction is the day he was sworn into office. That is clearly not a fault on his part.

Money has become the new voice of this country... As individuals, we have lost nearly all control of our elected officials. This is a serious and not easily corrected problem. The people with the power to change this, are part of the problem and highly motivated to see it doesn't change. The system has become stacked to favor the few and the real majority of us are relatively helpless to turn this around.

The only hope we have is if people start to realize it is the middle class of this Country that provides the economic engine to move our economy forward. You can favor business all you want, but until we restore the economic clout of the middle class, there is no consumption base to drive sales forward, outside of military hardware and expenses, which is why neoconservatives have to have constant war to keeping driving wealth to the increasingly narrow elite.

I know you won't believe me...but more and more are starting to realize what is going on. Most of the Country is being deceived by a game of misdirection intentionally perpetrated to invoke anger..., which is astonishingly effective. While I'm not a Catholic, I'm impressed with the new Pope Francis and he clearly sees the issues with "unfettered capitalism", which is the new mantra of so called "conservatives"...

You are good, decent people for the most part... but you have been drug into a destructive mindset by monied interests, intent on keeping the "status quo" for nearly everything... Why??? Just look at the movement of wealth in this Country for the past 30 years and it should become quite evident... They are winning and most of us are losing... I'm personally on the upper end of the middle class and haven't suffered significant harm, although the crash of 2007-2008 has put me in the situation of being unable to retire yet, and I don't know when I will be able to do so at this point. But I can see the damage all around me... my kids, my family, my friends, my neighbors... all being pushed further and further to the brink of poverty themselves.

Those of us lucky enough to have survived so far should be open minded and realize that those being pressed to the level of the "working poor"... do not deserve that fate and we as a society either resolve this problem, or we will cease to exist as a society. Otherwise the "violent correction" the Pope referred to, is just a historic fact that has played out time and time again throughout history. He's not a liberal living in a fantasy... he's a man with the historic and global vision to recognize what is going on and what it inevitably will lead to if left uncorrected.

Well, and to complete the story... you then were able to obtain U.S. citizenship through your marriage to an American woman, after her citizenship status had been "restored" or revalidated...

Boofhead...

I read your comments earlier about your belief that President Obama would have automatically lost citizenship if he lived/attended school in Indonesia, which he indeed did. However I found no such reference in the Immigration rules that would support such a claim.

This may be Indonesian law... but according to the Immigration site, U.S. citizenship is permanent unless one officially renounces such citizenship. So regardless of whether or not Indonesia made the "claim" he had to change to Indonesian citizenship, it doesn't appear to me that this would have held "water" so to speak in U.S. courts.

I expect this would be a complex situation, but I believe that in a U.S. court, this country would not allow the laws of another country to invalidate U.S. citizenship. I am NOT an attorney, so this is speculation on my part, but so far I have not found support for your claim otherwise...

If I'm following you correctly, you are saying you as a non-US citizen married an American woman in another country, which your country then bestowed citizenship to that country to your spouse as a result of the marriage. This is what in effect you are saying invalidated your wife's U.S. citizenship status and she had to go to great length to restore it... Am I understanding that correctly? I want to be sure I understand the circumstances correctly...

The stories are many and not hard to find at all...

It is sensible to ask Democrats to seek examples as it is perfectly obvious Republicans are focused on finding anything at all to claim is a "train wreck"... If you dig into many of the so called "tragic cases" of cancellations, etc. you find that most of them aren't factual as reported. Many people receive cancellation notices with offers of new coverage at much higher premiums, but if those same individuals simply shop on the State exchanges, they most often will find superior coverage for less expense. Not always of course, but more times than not. If one side is going to make it their sole agenda to bring up every "negative" experience they can find, never actually vetting the story... why wouldn't it make sense to at least seek out the other side of the story?

I'm not suggesting at all that NO cases are well founded, but people acting all naïve about the rollout and constantly harping on "but you said I could keep my current plan" is less than genuine in my opinion...

I don't know how many of you get your insurance, but being employed by others, my insurance policy is in effect cancelled EVERY year... I have to renew each year, with a new set of coverage details and ever increasing cost to both myself and my employer. If the plans offered each year change (and they always do), it is very likely I'll have to change doctors as well. My experience to date is that changing doctors is not a frequent experience, but not a "shocking" one...

If people actually spend the time researching the many policy offers and carriers, it is entirely likely they will be able to find coverage that allows them to keep their same doctors, if that is what is most important to them. It may not be the least expensive choice, but if that is what matters most to them, they will typically have that choice available.

All most of you ever hear are the "horror" stories, because that seems to be what sells advertising and drives most media coverage. Apparently it is too "boring" to find happy people who are thrilled at the opportunities they now have available to them, many for the first time...

Why don't we all give this about 6-8 months and then see where we are at? I'm s**k of all the haste to judge and the knee jerk reaction so prevalent today... Give it a rest...

Who is the useless being supported by the Useful I***ts???

Really??? I guess there is no limit to what some of you will try to d**g into everything our President ever says... What about the content of the speech?

The President has a sense of humor... he has the patience of Job apparently in that he has never "lost it" from the constant attacks from the right... He pokes fun at his situation all the time... Why do you focus on every single line... every single word... to look for something to be "outraged" over??? Are we out of kindergarten yet?

There is really no reason for the name calling here...

In checking further, boofhead has a legitimate point, although the facts he/she stated weren't exactly correct. The immigration web site does have a "summary" of qualifications that have indeed varied over the years... I would prefer to look at the actual laws involved, but haven't easily found the specific statues involved to this point.

During the time period when President Obama was born, the law would have required his mother to be a resident for 10 years total, 5 of which would have to be after her 14th birthday to pass on U.S. citizenship to her son, IF HE HAD BEEN BORN OUTSIDE THE U.S. or it's territories... Clearly a big IF there...

So, technically during that period of time, his mother would have had to have been 19 instead of her actual age of 18 at the time of the President's birth. She clearly met the 10 year total requirement, but technically, only 4+ years of them fell after her 14th birthday. Again, only relevant if he was NOT born in Hawaii...

This is a somewhat peculiar oddity of the law, and CURRENT law reduces this requirement to only 5 years of residency total and only 2 years of which have to be after the age of 14... which would have also made this a complete non-issue otherwise.

So, in defense of what boofhead claimed, there is some legitimacy to the claims stated. I find the changing requirements to be odd at best. I don't understand the point of stating a mother/father would have to be 19 years or older to t***sfer citizenship to their child. As long as the parent wasn't a minor, and even in that case, it would seem questionable to me, I see no logical reasoning behind such a requirement. It indeed seems to be a form of age discrimination on the surface.

So at best the claims that President Obama is not eligible to hold the office of POTUS are predicated only upon proof that he was NOT born on U.S. soil, or the listed territories that also qualify, AND the peculiar quirk of his mother being only 18 vs. 19 at the time of his birth. Keeping in mind that if he was indeed born in Hawaii, this is completely irrelevant. His mother being a U.S. citizen, regardless of age AND his birth on U.S. soil BOTH qualify him as a natural born U.S. citizen.

As far as the claim that BOTH parents would have to be U.S. citizens to make the child a natural born citizen, applies only to those born outside the U.S. and it's territories and eliminates any other residency/age requirements. So in general, it is not correct to make the statement that both parents need to be U.S. citizens to pass on natural born citizen status to their children born outside of the U.S. If it IS the case... no other restrictions apply. If it isn't the case, there are the few time/age limitations involved, which as boofhead correctly stated... have changed several times over the years.

Even if it was proven that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii, as so many apparently believe, it would seem hard in my opinion to use the 18 vs. 19 year age difference to invalidate the clear majority v**e of Americans in two subsequent P**********l e******ns.

Since current law has been amended since 1986 (in effect reducing the citizen parent's residency requirements to only 2 years after their 14th birthday) that would also make his birth a natural born citizen status, I believe it would indeed be a stretch to believe the courts would ever overturn his e******n based on such a narrow technicality. A technicality that has not existed since 1986... and a technicality that seems to serve no logical purpose.

The bottom line is that lawsuits have been filed to dispute the birth certificate, and those have been resolved to the satisfaction of reasonable individuals. To keep beating a drum and calling others childish names is ridiculous and unwarranted. We need to be working together cooperatively to solve some very serious issues in this Country, and that can never happen until people abandon this disruptive nonsense and start seeking actual compromises and solutions to our most pressing issues... And the President's birth certificate is NOT one of those issues...

By the way... everyone lighten up a bit and enjoy your Thanksgiving holiday with friends and family. :D

I would agree with your assessment! :thumbup:

Please cite a source of your allegation regarding the 10 year residence requirement after the age of 14 to be able to pass U.S. citizenship to your offspring... This seems entirely illogical... You are saying in effect, no one born outside the U.S. of U.S. citizens is considered a natural born U.S. citizen, unless the parents were over the age of 24 and had been continuous residents the 10 years between their 14th birthday and the time of their child's birth... Really??? Please tell me what law, Act, section of the Constitution or wh**ever source this came from?

Making some convoluted rambling statements does not make them fact. I'm open to the concept there could be some aspect of law/citizenship requirements that I am not aware of, but please give some supporting evidence your comments are founded on fact, and not just rambling fantasy... there is clearly a 14 year residency requirement for anyone running for the office of President or Vice President... but I've never seen any such residence requirement for parents prior to a child's birth...

Please cite the source of this assertion... as many others have given links to, this is simply not true...

RetNavyCWO is correct... How on earth could this aspect of citizenship requirements still apply today? It was a t***sitional aspect of founding a new Nation. As it turns out, it never came into play, as all our previous Presidents, even those of colonial times, were indeed actually born on U.S. soil, including the first President, George Washington.