I think it is supposed to be "smarty pants". Maybe not, maybe it is just late Friday afternoon and I am punchy - either way, you owe me a new screen.

Now this ^^ is truly worthy of an insightful moderation.

Of course, all of his points are substantiated and rational but don't let that stop you from your blind hatred of any view not your own.

News flash: Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. The only ones who ever claim he was were his political opponents, and only so they could bash fiscal conservatism.

I agree this would appear to solve all the problems. I would go one step further, however, and remove any sexual connotation. Any two people (per current convention) could enter into a legally binding contract to share benefits, obligations, and dependencies (off-spring).

Marriage, a term and concept very important to some, would remain an institution of the Church, Temple, Mosque, Coven, or what-have-you. Whether your union was a Marriage or not would be determined and recognized by the people you associate with, not the State. The State's only compelling interest would be served: specifically, who is responsible for your affairs if you die or become incapacitated.

Such an approach would be dispassionate and non-intrusive. Isn't this what we want from our Government?

And the truth is, it's theft from the shareholder. You know, the people that actually OWN the company ! You'd think they'd be more concerned about it, but they're not.

True. Relatively few shareholders, however, care that they own (a piece of) a company. Most are stock speculators that only care about the value of the stock relative to yesterday (or tomorrow), not the value of the stock relative to the value of the company. How, for example, the big three US automotive companies have not been trading for pennies for years is beyond me.

Additionally, those few who do care about the company are often not in a position to influence CEO compensation. The fact that I won't invest in ABC company because the CEO is overcompensated or may withdraw my 500 (of 50,000,000) shares if the CEO becomes overcompensated isn't even noted. If Mr. Buffet indicates he is unhappy with a CEO's compensation, however, I suspect that has a little more traction. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Mr. Buffets and collective actions by shareholders are about as effective as collective actions by any group of people with disparate interests.

Congratulations on being a status-quo dumb ass. As I said, in general summation, I believe it to be a non-issue, especially the dual-citizen lawsuit nonsense. It is not the issue but the handling of it that is the problem. It did not show any of the "change", openness, decisive resolution, or good statesmanship that Obama promised to bring us. Judging by your ridiculous and presumably pejorative Fox News Channel comment, you likely are not a fan of the insular secrecy of the Bush administration but here you are acting outraged that people (who absolutely have an axe to grind) would question the secrecy and stonewalling of the issue by Obama when it should be so damn easy to resolve. A two minute phone call would do it.

There's more solid proof that Obama was born in the U.S. in this one article, BY A SKEPTIC OF HIS U.S. BIRTH, and is a natural born citizen, than there is against his natural born birth status in ALL of the utter BS spewed

Evidence, not proof, evidence. And, you are correct. After the Clinton campaign brought this up during the Primary, what would have been really nice is if Obama, with a derisive roll of the eyes towards those who deserve it, had simply said, "somebody take a reporter and get a copy of my birth certificate so we can end this idiocy." And then ended it.

But no, we have the usual non-response "ignore it and it will go away" attitude that we have learned to know and love under the current administration. His grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and he has some obvious ties there. Could her memory be faulty? Sure. But, since the issue has been raised, and it is one of those definitively defined things in that pesky little inconvenience known as the Constitution, it should be resolved by some Federal non-partisan authority.

Oh, and a document of live birth from Hawaii is not proof of a natural born citizen. It and a birth certificate are two different documents.

So, yeah, while I think the preponderance of evidence indicates Obama's natural-birth citizenship, I would have preferred a different response.

Thus far, my opinion is getting to be: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (Which isn't exactly true. The totalitarian government of "Brave New World" was much nicer than the totalitarian government of "1984".)