Barack Obama

[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 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?

[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.

[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).

[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

HAIL BUSH

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

[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?

[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

[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.