Has anyone seen or heard anything about this?

http://tinyurl.com/3nt9qb

that video is comedy gold.

Just as many questions can be asked about McCain's validity. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone that, while being used for a US military base, was never considered US sovereignty. A law created one year after he was born retroactively made him a citizen, but the law says nothing about making him a "natural-born citizen", which is the specific type required for the presidency. A US District Judge recently dismissed a lawsuit in California to have him removed from the ticket for those reasons on the basis of that law making him a legitimate candidate, but frankly... that judge is making some pretty big assumptions. If McCain weren't an old white guy then I imagine it would have already been appealed to a higher court.

I want to doubt it, but with all the irrational racism and prejudice targeting Obama, this whole thing could find a pretty extensive source of fuel. Fortunately it's mostly just based in cyberspace right now and hopefully the most radical of those prejudice people won't find it.

That isn't the point.  This guy (and others) are simply asking for proof that someone is eligible for the highest office in the land.  That retroactive law that makes McCain eligible is pretty weak, but I understand not wanting to punish or take rights away from those in the armed forces.  BTW, I am a registered republican who has never liked McCain.  I would rather have fricken Romney.

This election blows goat.

(emphasis is mine)

What does that even mean?  Outmoded how?  Article Two of the Constitution is fairly straightforward when it comes to listing the qualifications to be eligible to be elected President.  Until an amendment changes those requirements, those are the rules.  Isn't there some sort of process by which a candidate is put on the ballot?  Does that process involve producing proof of eligibility?  If so, it should be public.  If not, why not?

This reminds me of when I visit the polls.  All you do it tell them your name and you can vote.  No attempt to verify an identity is made.  Why aren't you required to show ID?  Is that "outmoded" too?

Actually most of those are also advocated for public good.  Protecting the Atheists from the god-toting nutcases who attempt to force god into government (REPUBLICANS) is also protecting religion.  OR maybe preventing gun-nuts from going on a shooting spree.....(Because we need assault weapons in D.C.) Actually understanding why the second amendment was created would go a long way toward suggesting its modern day:

Irrelavance!

In regards to taking public land and paying compensation....seems to me that is the very definition of Eminent Domain (Which was actually inherited from English common law, not from Democrats)

Yeah, the Republicans have championed the rights of the people since 2001 ('Cause 9/11 changed EVERYTHING oOOoOoOOOoOo) Care to ask McCain where he stands on Human Rights, seeing as how despite his experience he STILL supports torture.

Yep, us tax and spend liberals.  Darn Us.  How much has the Iraq war cost us again?  How much have failed free-market policies cost us?  What has unprecidented military spending got us?  (Pst...the taxes aren't the problem, its what they're going to)

 
. 


What I was referring to is that the definition of citizen then, is quite different than now.  Due to globalization and also the continuation of American Empire, there are more American Citizens born overseas than ever before.  Furthermore "Being" American is much more about an individuals history and culture.  Many immigrants are more patriotic than pure-born citizens.

Okay, so correct me if I'm misreading any of your responses:

• #1: "Prohibiting one person's free exercise is actually protecting another person's right to be free from it" - I think I largely agree with you on the point, in that I don't think religion has any place being established in the government, but it's definitely a balance to make sure preventing government endorsement doesn't become prohibiting the individuals within the system (government officials, public school students) from practicing it.
• #2: "Irrelevance!" So... um... this is an outmoded idea of citizenship, correct?
• #3: "Eminent domain = English common law" I wasn't saying they came from the democrats, just that they generally view the ideas as outmoded.  Thanks to Kelo, eminent domain is very much back in discussion, but it was the broader notion that the government shouldn't be taking property for public use (whether through eminent domain or discriminatory taxation) that democrats see as outmoded.  To quote Obama,  "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

I couldn't agree more!  Okay, well, that's not quite true.  To answer your question, according to zFacts.com, the entire Iraq war has cost about 85% as much of the $700 billion bailout just passed.  Either way, I agree with you on wasteful spending, but why not have both?  Less spending AND less taxing.

Now, as to "failed free market policies," how exactly could those be to blame for this?  There hasn't been any relevant deregulation in the last 25 years. Encouraging lenders to make subprime mortgages isn't "allowing the free market to work," it's the opposite -- incentivizing something the lenders wouldn't otherwise do.  As a result, highly regulated financial institutions eagerly bought risky government-guaranteed mortgages, stimulating excessive housing construction and an unsustainable price bubble.  Markets, even completely free ones, aren't perfect, but there's no reason to think that government could do a better job.  Leaving aside the bias they might have and the brutal fact that regulation is physical force, how can a comparably small group of people understand the workings of a market sufficiently to regulate sensibly?