Santorum is bat-shit crazy

[Randy]

AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS, BRO

[sell2792]

Originally Posted by NickDowe

VOTE RON PAUL!!

Hell yeah!


I'll just leave this here:

Rick Santorum-Linked Universal Health Services Facility: Fraud, Assault And Alleged 'Exorcism'

Rick Santorum Iowa Speech - YouTube

Mitt Romney Iowa Victory Speech - YouTube

And last but definitely not least.
Fake "Mitt Romney" Endorses Ron Paul - YouTube

[NickDowe]

I dont want to make this a flame war and I respect everyones opinion, but may I ask which of his ideas do you find crazy?

I hear a lot of people in the media chuckle everytime they mention Ron Paul's name and i cant seem to rap my head around why his ideas sound so crazy. He has been right 100% about our economy for the last 30 years.

is it the fed reserve stuff? the gold standard? or his foreign policy?

Ron Paul's Words of Warning From 1983 to 2008 - YouTube

I ask you to just watch this video.. not trying to change anyone's mind just want you to hear him out and see that for 30 years where he has NEVER flip flopped or changed his story.

[Murmel]

Santorum

I lol'd so hard

[synrgy]

Let me google that for you

Also, this:
The Real Ron Paul: In His Own Words | MyFDL

[Sicarius]

I don't vote, at all. I've never seen a presidential candidate that I thought was good enough.

About the republican candidates:
They're all a little off kilter, especially Ron Paul.

Everytime I see him on TV, doing a debate or whatnot, it all just sounds like he's saying what everyone wants to hear, especially the young/new voters. Hell just saying legalize drugs or pot, or whatever he's advocating, will get the attention of stoners everywhere, and get them to vote for him, simply because of that.

As far as I can tell, he's saying whatever he can to try and get nominated, and will not do a single thing he says when he's in office, as is the type for anyone running, really.

Rick Santorum really is a piece of shit though. The stuff he's said about the gay community, is just appaling, the same for Michelle Bachman, and I'm so glad she's done.

About Obama: I think he came in with a bit of a naive perspective. He was able to do a lot the first year or so, and actually had the most productive congress in a few decades. Right now, I don't think he or the other democrats are trying hard enough, they've bent over time and time again, to show they're either willing to try to work with the Conservatives, or they just don't know how to fight back. You can only do so much when the people on your side are useless, and the people you're up against have an "immoveable mountain" complex.

If he gets re-elected, I hope he's learned something the last 3 years, and knows how to handle the conservatives, because I don't think enough will be voted out to have a super majority for the Dems again. Even then, they'd probably screw that up, too.

Also, can we please stop saying the country is going down the shitter? This is nothing like it was in the 30s, nor is it like any low income country, where they're severely underdeveloped. Seriously people, reality check is that we're still doing pretty decently with the way things have transpired over the last decade or so.

[Ibanezsam4]

Originally Posted by NickDowe

I dont want to make this a flame war and I respect everyones opinion, but may I ask which of his ideas do you find crazy?

I hear a lot of people in the media chuckle everytime they mention Ron Paul's name and i cant seem to rap my head around why his ideas sound so crazy. He has been right 100% about our economy for the last 30 years.

is it the fed reserve stuff? the gold standard? or his foreign policy?

Ron Paul's Words of Warning From 1983 to 2008 - YouTube

I ask you to just watch this video.. not trying to change anyone's mind just want you to hear him out and see that for 30 years where he has NEVER flip flopped or changed his story.

well.. being off the gold standard didn't kill us, it was the housing bubble that burst (government responsible). basically his economic policies are pretty good, but i believe fractionalized banking has done good things since it was implemented, and i also believe you can effectively run the fed without doing away with it. so there are our basic disagreements, not enough to normally get me to not vote for someone but whatever.

its his foreign policy... oh my god is it bad. i've been accused of being an idiot because i dont agree with him (paulbots) so i'll lay out my opinion first:

-yes i dont think we need to police the world and i do think we should start closing every non-vital base in foreign countries

-the fact that we are waging any current conflicts is insane (Libya)

-i think we should give up on our current efforts in Afghanistan, the peace in the country cannot be kept because there in no centralized power in that region. that being said there some good things happening in the country that could not happen if we weren't there (look at what Tom Freston has being doing in the area).

however Paul has no foreign policy. zip. zero. nadda. he tries to say he would be non-confrontational, but even the presidents in years past who never engaged in foreign conflicts had a foreign policy. every time he's asked he goes on tirade about how the middle-east is messed up.. no mr. paul we wanted to know your plans going forward, not what makes you mad. the people want detailed mother....ing policy decisions, not a high school term paper on why we're in the middle east.

which brings us to mother ....ing Iran. "i dont have problems with countries getting nuclear weapons because they get more respect"............ ARE YOU ....ING KIDDING ME????? you have no problem with a crazy man having a nuke? think whatever you want about Israel as a country, but when a man constantly says he wants to take out whole country full of people (y'know human lives and such) you think its ok for him to have a weapon of nuclear capability???? "Israel can defend itself, and their weapon would be no threat to us" well no shit sherlock thats not the point, with a weapon like that, Iran can do something worse for the world economy than attacking Israel. he's right about us being more timid around countries with nuclear capability, so why would you want regime having a nuclear weapon around the largest ....ing oil producing sector known to man? if they tie up distribution in that region you are going to see global oil prices skyrocket. im taking 1970s era gasoline rationing you-can-only-fill-up-on-even-days bad. and pretending America starts its own oil production domestically tomorrow, we dont have the ten years to wait for our own energy to come to capacity to affect the global markets. we will be hit hard, Europe will be hit harder.

that is why he's ....ing insane. and that is why he has a strong under-25 years old following. because this is the age group is the most selfish known to america. then think primarily inwardly. "hell yeah ron paul doesnt wanna fight wars more money for us america .... yeah!" they have no concept of global markets and how our unwillingness to act affects other countries.

basically Pandora's Box was opened after the spanish american war. we entered the world stage as a military power (despite the fact that an army could've defeated the Spanish but whatever). now if ron paul was truly a student of history (he's not, he's a student of selective history), he would know that once a country makes this step there is no turning back... unless there's a financial meltdown.. but trust me, we aren't near to that as others would make you think. and if any GOP candidate wins, the domestic budget is being cut, so no problem.

then there's the matter of a stalemate in congress. if RP is elected he will get nothing done. why? too many people in congress dont like him. his own party doesn't like him. the democrats dont like him. if he wants anything done he'll write executive orders which OMG!! thats not a libertarian position!! so yeah 8 straight years of deadlock, that sounds awesome.

and then i should say as a man of jewish decent, RP has bothered me. well there's good reason. those articles he published were in bad taste but not actually that racially offensive. however his constant association with white supremacists is slightly concerning

Archived-Articles: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

[Ibanezsam4]

Originally Posted by Ibanezsam4

well.. being off the gold standard didn't kill us, it was the housing bubble that burst (government responsible). basically his economic policies are pretty good, but i believe fractionalized banking has done good things since it was implemented, and i also believe you can effectively run the fed without doing away with it. so there are our basic disagreements, not enough to normally get me to not vote for someone but whatever.

its his foreign policy... oh my god is it bad. i've been accused of being an idiot because i dont agree with him (paulbots) so i'll lay out my opinion first:

-yes i dont think we need to police the world and i do think we should start closing every non-vital base in foreign countries

-the fact that we are waging any current conflicts is insane (Libya)

-i think we should give up on our current efforts in Afghanistan, the peace in the country cannot be kept because there in no centralized power in that region. that being said there some good things happening in the country that could not happen if we weren't there (look at what Tom Freston has being doing in the area).

however Paul has no foreign policy. zip. zero. nadda. he tries to say he would be non-confrontational, but even the presidents in years past who never engaged in foreign conflicts had a foreign policy. every time he's asked he goes on tirade about how the middle-east is messed up.. no mr. paul we wanted to know your plans going forward, not what makes you mad. the people want detailed mother....ing policy decisions, not a high school term paper on why we're in the middle east.

which brings us to mother ....ing Iran. "i dont have problems with countries getting nuclear weapons because they get more respect"............ ARE YOU ....ING KIDDING ME????? you have no problem with a crazy man having a nuke? think whatever you want about Israel as a country, but when a man constantly says he wants to take out whole country full of people (y'know human lives and such) you think its ok for him to have a weapon of nuclear capability???? "Israel can defend itself, and their weapon would be no threat to us" well no shit sherlock thats not the point, with a weapon like that, Iran can do something worse for the world economy than attacking Israel. he's right about us being more timid around countries with nuclear capability, so why would you want regime having a nuclear weapon around the largest ....ing oil producing sector known to man? if they tie up distribution in that region you are going to see global oil prices skyrocket. im taking 1970s era gasoline rationing you-can-only-fill-up-on-even-days bad. and pretending America starts its own oil production domestically tomorrow, we dont have the ten years to wait for our own energy to come to capacity to affect the global markets. we will be hit hard, Europe will be hit harder.

that is why he's ....ing insane. and that is why he has a strong under-25 years old following. because this is the age group is the most selfish known to america. then think primarily inwardly. "hell yeah ron paul doesnt wanna fight wars more money for us america .... yeah!" they have no concept of global markets and how our unwillingness to act affects other countries.

basically Pandora's Box was opened after the spanish american war. we entered the world stage as a military power (despite the fact that an army could've defeated the Spanish but whatever). now if ron paul was truly a student of history (he's not, he's a student of selective history), he would know that once a country makes this step there is no turning back... unless there's a financial meltdown.. but trust me, we aren't near to that as others would make you think. and if any GOP candidate wins, the domestic budget is being cut, so no problem.

then there's the matter of a stalemate in congress. if RP is elected he will get nothing done. why? too many people in congress dont like him. his own party doesn't like him. the democrats dont like him. if he wants anything done he'll write executive orders which OMG!! thats not a libertarian position!! so yeah 8 straight years of deadlock, that sounds awesome.

and then i should say as a man of jewish decent, RP has bothered me. well there's good reason. those articles he published were in bad taste but not actually that racially offensive. however his constant association with white supremacists is slightly concerning

Archived-Articles: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

that being said, Santorum is his own worst enemy

[NickDowe]

The value of the dollar has dropped 93% since the introduction of the federal reserve system of 1913 and that is fact. The value of gold has been pretty steady. The idea that you have to print more money to stave off an economic collapse has been proven to be flawed time and time again as it only temporarily re-inflates the bubble while growing our national debt. The idea that a slow growing economy backed by "any standard" has no way to protect itself against a recession is a myth created by bankers to force us into a system where we allow a private bank to print our money for us and dictate the % rates at which we must repay this process. The reason America fought for it's independence was because we refused to let the Bank of England print our money for us at a % rate that they would control. It only took 200 years for us to throw out the beliefs of our founding fathers for which this country was created. For the record both monetary systems work well on paper and has been debated by economic scholars for generations. The thing is you need a Pro-active Economy not a Reactive Currency to solve our debt crisis.

For the record this isnt the regurgitation of some article i read or a Ron Paul speech. I have always been fascinated by economics and would have continued my major if I had not switched to Engineering. My younger brother has 2 business degrees and we live for this shit lol. As the older brother I have to stay on my game so he doesnt make an ass out of me at Xmas dinner!

Politics and Economics will always be debated and as long as you stay open minded and dont take anything personally I am always up for debates.

[Sicarius]

The value of Gold has skyrocketed recently due to fear mongering from the conservative camp. "INVEST IN GOLD, IT'S THE ONLY STABLE CURRENCY" Price goes up and up and up, for inflated, bullshit reasons.

We fought for our independence because we weren't getting representation in the House in England. We were being taxed, with no say in the matter. It had nothing to do with the bank of england.

Also: Business degrees are a dime a dozen, it's the go to degree for people that can't do Engineering, or can't decide on anything else. That's why most any corporation will take a Business degree, since it's the most common. Just saying.

[Stealthdjentstic]

^ your last paragraph really says something about you

[NickDowe]

Originally Posted by Ibanezsam4

well.. being off the gold standard didn't kill us, it was the housing bubble that burst (government responsible). basically his economic policies are pretty good, but i believe fractionalized banking has done good things since it was implemented, and i also believe you can effectively run the fed without doing away with it. so there are our basic disagreements, not enough to normally get me to not vote for someone but whatever.

its his foreign policy... oh my god is it bad. i've been accused of being an idiot because i dont agree with him (paulbots) so i'll lay out my opinion first:

-yes i dont think we need to police the world and i do think we should start closing every non-vital base in foreign countries

-the fact that we are waging any current conflicts is insane (Libya)

-i think we should give up on our current efforts in Afghanistan, the peace in the country cannot be kept because there in no centralized power in that region. that being said there some good things happening in the country that could not happen if we weren't there (look at what Tom Freston has being doing in the area).

however Paul has no foreign policy. zip. zero. nadda. he tries to say he would be non-confrontational, but even the presidents in years past who never engaged in foreign conflicts had a foreign policy. every time he's asked he goes on tirade about how the middle-east is messed up.. no mr. paul we wanted to know your plans going forward, not what makes you mad. the people want detailed mother....ing policy decisions, not a high school term paper on why we're in the middle east.

which brings us to mother ....ing Iran. "i dont have problems with countries getting nuclear weapons because they get more respect"............ ARE YOU ....ING KIDDING ME????? you have no problem with a crazy man having a nuke? think whatever you want about Israel as a country, but when a man constantly says he wants to take out whole country full of people (y'know human lives and such) you think its ok for him to have a weapon of nuclear capability???? "Israel can defend itself, and their weapon would be no threat to us" well no shit sherlock thats not the point, with a weapon like that, Iran can do something worse for the world economy than attacking Israel. he's right about us being more timid around countries with nuclear capability, so why would you want regime having a nuclear weapon around the largest ....ing oil producing sector known to man? if they tie up distribution in that region you are going to see global oil prices skyrocket. im taking 1970s era gasoline rationing you-can-only-fill-up-on-even-days bad. and pretending America starts its own oil production domestically tomorrow, we dont have the ten years to wait for our own energy to come to capacity to affect the global markets. we will be hit hard, Europe will be hit harder.

that is why he's ....ing insane. and that is why he has a strong under-25 years old following. because this is the age group is the most selfish known to america. then think primarily inwardly. "hell yeah ron paul doesnt wanna fight wars more money for us america .... yeah!" they have no concept of global markets and how our unwillingness to act affects other countries.

basically Pandora's Box was opened after the spanish american war. we entered the world stage as a military power (despite the fact that an army could've defeated the Spanish but whatever). now if ron paul was truly a student of history (he's not, he's a student of selective history), he would know that once a country makes this step there is no turning back... unless there's a financial meltdown.. but trust me, we aren't near to that as others would make you think. and if any GOP candidate wins, the domestic budget is being cut, so no problem.

then there's the matter of a stalemate in congress. if RP is elected he will get nothing done. why? too many people in congress dont like him. his own party doesn't like him. the democrats dont like him. if he wants anything done he'll write executive orders which OMG!! thats not a libertarian position!! so yeah 8 straight years of deadlock, that sounds awesome.

and then i should say as a man of jewish decent, RP has bothered me. well there's good reason. those articles he published were in bad taste but not actually that racially offensive. however his constant association with white supremacists is slightly concerning

Archived-Articles: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

His demographic is a bit over hyped, he has supporters of all ages hailing from both parties. He is disliked in congress because he is one of the few Congressman that isn't influenced by "Special Interest Groups" and disliked by the republican party because he is actually a Liberitarean which conflicts whith some of the parties views.

As for his foreign policy, I get it. If you are a hardcore humanitarian it bothers you to see a region ruled by oppression and you believe it is the duty of the United states to come to their Aid. That is a completely admirable thing and i do not fault your beliefs. However, we have completely thrusted ourselves into this part of the world and into this role of peace keeper over and over and over the past 20-30 years we have supported people like Saddam and Osama when it was to our benefit and then flipped when it's not. (Fact) We have sunk trillions of dollars funding wars and unrest in the region from every angle. Nothing was ever accomplished there. We have made enemies in the region now for our constant occupation of the area. Everytime it back fires the US gets egg in the face from a global stance and we have lost the respect of the world as a super power. We can not continue to sustain this foreign policy of humanitarianism while our own Economy is in dire need of reform. So the argument is what is better for our country a foreign policy based on Isolationism or one of Interventionism? To say that pulling out of a region that hates our guts, rebuilding our military defense programs, protecting our own borders, while re establishing a solid monetary system in a free market economy that promotes growth and trade is a worse idea then constant occupation and sustaining multiple campaigns against idealists on foreign soils while battling a failing economy is complete horse shit. Which path do you think makes us a stronger presence in the global economy?

Lastly, I don't have the exact figures but i am sure someone could look them up for me, but i believe there is something like 4,000 off shore drilling sites in the gulf of Mexico and something like 200 refineries in and around New Orleans... Its not the amount of oil we have that makes us dependent on foreign oil but the Regulations and bureaucracy surrounding the oil we have that makes us dependent. We probably could not sustain a global oil market for very long but how does the world's need for oil make us the major player in the region when we have oil under our feet?

[NickDowe]

oh, and i am 33 not 25 lol

sarcasm:

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by synrgy

If this is what you want, fine, but do it right: Amend The Constitution. Nowhere in the document has the Federal Government been given the authority to force citizens to purchase insurance from private corporations (What Pelosicare -- a more accurate label -- requires), nor has it been given the authority to run a tax-payer/government-debt funded healthcare system.

Ray

[Randy]

The Constitution isn't a list of what the government can do, it's a list of what it cannot do. /OT

[Konfyouzd]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

Also, can we please stop saying the country is going down the shitter? This is nothing like it was in the 30s, nor is it like any low income country, where they're severely underdeveloped. Seriously people, reality check is that we're still doing pretty decently with the way things have transpired over the last decade or so.

Ahh but you forget that it's en vogue to say otherwise. Hell every company on the TV and/or radio is saying... "With the economy being how it is, we all know what you want... MORE OF OUR SHIT!!!! And it's only slightly more expensive than it used to be!" Most people just use it as a buzz word. Things aren't as good as they've been but not as bad as they could be at the same time.

[Sicarius]

Originally Posted by Stealthdjentstic

^ your last paragraph really says something about you

Because I'd value the BA I'm working on in Computer Science - Computer Information Systems, with a focus in network security higher than someone going for the business management degree everyone else is working for?

edit:
damn those buzz words!

[synrgy]

I'm sure we'll just agree to disagree here, and I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, but I couldn't possibly care less whether or not a document written a few hundred years ago was adequately prepared for modern insurance companies to deny service to Citizens in desperate need of care. Further, I don't see why it's an issue of Constitutionality in the first place. We're legally required to do all kinds of things that aren't explicitly allowed or disallowed by the Constitution. What makes health care special?

Further, I'm pissed right the .... off that we didn't get anywhere close to the solution the majority of us voted in support of when electing Obama to the White House.

What pisses me off more than anything is that - for the life of me - I can't even begin to imagine what the .... is wrong with my countrymen that they don't WANT their fellow Americans to have access to health care. Seriously? Why not? To me, good health is the most basic of human rights. Perhaps that makes me a "bleeding heart"; so be it.

Also, "Pelosicare"? Maybe you missed the part about the 200+ Republican amendments?

[TemjinStrife]

Originally Posted by ElRay

If this is what you want, fine, but do it right: Amend The Constitution. Nowhere in the document has the Federal Government been given the authority to force citizens to purchase insurance from private corporations (What Pelosicare -- a more accurate label -- requires), nor has it been given the authority to run a tax-payer/government-debt funded healthcare system.

Ray

Indeed, the Constitution says nothing of the sort. However, Congress has pretty expansive authority under the Commerce Clause to pass legislation that affects interstate commerce. Fairly invasive legislation that affects individuals has passed Supreme Court scrutiny (see Wickard v. Filburn, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Ollie's BBQ, Gonzalez v. Raich, et al.) so the individual mandate is by no means slam-dunk unconstitutional.

[Sicarius]

Originally Posted by synrgy

I'm sure we'll just agree to disagree here, and I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, but I couldn't possibly care less whether or not a document written a few hundred years ago was adequately prepared for modern insurance companies to deny service to Citizens in desperate need of care. Further, I don't see why it's an issue of Constitutionality in the first place. We're legally required to do all kinds of things that aren't explicitly allowed or disallowed by the Constitution. What makes health care special?

Further, I'm pissed right the .... off that we didn't get anywhere close to the solution the majority of us voted in support of when electing Obama to the White House.

What pisses me off more than anything is that - for the life of me - I can't even begin to imagine what the .... is wrong with my countrymen that they don't WANT their fellow Americans to have access to health care. Seriously? Why not? To me, good health is the most basic of human rights. Perhaps that makes me a "bleeding heart"; so be it.

Also, "Pelosicare"? Maybe you missed the part about the 200+ Republican amendments?

Mostly misinformation.

It's been ingrained in people's minds for the longest time that anything the government wants to do comes out of YOUR pocket, and it's going to the lazy welfare people that just sit around all day doing nothing.

So people get pissed off, because all they're shown are the people ripping off the system, and not the ones it's actually helping. Hell, my mom was on it for a few months when she and my dad got divorced. But she still thinks it needs to go away, so the worthless bums are forced to get jobs.

She's also a Birther, so there you go.

The problem is that no one actually knows what the Health Care reform bill is. There are still a lot of people that think there are Death Panels in the bill, and that it's a universal socialist program and that the government is the one issuing the insurance. And it's none of those things. Just like NDAA, "IT IMPRISONS US CITIZENS, WE'RE GONNA BE IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS"
When it doesn't, at all, but people still believe it, because that's what people like Ron Paul, having been saying to the people.

[TemjinStrife]

Originally Posted by NickDowe

I dont want to make this a flame war and I respect everyones opinion, but may I ask which of his ideas do you find crazy?

I hear a lot of people in the media chuckle everytime they mention Ron Paul's name and i cant seem to rap my head around why his ideas sound so crazy. He has been right 100% about our economy for the last 30 years.

is it the fed reserve stuff? the gold standard? or his foreign policy?

Ron Paul's Words of Warning From 1983 to 2008 - YouTube

I ask you to just watch this video.. not trying to change anyone's mind just want you to hear him out and see that for 30 years where he has NEVER flip flopped or changed his story.

Hmm. The Fed Reserve, the Gold Standard, his foreign policy, the fact that he thinks that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, the fact that he wants to completely destroy actual functioning parts of our government while leaving the paralyzed parts intact... the list goes on and on.

Consistency is not admirable if the position is insanity. It's like saying a serial rapist is admirable because he is consistent.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by synrgy

I'm sure we'll just agree to disagree here, and I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, but I couldn't possibly care less whether or not a document written a few hundred years ago was adequately prepared for modern insurance companies to deny service to Citizens in desperate need of care. Further, I don't see why it's an issue of Constitutionality in the first place. We're legally required to do all kinds of things that aren't explicitly allowed or disallowed by the Constitution. What makes health care special?

Further, I'm pissed right the .... off that we didn't get anywhere close to the solution the majority of us voted in support of when electing Obama to the White House.

What pisses me off more than anything is that - for the life of me - I can't even begin to imagine what the .... is wrong with my countrymen that they don't WANT their fellow Americans to have access to health care. Seriously? Why not? To me, good health is the most basic of human rights. Perhaps that makes me a "bleeding heart"; so be it.

Also, "Pelosicare"? Maybe you missed the part about the 200+ Republican amendments?

I don't understand, therefore, death panels.

[NickDowe]

People love this scenario.. what if Billy gets into a car accident and goes into a coma and has no insurance, do we just let him die? My question is why does Billy not have Health Insurance? Why did that woman not get Health Insurance prior to needing it? If someone does not provide it for you that means you should go with out it or burden other hard working Americans with the task of providing it for you?

Health Care cost needs to be addressed first before we can ever hope to curtail outrageous Insurance policy standards. Putting pressure on pharmaceutical companies and placing a cap on malpractice suits is a good start. Raise the age limit for dependents so that a child can be covered on his parents insurance until the age of 25. These are the things government is supposed to protect us from, controlling these policies and governing how a free market economy can set its rates and standards for health care in this country not the other way around. But these are the "Special interest groups" that fund campaigns and help politicians get into office so that they can ensure their own capitalist agenda. Obama is not going to turn around and slap restrictions on how the same people who got him elected do business. Instead he will turn us socialist and force the needs of the many onto an already over taxed middle class further separating the income inequality gap of this country!


.... IT! ELECT ME!

[Sicarius]

Not to mention him wanting to remove the Citizen ship through birth on US soil.

That's part of what the country was founded on, coming to the US and trying to live the American Dream, and you wouldn't have to worry about your children, because if they were born here, they'd be Citizens of the US.

I don't know about you, but I don't think that's something the fore fathers would have wanted to be taken out. After all No one in this country would be a citizen if that weren't a law.

Save for the Native Americans, and man did we screw that pooch.

[Stealthdjentstic]

I like how demonized public healthcare is in the US.