"common sense tells me" is usually not applicable in a court of law. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the concept of "natural born citizen" is never addressed, let alone defined, in US law anywhere else but that mention in the requirements for President. On the contrary, naturalized citizenship is rigorously defined, and Obama does not meet that definition at all. In fact, having been involved in debates regarding the possibility of children adopted from foreign countries to become President, I can assure you that there seems to be a reasonable case to be made that such children fall under the classification of "natural born citizen", since they definitely do not fall under the definition of naturalized citizens, and instead are provided with American birth certificates after they are adopted by American citizens. That being at least up for argument, being born to an American parent abroad who did not reside in the US quite long enough after age of majority would seem to be not the unbeatable objection some seem to think. On the other side of the question, there are those who hold that the definition of "natural born citizen" in fact excludes all children born to American citizens abroad.

So, even if Obama was born in Kenya; and even if his mother did not live in the US the requisite time after her majority; the worst that would lead to is a legal challenge to a definition which has not in the past been enforced in the most restrictive definitions possible.

Of course, that's what the rightwing extremists are after; if they could get Obama disqualified that would be a nice but unexpected Christmas present for them, but the real tactic is to hamstring the legally elected President of the US with an endless string of legal harassment, as seen in the Clinton presidency, in the belief that although me may be legally elected, he can't possibly be legitimate. The converse being the Bush "victory" in 2000. In the minds of these people, anybody who doesn't buy into their tribal dogma is not a "real" American, and any President who wasn't selected by them isn't legitimate. Of course, if this attitude isn't so intuitively obviously correct to you that you need to have it spelled out like this, you Hate America.

you can't forgive somebody their bad deeds, nor can you cure somebody of their mental/emotional/cognitive problems, until they admit them. "own" them, as they say. otherwise, they'll just do it over and over again. hell, nearly half the American public thought the McCain/Palin ticket/platform/policies were the best choice, even after 8 years of watching that whole package unfold. Not many fewer than voted for Bush in the first, and second, place. Hell, you wouldn't parole a criminal whose "remorse" consisted of making excuses as to why he did the crime.

The actor who today embodies the idea of self-centered amoral menace, too dangerous to ever be disregarded; hard to believe a few short years ago he was the disposably lightweight comic actor who played the Commish, Daddio, and finally Curly in the biopic of the Three Stooges.

Little known fact: Chiklis comes from a long line of Lesbians! (as in, natives of the Isle of Lesbos)

he was pretty much the first of the non-rabid armchair generals to come out and admit that iraq's big crime was being an arab nation which appeared easy to knock over, as in that 2003 quote of his. i didn't agree, but at least he was speaking the truth that everyone knew at some level. that's a start on a debate; better than the meme that we were over there to save the heartland from 9/11, that we wasted half a decade arguing with.

nicely put. hope you don't mind if i steal your analogy...

sure, it's basic, but what else is there to say? the more precise the brilliant advice people give is, the more likely it is to turn out wrong.

of course, the whole deal ignores the fact that the market is just that, a market, not a factory; it doesn't make things, it just moves the cash around. so, assuming it's approximately equal to the GDP, back before we all had 401Ks it was divvied up between whatever, 10 million shareholders? however many. Now it's divvied up between 100 million shareholders. It's not realistic to expect that with ten (or however many) times as many pieces of the same pie each piece will not be smaller. it's hard to imagine that growth will overcome that, since most industries aren't limited by capital now, and more money from stock sales won't help them; they're limited by excess capacity and lack of consumers.

working in a place where there are a lot of contract workers from "the subcontinent", i notice they all collect in the cafeteria just before it closes at 3. of course, i notice that because i'm there too.

"dude, you want to have a high tea break?"

"no thanks man, i got to take a urine test tomorrow".

I found a first draft of Obama's inauguration speech! It starts out with "Salaam aleikum"!

you beat me to the punch. toys r us? what, did she need to have them fix the little record that plays when you pull the string sticking out of her neck?

but asking the family grandmother where somebody was born by referring to him by the family name instead of the first name (via a translator, no less; not mention in a culture where family connections are probably thought of differently than ours) might just possibly maybe could lead to a bit of perhaps confusion?

how about phoning barbara bush (after she's healthy again) and asking her in nigerian "where was bush born?"