Wednesday, April 13, 2011

[socialactionfoundationforequity:13744 Protecting Women from Unsafe Abortions

Buzz It
--- On Thu, 14/4/11, Human Rights Watch <news@hrw.org> wrote:

From: Human Rights Watch <news@hrw.org>
Subject: Protecting Women from Unsafe Abortions
To: "Avnish Jolly" <avnishjolly@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 14 April, 2011, 4:26

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here.
Logo
 April 2011
Women In The World
Donate

Follow us on   Facebook  Twitter  YouTube  iTunes  RSS

Dear Avnish,
As we discussed in the last issue, women have played a big role in the Middle East uprisings. We're helping ensure that they continue to have a voice as more changes come and new governments are formed.  
This month we pressed Saudi Arabia's government to let women vote and run for office. Together with our local partners, we're pressuring Egypt's interim government to ensure women's participation in politics, as both candidates and voters. We have also been working hard on the case of Eman al-'Obeidy, the Libyan woman who accused government forces of raping her, to see that she receives protection and medical care.
We're promoting greater maternal health in Africa by fighting fistula, a preventable childbirth injury that can be repaired with surgery. You can help us by urging the US government to pass the Obstetric Fistula Bill, which would require the United States to provide comprehensive assistance to prevent and treat fistula, helping these women return to full and productive lives.
 
Liesl  Liesl Gerntholtz
Director Women's Rights Division


   
Protecting Women From Unsafe
Abortions in Argentina
RESEARCHER
I sat at the table and smiled at the room full of Argentina's parliamentary representatives. I made sure my papers were in order. I was the opening speaker for Argentina's first parliamentary debate on legalizing abortion.
The room was packed. Rows of people sat behind cramped tables, and people standing in the back jockeyed for position. Journalists had been herded to the far side of the room. Nearly everyone wore suits, except for the pro-choice activists, who wore their signature bright green bandanas.
The lights in the front half of the room weren't working, and someone joked about abortion being a darkened debate in Argentina. I reflected on my arrival, and how my driver reacted when I told him that I worked on abortion access. "I'm assuming that no [woman] is born with that kind of killer instinct," he said. I knew this debate would be a challenge.
In Argentina both abortion and access to contraception are hotly contested. Abortion is only legal in instances of rape or when a woman's life is in danger, and even then doctors sometimes refuse to perform the procedure. Compounding the problem of unwanted pregnancy is the fact that birth control, legalized in 1985, can be hard to come by. Although Argentine law requires the public health system to provide free contraceptives, the government's failure to purchase and distribute birth control reliably means it often isn't available. This puts women's health – and sometimes their lives – at risk.
The chairman of the criminal law committee introduced me. He explained that he wasn't for legalizing abortion, but had been so moved by Human Rights Watch's two reports on reproductive rights in Argentina that he had vowed to start a public debate.
I leaned forward, looked around the room, and started speaking. I talked about women who were refused medical help at hospitals after back-alley abortions went wrong. I reminded them that Argentina's Health Ministry had announced the day before that, yet again, illegal abortions were the leading cause of maternal death in Argentina.
I ended my speech with a statistic. "Forty percent of pregnancies in this country end in abortion," I said. "Logically, this means every person in this room knows at least one person who had at least one abortion. I am certain that these women and girls – your sisters, daughters, mothers, and friends – did not make this decision lightly." The room went silent.
researcher Marianne Mollmann  
Marianne is the advocacy director for our women's rights division. She began her career here as a researcher, working extensively in Latin America. Marianne studied international human rights law at Essex University and specializes in reproductive rights, women in conflict, and economic rights. She speaks Spanish, French, and Danish.
 
 
 
Forward to a friend


 
Home | Take Action | Donate Privacy 


Remove yourself from this mailing.

Remove yourself from all mailings from Human Rights Watch.

--
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth. - Mohandas Gandhi
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SAFE - Social Action Foundation for Equity" group.
To post to this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/socialactionfoundationforequity?hl=en?hl=en-GB

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest

Buzz It
alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Sanchez "When Obama Shows His Birth Certificate, I'll Show Mine!" - 16
messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/082083e59c3b9326?hl=en
* Randy Moss - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/24cdf13c1d0456e8?hl=en
* Parcells: the gift that keeps on giving - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/a2677ef776c88bf8?hl=en
* Interesting mock - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/4720a60b78602b98?hl=en
* paging John C - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/73e4c116f588408d?hl=en
* OT: Look in the Mirror - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/a01cb23df9f5c9f7?hl=en
* free shipping PAYPAL payment HANDBAG(LV,GUCCI,CHANEL,PRADA,COACH,FENDI,CHLOE,
BUBERRY,JUICY AND SO ON)http://www.24hours-online.com/ - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8883932bb35ae892?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sanchez "When Obama Shows His Birth Certificate, I'll Show Mine!"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/082083e59c3b9326?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 10:23 am
From: JetsLife


On Apr 8, 11:26 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 11:23 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > WTG Mark!! You have stones!!!!
>
> > > mr dude
>
> > Good one Dude.
>
> The xenophobic Sanchez comment is not appreciated, but I am not
> convinced that our current chief executive was born in the United
> States.  I'd lay odds he was born in Kenya.  No birth certificate and
> the testimony of his grandmother stating "Mombasa" when she was asked
> about Obama's birth place.  Language/translation issues exclude the
> tape as being a slam dunk, but it leaves questions that were never
> resolved.  The president of the United States should be able to prove
> as a matter of course and without any strain that he was born in the
> United States.

I'd lay odds he was born on Planet Who-ston, not Jupiter or any other
outer laying planet in our solar system. That's good enough for me.
Alien presidents can't be trusted.


== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 10:35 am
From: Michael


On Apr 13, 12:57 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f6755f74-f58e-4a0c-89fc-e6e85c05a52f@t13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 11:23 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > > > As I explained previously...
>
> > > > > > > The laws on the books at the time of his
> > > > > > > birth states that U.S. citizenship may ONLY pass to a child born
> > > > > > > overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the
> > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > citizen parent was19 YEARDS OF AGE OR OLDER. Obama's mother was
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > 18
> > > > > > > at the time. So... U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > him if he was in fact born in Kenya. Dont take my word for it.
> > > > > > > Look
> > > > > > > up the law. I think he was born in Kenya, despite the toilet
> > > > > > > paper
> > > > > > > documents that have been produced.
>
> > > > > > Sorry Clarence Darrow I missed your lecture. I really don't give a
> > > > > > flying fart what the law at the time says as the Constitution
> > > > > > trumps
> > > > > > it. It says natural born it doesn't mention how you obtain that
> > > > > > status which would appear to be a moot point since he has a birth
> > > > > > certificate.
>
> > > > > > Like I wrote Obama loves the fruitcakes chasing this as it
> > > > > > discredits
> > > > > > anything they are screaming about, that makes sense, & is counter
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > his mindset.
>
> > > > > > Perhaps we should look into Washing, Jefferson, Adams etc. as they
> > > > > > were not natural born citizens when they ran but citizens of the
> > > > > > United Kingdom.
>
> > > > > OK, Matlock... Check out the Constitution. Article II, Section 1.
> > > > > If Obama was not a natural born citizen, he cant be the prez. The
> > > > > laws on the books at the time of his birth have everything in the
> > > > > world to do with him being or not being a natural born citizen. The
> > > > > Constitution just states that you need to be a natural born
> > > > > citizen.
>
> > > > So natural law is what a future Congress decides? I don't think so.
> > > > His mother was an American citizen when he was born so he was an
> > > > American citizen. I can't imagine that even if he was born outside US
> > > > soil- & by the way where is the proof of that- that a court today
> > > > would law on the books in 1960 was constitutional.
>
> > > > Do your homework. The founding fathers didn't even agree on what
> > > > natural born meant and we were still cleaning it up in the 14th
> > > > amendment.
>
> > > John... You need to do your homework in this case, not me. The
> > > "founding fathers" ?!?!? Good grief, man. Look up the law that was
> > > in play when Obama was born. The law was clear. If you are born over
> > > seas to a to a non citizen and a legal citizen, the legal citizen
> > > needs to be 19 or older in order to have citizenship legally pass to
> > > the child. What is hard for you to understand ??? If nothing else,
> > > the legal matter is cloudy and the issue is in doubt.
>
> > If he was born overseas and that is a bigger if than "if" Diane Lane
> > shows up in my office & propositions me, OK, maybe not, then he would
> > be IMHO a natural born citizen through his mother. The definition of
> > citizenship & how one can achieve it has changed. Again IMHO he would
> > ultimately prevail & meet the constitutional requirement.
>
> > If you don't think the Founding Fathers intent is considered on
> > matters of Constitutional law then I thin it wise that we move on.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> John... This "founding fathers" business as you employ it here is off
> the wall.  You are too educated for me to have to detail the top ten
> bastardized ideas of the founding fathers.
>
> What matters in this case is what the law was at the time of Obama's
> birth.  Of course, that is only on the table if he was actually born
> in Kenya.  Let me say again... I'm not a "birther".  I dont want the
> limp dick removed from office over technicalities of the law. He is an
> American.
>
> So you discount he was born in Honolulu completely?  

No... Im question it.

>You assume he was born
> elsewhere.  Show me where I can read this law about being 19 years old.  I
> want a reference to check....Please.- Hide quoted text -

refer to the language outlining the said U.S. definde principles of
jus sanguinus "right of blood", (statute by parantage) Meaning
citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens
but not on US soil at the time of birth. The version that was on the
books at the time of Obama's birth states that the US citizen had to
be 19 y/o or older


== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 10:49 am
From: Michael


On Apr 13, 1:01 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3968c012-7852-46e0-85a3-80261b324f3f@v16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 11:32 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 10:25 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > IMHO, fascism does not fit. With fascism, the state allows
> > > privatization and a free market. The industrial and finical experts
> > > are left to run their own affairs. The dictator reserves the right to
> > > step in at any time in any way and impose controls if the dictator
> > > sees fit. What underpins the dictators motives is the idea that he is
> > > dong what is best for national interest as it applies to what ever
> > > ideology the dictator has in mind. Fascism is not an *a-political*
> > > system. We've got something else going on. The government is not
> > > pulling the strings. It is being lead by the nose. The motive and
> > > methods of the puppet masters is not political. It is most similar
> > > that of Feudalistic lordships. Increase power and wealth by means of
> > > subjugation and resource management. The government is becoming no
> > > more than a inert vestige. A hollow tradition left for the surfs. Much
> > > like a comforting religion for those on the bottom.
>
> > I don't think the politicians and government in general are as
> > powerless as you think, Michael. We constantly see these
> > recalibrations (think Microsoft anti-trust, govt pressure on fed
> > reserve, etc). I think the best description is that it's a symbiotic
> > relationship between government and business, which I think fits the
> > fascism description nicely (e.g. Richman's definition,
> > here:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html). Undoubtedly, this
> > cooperation is partly to do with behind-the-scenes, corrupt, money,
> > etc, which I think is what you're implying. But I also think it's a
> > product of a general economic philosophy held by most politicos,
> > whether trickle-down as PapaCarl alluded to, or keynesianism
> > (remember, "we're all keynesians now"). There are plenty of people
> > outside the realm of influence who hold these values, and they often
> > don't have anything to gain by it. Bottom line: look to your left and
> > to your right. One of those people is a fascist. :)
>
> Mark... The government is not that powerless now.  IMHO, it is on the
> way to becoming so.  This is somthing new. And I dont agree on your
> definition of fascism.  In a true fascist state, the dictator calls
> the shots and he is not marginalized as the coprorations aggrandize.
> The "partnership" between the two is a "kleptocracy".  As a matter of
> course, the corporations will over take the political body.   If we
> dont get a real "trust buster" president next time around, we are
> toast. The only electable person in American politics that I see even
> approching that type is Christie.
>
> OH GOD...a Chirstieite....Heaven help us....give me Palin, Newt or even
> Trump...but not bag od donuts with all his arrogance.  You think he is a
> good leader?  He is a corporation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK... "I know what you want, you pablum puking liberal"

jk :-)

btw... he'd be great on a ticket with Rubio... *Christie-Rubio 2012*


== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 10:59 am
From: "Papa Carl"

"Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ac965a85-b51f-4b63-902e-4d231b327562@j11g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 12:57 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f6755f74-f58e-4a0c-89fc-e6e85c05a52f@t13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 11:23 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > > > As I explained previously...
>
> > > > > > > The laws on the books at the time of his
> > > > > > > birth states that U.S. citizenship may ONLY pass to a child
> > > > > > > born
> > > > > > > overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > citizen parent was19 YEARDS OF AGE OR OLDER. Obama's mother
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > 18
> > > > > > > at the time. So... U.S. citizenship could not legally be
> > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > him if he was in fact born in Kenya. Dont take my word for it.
> > > > > > > Look
> > > > > > > up the law. I think he was born in Kenya, despite the toilet
> > > > > > > paper
> > > > > > > documents that have been produced.
>
> > > > > > Sorry Clarence Darrow I missed your lecture. I really don't give
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > flying fart what the law at the time says as the Constitution
> > > > > > trumps
> > > > > > it. It says natural born it doesn't mention how you obtain that
> > > > > > status which would appear to be a moot point since he has a
> > > > > > birth
> > > > > > certificate.
>
> > > > > > Like I wrote Obama loves the fruitcakes chasing this as it
> > > > > > discredits
> > > > > > anything they are screaming about, that makes sense, & is
> > > > > > counter
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > his mindset.
>
> > > > > > Perhaps we should look into Washing, Jefferson, Adams etc. as
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > were not natural born citizens when they ran but citizens of the
> > > > > > United Kingdom.
>
> > > > > OK, Matlock... Check out the Constitution. Article II, Section 1.
> > > > > If Obama was not a natural born citizen, he cant be the prez. The
> > > > > laws on the books at the time of his birth have everything in the
> > > > > world to do with him being or not being a natural born citizen.
> > > > > The
> > > > > Constitution just states that you need to be a natural born
> > > > > citizen.
>
> > > > So natural law is what a future Congress decides? I don't think so.
> > > > His mother was an American citizen when he was born so he was an
> > > > American citizen. I can't imagine that even if he was born outside
> > > > US
> > > > soil- & by the way where is the proof of that- that a court today
> > > > would law on the books in 1960 was constitutional.
>
> > > > Do your homework. The founding fathers didn't even agree on what
> > > > natural born meant and we were still cleaning it up in the 14th
> > > > amendment.
>
> > > John... You need to do your homework in this case, not me. The
> > > "founding fathers" ?!?!? Good grief, man. Look up the law that was
> > > in play when Obama was born. The law was clear. If you are born over
> > > seas to a to a non citizen and a legal citizen, the legal citizen
> > > needs to be 19 or older in order to have citizenship legally pass to
> > > the child. What is hard for you to understand ??? If nothing else,
> > > the legal matter is cloudy and the issue is in doubt.
>
> > If he was born overseas and that is a bigger if than "if" Diane Lane
> > shows up in my office & propositions me, OK, maybe not, then he would
> > be IMHO a natural born citizen through his mother. The definition of
> > citizenship & how one can achieve it has changed. Again IMHO he would
> > ultimately prevail & meet the constitutional requirement.
>
> > If you don't think the Founding Fathers intent is considered on
> > matters of Constitutional law then I thin it wise that we move on.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> John... This "founding fathers" business as you employ it here is off
> the wall. You are too educated for me to have to detail the top ten
> bastardized ideas of the founding fathers.
>
> What matters in this case is what the law was at the time of Obama's
> birth. Of course, that is only on the table if he was actually born
> in Kenya. Let me say again... I'm not a "birther". I dont want the
> limp dick removed from office over technicalities of the law. He is an
> American.
>
> So you discount he was born in Honolulu completely?

No... Im question it.

>You assume he was born
> elsewhere. Show me where I can read this law about being 19 years old. I
> want a reference to check....Please.- Hide quoted text -

refer to the language outlining the said U.S. definde principles of
jus sanguinus "right of blood", (statute by parantage) Meaning
citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens
but not on US soil at the time of birth. The version that was on the
books at the time of Obama's birth states that the US citizen had to
be 19 y/o or older

Where do I find this set of books...I'm looking all over the place and can
not find it...I do find laws referring to the individual in question,
meaning the baby, needing to declare the intent to be a US citizen by the
time THEY are 19 years old...but nothing like you are suggesting...I want to
see it...where is it...how can I find it?


== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 11:00 am
From: "Papa Carl"

"Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:63233402-cd03-4ecd-b380-e8d32cd2c081@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 1:01 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3968c012-7852-46e0-85a3-80261b324f3f@v16g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 11:32 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 10:25 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > IMHO, fascism does not fit. With fascism, the state allows
> > > privatization and a free market. The industrial and finical experts
> > > are left to run their own affairs. The dictator reserves the right to
> > > step in at any time in any way and impose controls if the dictator
> > > sees fit. What underpins the dictators motives is the idea that he is
> > > dong what is best for national interest as it applies to what ever
> > > ideology the dictator has in mind. Fascism is not an *a-political*
> > > system. We�ve got something else going on. The government is not
> > > pulling the strings. It is being lead by the nose. The motive and
> > > methods of the puppet masters is not political. It is most similar
> > > that of Feudalistic lordships. Increase power and wealth by means of
> > > subjugation and resource management. The government is becoming no
> > > more than a inert vestige. A hollow tradition left for the surfs. Much
> > > like a comforting religion for those on the bottom.
>
> > I don't think the politicians and government in general are as
> > powerless as you think, Michael. We constantly see these
> > recalibrations (think Microsoft anti-trust, govt pressure on fed
> > reserve, etc). I think the best description is that it's a symbiotic
> > relationship between government and business, which I think fits the
> > fascism description nicely (e.g. Richman's definition,
> > here:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html). Undoubtedly, this
> > cooperation is partly to do with behind-the-scenes, corrupt, money,
> > etc, which I think is what you're implying. But I also think it's a
> > product of a general economic philosophy held by most politicos,
> > whether trickle-down as PapaCarl alluded to, or keynesianism
> > (remember, "we're all keynesians now"). There are plenty of people
> > outside the realm of influence who hold these values, and they often
> > don't have anything to gain by it. Bottom line: look to your left and
> > to your right. One of those people is a fascist. :)
>
> Mark... The government is not that powerless now. IMHO, it is on the
> way to becoming so. This is somthing new. And I dont agree on your
> definition of fascism. In a true fascist state, the dictator calls
> the shots and he is not marginalized as the coprorations aggrandize.
> The "partnership" between the two is a "kleptocracy". As a matter of
> course, the corporations will over take the political body. If we
> dont get a real "trust buster" president next time around, we are
> toast. The only electable person in American politics that I see even
> approching that type is Christie.
>
> OH GOD...a Chirstieite....Heaven help us....give me Palin, Newt or even
> Trump...but not bag od donuts with all his arrogance. You think he is a
> good leader? He is a corporation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK... "I know what you want, you pablum puking liberal"

jk :-)

btw... he'd be great on a ticket with Rubio... *Christie-Rubio 2012*

He'd eat Rubio...literally.


== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 11:21 am
From: Michael


On Apr 13, 1:59 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ac965a85-b51f-4b63-902e-4d231b327562@j11g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 12:57 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:f6755f74-f58e-4a0c-89fc-e6e85c05a52f@t13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 13, 11:23 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > > > > As I explained previously...
>
> > > > > > > > The laws on the books at the time of his
> > > > > > > > birth states that U.S. citizenship may ONLY pass to a child
> > > > > > > > born
> > > > > > > > overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > > citizen parent was19 YEARDS OF AGE OR OLDER. Obama's mother
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > 18
> > > > > > > > at the time. So... U.S. citizenship could not legally be
> > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > him if he was in fact born in Kenya. Dont take my word for it.
> > > > > > > > Look
> > > > > > > > up the law. I think he was born in Kenya, despite the toilet
> > > > > > > > paper
> > > > > > > > documents that have been produced.
>
> > > > > > > Sorry Clarence Darrow I missed your lecture. I really don't give
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > flying fart what the law at the time says as the Constitution
> > > > > > > trumps
> > > > > > > it. It says natural born it doesn't mention how you obtain that
> > > > > > > status which would appear to be a moot point since he has a
> > > > > > > birth
> > > > > > > certificate.
>
> > > > > > > Like I wrote Obama loves the fruitcakes chasing this as it
> > > > > > > discredits
> > > > > > > anything they are screaming about, that makes sense, & is
> > > > > > > counter
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > his mindset.
>
> > > > > > > Perhaps we should look into Washing, Jefferson, Adams etc. as
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > were not natural born citizens when they ran but citizens of the
> > > > > > > United Kingdom.
>
> > > > > > OK, Matlock... Check out the Constitution. Article II, Section 1.
> > > > > > If Obama was not a natural born citizen, he cant be the prez. The
> > > > > > laws on the books at the time of his birth have everything in the
> > > > > > world to do with him being or not being a natural born citizen.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > Constitution just states that you need to be a natural born
> > > > > > citizen.
>
> > > > > So natural law is what a future Congress decides? I don't think so.
> > > > > His mother was an American citizen when he was born so he was an
> > > > > American citizen. I can't imagine that even if he was born outside
> > > > > US
> > > > > soil- & by the way where is the proof of that- that a court today
> > > > > would law on the books in 1960 was constitutional.
>
> > > > > Do your homework. The founding fathers didn't even agree on what
> > > > > natural born meant and we were still cleaning it up in the 14th
> > > > > amendment.
>
> > > > John... You need to do your homework in this case, not me. The
> > > > "founding fathers" ?!?!? Good grief, man. Look up the law that was
> > > > in play when Obama was born. The law was clear. If you are born over
> > > > seas to a to a non citizen and a legal citizen, the legal citizen
> > > > needs to be 19 or older in order to have citizenship legally pass to
> > > > the child. What is hard for you to understand ??? If nothing else,
> > > > the legal matter is cloudy and the issue is in doubt.
>
> > > If he was born overseas and that is a bigger if than "if" Diane Lane
> > > shows up in my office & propositions me, OK, maybe not, then he would
> > > be IMHO a natural born citizen through his mother. The definition of
> > > citizenship & how one can achieve it has changed. Again IMHO he would
> > > ultimately prevail & meet the constitutional requirement.
>
> > > If you don't think the Founding Fathers intent is considered on
> > > matters of Constitutional law then I thin it wise that we move on.- Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > John... This "founding fathers" business as you employ it here is off
> > the wall. You are too educated for me to have to detail the top ten
> > bastardized ideas of the founding fathers.
>
> > What matters in this case is what the law was at the time of Obama's
> > birth. Of course, that is only on the table if he was actually born
> > in Kenya. Let me say again... I'm not a "birther". I dont want the
> > limp dick removed from office over technicalities of the law. He is an
> > American.
>
> > So you discount he was born in Honolulu completely?
>
> No... Im question it.
>
> >You assume he was born
> > elsewhere. Show me where I can read this law about being 19 years old. I
> > want a reference to check....Please.- Hide quoted text -
>
> refer to the language outlining the said U.S. definde principles of
> jus sanguinus "right of blood", (statute by parantage) Meaning
> citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens
> but not on US soil at the time of birth.  The version that was on the
> books at the time of Obama's birth states that the US citizen had to
> be 19 y/o or older
>
> Where do I find this set of books...I'm looking all over the place and can
> not find it...I do find laws referring to the individual in question,
> meaning the baby, needing to declare the intent to be a US citizen by the
> time THEY are 19 years old...but nothing like you are suggesting...I want to
> see it...where is it...how can I find it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

papa... i never saw the actual text book itself or any legal
documnet... i saw it outlined in a few news article that were actually
debunking the people who are saying obama is not a natural born
citizen. all of the debunkers have agreed that was the actual
"statute by parantage" law on the books at the time Obama was born,
but that it does not apply because obama was born in hawaii any way.

i also would not mind holding on to a legal text book with the version
of statute by parantage that was on the books when obama was born but
i dont know where I can get it.

See below from wiki

"Statute, by birth within U.S. As of 2006. United States Federal law
() defines ten categories of person who are United States citizens
from birth. According to that law, the following acquire citizenship
at birth:

"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof"
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo,
Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of
1924).
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under
the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of
twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
"a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of
parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been
physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to
the birth of such person"

U.S. territoriesThere are special provisions governing children born
in current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including
Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special
considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those
territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states
that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941,
and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of
the United States at birth".[4]

Outlying possessionsAccording to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or
found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying
possession of the U.S. are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless
otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department has a
publication, Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and
Possessions which explains the complexities of this topic.

Statute, by parentage Under certain circumstances, U.S. citizenship
can be acquired from one's parents. The following conditions affect
children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married
parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see
below):[5]

If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of
the parents has ever lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S.
national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived
in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the
child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child
is a citizen if
the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[6] in the U.S.
before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years,
and
at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's
fourteenth birthday."


== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 1:19 pm
From: MZ


On Apr 13, 12:16 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 11:32 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 10:25 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > IMHO, fascism does not fit.  With fascism, the state allows
> > > privatization and a free market.  The industrial and finical experts
> > > are left to run their own affairs.  The dictator reserves the right to
> > > step in at any time in any way and impose controls if the dictator
> > > sees fit.  What underpins the dictators motives is the idea that he is
> > > dong what is best for national interest as it applies to what ever
> > > ideology the dictator has in mind.  Fascism is not an *a-political*
> > > system.  We've got something else going on.  The government is not
> > > pulling the strings.  It is being lead by the nose.  The motive and
> > > methods of the puppet masters is not political.  It is most similar
> > > that of Feudalistic lordships.  Increase power and wealth by means of
> > > subjugation and resource management.  The government is becoming no
> > > more than a inert vestige. A hollow tradition left for the surfs. Much
> > > like a comforting religion for those on the bottom.
>
> > I don't think the politicians and government in general are as
> > powerless as you think, Michael.  We constantly see these
> > recalibrations (think Microsoft anti-trust, govt pressure on fed
> > reserve, etc).  I think the best description is that it's a symbiotic
> > relationship between government and business, which I think fits the
> > fascism description nicely (e.g. Richman's definition, here:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html).  Undoubtedly, this
> > cooperation is partly to do with behind-the-scenes, corrupt, money,
> > etc, which I think is what you're implying.  But I also think it's a
> > product of a general economic philosophy held by most politicos,
> > whether trickle-down as PapaCarl alluded to, or keynesianism
> > (remember, "we're all keynesians now").  There are plenty of people
> > outside the realm of influence who hold these values, and they often
> > don't have anything to gain by it.  Bottom line: look to your left and
> > to your right.  One of those people is a fascist.  :)
>
> Mark... The government is not that powerless now.  IMHO, it is on the
> way to becoming so.  This is somthing new. And I dont agree on your
> definition of fascism.  In a true fascist state, the dictator calls
> the shots and he is not marginalized as the coprorations aggrandize.
> The "partnership" between the two is a "kleptocracy".  As a matter of
> course, the corporations will over take the political body.   If we
> dont get a real "trust buster" president next time around, we are
> toast. The only electable person in American politics that I see even
> approching that type is Christie.

1) The dictator IS calling the shots. If it appears that the
corporations are calling the shots, it's only because the dictator is
allowing them to. The government could (and has) shut down or
overtake any industry it wants in a nanosecond. The corporations know
where their bread is buttered, and they pay tithe annually. And like
I mentioned, as long as keynesianism is regarded as the prominent
economic philosophy, governmental bodies will have no problem giving
them free reign -- until they cross them.
2) None of this ^^^ is any different from how things were half a
century ago, probably longer. And much of it is the same as it was
two centuries ago.


== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 1:30 pm
From: "Papa Carl"

"Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8cdf6250-3f5d-49c9-acb1-763a29b983b8@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 1:59 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ac965a85-b51f-4b63-902e-4d231b327562@j11g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 12:57 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:f6755f74-f58e-4a0c-89fc-e6e85c05a52f@t13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 13, 11:23 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > > > > As I explained previously...
>
> > > > > > > > The laws on the books at the time of his
> > > > > > > > birth states that U.S. citizenship may ONLY pass to a child
> > > > > > > > born
> > > > > > > > overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > > citizen parent was19 YEARDS OF AGE OR OLDER. Obama's mother
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > 18
> > > > > > > > at the time. So... U.S. citizenship could not legally be
> > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > him if he was in fact born in Kenya. Dont take my word for
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > Look
> > > > > > > > up the law. I think he was born in Kenya, despite the toilet
> > > > > > > > paper
> > > > > > > > documents that have been produced.
>
> > > > > > > Sorry Clarence Darrow I missed your lecture. I really don't
> > > > > > > give
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > flying fart what the law at the time says as the Constitution
> > > > > > > trumps
> > > > > > > it. It says natural born it doesn't mention how you obtain
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > status which would appear to be a moot point since he has a
> > > > > > > birth
> > > > > > > certificate.
>
> > > > > > > Like I wrote Obama loves the fruitcakes chasing this as it
> > > > > > > discredits
> > > > > > > anything they are screaming about, that makes sense, & is
> > > > > > > counter
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > his mindset.
>
> > > > > > > Perhaps we should look into Washing, Jefferson, Adams etc. as
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > were not natural born citizens when they ran but citizens of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > United Kingdom.
>
> > > > > > OK, Matlock... Check out the Constitution. Article II, Section
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > If Obama was not a natural born citizen, he cant be the prez.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > laws on the books at the time of his birth have everything in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > world to do with him being or not being a natural born citizen.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > Constitution just states that you need to be a natural born
> > > > > > citizen.
>
> > > > > So natural law is what a future Congress decides? I don't think
> > > > > so.
> > > > > His mother was an American citizen when he was born so he was an
> > > > > American citizen. I can't imagine that even if he was born outside
> > > > > US
> > > > > soil- & by the way where is the proof of that- that a court today
> > > > > would law on the books in 1960 was constitutional.
>
> > > > > Do your homework. The founding fathers didn't even agree on what
> > > > > natural born meant and we were still cleaning it up in the 14th
> > > > > amendment.
>
> > > > John... You need to do your homework in this case, not me. The
> > > > "founding fathers" ?!?!? Good grief, man. Look up the law that was
> > > > in play when Obama was born. The law was clear. If you are born over
> > > > seas to a to a non citizen and a legal citizen, the legal citizen
> > > > needs to be 19 or older in order to have citizenship legally pass to
> > > > the child. What is hard for you to understand ??? If nothing else,
> > > > the legal matter is cloudy and the issue is in doubt.
>
> > > If he was born overseas and that is a bigger if than "if" Diane Lane
> > > shows up in my office & propositions me, OK, maybe not, then he would
> > > be IMHO a natural born citizen through his mother. The definition of
> > > citizenship & how one can achieve it has changed. Again IMHO he would
> > > ultimately prevail & meet the constitutional requirement.
>
> > > If you don't think the Founding Fathers intent is considered on
> > > matters of Constitutional law then I thin it wise that we move on.-
> > > Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > John... This "founding fathers" business as you employ it here is off
> > the wall. You are too educated for me to have to detail the top ten
> > bastardized ideas of the founding fathers.
>
> > What matters in this case is what the law was at the time of Obama's
> > birth. Of course, that is only on the table if he was actually born
> > in Kenya. Let me say again... I'm not a "birther". I dont want the
> > limp dick removed from office over technicalities of the law. He is an
> > American.
>
> > So you discount he was born in Honolulu completely?
>
> No... Im question it.
>
> >You assume he was born
> > elsewhere. Show me where I can read this law about being 19 years old. I
> > want a reference to check....Please.- Hide quoted text -
>
> refer to the language outlining the said U.S. definde principles of
> jus sanguinus "right of blood", (statute by parantage) Meaning
> citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens
> but not on US soil at the time of birth. The version that was on the
> books at the time of Obama's birth states that the US citizen had to
> be 19 y/o or older
>
> Where do I find this set of books...I'm looking all over the place and can
> not find it...I do find laws referring to the individual in question,
> meaning the baby, needing to declare the intent to be a US citizen by the
> time THEY are 19 years old...but nothing like you are suggesting...I want
> to
> see it...where is it...how can I find it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

papa... i never saw the actual text book itself or any legal
documnet... i saw it outlined in a few news article that were actually
debunking the people who are saying obama is not a natural born
citizen. all of the debunkers have agreed that was the actual
"statute by parantage" law on the books at the time Obama was born,
but that it does not apply because obama was born in hawaii any way.

i also would not mind holding on to a legal text book with the version
of statute by parantage that was on the books when obama was born but
i dont know where I can get it.

See below from wiki

"Statute, by birth within U.S. As of 2006. United States Federal law
() defines ten categories of person who are United States citizens
from birth. According to that law, the following acquire citizenship
at birth:

"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof"
"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo,
Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of
1924).
"a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under
the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of
twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
"a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of
parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been
physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to
the birth of such person"

U.S. territoriesThere are special provisions governing children born
in current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including
Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special
considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those
territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states
that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941,
and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of
the United States at birth".[4]

Outlying possessionsAccording to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or
found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying
possession of the U.S. are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless
otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department has a
publication, Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and
Possessions which explains the complexities of this topic.

Statute, by parentage Under certain circumstances, U.S. citizenship
can be acquired from one's parents. The following conditions affect
children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married
parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see
below):[5]

If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of
the parents has ever lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S.
national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived
in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the
child's birth
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child
is a citizen if
the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[6] in the U.S.
before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years,
and
at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's
fourteenth birthday."

Well....it doesn't say it here. I run a 501c3 charity. We were fortunate
enough to attract a good attorney who did the work for us pro-bono. He
specializes in that and in citizenship work. He never heard of the "19 year
old" requirement and suggested it was because The President's mother may
have been 18 when he was born....in Honolulu. This is part of a huge
problem we have in the country. Enough garbage gets passed around and made
to look like it has substance. You argued with John....he questioned it
too. If you have not seen this in an authentic formal document we need to
not say this crap...OMHO. The very core of that idea being suggested
seems to go against almost all of the existing law. The Tea Party has the
very best PR company ever devised...Fox News.

== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 1:32 pm
From: "Papa Carl"

"MZ" <forums@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
news:f9d39e59-47f9-4adc-bdde-fe73040b4b55@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 12:16 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 11:32 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 10:25 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > IMHO, fascism does not fit. With fascism, the state allows
> > > privatization and a free market. The industrial and finical experts
> > > are left to run their own affairs. The dictator reserves the right to
> > > step in at any time in any way and impose controls if the dictator
> > > sees fit. What underpins the dictators motives is the idea that he is
> > > dong what is best for national interest as it applies to what ever
> > > ideology the dictator has in mind. Fascism is not an *a-political*
> > > system. We've got something else going on. The government is not
> > > pulling the strings. It is being lead by the nose. The motive and
> > > methods of the puppet masters is not political. It is most similar
> > > that of Feudalistic lordships. Increase power and wealth by means of
> > > subjugation and resource management. The government is becoming no
> > > more than a inert vestige. A hollow tradition left for the surfs. Much
> > > like a comforting religion for those on the bottom.
>
> > I don't think the politicians and government in general are as
> > powerless as you think, Michael. We constantly see these
> > recalibrations (think Microsoft anti-trust, govt pressure on fed
> > reserve, etc). I think the best description is that it's a symbiotic
> > relationship between government and business, which I think fits the
> > fascism description nicely (e.g. Richman's definition,
> > here:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html). Undoubtedly, this
> > cooperation is partly to do with behind-the-scenes, corrupt, money,
> > etc, which I think is what you're implying. But I also think it's a
> > product of a general economic philosophy held by most politicos,
> > whether trickle-down as PapaCarl alluded to, or keynesianism
> > (remember, "we're all keynesians now"). There are plenty of people
> > outside the realm of influence who hold these values, and they often
> > don't have anything to gain by it. Bottom line: look to your left and
> > to your right. One of those people is a fascist. :)
>
> Mark... The government is not that powerless now. IMHO, it is on the
> way to becoming so. This is somthing new. And I dont agree on your
> definition of fascism. In a true fascist state, the dictator calls
> the shots and he is not marginalized as the coprorations aggrandize.
> The "partnership" between the two is a "kleptocracy". As a matter of
> course, the corporations will over take the political body. If we
> dont get a real "trust buster" president next time around, we are
> toast. The only electable person in American politics that I see even
> approching that type is Christie.

1) The dictator IS calling the shots. If it appears that the
corporations are calling the shots, it's only because the dictator is
allowing them to. The government could (and has) shut down or
overtake any industry it wants in a nanosecond. The corporations know
where their bread is buttered, and they pay tithe annually. And like
I mentioned, as long as keynesianism is regarded as the prominent
economic philosophy, governmental bodies will have no problem giving
them free reign -- until they cross them.
2) None of this ^^^ is any different from how things were half a
century ago, probably longer. And much of it is the same as it was
two centuries ago.

Me thinks you are right.......and a dictator does not need to be one person
either.


== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 1:45 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 13, 4:30 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8cdf6250-3f5d-49c9-acb1-763a29b983b8@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 1:59 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:ac965a85-b51f-4b63-902e-4d231b327562@j11g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 13, 12:57 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:f6755f74-f58e-4a0c-89fc-e6e85c05a52f@t13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Apr 13, 11:23 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > > > > > As I explained previously...
>
> > > > > > > > > The laws on the books at the time of his
> > > > > > > > > birth states that U.S. citizenship may ONLY pass to a child
> > > > > > > > > born
> > > > > > > > > overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > US
> > > > > > > > > citizen parent was19 YEARDS OF AGE OR OLDER. Obama's mother
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > 18
> > > > > > > > > at the time. So... U.S. citizenship could not legally be
> > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > him if he was in fact born in Kenya. Dont take my word for
> > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > Look
> > > > > > > > > up the law. I think he was born in Kenya, despite the toilet
> > > > > > > > > paper
> > > > > > > > > documents that have been produced.
>
> > > > > > > > Sorry Clarence Darrow I missed your lecture. I really don't
> > > > > > > > give
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > flying fart what the law at the time says as the Constitution
> > > > > > > > trumps
> > > > > > > > it. It says natural born it doesn't mention how you obtain
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > status which would appear to be a moot point since he has a
> > > > > > > > birth
> > > > > > > > certificate.
>
> > > > > > > > Like I wrote Obama loves the fruitcakes chasing this as it
> > > > > > > > discredits
> > > > > > > > anything they are screaming about, that makes sense, & is
> > > > > > > > counter
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > his mindset.
>
> > > > > > > > Perhaps we should look into Washing, Jefferson, Adams etc. as
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > were not natural born citizens when they ran but citizens of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > United Kingdom.
>
> > > > > > > OK, Matlock... Check out the Constitution. Article II, Section
> > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > > If Obama was not a natural born citizen, he cant be the prez.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > laws on the books at the time of his birth have everything in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > world to do with him being or not being a natural born citizen.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > Constitution just states that you need to be a natural born
> > > > > > > citizen.
>
> > > > > > So natural law is what a future Congress decides? I don't think
> > > > > > so.
> > > > > > His mother was an American citizen when he was born so he was an
> > > > > > American citizen. I can't imagine that even if he was born outside
> > > > > > US
> > > > > > soil- & by the way where is the proof of that- that a court today
> > > > > > would law on the books in 1960 was constitutional.
>
> > > > > > Do your homework. The founding fathers didn't even agree on what
> > > > > > natural born meant and we were still cleaning it up in the 14th
> > > > > > amendment.
>
> > > > > John... You need to do your homework in this case, not me. The
> > > > > "founding fathers" ?!?!? Good grief, man. Look up the law that was
> > > > > in play when Obama was born. The law was clear. If you are born over
> > > > > seas to a to a non citizen and a legal citizen, the legal citizen
> > > > > needs to be 19 or older in order to have citizenship legally pass to
> > > > > the child. What is hard for you to understand ??? If nothing else,
> > > > > the legal matter is cloudy and the issue is in doubt.
>
> > > > If he was born overseas and that is a bigger if than "if" Diane Lane
> > > > shows up in my office & propositions me, OK, maybe not, then he would
> > > > be IMHO a natural born citizen through his mother. The definition of
> > > > citizenship & how one can achieve it has changed. Again IMHO he would
> > > > ultimately prevail & meet the constitutional requirement.
>
> > > > If you don't think the Founding Fathers intent is considered on
> > > > matters of Constitutional law then I thin it wise that we move on.-
> > > > Hide
> > > > quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > John... This "founding fathers" business as you employ it here is off
> > > the wall. You are too educated for me to have to detail the top ten
> > > bastardized ideas of the founding fathers.
>
> > > What matters in this case is what the law was at the time of Obama's
> > > birth. Of course, that is only on the table if he was actually born
> > > in Kenya. Let me say again... I'm not a "birther". I dont want the
> > > limp dick removed from office over technicalities of the law. He is an
> > > American.
>
> > > So you discount he was born in Honolulu completely?
>
> > No... Im question it.
>
> > >You assume he was born
> > > elsewhere. Show me where I can read this law about being 19 years old. I
> > > want a reference to check....Please.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > refer to the language outlining the said U.S. definde principles of
> > jus sanguinus "right of blood", (statute by parantage) Meaning
> > citizenship conferred by being born to parents who are U.S. citizens
> > but not on US soil at the time of birth. The version that was on the
> > books at the time of Obama's birth states that the US citizen had to
> > be 19 y/o or older
>
> > Where do I find this set of books...I'm looking all over the place and can
> > not find it...I do find laws referring to the individual in question,
> > meaning the baby, needing to declare the intent to be a US citizen by the
> > time THEY are 19 years old...but nothing like you are suggesting...I want
> > to
> > see it...where is it...how can I find it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> papa... i never saw the actual text book itself or any legal
> documnet... i saw it outlined in a few news article that were actually
> debunking the people who are saying obama is not a natural born
> citizen.  all of the debunkers have agreed that was the actual
> "statute by parantage" law on the books at the time Obama was born,
> but that it does not apply because obama was born in hawaii any way.
>
> i also would not mind holding on to a legal text book with the version
> of statute by parantage that was on the books when obama was born but
> i dont know where I can get it.
>
> See below from wiki
>
> "Statute, by birth within U.S. As of 2006.  United States Federal law
> () defines ten categories of person who are United States citizens
> from birth. According to that law, the following acquire citizenship
> at birth:
>
> "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
> thereof"
> "a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo,
> Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of
> 1924).
> "a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under
> the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of
> twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
> "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of
> parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been
> physically present in the United States or one of its outlying
> possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to
> the birth of such person"
>
> U.S. territoriesThere are special provisions governing children born
> in current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including
> Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
> and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special
> considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those
> territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states
> that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941,
> and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of
> the United States at birth".[4]
>
> Outlying possessionsAccording to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or
> found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying
> possession of the U.S. are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless
> otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department has a
> publication, Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and
> Possessions which explains the complexities of this topic.
>
> Statute, by parentage Under certain circumstances, U.S. citizenship
> can be acquired from one's parents. The following conditions affect
> children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married
> parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see
> below):[5]
>
> If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of
> the parents has ever lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
> If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S.
> national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived
> in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the
> child's birth
> If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child
> is a citizen if
> the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[6] in the U.S.
> before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years,
> and
> at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's
> fourteenth birthday."
>
> Well....it doesn't say it here.  I run a 501c3 charity.  We were fortunate
> enough to attract a good attorney who did the work for us pro-bono.  He
> specializes in that and in citizenship work.  He never heard of the "19 year
> old" requirement and suggested it was because The President's mother may
> have been 18 when he was born....in Honolulu.  This is part of a huge
> problem we have in the country.  Enough garbage gets passed around and made
> to look like it has substance.  You argued with John....he questioned it
> too.  If you have not seen this in an authentic
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

no.. it does not say it there... you are correct. that is the 2006
version. i heard on NPR a legal expert that knew the law stipulated
that it used to include that the US citizen had to be 19 or older back
in obama's time. that only applied if ONE of the parents was not a us
citizen and one was and the kid was born abroad. i have read the same
thing in about ten other places on line. it is not crap because I
dont have a text book to mail you. it is not surprising that you can
not find that on line. i cant find any version of statue by parantage
on line that dates back to the 2006 revision. perhaps your legal
friend can tell us were we can find a copy of older versions.


== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 1:52 pm
From: John C TX


X-No-Archive: Yes
> I frankly can't follow their "scheme"....they may think it will work, but it
> isn't and I think the level of "Civil War" mentality is not as progressed as
> some would think.  
I don't think Obama's crowd planned it , I just think they saw it for
what it is, political manna from heaven.
>I do believe that there are a lot of core racists out
> there...people who would not for many reasons, fear being one, act on or
> even declare their true beliefs but still hold those beliefs.  We have a lot
> of people with "attitudes" as opposed to "values" that they are willing to
> take a real stand on...I wish I were wrong, I don't like what I see but I
> still believe I see it.  And...I do not think the folks advising The
> President have done a very good job on many fronts.

Racism or prejudice isn't gone but I think it is better. I think
overall people generally are less racist than they were 30 years ago.
The problem from top to bottom is that they are generally more selfish.


== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 1:59 pm
From: John C TX


X-No-Archive: Yes

> John... This "founding fathers" business as you employ it here is off
> the wall.  You are too educated for me to have to detail the top ten
> bastardized ideas of the founding fathers.

Did someone replace your meds this morning?

My reference to the Founding Fathers is related to the
Constitutionality of a law that may or may not have been existence --
I will trust you that you are right here. What I am telling you is
that even if Obama was born overseas I could not see any court today
not viewing him as a natural born citizen because his mother was am
American.

>
> What matters in this case is what the law was at the time of Obama's
> birth.  Of course, that is only on the table if he was actually born
> in Kenya.  Let me say again... I'm not a "birther".  I dont want the
> limp dick removed from office over technicalities of the law. He is an
> American.


--


== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 3:34 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 13, 4:59 pm, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > John... This "founding fathers" business as you employ it here is off
> > the wall.  You are too educated for me to have to detail the top ten
> > bastardized ideas of the founding fathers.
>
> Did someone replace your meds this morning?

you mean my 81 mg asprin ???

> My reference to the Founding Fathers is related to the
> Constitutionality of a law that may or may not have been existence --
> I will trust you that you are right here.  What I am telling you is
> that even if Obama was born overseas I could not see any court today
> not  viewing him as a natural born citizen because his mother was am
> American.

If I am correct about the law at the time regarding statue of
parantage... And I believe I am... You could make a legal case. What
would the courts do with it ??? You are probably right. My original
remark stated that I thought there was a chance he was actually born
in Kenya... Not that he could or should be legally removed from
office.


== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 3:46 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 13, 4:32 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "MZ" <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
>
> news:f9d39e59-47f9-4adc-bdde-fe73040b4b55@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 12:16 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 11:32 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 13, 10:25 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > IMHO, fascism does not fit. With fascism, the state allows
> > > > privatization and a free market. The industrial and finical experts
> > > > are left to run their own affairs. The dictator reserves the right to
> > > > step in at any time in any way and impose controls if the dictator
> > > > sees fit. What underpins the dictators motives is the idea that he is
> > > > dong what is best for national interest as it applies to what ever
> > > > ideology the dictator has in mind. Fascism is not an *a-political*
> > > > system. We've got something else going on. The government is not
> > > > pulling the strings. It is being lead by the nose. The motive and
> > > > methods of the puppet masters is not political. It is most similar
> > > > that of Feudalistic lordships. Increase power and wealth by means of
> > > > subjugation and resource management. The government is becoming no
> > > > more than a inert vestige. A hollow tradition left for the surfs. Much
> > > > like a comforting religion for those on the bottom.
>
> > > I don't think the politicians and government in general are as
> > > powerless as you think, Michael. We constantly see these
> > > recalibrations (think Microsoft anti-trust, govt pressure on fed
> > > reserve, etc). I think the best description is that it's a symbiotic
> > > relationship between government and business, which I think fits the
> > > fascism description nicely (e.g. Richman's definition,
> > > here:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html). Undoubtedly, this
> > > cooperation is partly to do with behind-the-scenes, corrupt, money,
> > > etc, which I think is what you're implying. But I also think it's a
> > > product of a general economic philosophy held by most politicos,
> > > whether trickle-down as PapaCarl alluded to, or keynesianism
> > > (remember, "we're all keynesians now"). There are plenty of people
> > > outside the realm of influence who hold these values, and they often
> > > don't have anything to gain by it. Bottom line: look to your left and
> > > to your right. One of those people is a fascist. :)
>
> > Mark... The government is not that powerless now. IMHO, it is on the
> > way to becoming so. This is somthing new. And I dont agree on your
> > definition of fascism. In a true fascist state, the dictator calls
> > the shots and he is not marginalized as the coprorations aggrandize.
> > The "partnership" between the two is a "kleptocracy". As a matter of
> > course, the corporations will over take the political body. If we
> > dont get a real "trust buster" president next time around, we are
> > toast. The only electable person in American politics that I see even
> > approching that type is Christie.
>
> 1) The dictator IS calling the shots.  If it appears that the
> corporations are calling the shots, it's only because the dictator is
> allowing them to.  The government could (and has) shut down or
> overtake any industry it wants in a nanosecond.  The corporations know
> where their bread is buttered, and they pay tithe annually.  And like
> I mentioned, as long as keynesianism is regarded as the prominent
> economic philosophy, governmental bodies will have no problem giving
> them free reign -- until they cross them.
> 2) None of this ^^^ is any different from how things were half a
> century ago, probably longer.  And much of it is the same as it was
> two centuries ago.

Papa... That is in a true dictatorship...a real fascist state. That
is not what we have now. In our case, the corporations are bound to
outgrow the government... Rember... Our government is not a
dictatorship. People wont wind up on meat hooks or concentration
camps when the position, wealth and power of corporation/finance
reaches the point where they dont have to listen. At the beginning,
they have to play ball. Later on, they make up their own rules as
they can. We dont have a fascist system. We are not heading in that
difection either. For a fascist state, you need a totalitarian
GOVERNMENT dictator

>
> Me thinks you are right.......and a dictator does not need to be one person
> either.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 8:17 pm
From: "Papa Carl"

"Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0af1fccd-82ab-4f67-b519-e06dbedb4572@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 4:32 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "MZ" <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote in message
>
> news:f9d39e59-47f9-4adc-bdde-fe73040b4b55@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 12:16 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 11:32 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 13, 10:25 am, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > IMHO, fascism does not fit. With fascism, the state allows
> > > > privatization and a free market. The industrial and finical experts
> > > > are left to run their own affairs. The dictator reserves the right
> > > > to
> > > > step in at any time in any way and impose controls if the dictator
> > > > sees fit. What underpins the dictators motives is the idea that he
> > > > is
> > > > dong what is best for national interest as it applies to what ever
> > > > ideology the dictator has in mind. Fascism is not an *a-political*
> > > > system. We�ve got something else going on. The government is not
> > > > pulling the strings. It is being lead by the nose. The motive and
> > > > methods of the puppet masters is not political. It is most similar
> > > > that of Feudalistic lordships. Increase power and wealth by means of
> > > > subjugation and resource management. The government is becoming no
> > > > more than a inert vestige. A hollow tradition left for the surfs.
> > > > Much
> > > > like a comforting religion for those on the bottom.
>
> > > I don't think the politicians and government in general are as
> > > powerless as you think, Michael. We constantly see these
> > > recalibrations (think Microsoft anti-trust, govt pressure on fed
> > > reserve, etc). I think the best description is that it's a symbiotic
> > > relationship between government and business, which I think fits the
> > > fascism description nicely (e.g. Richman's definition,
> > > here:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html). Undoubtedly,
> > > this
> > > cooperation is partly to do with behind-the-scenes, corrupt, money,
> > > etc, which I think is what you're implying. But I also think it's a
> > > product of a general economic philosophy held by most politicos,
> > > whether trickle-down as PapaCarl alluded to, or keynesianism
> > > (remember, "we're all keynesians now"). There are plenty of people
> > > outside the realm of influence who hold these values, and they often
> > > don't have anything to gain by it. Bottom line: look to your left and
> > > to your right. One of those people is a fascist. :)
>
> > Mark... The government is not that powerless now. IMHO, it is on the
> > way to becoming so. This is somthing new. And I dont agree on your
> > definition of fascism. In a true fascist state, the dictator calls
> > the shots and he is not marginalized as the coprorations aggrandize.
> > The "partnership" between the two is a "kleptocracy". As a matter of
> > course, the corporations will over take the political body. If we
> > dont get a real "trust buster" president next time around, we are
> > toast. The only electable person in American politics that I see even
> > approching that type is Christie.
>
> 1) The dictator IS calling the shots. If it appears that the
> corporations are calling the shots, it's only because the dictator is
> allowing them to. The government could (and has) shut down or
> overtake any industry it wants in a nanosecond. The corporations know
> where their bread is buttered, and they pay tithe annually. And like
> I mentioned, as long as keynesianism is regarded as the prominent
> economic philosophy, governmental bodies will have no problem giving
> them free reign -- until they cross them.
> 2) None of this ^^^ is any different from how things were half a
> century ago, probably longer. And much of it is the same as it was
> two centuries ago.

Papa... That is in a true dictatorship...a real fascist state. That
is not what we have now. In our case, the corporations are bound to
outgrow the government... Rember... Our government is not a
dictatorship. People wont wind up on meat hooks or concentration
camps when the position, wealth and power of corporation/finance
reaches the point where they dont have to listen. At the beginning,
they have to play ball. Later on, they make up their own rules as
they can. We dont have a fascist system. We are not heading in that
difection either. For a fascist state, you need a totalitarian
GOVERNMENT dictator

>
> Me thinks you are right.......and a dictator does not need to be one
> person
> either.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are responding to the wrong person...I just agreed and I still think
it's right. Totalitarian State does not mean ONE person....a central party
can run things as a group, be very totalitarian and very fascist


== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 8:20 pm
From: "Papa Carl"

"John C TX" <johnctxjets@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:160d0783-45f1-4f5c-83db-4f067f3b1827@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
X-No-Archive: Yes
> I frankly can't follow their "scheme"....they may think it will work, but
> it
> isn't and I think the level of "Civil War" mentality is not as progressed
> as
> some would think.
I don't think Obama's crowd planned it , I just think they saw it for
what it is, political manna from heaven.
>I do believe that there are a lot of core racists out
> there...people who would not for many reasons, fear being one, act on or
> even declare their true beliefs but still hold those beliefs. We have a
> lot
> of people with "attitudes" as opposed to "values" that they are willing to
> take a real stand on...I wish I were wrong, I don't like what I see but I
> still believe I see it. And...I do not think the folks advising The
> President have done a very good job on many fronts.

Racism or prejudice isn't gone but I think it is better. I think
overall people generally are less racist than they were 30 years ago.
The problem from top to bottom is that they are generally more selfish.

You can make what you want out of this metaphor....

Why is it members of PETA are more opposed to fur than they are leather?

Middle aged, wealthy women are an easier target than Hell's Angels.

That type of thing drives how a lot of people ACT outwardly....the overt
racism is tamed...Perhaps it is only my experience, but it is what I've
seen.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Randy Moss
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/24cdf13c1d0456e8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 10:58 am
From: Michael


On Apr 13, 12:53 pm, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9c7ce2a9-b50b-4b44-9636-ea0fe1a15eea@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 9:09 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > I normally would agree with you...but in the game today young players
> > > will
> > > not develop on your team...they will wind up somewhere else. It's a year
> > > to
> > > year deal in many cases I think. Moss can still run and catch...IF they
> > > can
> > > get him cheap.
>
> > If you can get him under theses conditions:
>
> > 1. reasonable base salary
> > 2. no bonus
> > 3. incentives based on some mix of individual performance & team
> > performance
>
> > #3 is important because he could provide an invaluable service with 3
> > catches a game and if he is going to get paid he is less likely to be
> > stupid.
>
> also worth thinking about... a wr that specializes in going deep would
> be a very good thing for a schoolyard qb that is at his best
> improvising and extending plays.  I don't think it will happen
> though.  Wanna know why ??? I have hard facts for you ;-) My  gut
> tells me that moss is not rex's cup of tea or woody j's cup of tea.
>
> They look like espresso guys to me, not wussy tea drinkers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'd say Woody J is a wine connoisseur and Rex likes beer, but neither
to excess.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Parcells: the gift that keeps on giving
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/a2677ef776c88bf8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 11:16 am
From: "Ray O'Hara"

"Tutor" <dcat4434@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4cb277d1-c607-470c-afb0-10c41e1dbf87@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Parcells kicks himself for drafting Pat White, picking Long over Ryan
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 12, 2011, 12:18 PM EDT


As Bill Parcells looks back on his time running the Dolphins, he can't
help but second-guess himself over some draft picks gone wrong. And no
pick looks worse in hindsight than the decision to take Pat White in
the second round of the 2009 draft.

"We violated our principles," Parcells told Armando Salguero of the
Miami Herald, in reference to picking White. "He just wasn't a
prototypical quarterback pick. He was a great college player, and we
let that color our judgment."

Parcells thought White had the potential to be a game-changing player
in the wildcat offense, but looking back on it, he thinks the Dolphins
should have been looking for a pro-style passer, not an all-purpose
athlete.

And the best pro-style passer to enter the league in the three years
that Parcells was running the Dolphins' war room, Matt Ryan, is one
player Parcells wishes he would have drafted. Asked if the Dolphins
should he have picked Ryan instead of offensive tackle Jake Long in
2008, Parcells said, "maybe, we should have."

Although Long has turned into a fine tackle, there's no "maybe" about
it: If the Dolphins had taken Ryan first overall, they'd be a
franchise in much better shape right now.

========================================================================================

his cooking skills well exceeded his grocery buying skills


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 1:15 pm
From: MZ


On Apr 13, 10:42 am, Tutor <dcat4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Parcells kicks himself for drafting Pat White, picking Long over Ryan
> Posted by Michael David Smith on April 12, 2011, 12:18 PM EDT
>
> As Bill Parcells looks back on his time running the Dolphins, he can't
> help but second-guess himself over some draft picks gone wrong. And no
> pick looks worse in hindsight than the decision to take Pat White in
> the second round of the 2009 draft.
>
> "We violated our principles," Parcells told Armando Salguero of the
> Miami Herald, in reference to picking White. "He just wasn't a
> prototypical quarterback pick. He was a great college player, and we
> let that color our judgment."
>
> Parcells thought White had the potential to be a game-changing player
> in the wildcat offense, but looking back on it, he thinks the Dolphins
> should have been looking for a pro-style passer, not an all-purpose
> athlete.
>
> And the best pro-style passer to enter the league in the three years
> that Parcells was running the Dolphins' war room, Matt Ryan, is one
> player Parcells wishes he would have drafted. Asked if the Dolphins
> should he have picked Ryan instead of offensive tackle Jake Long in
> 2008, Parcells said, "maybe, we should have."
>
> Although Long has turned into a fine tackle, there's no "maybe" about
> it: If the Dolphins had taken Ryan first overall, they'd be a
> franchise in much better shape right now.

Interesting. Hard to imagine having regrets about drafting a player
like Jake Long.


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 2:07 pm
From: John C TX


X-No-Archive: Yes

> > Although Long has turned into a fine tackle, there's no "maybe" about
> > it: If the Dolphins had taken Ryan first overall, they'd be a
> > franchise in much better shape right now.
>
> Interesting.  Hard to imagine having regrets about drafting a player
> like Jake Long.

Now if Parcells had taken Gholston.......

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Interesting mock
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/4720a60b78602b98?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 1:13 pm
From: MZ


Just watched this boston-centric mock draft where four guys took turns
selecting for each team.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post?id=4694719

Good news as far as the Jets go is that two of the bigger defensive
linemen were available when the Jets pick, including Phil Taylor who
some say is the top rated true NT in the draft. If this plays out,
this could be a good spot for the Jets and Tanny won't even have to
trade up for a change.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: paging John C
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/73e4c116f588408d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 1:45 pm
From: John C TX


X-No-Archive: Yes

Dave, I just took out my keyboard with water!!!

Now that was funny
--

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Look in the Mirror
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/a01cb23df9f5c9f7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 4:24 pm
From: JetsLife


Some of y'all rail against the powers that be and their modus
operandi, be they huge corporations and their leaders, or powerful
gov't forces and figures.

Who buys their products? Who funds the gov't?

You.

You don't like something, stop supporting it economically. Or move to
another country. Otherwise if you're living here engaging in the
typical profligate, luxurious, consumption-based American lifestyle*
thereby funding various and sundry vast amoral enterprises, you're
just as guilty as said enterprises. What's the difference between the
willing and knowing producer, consumer, funder?

It's the complacent lazy whiny pointing of fingers that allows
massive, amoral power to grow and run wild. There's a proverb I read
years ago, something like: "If all men sweeped after themselves, the
world would be a clean place." Of course there are any number of other
proverbs which encapsulate that same ethos: be the change you seek in
the world, you want something done do it yourself, if you're not part
of the solution you're part of the problem and on and on.

So stop pointing fingers.

Look in the mirror and realize it's you and 175 million other
Americans (that's a guesstimate for those who at minimum knowingly
participate in American profligacy, the remaining 125 million being
too poor, young or old to be able to) not to mention the hundreds of
millions across the industrialized world, who allow amoral big power
to even exist.

As one of the traditional senior farewell messages read on a brick at
my fraternity house this one from the 70s and paraphrasing:

"Complacency is like constipation. Everyone sits around and nobody
gives a shit."

*It's interesting how much most of us including myself take for
granted. Mindlessly flitting about in our cars to do all manner of
things including 'vacation,' flying to hither and yon, and on and on
and on. Whereas in most of the rest of the world owning a house much
less a car is a dream.

As one personal example I visited Cambodia for a short while, and the
outright stone-age type living in some places ... I mean it was just
unbelievable to see. We all know and here about it, but to see it ...

The point here is, again: it's things we blithely and mindlessly take
for granted as Americans, the activities we do things buy that line
the pockets of the power private and public which runs the world.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 6:37 pm
From: MZ


On Apr 13, 7:24 pm, JetsLife <JetsL...@aol.com> wrote:
> Love it or leave it

fixed.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: free shipping PAYPAL payment HANDBAG(LV,GUCCI,CHANEL,PRADA,COACH,FENDI,
CHLOE,BUBERRY,JUICY AND SO ON)http://www.24hours-online.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8883932bb35ae892?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 13 2011 8:19 pm
From: jialiushoes


Handbags

BOSS Handbag (http://www.24hours-online.com/ ) - <free shipping paypal
payment>
Burberry Handbags (http://www.24hours-online.com/ ) - <free shipping
paypal payment>
Chanel Handbags (http://www.24hours-online.com/) - <free shipping
paypal payment>
Chloe Handbags Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal payment>
Christian Audigier Handbags Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal
payment>
Coach Handbags (http://www.24hours-online.com/ ) - <free shipping
paypal payment>
D&G Handbags Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal payment>
Dooney&Bourke Handbags (http://www.24hours-online.com/) - <free
shipping paypal payment>
ED Hardy Handbags Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal payment>
Fendi Handbags Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal payment>
Gucci Handbags (http://www.24hours-online.com/) - <free shipping
paypal payment>
Hermas Handbags Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal payment>
JIMMY CHOO Handbags
Juicy Handbags (http://www.24hours-online.com/ ) - <free shipping
paypal payment>
LV Handbags Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal payment>
Miu Miu Handbags (http://www.24hours-online.com/) - <free shipping
paypal payment>
Prada Handbags Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal payment>
Versace Handbags Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal payment>
Tous Handbag (http://www.24hours-online.com/ ) - <free shipping paypal
payment>

Handbags
AAA True Leather Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal payment>
Burberry Handbags wholesaler
Balenciaga Handbags wholesaler (http://www.24hours-online.com/ ) -
(paypal
payment)
Balenciaga Purse wholesaler Discount Wholesale <free shipping paypal
payment>
Bally Purse wholesaler
BOSS Purse wholesaler (http://www.24hours-online.com/ ) - (paypal
payment)
Chanel Handbags wholesaler
Chanel Purse wholesaler
Chloe Handbags wholesaler (http://www.24hours-online.com/) - (paypal
payment)
Chloe Purse wholesaler
Coach Handbags wholesaler (http://www.24hours-online.com/) - (paypal
payment)


==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC