Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

No one likes higher taxes but whats your answer?

Don't spend money you don't have. Rudimentary stuff like that.

Originally Posted by transjen

Keep cutting taxes on the rich?

Do you pay 35% income tax? No? The rich do.

Originally Posted by transjen

Well King George did that and started two wars of which only one was called for , You can't fight two wars and cut taxes wake up and smell the coffee and face facts the party is over and now it's time to pay the piper Jennifer

The higher taxes we're about to pay are not because of the wars. It's because of BO's out of control spending, and the wallstreet bailout.

[transjen]

The wall street bailout was a gift from King George not Obama, And the rich don't pay anywhere near 35% with all thier taxcuts and tax loopholes and shelters , Next you'll tell me that King Georges taxcuts really helped the poor and hurt the rich. Like i said the King's party is over and it's time to pay the piper and i know Reagan and Bush always promised the rich that they'll never have to pay for the party and that the ones not invited will foot the bills, Hence your real fear of Obama Jennifer

[The Conquistador]

I don't like Barack, but I just can't help but wonder what Michelle would look like with a fat dong between her legs

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I don't like Barack, but I just can't help but wonder what Michelle would look like with a fat dong between her legs

Well she does look very manly so you never know Jennifer

[randolph]

She is a fine powerful women. That's why BO has to stay in shape.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by randolph

She is a fine powerful women. That's why BO has to stay in shape.

and, indeed, in power... :D

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

The wall street bailout was a gift from King George not Obama,

Obama endorsed it, and spent half of it. The necessity of the wall street bailout is because of CRA. I have yet to see you refute this, or explain exactly how Bush caused the financial mess. And sorry, blaming it on the war doesn't cut it. We've been at war before.

Originally Posted by transjen

And the rich don't pay anywhere near 35% with all thier taxcuts and tax loopholes and shelters,

So what percentage do they end up paying? I think you're just mindlessly passing on an old lefty myth.

See this: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm2420.cfm

According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton's final year in office.

In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

* The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;
* The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;
* The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
* The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

Originally Posted by transjen

Next you'll tell me that King Georges taxcuts really helped the poor and hurt the rich.

Like Reagan says, Here we go again. Who owns the businesses? The rich. Who employs the poor? The rich. If the rich pay less taxes they can afford to pay more workers. And if you'll actually read what I quoted above you'll see the poor are paying less taxes too. Is it that hard to understand?

Originally Posted by transjen

Like i said the King's party is over and it's time to pay the piper

But we're not paying the piper. And you know what a party is? Shoving 1,000 page trillion dollar spending bills through congress without giving anyone a chance to read it. That's a party. BO and his lefties have come up with a mountain of new programs that dwarfs by 2.5 times anything Bush has done during his 8 years, including Bush's wall street bailout. That is FACT. That is the problem with it. We're going to have to pay the piper for this for generations.

[randolph]

Ah yes Tracy, I have been wondering where you get your statistics. Here is a brief analysis of the right wing Heritage Foundation, the experts on spin doctoring statistics.

From "Democratic Underground".
Back in college we had to read a book called "How to Lie With
Statistics". It was one of the best books I've read and incredibly
valuable in cutting though the fog of bullshit the politicians and
corporations use.

In this case I want to bring up examples of how the Right distorts the Reagan record. Here's a prime example on the issue tax cuts from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443es.cfm
I've edited out references to other tax cuts.

That propaganda house known as the Heritage Foundation shows some of the most creative misuse of statistics and distortions as can be imagined... all to paint a false picture of the Reagan record... then try to seal the deal with this conclusion:

"High rates of taxation and a tax code that punishes working, saving,
and investing do not add up to a recipe for long-term prosperity.
History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a
reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity. Reducing all
income tax rates is a responsible way to promote long-term economic
growth."

Let's look at their claims

CLAIM: "Lesson #1: Lower tax rates mean faster growth.
The Reagan tax cuts: The economic effects of the Reagan tax cuts were
dramatic. The tax cuts helped to pull the economy out of a severe
downturn and ushered in a period of record peacetime economic growth.
During the seven-year Reagan boom, yearly economic growth averaged 4
percent."

This is the classic one variable analysis. It pretends NOTHING else
was going on in the economy that led to the recovery. In reality businesses had learned to become more energy efficient after repeated oil shocks. Oil prices had dropped from record highs... nearly $75 a barrel constant 2000 dollars. Interest rates also dropped as a result of the Fed's tight money policy. Then there was pent-up consumer demand. Last was Reagan's own deficit spending for his defense buildup. Do they get any credit? Nah.... just tax cuts. Why is that?

Heritages claims also do not prove any causal relationship between tax cuts and economic growth. They only claim one. In reality there have been economic recoveries without tax cuts.... and even with tax HIKES... as we've seen in 93.

The Right lauds JFK's tax cuts for producing an economic boom yet the
top rate was 70%? How can that be when Heritage also claim "History shows clearly that lower tax rates are an integral part of a reform package that maximizes freedom and prosperity." OK... bring back the JFK tax levels!!!!

CLAIM: "Lesson #2: Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The Reagan tax cuts: Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during
the 1980s. The results are even more impressive, however, when one
looks at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the
economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, personal
income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54
percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

There are four kinds of distortions used here.

The first is bait and switch. What do they mean by "during the 1980s"?
Doesn't that include both Carter and Bush1's terms? While their
statement is technically true.... revenues were 517 Billion in 1980
and 1032 billion in 1990... which I assume are the years they used...
the Heritage Foundation fails to mention that Reagan's own first FY82
budget bought in a mere 617 billion... going up to 991.2 billion in FY89... Reagan's last budget. Where Heritage implies a 515 Billion dollar increase there was but 374 billion.... 72% of their number. In reality revenue growth was predictably anemic after Reagan's tax cuts.

The second distortion is not to include Reagan's own tax HIKES in
those revenue numbers. How could they have omitted that?

There is more on the site.

[TracyCoxx]

And your source is democratic underground. Do I really need to point out the bias here?

[randolph]

I think the bankruptcy of GM signals the end of the US as the dominant world power. The myopia of Greenspan and the worship of Milton Friedman's faulty economic theories allowed a runaway housing boom to turn into a gigantic Ponzi scam. We now risk rampant inflation in order to pay for the misdeeds. If Obama and his advisers can get us out of this mess he would deserve more than the Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by randolph

I think the bankruptcy of GM signals the end of the US as the dominant world power. The myopia of Greenspan and the worship of Milton Friedman's faulty economic theories allowed a runaway housing boom to turn into a gigantic Ponzi scam. We now risk rampant inflation in order to pay for the misdeeds. If Obama and his advisers can get us out of this mess he would deserve more than the Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath.

During WWII we pumped out more jeeps, planes, tanks, guns, bullets you name it and that was a big reason we won now every thing is made over seas if another wolrd war breaks out we are screwed because we can no longer make anything anymore, And Greenspan was only following orders from King George oh yes Regan nomics baby the biggest ever invented Jennifer

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

During WWII we pumped out more jeeps, planes, tanks, guns, bullets you name it and that was a big reason we won now every thing is made over seas if another wolrd war breaks out we are screwed because we can no longer make anything anymore, And Greenspan was only following orders from King George oh yes Regan nomics baby the biggest ever invented Jennifer

Yes Jen, right on!
Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave, the last real Republican.
He warned us but nobody listened.

[TracyCoxx]

Awe man! All of this has been staring me in the face and I've only just now picked up on it. Why does Hank in Indonesia obsess over US affairs? Why is he so smitten with BO?

Because Obama, aka Barry Soetero was (perhaps still is) a citizen of Indonesia. I knew about this for a while but just didn't connect the dots with Hank.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=72656

(And yes, normally one would not be qualified to be president of the US if one had ever been a citizen of another country, but this IS Obama after all)

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Awe man! All of this has been staring me in the face and I've only just now picked up on it. Why does Hank in Indonesia obsess over US affairs? Why is he so smitten with BO?

Because Obama, aka Barry Soetero was (perhaps still is) a citizen of Indonesia. I knew about this for a while but just didn't connect the dots with Hank.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=72656

(And yes, normally one would not be qualified to be president of the US if one had ever been a citizen of another country, but this IS Obama after all)

Question ,Was he actually a citizen or did he just live there? John McCain was born in Panama due to the fact his father was stationed there but i wouldn't call him a citizen of Panama Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

Question ,Was he actually a citizen or did he just live there? John McCain was born in Panama due to the fact his father was stationed there but i wouldn't call him a citizen of Panama Jennifer

But the problem with Obama...for some strange reason that has conspiracy buffs in a tizzy...is that he still, to this day, has NOT released his full birth records from the hospital in Hawaii. Which has led many to believe that he actually wasn't born there or born a true US citizen. Or that his actual original birth record doesn't state that he was born a US citizen, which would mean he was technically and even more importantly legally ineligible to be President.

In fact, fueling the fire IS a rather interesting fact to will leave most average people scratching their heads: to date Obama's legal team has spent...wait for it...over ONE MILLION DOLLARS to keep his hospital birth records SEALED. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've applied for jobs in the past where I've had to provide a state-certified birth certificate or other kinds of documentation regarding the hospital where I was born, so my employer could do the usual 60 second phone call to confirm my citizenship. Most people have at one point or another.

Which begs the million dollar question (yes, pun intended) that even I'd like to know, and I'm not even a conspiracy nut: Seriously, who the fuck spends a MILLION DOLLARS IN ATTORNEY FEES TO BLOCK anyone from seeing your actual birth records? And considering we're talking about the freakin' President of the United States, why are so many in the media afraid to really cover this story -- especially since there's now something like over 100 civil lawsuits across the nation...with more being added all the time...demanding access to those hospital records, and yet the Obama people KEEP shelling out more and more legal fees to KEEP BLOCKING access to them.

It doesn't take a Brainiac to see something odd is going on, for whatever reason.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Question ,Was he actually a citizen or did he just live there? John McCain was born in Panama due to the fact his father was stationed there but i wouldn't call him a citizen of Panama Jennifer

Here's a better photocopy of his school records.
http://rosettasister.files.wordpress...ool-record.jpg

Line 2 says "Warga negara" which means "Citizen" in indonesian. Then it says "Indonesian".

In 1981 when he visited Pakistan, he listed Indonesian as his citizenship.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Which begs the million dollar question (yes, pun intended) that even I'd like to know, and I'm not even a conspiracy nut: Seriously, who the fuck spends a MILLION DOLLARS IN ATTORNEY FEES TO BLOCK anyone from seeing your actual birth records? And considering we're talking about the freakin' President of the United States, why are so many in the media afraid to really cover this story -- especially since there's now something like over 100 civil lawsuits across the nation...with more being added all the time...demanding access to those hospital records, and yet the Obama people KEEP shelling out more and more legal fees to KEEP BLOCKING access to them.

It doesn't take a Brainiac to see something odd is going on, for whatever reason.

Exactly. It's just standard paperwork. You want to be considered as a candidate for president of the US, you submit your documents -- NOT A WEB ADDRESS WITH A PHOTO OF YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT DOESN'T MATCH THE OTHER BIRTH CERTIFICATES FROM HAWAII FROM THAT PERIOD. It's just standard paperwork that every candidate should submit. Yet as CreativeMind says, Obama has blocked every attempt to see the actual papers. Oh, BTW. The company that has verified the accuracy of the web images is Fact Check - funded by the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, of which BO was a board member. Oh well, I'm way past being surprised at all the BS associated with BO.

[transjen]

I know this story has been kicking around since like Oct and i'm kinda left saying What's up, To me why not just put a halt to it and show the birth cert I can't say who's right as there is so much coming from both sides, Anywho i do find it odd that the same people care so much about records never cared about a chicken shit AWOL air national guard member's miltary record can't be found and his is the only one who's record is missing Jennifer

[Bionca]

Wow using WorldNetDaily as a source... guess it's better than the FreeRepublic. Guess this means DailyKaos and EntertainmentTonight are valid sources to. *shrug*

[TracyCoxx]

I'm not an expert at what are valid resources. I needed a source for a story I read about months ago from more legit sources and what was printed in the world net article covered all the bases. I know you see "World Net" and have what you need to call it bunk. But the actual source is BO's school in Indonesia. That photocopy of his school records that lists his citizenship was not made up by World Net. If you're so inclined, and I know you're not, you can google this story and find the same story in whatever your favorite news outlet is.

The fact is, he has spent millions in legal fees to keep his physical birth certificate from being shown. Source? The US Supreme Court.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Wow using WorldNetDaily as a source...guess it's better than the FreeRepublic.
Guess this means DailyKaos and EntertainmentTonight are valid sources to. *shrug*

Well, the Daily Kos WOULD claim they're a valid news source for breaking certain news stories given their diary/blog structure composed by private citizens, people who supposedly have their ears to the ground and thus are giving you an "unfiltered truth." Which is why it's only fair to run the Internet tables and say that everyone ELSE is therefore a valid news source as well, regardless of where they land in the political scheme of things (ie. being on the Left, Middle or Right). In short: welcome to the digital age of the 21st century where anyone with a web site, blog or camcorder and YouTube account can claim to be a valid "reporter" who is breaking a news story.

Besides, while you might not like WorldNetDaily as a "true" news source, keep in mind that the document they are talking about IS a document that actually DOES exist. There's no denying that. So, the bottom line is that while you might not like the messenger, it doesn't discount the story or item they are bringing forth.

Better example still -- Who would've ever predicted that it would take the NATIONAL ENQUIRER of all things...the quintessential supermarket tabloid infamous for its fluff stories...to be the ONE "newspaper" that actually did the job of BEING reporters and following John Edwards, and being the ones to ultimately break the truth about his affair and "love child", which destroyed his run for the Presidency and any future political aspirations?

[TracyCoxx]

Ok, why has Obama's legal people reversed the conviction of Black Panther members who were charged and convicted with voter intimidation? There are videos showing them flashing weapons at voters to intimidate them into voting for Obama.

WHY?!!

[cheersm8]

Hi all, just adding a thought. Nothing to do with Barack Obama, but still relative. I'm a Brit, so I'm asking this, as a Brit. Do you Americans ever feel that you country is to big, both geographiclay, and population wise, to ever have a satisfactory 'please all' president? OK OK, I know that many countries do, and all countries are diverse in the attitudes of their populace, but I do feel that the USA has such varying ideals, beliefs wants and don't wants etc, often town by town differences, not just state by state, that having one President could never be a worthy representative of your nations wishes.
So, whoever the luckless soul is who has the presidential seat is going to be dog wipe to some, and candy to others.

[TracyCoxx]

Cheersm8, good question. It takes a president without the audacity to believe that he is the solution to everyone's problems. He should recognize what you say - that America is large and diverse, and also recognize that Americans are capable of solving many of their own problems.

The US is (supposed to be at least) a government for the people, by the people. It was recognized early on that different regions will have different needs. Thats why there are states, and the states are supposed to be largely self governing. The president should also be well aware of the self correcting nature of capitalism. He should strive to keep the government small and lean. Otherwise, they are inefficiently manging what can be better managed by states who can tailor policies for their specific population.

That said, capitalism isn't perfect. And for that, and other things there are places where US govt can and should step in as a stabilizing force. The US government needs to manage foreign policy, the economy and foreign trade. The president is also commander in chief and is therefore responsible for national security. Other than those things, the national government needs to get out of the way.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Well, the Daily Kos WOULD claim they're a valid news source for breaking certain news stories given their diary/blog structure composed by private citizens, people who supposedly have their ears to the ground and thus are giving you an "unfiltered truth." Which is why it's only fair to run the Internet tables and say that everyone ELSE is therefore a valid news source as well, regardless of where they land in the political scheme of things (ie. being on the Left, Middle or Right). In short: welcome to the digital age of the 21st century where anyone with a web site, blog or camcorder and YouTube account can claim to be a valid "reporter" who is breaking a news story.

Besides, while you might not like WorldNetDaily as a "true" news source, keep in mind that the document they are talking about IS a document that actually DOES exist. There's no denying that. So, the bottom line is that while you might not like the messenger, it doesn't discount the story or item they are bringing forth.

Better example still -- Who would've ever predicted that it would take the NATIONAL ENQUIRER of all things...the quintessential supermarket tabloid infamous for its fluff stories...to be the ONE "newspaper" that actually did the job of BEING reporters and following John Edwards, and being the ones to ultimately break the truth about his affair and "love child", which destroyed his run for the Presidency and any future political aspirations?

1) You are correct, and I think the Internet is doing a horrid thing wrt proper investigative journalism. If opinion can be counted as valid news, and editorializing by the reporter is accepted as fact "news" and "source" become meaningless terms.

2) WND has a deplorable history of fuzzing facts, omitting important bits that don't confirm their intended outcome, fail to cover stories. In short they are only a hair better than the Freepers (the Free Republic).

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm not an expert at what are valid resources. I needed a source for a story I read about months ago from more legit sources and what was printed in the world net article covered all the bases. I know you see "World Net" and have what you need to call it bunk. But the actual source is BO's school in Indonesia. That photocopy of his school records that lists his citizenship was not made up by World Net. If you're so inclined, and I know you're not, you can google this story and find the same story in whatever your favorite news outlet is.

The fact is, he has spent millions in legal fees to keep his physical birth certificate from being shown. Source? The US Supreme Court.

Here you go:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

Snopes has ZERO political aspirations and isn't trying to curry favor with any social element.

[megawatty101]

Has anyone made a picture of what the CiC would look like as a Ladyboy in Chief?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Here you go:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...ertificate.asp

Snopes has ZERO political aspirations and isn't trying to curry favor with any social element.

What's your point? The Snopes article only verifies what I've been saying. Obama has fought in court to keep his original physical birth certificate from being seen. It does say that it has been seen though...

Originally Posted by Snopes

Those who have actually touched and examined the original certificate have verified and documented that it bears all the elements of a valid certificate of live birth.

Where the word 'examined' links to http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html

What authority does factcheck.org have to verify a presidential candidate's legal documents? Why does Obama recognize factcheck's authority while fighting to keep his birth certificate out of the courts?

Perhaps it would be easier to accept fact check's claim of authenticity if both factcheck and Obama's Chigaco Annenberg Challenge were not both funded by the Annenberg Foundation. This is a circumstantial connection, but has Conflict of Interest written all over it. To avoid the appearance of wrong doing Obama should have had his facts checked by an organization with zero ties to him, or even better, simply show it to the courts. Seriously... why not? When his swearing in was flubbed, he redid it the next day. Legally he didn't even have to. But he did it to remove any appearance of foul play. Same thing with the birth certificate. Just show it to the courts to remove any appearance of foul play.

[Bionca]

I really don't know what to say without sounding like I'm trying to be insulting. Obama's mother was a US citizen and she gave birth in Hawaii. That makes him a US citizen.

Indonesian school records ... seriously??

As far as why doesn't he show the records? Well if I was in his position, I wouldn't. As long as the SCotUS, Congress, and the Senate were satisfied with the information presented. Also, one must look at the initial reasons that this was even brought up. I wouldn't dignify those accusation with a response either.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Perhaps it would be easier to accept Factcheck's claim of authenticity if both Factcheck and Obama's Chigaco Annenberg Challenge were not both funded by the Annenberg Foundation. This is a circumstantial connection, but has Conflict of Interest written all over it.

Conflict of Interest doesn't even BEGIN to describe it considering at one point Obama himself was actually the fucking Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge Board -- from whence Factcheck was born. Not to mention, Annenberg has ALSO locked away and blocked all access to records and meeting notes from when he served in that capacity, too!

[transjen]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Conflict of Interest doesn't even BEGIN to describe it considering at one point Obama himself was actually the fucking Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge Board -- from whence Factcheck was born. Not to mention, Annenberg has ALSO locked away and blocked all access to records and meeting notes from when he served in that capacity, too!

You want FN conflict of intrest go back to 2000 and check on a bitch named Harris in FL and a worm named Jeb in FL, Harris was in charge of elections and also ran KING GEORGE's FL election campaign talk about a conflict of intrest Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Bionca

I really don't know what to say without sounding like I'm trying to be insulting.
Obama's mother was a US citizen and she gave birth in Hawaii.
That makes him a US citizen. Indonesian school records... seriously??

Well, the problem is you turned a question into a statement of fact. The issue at hand is the debate over whether or not he actually WAS born in Hawaii or were those records forged after the fact.

And keep another X-Files conspiracy fact in mind. By nature, Presidents are instant worldwide celebrities. EVERYONE wants to say they had a part in his life. And, hell, Obama supposedly has a 70-plus popularity rating, right? So you'd REALLY think that people would want to race forward and say "I was there when it ALL began." And yet mysteriously NOT ONE doctor has come forward and stated he delivered Obama in a Hawaiian hospital...NOT ONE doctor has come forward to say he witnessed the birth...NOT ONE nurse has come forward to say she was in attendance either...and NOT ONE hospital worker has been able to attest to working at a hospital where Obama was born.

Originally Posted by Bionca

As far as why doesn't he show the records? Well if I was in his position, I wouldn't.
Also, one must look at the initial reasons that this was even brought up.
I wouldn't dignify those accusation with a response either.

Why wouldn't you? These days for most job applications you have to produce a state certified birth certificate to prove your legal status to work. You know, I saw a message board where people were debating the Obma birth certificate issue and someone summed it up perfectly...

"If someone legally challenged you on your legal citizenship what would you do.
(A) Produce your vault copy Birth Certificate and quickly end the challenge or...
(B) Hire attorney's to represent you in an attempt to dodge it?

When the DNC challenged Senator McCain on the same issue because his birth was in Panama, he produced his in 2 days and abruptly ended the challenge. Meanwhile Obama has hired no less than THREE high priced and high powered law firms to duke it out in court to keep his birth certificate locked away. And he's spent over a million dollars to keep the fight going, with no sign in sight that he'll give up the battle to keep it locked away.

Seriously, think about that for a minute and then ask yourself the incredibly simple question "what's wrong with this picture?": When the Democratic National Committee thought it could make political hay out of McCain's birth, he responded by immediately producing his original birth certificate AND supplemental hospital records within 48 hours. Boom! Issue settled just like that. And yet in stark contrast, when asked to produce the same kind of paperwork, Obama digs in and proceeds to spend a million fucking dollars (and counting) to legally fight anyone seeking to see his.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to realize something funny is going on...

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

You want FN conflict of intrest go back to 2000 and check on a bitch named Harris in FL and a worm named Jeb in FL, Harris was in charge of elections and also ran KING GEORGE's FL election campaign talk about a conflict of intrest Jennifer

Actually, that's NOT a conflict of interest AT ALL. State officials -- whether elected or appointed -- have EVERY RIGHT to have their own political affiliations. If you're going to say Jeb Bush was a conflict of interest by virtue of being governor at the time, how is that any different from all the Kennedy's that have run for office while other Kennedys hold assorted government positions?

And Katherine Harris simply did her job. Florida state law REQUIRED HER to certify the election results by a selected deadline, which is what she did. And ultimately, if you even want to go there, I have no problem having that fight since I'll be more than happy to talk about Ohio and the Obama election, where the EXACT SAME CONFLICT that you're bitching about occurred, where the woman who was in charge of certifying election results that were in dispute was (1) a lifelong Democrat and (2) an incredibly active Obama supporter and campaigner in her own right, down to having helped with fund raising AND -- more important -- being the person charged with purging the election results of any fake votes (identity theft, etc).

Sorry, Jen, but if you want to go there, THAT door swings both ways...

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

You want FN conflict of intrest go back to 2000 and check on a bitch named Harris in FL and a worm named Jeb in FL, Harris was in charge of elections and also ran KING GEORGE's FL election campaign talk about a conflict of intrest Jennifer

Before FactCheck "verified" BO's birth certificate, if someone asked you who should verify his birth records who would you say should do it? Would FactCheck suddenly and naturally spring to mind? Or some government entity like the court or a congressional committee?

It was Harris's job, as defined by Florida law to rule on which candidate wins Florida based on the election results. If not her, tell me who?

And was she wrong? Which recount showed Gore ahead?

Originally Posted by Bionca

I really don't know what to say without sounding like I'm trying to be insulting. Obama's mother was a US citizen and she gave birth in Hawaii. That makes him a US citizen.

Indonesian school records ... seriously??

It doesn't sound like you're all that familiar with the case his critics are making. I can lead you to the water, but I doubt you'll drink it. If you want to discuss this based on the issues both sides have brought up, then I'll leave it to you to come up to date.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It was Harris's job, as defined by Florida law to rule on which candidate wins Florida based on the election results. If not her, tell me who?

And was she wrong? Which recount showed Gore ahead?

Yes she was wrong but she didn't give a rat's ass she wanted KING GEORGE and did everything to make sure he stole the election even before the results were being recounted she went on TV saying she intends to give FLs votes to KING GEORGE,And after the unsupreme court ruled for the lieing little weasel they did finish the recount and GORE had more votes but it was to late as we all got F With KING GEORGE the biggest desaster to ever hit the US. The truth is the weasel stole the election thanks to his shit brother and a bitch named Harris and 5 GOP unsupreme court judges who put party first and pissed on the US Jennifer

[Sadist]

Just a thought....do you honestly believe that if Obama were not a legal citizen of the U.S., that John McCain would have conceded on election night, or that the Republicans would have ever allowed him to be seated as President? Bush v. Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court, if there was any doubt about his citizenship, trust me, the Republicans would have fought it all the way.

I don't care if you like Obama or not, but lets use some common sense here.

God I hate how stupid this country has become.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Sadist

Just a thought....do you honestly believe that if Obama were not a legal citizen of the U.S., that John McCain would have conceded on election night, or that the Republicans would have ever allowed him to be seated as President? Bush v. Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court, if there was any doubt about his citizenship, trust me, the Republicans would have fought it all the way.

I don't care if you like Obama or not, but lets use some common sense here.
God I hate how stupid this country has become.

Actually, I would argue that it isn't that the country has become "stupid" -- but rather "lazy" when it comes to actually stopping and thinking and following through on things. Certainly today's journalists, for the most part, have become incredibly lazy when it comes to following certain stories through to their full and natural outcome. Now, part of that blame can be placed ON the news organizations themselves -- for example newspapers faced with dwindling revenue sources, so they simply can't afford the research or investigative staffs that they once did. AND I would also blame the advent of "commentary journalism", where reporters are no longer interested in asking the basic questions of "who, what, where, why, and when" and instead are more interested in inserting their own personal beliefs or political leanings into a story so it DOESN'T reach a truthful conclusion, but rather the one they WANT it to reach for their own reasons.

Perfect example of the former, newspapers like the NY Daily News or magazines like Time and Newsweek which have had to cut their staffs drastically. Perfect example of the latter, the same one I noted above -- the fact that it took the fucking National Enquirer to break the John Edwards story, simply because the other papers literally refused to pursue the story because they knew it would upset the Democratic side of things during the campaign season. And that's not me making a baseless accusation. For crying out loud, the friggin' Editor in Chief of the National Enquirer has since been on TV and given interviews where he's specifcally talked about how they actually OFFERED to share the Edwards story and some of their leads, free of charge, with other news outlets to cover all of the bases, and they were literally told "no" by other papers for that very reason -- namely, they didn't want to do anything that could potentially generate bad news coverage for the Democratic side.

So, since you brought it up, I would argue back that common sense is what you seem to be missing here -- which is WHY (as I mentioned before) that there are now over 100 civil lawsuits (and more growing in number with each passing week) over the Obama birth certificate. And why? BECAUSE THE STORY DOESN'T FIT THE PARAMETER OF COMMON SENSE. Again, I'll ask the most BASIC and the most COMMON SENSE question of all: why the hell would ANYONE hire not one...not two...but THREE high powered law firms and then spend OVER A MILLION DOLLARS (and counting) to BLOCK access to your birth certificate?

Seriously, this really is so fucked up that it's incredible, if you are ACTUALLY willing to read the background research on this case. Seriously, it would be one thing if we were talking about a private citizen who was trying to protect his records because along the way he committed a crime and changed his name, so now the certificate would out his real identity or something. I mean, I could understand a story like that -- but even THEN that person would eventually run out of money (and thus the case would implode since the legal fees could no longer be covered) OR the person would just admit what he was trying to cover up OR he would just move on, realizing he could no longer hide the truth.

But we're not talking about a normal, everyday, average citizen here.
We're talking about the friggin' President of the United States.

And, for the record, McCain conceding on election night has nothing to do with this issue AT ALL. As I noted above, McCain produced MORE than enough documentation about his birth and his natural born status along the way, when the DNC tried to dodge the Obama birth certificate issue by pointing the finger at McCain and his birth in Panama. But therein lies the true crock of this -- when the DNC challenged McCain, when they tried the age-old diversion tactic of trying to turn the tables on him, he gladly produced his records. As I said before, BOOM...issue settled. But when the same challenge was made to Obama, he instantly lawyered up.

Seriously, if you can't see that SOMETHING is incredibly fucked up about someone lawyering up to such a massive degree and then spending a million dollars to BLOCK their birth certificate being seen or examined, then common sense really IS DEAD. Again, ask yourself the most common sense question of all. Who the fuck spends a million dollars -- think about that A MILLION DOLLARS -- to HIDE their birth certificate as opposed to simply saying "Oh, you nuts are driving me crazy! HERE! Here it is! Are you happy now?" just to make this story go away once and for all?

After all, wouldn't THAT be the most common sense thing to do?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

And after the unsupreme court ruled for the lieing little weasel they did finish the recount and GORE had more votes but it was to late as we all got F

Actually, that's NOT true at all. A consortium of newspapers DID get together several months after the election and DID stage a recount, just to see once and for all who had actually gotten the most votes in Florida.

The result -- while it was still a semi-close election in the state, Bush's margin of victory over Gore actually INCREASED. So, Bush would have won REGARDLESS of whether or not Katherine Harris had extended the deadlines for recounts (which again, Jen, she was NOT authorized to do by Florida law).

[red727]

hehy guys just wanted to say hello to all

how's everybody doing?

[transjen]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Actually, that's NOT true at all. A consortium of newspapers DID get together several months after the election and DID stage a recount, just to see once and for all who had actually gotten the most votes in Florida.

The result -- while it was still a semi-close election in the state, Bush's margin of victory over Gore actually INCREASED. So, Bush would have won REGARDLESS of whether or not Katherine Harris had extended the deadlines for recounts (which again, Jen, she was NOT authorized to do by Florida law).

WELL EXCUSS ME HAIL BUSH just keep repeteing that lie Rush BUSH did not win it was fixed from the start by his shit brother and bitch Harris, Funny how they never had voting problems in FL till 2000 when the shit f govnors scum bag bother happens to be running for president and that happens to be the year FL's voting machines take a dump yeah rite keep tell your lies that Bush won the truth is he didn't Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

And after the unsupreme court ruled for the lieing little weasel they did finish the recount and GORE had more votes but it was to late as we all got F

You got a source for that?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

HAIL BUSH

Well he was ok, but let's not get carried away.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You got a source for that?

Yes it was the Charlotte SUN TIMES or SUN HAROLD i forget which now but it was a locale paper in SW FL that did the recount Jennifer

[tslust]

Originally Posted by Sadist

Just a thought....do you honestly believe that if Obama were not a legal citizen of the U.S., that John McCain would have conceded on election night, or that the Republicans would have ever allowed him to be seated as President? Bush v. Gore went all the way to the Supreme Court, if there was any doubt about his citizenship, trust me, the Republicans would have fought it all the way.

I don't care if you like Obama or not, but lets use some common sense here.

God I hate how stupid this country has become.

The issue of obama's citizenship was raised by a Democrat lawyer (Phil Berg) from Philadelphia, PA. There is, apparently, some discrepancy between accounts of obama's birthplace. His mother's side of his family say he was born in Honolulu, HA, while his father's family claims that he was born in Kenya. The Philadelphia lawyer requested to see obama's birth certificate to solve the issue over his place of birth. The obama campaign (this started before the election) refused to provide the document. The lawyer filed a suit to obtain the birth certificate. The obama gave him a document, but it could not be recognized as a legal copy of a birth certificate. This case is still an ongoing matter and has yet to be resolved(they keep appealing it up the Judicial ladder).

All that being said; obama is just as much as an American citizen as Clinton, Bush, Limbaugh, McCain, or even Charles Manson. It doesn't matter that obama's father wasn't an American, it doesn't even matter where he was born. His mother was an American, therefore he is an American by blood. The Fourteenth Amendment says so.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Well he was ok, but let's not get carried away.

For all your trying to distance from him earlier I figured your true colors would show.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

And after the unsupreme court ruled for the lieing little weasel they did finish the recount and GORE had more votes but it was to late as we all got F

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You got a source for that?

Originally Posted by transjen

Yes it was the Charlotte SUN TIMES or SUN HAROLD i forget which now but it was a locale paper in SW FL that did the recount Jennifer

Again, a temporary story that was later proven to be wrong. In the heat of things, several local Florida papers -- whose Editorial boards clearly leaned Left -- tried to claim that Gore had more votes in order to keep the issue alive. But then Gore conceded and they had no leg to stand on. But as I pointed out above, AFTER the election was over and AFTER the dust had settled, several national newspapers went back and staged a full recount to settle the issue once and for all. The result? Read for yourself...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...loridamain.htm


Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes - more than triple his official 537-vote margin - if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

USA TODAY, The Miami Herald and the Knight-Ridder newspapers hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine undervote ballots in Florida's 67 counties. The accountants provided a report on what they found on each of the ballots...

The newspapers then applied the accounting firm's findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead...

The newspapers' study took three months to complete and cost more than $500,000. It involved 27 accountants who examined and categorized ballots as they were held up by county election officials.

[desirouspussy]

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana

[transjen]

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana

Forget the claims by Creative Mind, Bush did not win in 2000 he stole the election and was appointed president 5/4 by the unsupreme court and 04 there have been questions about Ohio plus Weasel Bush ran on fear after9/11 claiming only he could protect us from the terrorist Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

I don't really want to get involved in American politics but there is one thing I just dont understand. It seems that many people, including the experts, classify George Bush II as the worst American president ever. I can understand that first time mistake, but how could you people ever elect him for a second term?????

Diana

Try to remember something, Diana: Americans don't see things the same way the rest of the world does. I mean, I know that's a pretty obvious statement, but frankly Europeans and other countries around the world just... don't... get... that... no matter...how many times...we say it. It's funny, but the same way that Europeans or other foreigners look as us and say "Why don't you just do this?", we look back at the rest of you with an incredulous look and say "Why the hell would ANYONE want to do that?"

Bottom line: We're Americans, and we have our own ideals and views of how things should be done.

That said, keep in mind two things. When George Bush ran against John Kerry, America was still feeling the effects of 9/11 on our psyche. We still wanted a President that we felt would keep us safe, and we had already begun the Iraq War and many Americans didn't feel it was wise to change Commander-in-Chiefs in the middle of things. Not to mention, as an opponent for the office, John Kerry did a piss poor job of convincing anyone he was anything but a two-faced liar.

In fact, if you want to know WHY Bush won a second term, here's all you need to know and it plays off that last point. The night that the election was held in 2004, an exti poll was taken. And the two questions that the poll asked was very simple and very insightful and ultimately revealed why Bush won.

The first question was: "Who do you think is more likely to say whatever they need to say in order to get elected?" In other words, who was more likely to be a typical politician that would lie out of both sides of their mouth -- say one thing, one day, to one group of people, on one side of the country, but then say a different thing, the next day, to another group of people, on the other side of the country.

The result: 75% said Kerry would say whatever it took to get elected...but only 25% said Bush.

The poll then asked a second parallel question. It asked "Who do you think is more likely to tell you what they REALLY think -- regardless of whether or not you will agree with them?" In other words, if you ran into Bush or Kerry in a bar or while you were out shopping and said "Look, no bullshit and all kidding aside, just lay it on the line for me. Tell me what you REALLY think about abortion...tell me what you REALLY think about gay marriage...etc, etc, etc."

The result: It literally flipped. 75% felt Bush was more likely to tell you what he REALLY thought, whether you agreed with him or not...while only 25% felt Kerry would tell you what he REALLY felt in his heart.

And lastly, your one statement is a bit deceptive when you say he was the worst president ever and even the "experts" agree with that. That's a very disingenuous statement since you're NOT actually naming any of these so-called "experts" -- and let's be totally honest. So many people who do different things call themselves "experts" with the thinnest of qualifications, thus making their opinions either valueless or just another opinion that's no better than the next person's.

Case in point: back in the fall as the new election was held, 40 prominent Presidential scholars and biographers and researchers were asked to rank all of the Presidents through history, and Bush did NOT land in the last spot -- in fact, he didn't even make the bottom 10. Most agreed that it was too early for history to judge him, especially if the war in Iraq turned around (which it seems to have done) and a democracy (of sorts) was actually established there.

Another example of that: those same scholars noted that for years and years, Dwight Eisenhower was always considered "average" as a Presidentat best, but now looking back with the passage of time...and looking back on his two terms as President and looking at the economy he oversaw, his dealings with foreign matters, etc...he suddenly leaped into the Top 10 and is now regarded of as one of the most successful and best Presidents ever.

[transjen]

Shall we make the lieing weasel Bush a saint now or shall we just make him GOD? Most eveybody hated the weasel GEORGE W BUSH the man never told the truth a day in his life and has never been held accountable a day in his life be it drunk driving drug use not paying taxs on stock options being AWOL from the air national guard lieing about WMDS and the countless other crimes he committed , plus he F up the econemy big time and ran up record debts, But the weasel did give hope to the retarted by showing even a retart can be president if he has family in high enough places to steel an election Jennifer