The Conservadem Cabal, unfortunately, could very well likely kill it in the Senate, since they're probably going to cross the Aisle and vote against it if no Republicans will cross over to vote for it, which is highly unlikely considering just how monolithically the Republicans seem intent on being as far as things like this.

The most frustrating thing I've seen here so far is that of the 'moderate' responses to this article, nearly all of them are along the concession of 'This guy was crazy and probably was driven by right wing paranoia....but Obama really DOES want to take your guns away, so...' And it's damn frustrating, seeing the middle of the road argument still err mostly on the side of the NRA like this, one of the prime motivators and disseminators of this kind of crazy paranoid stuff that filters from and through the Glenn Becks and Limbaughs of the world.

And Kamiya is in no way directly blaming people like Beck, Limbaugh, Bachmann, etc. The note is being made that this is an obvious outgrowth of that kind of 'fear your government, they're going to take your rights, your guns, and your freedom away from you and put you into concentration camps' ranting that has become more and more mainstream in right-wing circles than ever.

If Pelosi was told, and didn't do jack, she should go down.

However, the problem isn't whether she knows or not. It's the fact that the media shift has completely overlooked and ignored everyone else in a quick pounce to tar Pelosi as the new face of torture. The way the script has gone so far, it almost sounds like everyone's willing to string Pelosi up on charges for being told and not doing anything, but no charges for the people who actually did crap. You know, did the torture, ordered the torture, justified the torture, etc.

That's the problem: The media is buying this hook, line, and sinker in wanting to crucify Pelosi not just first, but last, giving everyone else a pass for the most part in the NEED to focus on Pelosi.

Because he seems to have the same backwards idea about what journalism and reporting is as Colbert pulled out in the Correspondent's Dinner.

What he espouses isn't the long treasured (and sadly long abandoned) ideal of objectivity. It's the recently treasured (and horribly anathematic to true journalism) ideal of "balanace", of the "Scientists: World Round. Opinions Differ" sense.

How of much of that fear of being covered by a government plan is actual satisfaction with their coverage, and how much of it is reflexive fear of being personally covered by 'inefficient government'?

I also have to wonder how many of those satisfied with their coverage have actually had to find care under it outside of check-ups, considering the nightmare stories of people immediately abandoned by insurance and care providers the moments they actually need to rely on it for medical care.

Thank you for making that point before I had to.

I mean, what of people who were born to naturalized citizens, pre-naturalization? All the children in my family were born before my parents officially were naturalized as citizens. Does this mean that we aren't 'natural born citizens', despite our parents becoming citizens eventually, legally entering the country, legally working in the country, and going through the proper avenues to become citizens?

And as for those who keep saying 'why doesn't he show the long-form?!', it's been explained, but I'll say it again: HE CAN'T. Hawaii doesn't release the long form for any reason, if they still even have the original 'long-form' on hand. It's state law, and it's not like Obama can say 'you know what, your state law doesn't mean anything to the PResident, gimmie the long form'. He's shown the official document as provided by the State of Hawaii. He's had to be more candid about his status as a citizen than any other president has had to be ever. So where the hell are the claims that he's 'hiding' the real thing coming from?

And why do morons like Lou Dobbs give this mainstream credence, even when his own substitute host last week helped fully debunk it right in chief-birthers Taitz and Keyes' faces?

You do realize that, taking your contrarian claims to be true, that this conspiracy to place someone in as president who was ineligible to be president would have to be a ridiculously, unwieldly, almost prohibitively so, large conspiracy? Like, hundred-thousand strong conspiracy if not million strong? It'd have to involve librarians across the country, the entire government of Hawaii, Illinois, the secret service, the staff and alumni of Columbia and Harvard, the US Military itself, the Democratic Party both local branches and national leadership, not to mention the various presidential campaigns of his opponents who would have likely had to be 'silenced' into avoiding such a blockbuster issue for the purposes of oppo research?

While the police record is often accepted as a mostly accurate and final word on a police incident, they aren't gospel truth and can often be cooked.

Take the incident in NYC involving the bike protest group Critical Mass, and one of the police officers tackling one such protester off his bike in an unprovoked manner, and then filing a report saying the rider was making a line at him in a murderous way. The only reason that the lie was put to that was video proof.

Just judging from the specfic language purportedly used by Gates in this case, I can't help but doubt the official story, personally.

The problem with the bill isn't what it asks for. It's the idea that 1) it assumes that the pertinent parties that need to see such documentation don't already see it, and 2) it was proposed by Posey explicitly as a response to the birther conspiracy in order to perpetuate it.

The bill is a sham idea meant to make sure that people keep 'asking questions' via innuendo