Summations Only

You might want to check this chronology. The Tea Party is just a bit older than you imply here.

Only one justice found it necessary to define the fine as a tax. Four other justices found ACA constitutional without such shenanigans.

How is anyone supposed to take you seriously after you post this stuff? If a creationist told you about a belief that he had formed in this way, you'd read him the riot act.

You are right. No it is not a reason to accuse them of hatred.But we do expect people do drop beliefs formed on bad info. In an extreme case, we might ask them why the did not check the info for themselves.

This is not something "everybody does". In fact, blaming the boss is a tactic you'd be taught not to use in any leadership course. I've never had to use that ruse. And that includes even my time as an ensign just a few months after being commissioned.Some people do use it, but doing so invariably costs them much of their ability to lead because the people they have to lead never see any reason to respect them.

Even when the law was timed to go into effect in 2014, the mandate still would not have affect anyone's current hour work schedule.

Right, because looking at a calendar is just too much effort for an employer to have to make.

I agree with you regarding the subordinate relationship aspect. But as far as work hours goes, I think the idea that you are getting less than a days work from a president is rather hard to defend. I doubt any modern president has failed to put in 2000+ hours in any given year.

All corporations are ultimately owned and operated by humans. So curtailing corporation speech always involves curtailing some human being's speech.Now obviously the ownership and control by human beings need not be the end of the analysis, but pretending that there are no humans involved whatsoever and then claiming that you "don't see" any First Amendment issue at play is surely too simplistic.George Bush, Barrack Obama, and Bill Clinton never went on patrol with me on a submarine. So they need to shut up?

Surely there are no limits on the number of voices or the volume of speech that is protected under the First Amendment. You get one vote, but you can speak all you want.

The birther stuff started before Obama was elected. I call BS on this.

I don't buy that either. I believe that the right fully expected to win each of the last two presidential elections. In fact the most fun thing about the last election was watching the complete bewilderment and disbelief on the face of Karl Rove when O'bama won in a second land slide.There is no reason that the birther stuff cannot be multi-purpose. It's essentially hatred driven by racism and xenophobic irrationality. Not every use of it is going to be logical. Trump uses it because it gathers him instant news attention every time he trots it out. He takes pride in being the man who got O'bama to release his birth certificate. Otherwise Trump is irrelevant.

And yet this inconclusive ambiguity is also what you consider to be very good evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.I appreciate the view into your standard for very good evidence. It casts a strong light on similar claims you make in other threads. For that reason I consider this thread very enlightening. I'm sure I'll have reason to cite this thread in the future.

I figure that a slogan of 'taking the country back' will figure prominently in at least some of the up coming campaigns. Left unsaid, but not unheard will be some famous inaudible wording from that Blazing Saddles roof top scene.

What appears to be more likely given the difficult to manufacture evidence that Obama was actually born in the US (absent a time machine), and the statements from the agent that they did not check the information with Obama?I agree that the statement in the bio is evidence of a Kenyan birth. But is it really stronger than the evidence for US birth? What is most likely the error.Seriously, given that the real constitutional issue almost certainly does not center around the location of Obama's birth anyway, isn't the real point to this question one of whether Obama is not 'one of us'? Isn't that exactly what your question of 'he's willing to say he was [born in Kenya?]' is getting at?Well, just look at him. Now look at his name. We know he isn't one of us.Okay, enough ranting.How about if you establish the pre-requisite point first, and then I consider your misplaced impugning?