Barack Obama

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.