http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/guest-column-will-bin-laden-strike.html

Read this article, then vote.

"Kill whitey". That's rich!

Bin Laden would be a fool to do anything.
If there is a major terrorist attack on the US in the last few days of the campaign, it would probably swing the election for McCain who would be the worst person to be in the White House from Bin Laden's perspective.
Obama will at least try to get the US out of Afganistan and Iraq if he is elected. This would be a good thing from Bin Laden's perspective.

This is probably why Bin Laden will do somthing.
Nobody ever claimed he was a genius.

I believe the author of the piece is promoting the idea that Bin Laden wants war with the US and will thus do something before the election.

I think everybody pretty much agrees that McCain is more likely to protect America than Obama. Just most voters have such a short term memory and no foresight (sp?) to think past the next beer.

Um, I may be in minority, but I think Bin Laden likes Bush's foreign policy. He got fresh recruits and extra helping of hatred due to our butting in the Middle East. In fact, our intervention over there has made us less safe. So I think Bin Laden would actually like having McCain so he can continue the jihad.

Not that I expect Obama to be any better anyhow- he's just as much as interventionist as McCain is, talked about bombing Pakistan and playing world policeman.

Let me put it this way. The only way we can win the War on Terror is to give up our empire, close up all bases all over the world and call them home.

Jefferson said it best: Free trade with everyone, estranging alliances with none.

Not a very popular notion. Pat Buchanan lost running on the same premise in 2000.

Not a very popular notion. Pat Buchanan lost running on the same premise in 2000.

Indeed. Unfortunately, popularity has no say with regards to the correctness of notion.

So would you support Buchanan against McCain or Obama if all 3 were running?

I think everybody pretty much agrees that McCain is more likely to protect America than Obama. Just most voters have such a short term memory and no foresight (sp?) to think past the next beer.
Why, what has he done in the past to protect America?:confused:

Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/al-qaeda-supporters-endor_n_136779.html

I'm still voting maybe.

the republicans really must be getting worried they are going to lose if they're playing this card.

I guess Joe the Jihadist is for McCain as well.

I was under the impression that the Huffington Post was liberal. Not sure why you would think Republicans are doing this.

Am I wrong?

Wasn't it Joe Biden that played this card a few days ago?

Well the spectre of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is likely to push voters towards the republicans so when out of no where this stuff about Al-Qaeda and bin Laden appears then I tend to think it's the republicans making it up to try and get their candidate a few more votes.

Also looks like the republicans are getting ready to fix the elections again, as they did for Bush when he lost in 2000, witht the warnings about how there are likely to be problems. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7683677.stm)

I'm so confused as how you could confuse a post by Alisa, a self-confirmed liberal, from the Huffington Post, a liberal leaning publication, with an attempt by any Republican or Republican candidate making something up to try to get a few votes. It seems you're seeing what you want to see.

Well the spectre of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is likely to push voters towards the republicans so when out of no where this stuff about Al-Qaeda and bin Laden appears then I tend to think it's the republicans making it up to try and get their candidate a few more votes.

Also looks like the republicans are getting ready to fix the elections again, as they did for Bush when he lost in 2000, witht the warnings about how there are likely to be problems. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7683677.stm)

I just hope they can cause enough problems to offset all the voter fraud.:rolleyes:

I just hope they can cause enough problems to offset all the voter fraud.:rolleyes:

You mean the fraud that John McCain's associates have perpetrated? Where the voter registration forms of people who marked democrat were shredded and only the republican forms were actually turned in? It's hard to see how this would offset that - it only seems to be ADDING to the fraud.

I just hope they can cause enough problems to offset all the voter fraud.:rolleyes:

lol....

Voter registration fraud, fraudelent voting, wars, a running mate that promises we are gonna be in deep doo-doo from the world at large when his candidate is elected president, the candidate's party that helped to sink the American economy, everything you judge a person's character on including experience, core beliefs, philosophies learned from marxists and communists, associations with terrorists are all just "distractions" and not the issue.

If these are distractions and not the issue, I am still trying to figure out what the issue is except rhetoric.

-dk

Not that I expect Obama to be any better anyhow- he's just as much as interventionist as McCain is, talked about bombing Pakistan and playing world policeman. Since Obama is a politician this may simply be empty rhetoric as a means of pandering to the American people to give the appearance of toughness. Unfortunately only time will tell and we don't have a truth meter to consult before the election.

The only way we can win the War on Terror is to give up our empire, close up all bases all over the world and call them home. There is a degree of truth in that. We can not win by "holding" territory. We are also spending ourselves into oblivion with military expansion. (I wonder if the Russians are laughing at us now!) I would favor an Israeli style approach, quietly hunt them down.

If something is news worthy it will be reported. if McCain was to say something really stupid, such as a racist comment, it would be reported in conservative publications as well as liberal publications. So my point here is just because something is reported in a liberal publication doesn't mean it wasn't made up by a neocon.

My accusation of the republicans making it up was semi tongue in cheek anyway as was the accusation they are getting ready to fix the election (thought you didnt deny that one ;)). It was more a musing on why this sort of story would appear at this time, i.e. a story that will raise peoples concerns about terrorism 2 weeks from an election where the republican candidate is trailing in the polls.

I'm most likely wrong but nothing wrong with a conspiracy theory about desperate republicans :)

Also looks like the republicans are getting ready to fix the elections again, as they did for Bush when he lost in 2000, witht the warnings about how there are likely to be problems. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7683677.stm)

Again, a case of you inserting what you want to see into an argument and making it appear as though you've put in a link to support your hypothesis.

There is nothing in the article you linked to indicate any indication of voter fraud by either side, though both sides are being cautious, with good reason.

Acorn has had some irregularities in their new voter registrations, registering some voters multiple times (I saw an interview with a young man who said Acorn registered him over 70 times), registering cartoon characters and sports teams, etc. Acorn is not affiliated with the Republican party and is more aligned with Democrat Obama.

With regards to the 2000 election: the newspapers in Florida hired a liberal institution (I think it was the University of Chicago) to go into Florida and recount every ballot from the 2000 presidential election by hand. The results were a surprising tilt of additional votes towards George W. Bush, away from Al Gore.

I have been watching your technical posts quite a while and thought you might be a quite helpful person. I'm wondering now if you show so little care in your technical posts as you do in this case.

lol....

Voter registration fraud, fraudelent voting, wars, a running mate that promises we are gonna be in deep doo-doo from the world at large when his candidate is elected president, the candidate's party that helped to sink the American economy, everything you judge a person's character on including experience, core beliefs, philosophies learned from marxists and communists, associations with terrorists are all just "distractions" and not the issue.

If these are distractions and not the issue, I am still trying to figure out what the issue is except rhetoric.

-dk

That explains why you are so confused about which candidate to support. I will list the actual issues for you, although I doubt it will make any difference to your distraction addled brain:

1. The economy: Reckless spending on wars and bailouts has lead to a 10 trillion dollar deficit, a weakened U.S. dollar and a faltering economy with rising unemployment and inflation and record forclosures. What will the next president do to help us recover?

2. The wars: An arrogant executive branch willfully decieved the American people into starting a war in Iraq that should never have been started, while at the same time failing to address actual security concerns at home as well as in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This has lead to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, while at the same time strengthening Al Qaeda and Iran. What will the next president do to address the very real security threats that exist? How will the next president extricate us from an unwinnable war? How will the next president repair diplomatic relations with other countries around the world so that we don't end up in even more wars?

3. Health care: Almost 50 million Americans have no health insurance, and another 100 million are underinsured, meaning that they face unaffordable bills should they need to use their insurance. Over a million Americans are forced into bankruptcy every year because of their medical bills. In addition, the U.S. spends a greater percentage of GDP on health care than other industrialized countries, up to twice as much in some cases. What will the next president do to reform the health care system so that all working families have access to affordable medical care?

4. Education: The U.S. K-12 educational system ranks very low in international comparisons. There are many reasons for this including outdated instructional methods and curriculum, inefficient funding, unreasonable testing demands, inconsistent standards, and lack of early childhood education. The U.S. college system is very good, but the price of a college education is rising much faster than inflation, and is unaffordable for many otherwise qualified students. What will the next president do to address the failing k-12 system, and to make college more affordable?

5. Taxes: Over the last 8 years, the tax burden has been shifted increasingly to the middle class. What will the next president do to distribute the tax burden more equitably?


Like I said, you don't appear to care about any real issues, but it makes me feel better to write them down anyway.

Acorn has had some irregularities in their new voter registrations, registering some voters multiple times (I saw an interview with a young man who said Acorn registered him over 70 times), registering cartoon characters and sports teams, etc. Acorn is not affiliated with the Republican party and is more aligned with Democrat Obama.



George, you need to understand something: the laws that govern community voter registration drives specifically say that you MUST turn in every single voter registration form you receive. Even if you think it is fake. In fact, the reason that so many Acorn voter registration forms are being questioned is that Acorn itself flagged the forms as suspicious. The reason the law is written this way is so that the decision about whether a given form is legitimate or not is left up to the professionals at the county clerk's office. Acorn followed the law. The fact that some individuals who worked for Acorn turned in fake forms in order to make more money is bad, but it doesn't actually lead to fraud because the county clerk has to verify the registrations BEFORE mickey mouse is actually allowed to vote.

In contrast, John McCain's associates actually violated the law, by NOT turning in every registration form they received. They specifically did NOT turn in forms received from democrats. Now THAT is fraud. What Acorn did was follow the law.

Like I said, you don't appear to care about any real issues, but it makes me feel better to write them down anyway.

I care about the 'real' issues. But I don't want the real issues taken care of by someone who has a long association with extreme liberal peoples including marxists and communists. That's not a someone that will bring a solution that I will like. It didn't work for the long haul in other countries so why are we going to try it here?

I don't want issues taken care of by someone with very little clout with an extreme Congress that may have a filibuster override and will push his inexperienced rear around. He will be a pawn to whatever they want. The same Congress that has been playing with the economy and the taxes. I don't think he will get the job done, he has no reform experience and will definitely not reform members of his own party. I think it will get worse.

To me that's the real issue that will define all other issues and definitely not a distraction.

-dK

Like I said, you don't care about the real issues. If you want to talk about associations, lets talk about associations:
-John McCain has HIRED a man (Timmons) who was directly involved in the oil for food scandal, who worked with lobbyists that were secretly working for Sadam Hussein.
-John McCain's campain manager (Davis) is still getting 15k per month from FM.
-John McCain was intimately involved in the Keating 5 scandal, and continues his association with Keating TODAY.
-Sarah Palin and her husband have been intimately involved with the Alaskan seccessionist movement. Is that "pro-America"?

Agree to all the above.

It's not like Obama doesn't have lobbyists working for him. What I read was that Davis was not getting any money. I also think there was an investigation into the SNL stuff and the results are what they are.

Per the seccessionists, I am down with that. The federal government SHOULD BE kept in check. We do not have a method of doing that since everyone in the federal government has dug in their heels and think its a right to be elected. Thats why the next election starts the day after the current one is completed.

The civil war isn't quite over. Evey year states in the south talk about seceding. I think the federal goverment has too much power. How do you keep it in check when their reach is too much?

-dk

Agree to all the above.

It's not like Obama doesn't have lobbyists working for him. What I read was that Davis was not getting any money. I also think there was an investigation into the SNL stuff and the results are what they are.

Per the seccessionists, I am down with that. The federal government SHOULD BE kept in check. We do not have a method of doing that since everyone in the federal government has dug in their heels and think its a right to be elected. Thats why the next election starts the day after the current one is completed.

The civil war isn't quite over. Evey year states in the south talk about seceding. I think the federal goverment has too much power. How do you keep it in check when their reach is too much?

-dk


So, the fact that Obama was appointed to a board along with Bill Ayres, a board that was funded by one of McCain's donors, really bothers you. But the fact that McCain hired Timmons, a man who basically worked on Sadam Hussein's behalf, to be the chief of his transition team, that doesn't bother you. Just want to make sure I am getting this correctly.

The fact that Obama attended a Christian church where the reverend made some very tough, yet true statements about America and it's policies, that makes him anti-American. But the fact that Sarah Palin thinks the state that she is the governer of should SECEDE from the rest of the United States, that isn't anti-American. Just want to be clear about the standard.

As I've said before - and I believe it more every day -

McCain wins, there will be huge riots in big cities all over the US.

Obama wins, the secessionist movement will become very popular
and states will start to leave the union.

Either way, "It's the end of the world as we know it".

This election is just a Pick Your Poison.

As I've said before - and I believe it more every day -

McCain wins, there will be huge riots in big cities all over the US.

Obama wins, the secessionist movement will become very popular
and states will start to leave the union.

Either way, "It's the end of the world as we know it".

This election is just a Pick Your Poison.


Let's meet back here on October 22, 2009 and evaluate the accuracy of your predictions.

As I've said before - and I believe it more every day -

McCain wins, there will be huge riots in big cities all over the US.

Obama wins, the secessionist movement will become very popular
and states will start to leave the union.

.
Ah good, you'll go back to fighting each other and not keep invading other countries, ah peace returns to the world.......

Let's meet back here on October 22, 2009 and evaluate the accuracy of your predictions.

heh... If I haven't gone too far "off the grid", I'll be here.:D

So, the fact that Obama was appointed to a board along with Bill Ayres, a board that was funded by one of McCain's donors, really bothers you.

No, it doesn't bother me because one of McCain's donors is not running for President. Obama who has an association with Ayers, is running for President. Therein lies the distraction to the issue of Obama's associations and his general philosophy. Good try, but your jedi mind tricks on work on the feeble minded. I've questions on said appointment ....
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/10/where-are-we-now-update-on-ayersobama.html

If you applied for a federal job and this was found in your background check, you would be prohibited from federal employment. But this is overlooked because they are running for the highest office in the land. To the liberals, is this fair?

But the fact that McCain hired Timmons, a man who basically worked on Sadam Hussein's behalf, to be the chief of his transition team, that doesn't bother you. Just want to make sure I am getting this correctly.

Both sides have hired lobbyists aplenty. Since this news broke prior to the last debate, if it was a compelling issue, wouldn't Obama have brought it up during the debate? He didn't therefore if Obama/Axelrod doesn't consider there is fire there, then it must be a buncha smoke. So no, it doesn't bother me.

The fact that Obama attended a Christian church where the reverend made some very tough, yet true statements about America and it's policies, that makes him anti-American. But the fact that Sarah Palin thinks the state that she is the governer of should SECEDE from the rest of the United States, that isn't anti-American. Just want to be clear about the standard.

That's right. There is no proof that Sarah Palin did/did not registered for said party in question. Again, a distraction. Make an accusation without any data source which is what CNN, the Times and everyone is very fond of doing. Either don't issue one or issue the apology on page 33 and bury it in advertisements with 4 point font. It doesn't matter, you did what damage you set out to do without apology.

The Alaskan Independence Party is summed by the following: "The AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives."

Key-word is less government. Again, there are Southern states that still talk about seceding because of the infringement on State's rights. That in itself, is patriotic - to keep the best country tied to it's basic principles that made it so great. One should always question the government, but blowing up the government because you didn't keep an eye on them or are singular in thought is not utilitarian and considered radical. The United States was formed in such a manner to prevent oppressive governments; hence the name 'United States' not 'One Government'. It's a republic and should be kept that way.

The difference to me is the Wright was/is trying to incite riots. His rhetoric is full of hate speech. The AIP, like other states, use clear cut points that note over-extending of the federal government and are trying to keep the federal side from overextending its authority and let each state govern themselves.

In my opinion, Wright preaches from a pulpit that is full of minority people, he preaches what they want to hear and takes their offering plate but yet lives in a two- or three-milion dollar home in a white suberb, who has the double-standard?

-dK

So someone who supports McCain actually HIRED Ayres to be on that board AND gave him 50 million dollars. Do you think they would have done that if they thought Ayres was a problem? Meanwhile, you have a problem with Obama's association with Ayres, even though it was coincidental and not by design? Why? What exactly do you think it says about Obama that he served on a board with Ayres? Do you think it says he is a terrorist or what? Come out with it already! And if that is what it said about Obama, then what does it say about Mrs. Annenberg who gave him the 50 mil?

As far as the AIP, their motto is "Alaska First -- Alaska Always.", and they "challenge the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law."
I thought McCain was running on "Country First"?
Sarah Palin may not be an official member, but her husband was, and she has attended their conventions.

Obama doesn't bring up McCain's associations because he actually wants to talk about REAL issues in the debates, unlike McCain who has nothing to run on except smears. I am not even saying it is necessarily an important issue, because honestly, I don't care that much. THe point is, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. McCain has far worse associates in his record than Obama does in his, and if you want to play that game, McCain loses.

chergh, I like your signature link.

McCain has far worse associates in his record than Obama does in his, and if you want to play that game, McCain loses.

I highly doubt that but not going to spend my energy in this game. Go ahead and post what you want without substitive proof (i.e., from sites or news sources that don't quote the fact or source and/or only glean a clip that suits thier purpose) or any proof at all and try to create some false truth based on partial truths.

I don't care what is said or done. Here is my final take ...

Beginning in the primary, there has been different standards for Obama than anyone running against him during it or after it. In my opinion, this is a red flag because I do not swing full liberal and the media does. Why they do it? I don't know, perhaps for ratings, perhaps because they are socialists. They create business through fear and consumption. What I do know is that if the media says one thing, the better option is probably the other.

-dK

I highly doubt that but not going to spend my energy in this game. Go ahead and post what you want without substitive proof (i.e., from sites or news sources that don't quote the fact or source and/or only glean a clip that suits thier purpose) or any proof at all and try to create some false truth based on partial truths.

I don't care what is said or done. Here is my final take ...

Beginning in the primary, there has been different standards for Obama than anyone running against him during it or after it. In my opinion, this is a red flag because I do not swing full liberal and the media does. Why they do it? I don't know, perhaps for ratings, perhaps because they are socialists. They create business through fear and consumption. What I do know is that if the media says one thing, the better option is probably the other.

-dK

You don't accept any proof I give you, so go find your own. You tell ME:
Who is William Timmons and what role does he play in McCain's campaign?
Who is George Liddy and what role does he play in McCain's campaign?
Who is Charles Keating and what association does he have with John McCain?

If you refuse to investigate these associations, then you have no right to cast aspersions on Obama for his associations.

I am aware that Obama spent years listening to Rev Wright. I happen to agree with everything that Wright said in the clips that have been played incessantly on tv.

I am aware that Obama has an association with Bill Ayres. Do I agree with what Bill Ayres did? No. But Obama didn't hire Ayres. He is not a close friend or advisor. I am not going to judge someone on someone else that they are only marginally associated with.

Last response ....

Yes, I will do my own research but I am not going to share it because there is no 'discussion' when you are involved. Especially by claiming you are an 'unaffiliated' voter but yet went to Democratic parties to spank each other with a plank. You even attended the Democratic convention party love-fest gaggle but yet you claim unaffiliaation. You claim liberalism but yet hold 'discussions' with a closed mind. In those respects, I will not repudiate anything you feel free to make up and post from leftist think-tanks that are funded by rich leftists and claim non-partisanship (aka, your 'proof').

Truthfully, I think it ironic that liberals fully expect everyone else to be accountable for their past actions and associations, but perform a double standard when it comes to holding themselves to the same level of accountability.

This feeling is even more pervasive when Obama has repeated a string of lies about his association and changes his platform to whatever the latest focus group says he should do to get votes.

Case in point. At first he didn't know Ayers, then he was some guy in the neighborhood, then he served on a board with him and never hung out with him .... Same for the Wright and Rezko, etc ... How many lies are you gonna swallow? He has stated lie after lie to minimize his ties until a new truth is put into the spotlight?

Based on this and the fact is is conjectured with strong evidence that he didn't write his first book (which he claims), how many more outright lies or 'soft' lies that cover the latest truth is everyone willing to accept?

This is why I won't vote for someone I don't know. He lies too much about stuff he shouldn't have to lie about, he should be lying about more important stuff. ;)

-dK

to keep the best country tied to it's basic principles that made it so great. -dK
Where's the proof to back up this statement?

Where's the proof to back up this statement?

Since it saved you from typing in German.

-dk

Last response ....

Yes, I will do my own research but I am not going to share it because there is no 'discussion' when you are involved. Especially by claiming you are an 'unaffiliated' voter but yet went to Democratic parties to spank each other with a plank. You even attended the Democratic convention party love-fest gaggle but yet you claim unaffiliaation. You claim liberalism but yet hold 'discussions' with a closed mind. In those respects, I will not repudiate anything you feel free to make up and post from leftist think-tanks that are funded by rich leftists and claim non-partisanship (aka, your 'proof').

Truthfully, I think it ironic that liberals fully expect everyone else to be accountable for their past actions and associations, but perform a double standard when it comes to holding themselves to the same level of accountability.

This feeling is even more pervasive when Obama has repeated a string of lies about his association and changes his platform to whatever the latest focus group says he should do to get votes.

Case in point. At first he didn't know Ayers, then he was some guy in the neighborhood, then he served on a board with him and never hung out with him .... Same for the Wright and Rezko, etc ... How many lies are you gonna swallow? He has stated lie after lie to minimize his ties until a new truth is put into the spotlight?

Based on this and the fact is is conjectured with strong evidence that he didn't write his first book (which he claims), how many more outright lies or 'soft' lies that cover the latest truth is everyone willing to except?

This is why I won't vote for someone I don't know. He lies too much about stuff he shouldn't have to lie about, he should be lying about more important stuff. ;)

-dK


You keep whining about Ayres, but you still haven't answered my question. What exactly concerns you about his association with Ayres? Do you think that because he sat next to Ayres at a board meeting, he has been infected with anti-American sentiment by osmosis, and he is now going off to bomb the pentagon, or what? I just don't get the point.

I attempted to stear this conversation towards real issues, but instead, you would rather argue about who knew who when, and who knows someone worse than the other guy. WHO CARES! I certainly don't, but since you are so obsessed with associations, I hope you really do that research you are talking about.

Finally, for your information, liberals and democrats are not one and the same, just as republicans and conservatives are not the same. I really don't get why my lack of party affiliation bothers you. But by all means, continue to complain about completely meaningless "issues".

.

I have been watching your technical posts quite a while and thought you might be a quite helpful person. I'm wondering now if you show so little care in your technical posts as you do in this case.George, I think you should withdraw that insinuation.

Since it saved you from typing in German.

-dk
Not that crap again, I know it's not taught in your schools over there but look up The Battle of Britain and then tell me where the Yanks were when we defeated the Krauts:rolleyes:

Not that crap again, I know it's not taught in your schools over there but look up The Battle of Britain and then tell me where the Yanks were when we defeated the Krauts:rolleyes:

Have read before and agreed. The hypothesized question would be (and will never be answered), is once Germany took the mainland, dug in and regrouped, how long would the UK have held out?

Aside from that it seems that you guys have another invasion to worry about switching over to sharia.

-dK

Have read before and agreed. The hypothesized question would be (and will never be answered), is once Germany took the mainland, dug in and regrouped, how long would the UK have held out?

-dK
They never got that far and couldn't, if the RAF hadn't beaten them off the vastly superior RoyalNavy would have, end of story

Aside from that it seems that you guys have another invasion to worry about switching over to sharia.


Evidence?

Since I track different news sources and read alot of the BBC I have been reading articles from time to time talking to this effect.

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3337

Here is a story I pulled at random.

-dK

EDIT: I should edit and say that the conservative blogs I've glanced over in the past seem pretty upset at the liberals in the government by allowing the country to pander to foreigners in this extent.

Since I track different news sources and read alot of the BBC I have been reading articles from time to time talking to this effect.

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3337

Here is a story I pulled at random.

-dK

EDIT: I should edit and say that the conservative blogs I've glanced over in the past seem pretty upset at the liberals in the government by allowing the country to pander to foreigners in this extent.

That's a link to an extreme right wing party's views that the majority of British people treat with the same contempt as that they held for Nazis, don't post their narrow minded racist crap here as testament to your own views

That's a link to an extreme right wing party's views that the majority of British people treat with the same contempt as that they held for Nazis, don't post their narrow minded racist crap here as testament to your own views

Sorry for offending ... but that isn't my view at all. I am obviously not as familiar with the local politics there as anyone who participates in them. There was just tons and tons of hits remarking about Sharia law being adopted in England. I did not realize that the adoption of the law was untrue.

-dK

Since I track different news sources and read alot of the BBC I have been reading articles from time to time talking to this effect.

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3337

Here is a story I pulled at random.

-dK

EDIT: I should edit and say that the conservative blogs I've glanced over in the past seem pretty upset at the liberals in the government by allowing the country to pander to foreigners in this extent.
As you're outside the UK, you may not realise that the people responsible for this 'news' are the same ones that also come out nonsense like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#Anti-semitism_and_Holocaust_denial
Parts of it may well be true, but to say they've got an agenda is an understatement.

As you're outside the UK, you may not realise that the people responsible for this 'news' are the same ones that also come out nonsense like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#Anti-semitism_and_Holocaust_denial
Parts of it may well be true, but to say they've got an agenda is an understatement.

I see. Hmmm. Then I shall write to papers here and request they investigate fully because some of those same stories about the adoption of the law in England are being ran over here.

-dK

As you're outside the UK, you may not realise that the people responsible for this 'news' are the same ones that also come out nonsense like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#Anti-semitism_and_Holocaust_denial
Parts of it may well be true, but to say they've got an agenda is an understatement.
The nonsense posted that a British court released suspects of a major crime, any crime for that matter, to some other kangaroo court is so farcical it beggars belief

I see. Hmmm. Then I shall write to papers here and request they investigate fully because some of those same stories about the adoption of the law in England are being ran over here.

-dK
Apart from a defunct idiot in a church, there's no major political party in this country with any such plan in their agenda

The nonsense posted that a British court released suspects of a major crime, any crime for that matter, to some other kangaroo court is so farcical it beggars belief
To be fair, if you're thousands of miles away and your local papers are also saying it, I can understand how you could be taken in. Particularly as those f*ckwits in the BNP can appear quite convincing until you see what they're up to.

I understand the unemployment rate is going back up, back home? If I remember right, during the high unemplyment in the '80s, the NF (as was) had a surge in membership. Maybe the BNP are going for the same tack: "Coming over here, stealing our jobs", etc.

I try to use the Reagan adage .. trust but verify. I don't trust the government and I don't trust the press.

I guarded my words and hid a question by slinging "it seems" out there - I wasn't sure if true or not. If you read enough stories from different sites regarding the US, you can usually cross-index them to each other to get an idea of the real story instead of what that particular side wants to present. All the stories here about elsewhere are not biased but reprinted. Hehe, I appreciate the corrective advice.

It is on the background radar for me, because if it could happen there - then it something like that could happen here.

-dK

This is hearsay but I believe I heard from a credible friend that the terrorists have come out in support of McCain.

This is not something I can cite, this is note something I have looked into, this is something I was told. I really wouldn't put any stock into it until a video came out or a news source broke it.

IIRC the endorsement was posted on Al-Hesbah, but I neither read nor speak arabic so I do not know.

Since we seem to be making accusations without any substantive data, I heard exactly the opposite on the radio this evening. I did try to go out to the news sites and find a reference but could not.

The story I heard on the radio was that Hezbolla has come out in support of Barack H. Obama. Allegedly, their logic was that McCain does not support Hezbolla and the nation of Palestine and does support Israel.

Of course, my story is just as useless as yours. Neither really deserve an honorable mention but I couldn't let it go unanswered.

Since we seem to be making accusations without any substantive data, I heard exactly the opposite on the radio this evening. I did try to go out to the news sites and find a reference but could not.

The story I heard on the radio was that Hezbolla has come out in support of Barack H. Obama. Allegedly, their logic was that McCain does not support Hezbolla and the nation of Palestine and does support Israel.

Of course, my story is just as useless as yours. Neither really deserve an honorable mention but I couldn't let it go unanswered.

Actually, Hezbollah originally endorsed Obama, like a year ago, but then they rescinded his approval when he gave a speech about supporting Israel, and they really don't like him now that he picked Biden, who is like the biggest zionist ever, to be on the ticket.

That's good to know. I wouldn't read anything into anything Hezbollah says. They are murderers and terrorists and would only take a position to stir things up. The fact is, either candidate is good for them...they'll just play to that person's weaknesses.

I understand the unemployment rate is going back up, back home? If I remember right, during the high unemplyment in the '80s, the NF (as was) had a surge in membership. Maybe the BNP are going for the same tack: "Coming over here, stealing our jobs", etc.
Well yes the far right here ie the current government, are now saying the same thing. After allowing mass unregulated immigration telling us that we need them for new jobs etc, it's now turned turtle and decided that there are too many here.:rolleyes:

Well yes the far right here ie the current government, are now saying the same thing. After allowing mass unregulated immigration telling us that we need them for new jobs etc, it's now turned turtle and decided that there are too many here.:rolleyes:
Swings and roundabouts, eh?
The potential recession may bad for most people, but if you're a racist headcase there's a silver lining after all.

Swings and roundabouts, eh?
The potential recession may bad for most people, but if you're a racist headcase there's a silver lining after all.
My only objection is that we are already an overcrowded island, restrictions should have been in force for that reason. I can't imagine having to live in a high rise densly populated inner city flat

My only objection is that we are already an overcrowded island, restrictions should have been in force for that reason. I can't imagine having to live in a high rise densly populated inner city flat
Agree totally. There should have been a hell of a lot more thought given to who was let in in the first place. It does seem a tad unfair, however, to kick people out at this stage.

No, it doesn't bother me because one of McCain's donors is not running for President. Obama who has an association with Ayers, is running for President. Therein lies the distraction to the issue of Obama's associations and his general philosophy. Good try, but your jedi mind tricks on work on the feeble minded. I've questions on said appointment ....
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/10/where-are-we-now-update-on-ayersobama.html

If you applied for a federal job and this was found in your background check, you would be prohibited from federal employment. But this is overlooked because they are running for the highest office in the land. To the liberals, is this fair?

There is a lot of stuff in here so I am going to go slower to make sure I touch on what I can. .

Bill Ayers - Everyone paying attention has heard his name by now even if you weren't alive during the time the controversy focuses on. Of the bombings he is responsible for he is quoted as saying as he doesn't regret it and feels he didn't do enough. He is also quoted as saying that quote is distorted.

He has also stated in interviews that he does not consider the Weather Underground members to be terrorists. Unfortunately, the last I checked the definition of the word is the use or threat of violence to persuade or coerce the government.

It doesn't matter what you want to believe about how much he and Barack Obama are involved. Whether it's a blind eye or you think Obama is just as responsible (He was 7? 8?)

You are wrong, however. Obama would not be disqualified from the FBI or CIA. Much in the way you sitting in a bar and listening to the people next to you plotting to kill someone, that you would not be guilty of anything.

I understand what the news says, and it's inevitable that people are going to listen to it without checking facts.

You are wrong, however. Obama would not be disqualified from the FBI or CIA. Much in the way you sitting in a bar and listening to the people next to you plotting to kill someone, that you would not be guilty of anything.

I understand what the news says, and it's inevitable that people are going to listen to it without checking facts.

Then we agree to disagree. I would first submit that his pattern of past associations would disqualify him and he would never see an interview. Supposed that he was granted an interview ...

In my opinion, based on how I have observed Obama to either change his association based on the most recent uncovered truth, Obama would (a) never pass, or, (b) never sit for the polygraph if he had prior knowledge that it would go past the questionnaire and into the background check about his past associations.

-dK

Then we agree to disagree. I would first submit that his pattern of past associations would disqualify him and he would never see an interview. Supposed that he was granted an interview ...

In my opinion, based on how I have observed Obama to either change his association based on the most recent uncovered truth, Obama would (a) never pass, or, (b) never sit for the polygraph if he had prior knowledge that it would go past the questionnaire and into the background check about his past associations.

-dK

Do you really think our CIA is so imcompetent that they would let a TERRORIST run for PRESIDENT? Really? Because that is exactly what you are saying. Even though the CIA is protecting him. Even though McCain himself has admitted that Obama is a good christian family man. Even though the majority of the American people and the rest of the people in the world want him to be the next president. Even though he graduated from Harvard Law School and turned down a high paying wall street job to work as a community organizer in Chicago helping poor people. Even though he has a distinguished record in the state senate and the senate. But you know better. In your almighty esteemed professional opinion Obama is *really* a terrorist. The CIA doesn't know what they are talking about. Right? :rolleyes:

dk, your obsession with what Obama *might* be hiding from not releasing this that or the other thing would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. Do you really think there is something horrible in his Harvard Law School records? Like what? He was the head of the Harvard Law Review, do you think they give that honor to problem students? We already know that McCain graduated almost at the bottom of his class, but that doesn't bother you.

You obsess over Obama's associations with Wright, but Sarah Palin's association with witch doctors and extreme pentacostal religion and the Wasilla Assembly of God doesn't concern you. You think there is something terribly wrong with Obama's association with Bill Ayres, but you don't care that McCain is associated with PNAC and has hired people that are arguably more anti-American than Ayres is.

Give me a break.

Yes. As far as I can tell, McCain has been transparent when questioned on these topics, if at a minimum, far more transparent than Obama has been.

From this perspective, at least I know which devil I will vote to put into office - not knowing is scarier in my opinion. I am sure you realize that it is rumored that Obama was registered as a foreign student at Harvard. I am also sure you know that it is rumored there are questions about how his education was paid for and by who.

I mean, c'mon, you have articles like this going around out there ...
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/12/%E2%80%9Cbarack-guilty-by-association%E2%80%9D-reader-post/
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-paid-for-obamas-harvard-law.html

All Obama has to do is be a little more transparent, release his records to put the matters at rest. Why doesn't he? Is it because the rumors are true? What has he to hide that he can't share? What will he hide once he is in office?

-dK

Yes. As far as I can tell, McCain has been transparent when questioned on these topics, -dK
I thought he was brainwashed by the communists?:confused:

It disgusts me to see this pig standing on "OUR" flag. If he can't respect it just leave it alone, don't throw it down and stand on it.

This is the kind of friend Obama has I don't want him for my friend!!

http://freeuploadphoto.com/download.php?img=550

I thought he was brainwashed by the communists?:confused:

Well .. I will let you choose ... ;)

1) That is what you get for thinking when you don't do it every often.

2) That is what you get for letting the government do you thinking for you when you sign your rights over to them.

-dK

Have you seen this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7692731.stm).

Yes. As far as I can tell, McCain has been transparent when questioned on these topics, if at a minimum, far more transparent than Obama has been.

From this perspective, at least I know which devil I will vote to put into office - not knowing is scarier in my opinion. I am sure you realize that it is rumored that Obama was registered as a foreign student at Harvard. I am also sure you know that it is rumored there are questions about how his education was paid for and by who.

I mean, c'mon, you have articles like this going around out there ...
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/12/%E2%80%9Cbarack-guilty-by-association%E2%80%9D-reader-post/
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-paid-for-obamas-harvard-law.html

All Obama has to do is be a little more transparent, release his records to put the matters at rest. Why doesn't he? Is it because the rumors are true? What has he to hide that he can't share? What will he hide once he is in office?

-dK

dk, the fact that your false assertions are so easily disproved tells me that you don't care about the truth. But on the off chance that you just aren't aware of the truth, here you go:

Obama is a NATURAL BORN U.S. citizen: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Obama's association with Bill Ayres would NOT disqualify him from getting a security clearance: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/security.asp

Obama's college funding did NOT come from questionable sources: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp

Is there anything else you would like me to clear up for you?

dk, the fact that your false assertions are so easily disproved tells me that you don't care about the truth. But on the off chance that you just aren't aware of the truth, here you go:

Obama is a NATURAL BORN U.S. citizen: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Obama's association with Bill Ayres would NOT disqualify him from getting a security clearance: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/security.asp

Obama's college funding did NOT come from questionable sources: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp

Is there anything else you would like me to clear up for you?

Why did Obama go to Hawaii ???

Would it be to shut his grandmother up ???

She has been openly saying Hussein Obama was born in Kenya......... And that would mean he can not be President..
Hussein still has not produced a valid Birth Certificate

What is Obama hiding? Why the lawyers? Why the courts?

If Obama is eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States of America, why doesn't he simply present the vault copy of his birth certificate to prove it and end all the speculation.

Why did Obama go to Hawaii ???

Would it be to shut his grandmother up ???

She has been openly saying Hussein Obama was born in Kenya......... And that would mean he can not be President..
Hussein still has not produced a valid Birth Certificate

What is Obama hiding? Why the lawyers? Why the courts?

If Obama is eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States of America, why doesn't he simply present the vault copy of his birth certificate to prove it and end all the speculation.

He DID provide his birth certificate and it DOES say he was born in Hawaii.

Biggest rally in Denver since the Pope visited:
http://www.davidsirota.com/images/desktop-obama.jpg

Biggest rally in Denver since the Pope visited ...

Of course the Dem's rallies are always bigger than the Repubs - someone has to work.

Vote your Manchurian candidate. I want you to yell the loudest when you have traded all of your freedoms away, deal?

-dk

He DID provide his birth certificate and it DOES say he was born in Hawaii.

How come he would let Snopes have access to it, but not show up in a legal court and introduce it there?

It just doesn't make sense and everything smells fishy, like a huge bait and switch.

-dK

How come he would let Snopes have access to it, but not show up in a legal court and introduce it there?

It just doesn't make sense and everything smells fishy, like a huge bait and switch.

-dK

Why would he need to bring it to court? It is available right here:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
:confused:

Of course the Dem's rallies are always bigger than the Repubs - someone has to work.

Vote your Manchurian candidate. I want you to yell the loudest when you have traded all of your freedoms away, deal?

-dk

On Sunday?

Exactly what freedoms do you think I am trading away?

From Encarta
The Constitution requires presidents to be natural-born citizens of the United States who are at least 35 years of age and have resided in the United States for 14 years. As a tacit statement of America’s commitment to democracy and equal opportunity, the Constitution gave any free white male citizen of the country the opportunity to become president. All males gained the right to become president in 1870 when the 15th Amendment to the Constitution gave African Americans the right to vote. Women were excluded from running for the office until 1920, when the 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave them the right to vote.

This implies that provided you are born a US citizen and have lived in the US for 14 years and are over 35 then you are eligible to be President. Barack Obama meets these conditions so what are you making a mountain out of a molehill for?

See this link (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html) for a definition of "Natural Born Citizen"

Why not?

Most blue-collar jobs are shift-work and do not pay attention to what day it is. Every blue-collar job I worked at, it didn't matter what day/time it was if my shift was going.

The freedoms you trade off when you allow the government to take care of you. I am sure you realize Pelosi's agenda and where this country will go. A rookie President is either going to push/allow the fundamental Republic to be tore down and federal power will be increased.

-dK

EDIT1: Oh yeah, I could produce a document that looks like that. I want an accredited source to authenticate it.

EDIT2: I understand that our resources are limited because we are just citizens without access to certain priviledges. It just doesn't pass the smell test for me if the DNC didn't request a certified accounting of the birth but allowed Snopes? Doesn't fully compute for me. If they wanted the issue put to rest - they could have it done quite easily, but they haven't (and won't) and it doesn't make sense why.

Most blue-collar jobs are shift-work and do not pay attention to what day it is. Every blue-collar job I worked at, it didn't matter what day/time it was if my shift was going.

The freedoms you trade off when you allow the government to take care of you. I am sure you realize Pelosi's agenda and where this country will go. A rookie President is either going to push/allow the fundamental Republic to be tore down and federal power will be increased.

-dK

EDIT: Oh yeah, I could produce a document that looks like that. I want an accredited source to authenticate it.


I didn't say "why not", I said "on Sunday?" Are you purposfully misquoting me or what?

I'm sure that the difference between the size of the Obama and McCain rallies can be solely contributed to the fact that all republicans work in factories and have Sunday shifts :rolleyes: Are you kidding me with this crap?

Exactly how does electing Obama equate to letting the government take care of me?

How is Obama more of a rookie president than McCain? Has McCain been president before? :confused:


Do you also demand an authenticated source for McCain's birth certificate? Obama's birth certificate was released 6 months ago. In that time, everyone except the wacko people who send you emails have agreed that it is legitimate. There is not a single credible source anywhere that suggests that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. So what are you still going on about?:rolleyes:

That was accidental misquote. I was answering the first question.

I was just pointing out the blue-collar aspect - it was a pot shot and rhetorical. Also, I don't subscribe to any e-mail lists. Now, I have been volunteered on a list - that one being my mother's and even though I tell her that if you forward those emails nothing magical ever happens in your inbox.

If you prefer, I will use the phrase a rookie Senator (at the national level) instead of a rookie President. You can look at an article called the Axlerod Method and the results thereof.:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420254658343011.html

You can discount per usual, but I think there is a lesson to be learned there in regards to trading off your rights. Pelosi and the people who are tenured in Washington are going to run things. Take a step further, if the Dem's get a majority in the House and Senate, Obama will not veto their bills because he is of like mind according to the 2001 interview (I think it was with NPR). In my opinion, we will watch our State's rights go away and with those our personal rights that are guarenteed by the Constitution.

I went back and edited my previous post, hoping you hadn't responded yet to clarify. You were already posting by the time I completed it. To my knowledge, the lawsuit hasn't been settled yet in regards to his birth certificate.

-dK

and Obama wants to pull out of Iraq


Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago?
Body count:
In the last six months:
292 killed (murdered) in Chicago;
221 killed in Iraq.

Chicago.... Who Runs it:
Senators: Barack Obama & Dick Durbin
Rep: Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Illinois Gov: Rod Blogojevich,
Illinois House leader Mike Madigan,
Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
.....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago.
Of course, they're all blaming each other!
Can't blame Republicans; they're aren't any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want).
Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. And he's gonna
'fix' Washington politics for us!

Wake Up America!

That was accidental misquote. I was answering the first question.

I was just pointing out the blue-collar aspect - it was a pot shot and rhetorical. Also, I don't subscribe to any e-mail lists. Now, I have been volunteered on a list - that one being my mother's and even though I tell her that if you forward those emails nothing magical ever happens in your inbox.

If you prefer, I will use the phrase a rookie Senator (at the national level) instead of a rookie President. You can look at an article called the Axlerod Method and the results thereof.:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420254658343011.html

You can discount per usual, but I think there is a lesson to be learned there in regards to trading off your rights. Pelosi and the people who are tenured in Washington are going to run things. Take a step further, if the Dem's get a majority in the House and Senate, Obama will not veto their bills because he is of like mind according to the 2001 interview (I think it was with NPR). In my opinion, we will watch our State's rights go away and with those our personal rights that are guarenteed by the Constitution.

I went back and edited my previous post, hoping you hadn't responded yet to clarify. You were already posting by the time I completed it. To my knowledge, the lawsuit hasn't been settled yet in regards to his birth certificate.

-dK

If you had bothered to actually look at the link I provided, you would have seen that the frivolous lawsuit has already been dismissed. You are among the three living people left on earth that are still not convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii. How does it feel?

You still haven't answered the question, specifically what freedoms am I giving up?

Exactly what is it that Obama should veto, according to you? And why do you think he won't veto whatever imaginary bill it is that you are dreaming of? Exactly how will Pelosi "run things"? According to Pelosi, she was going to vote against the bailout until Obama personally called her and talked her into supporting it. How do you figure that she will not be doing his bidding when he is in the white house?

And I wouldn't call someone who has authorored, coauthored, or sponsored over 1300 bills a rookie. Not sure what your definition of rookie is, from the article you quoted, it sounds like your definition of rookie is someone who doesn't have good name recognition. Since Obama now DOES have good name recognition, I guess that means he isn't a rookie anymore?

and Obama wants to pull out of Iraq


Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago?
Body count:
In the last six months:
292 killed (murdered) in Chicago;
221 killed in Iraq.

Chicago.... Who Runs it:
Senators: Barack Obama & Dick Durbin
Rep: Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Illinois Gov: Rod Blogojevich,
Illinois House leader Mike Madigan,
Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
.....our leadership in Illinois.....all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago.
Of course, they're all blaming each other!
Can't blame Republicans; they're aren't any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want).
Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. And he's gonna
'fix' Washington politics for us!

Wake Up America!


First of all, you only counted "our" casualties in Iraq, while you counted TOTAL casualties in Chicago.

Second of all, please list all equivalent numbers for Arizona and Alaska so I can evaluate your argument.

and Obama wants to pull out of Iraq




About bloody time too, you had no right to be there in the first place!

First of all, you only counted "our" casualties in Iraq, while you counted TOTAL casualties in Chicago.

Second of all, please list all equivalent numbers for Arizona and Alaska so I can evaluate your argument.

So typical of an answer

About bloody time too, you had no right to be there in the first place!

ya, right Rich anything you say, and we ALL believe what you say............ :rolleyes:

ya, right Rich anything you say, and we ALL believe what you say............ :rolleyes:
The sensible ones do, now since you don't, justify the war

So typical of an answer

So are you saying that Chicago's numbers reflect on Obama but Arizona's and Alaska's numbers do NOT reflect on McCain and Palin, respectively?

Or are you saying you are just to lazy to finish off the argument?

Or maybe you just don't like what their numbers show. I am aware, for instance, that Alaska has the highest per capita rate of pork barrel spending in the nation. Does that reflect on Sarah?

Rich, I could not even justify the air we inhale, with you. Some how it would be Bush fault. So for get about it.

Rich, I could not even justify the air we inhale, with you. Some how it would be Bush fault. So for get about it.
Stop throwing a wobbly and answer the question

So are you saying that Chicago's numbers reflect on Obama but Arizona's and Alaska's numbers do NOT reflect on McCain and Palin, respectively?

Or are you saying you are just to lazy to finish off the argument?

Or maybe you just don't like what their numbers show. I am aware, for instance, that Alaska has the highest per capita rate of pork barrel spending in the nation. Does that reflect on Sarah?

Did I say anything about Arizona or Alaska's..........no

When ever there is facts in front of you, you just can't admit to the facts.

So that is why so typical of answer. I know according to you Obama walks on water, even I won't say that about McCain.

Did I say anything about Arizona or Alaska's..........no

When ever there is facts in front of you, you just can't admit to the facts.

So that is why so typical of answer. I know according to you Obama walks on water, even I won't say that about McCain.


Your argument was: There are bad things happening in Chicago. Barack Obama is responsible for those things since he was a state senator representing the district that contains Chicago. Therefore, if we elect him president, all the bad things that he caused to happen in Chicago will happen to the nation as a whole.

If Obama is responsible for all the bad things in Chicago, then isn't McCain equally responsible for the bad things in Arizona? In that case, let's see if the bad things in Chicago are worse than the bad things in Arizona, because by your reasoning, if we elect McCain, all of the bad things in Arizona will happen to the nation as a whole as well. If this is true, then I want to know which set of bad things to choose. I mean, how do I know that McCain's bad Arizona things are any worse than Obama's bad Chicago things? I like to hear all sides before making a decision. Don't you?

So please go find those Arizona and Alaska numbers.

Oh wait. I forgot, you weren't really making an argument, you were just repeating some rhetorical bullshit you heard Rush Limbaugh saying. Nevermind.

Your argument was: There are bad things happening in Chicago. Barack Obama is responsible for those things since he was a state senator representing the district that contains Chicago. Therefore, if we elect him president, all the bad things that he caused to happen in Chicago will happen to the nation as a whole.

If Obama is responsible for all the bad things in Chicago, then isn't McCain equally responsible for the bad things in Arizona? In that case, let's see if the bad things in Chicago are worse than the bad things in Arizona, because by your reasoning, if we elect McCain, all of the bad things in Arizona will happen to the nation as a whole as well. If this is true, then I want to know which set of bad things to choose. I mean, how do I know that McCain's bad Arizona things are any worse than Obama's bad Chicago things? I like to hear all sides before making a decision. Don't you?

So please go find those Arizona and Alaska numbers.

Oh wait. I forgot, you weren't really making an argument, you were just repeating some rhetorical bullshit you heard Rush Limbaugh saying. Nevermind.

Ops sorry, don't like Rush. So if something is against the o mighty Obama, its rhetorical bullshit, so typical again. IF your O mighty Obama gets in, I just wondering what are going to bitch against next. They won't be able to point fingers anymore. O wait I forgot sure they again, because its never there fault (democrats).

Ops sorry, don't like Rush. So if something is against the o mighty Obama, its rhetorical bullshit, so typical again. IF your O mighty Obama gets in, I just wondering what are going to bitch against next. They won't be able to point fingers anymore. O wait I forgot sure they again, because its never there fault (democrats).


Your unwillingness to complete the argument makes me think that your argument has no merit.

Your unwillingness to complete the argument makes me think that your argument has no merit.
Since when did a Republican argument have any merit?:confused:

Since when did a Republican argument have any merit?:confused:


Just as god may really exist, I leave my mind open to the possibility.;)

Just as god may really exist, I leave my mind open to the possibility.;)

Well that pretty much says it all.

Why would he need to bring it to court? It is available right here:
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
:confused:

I don't know if he was born in Hawaii or not. One thing pretty clear is the birthcertificate that is presented as his birth certificate is not his legitimate birth certificate. The question is why doesn't he present his birth certificate????

This is what people have observed on his "Hawaiian" birth certificate:

• There is no embossed seal and/or registrar’s signature?

• Comparing it to other Hawaii birth certificates, the color shade is different.

• Date stamp bleeding through the back of the document says “June 2007?” (this is very strange since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)

• There’s no crease from being folded and mailed.

• It pretty clear this is a photoshopped certificate...

Only Obama can put this to rest by presenting a vault copy of his certificate. The biggest scandal here is that while we have this requirement in the constitution we have NO ONE who is responsible to verify a person meets constitutional requirements to run for President.

I don't know if he was born in Hawaii or not. One thing pretty clear is the birthcertificate that is presented as his birth certificate is not his legitimate birth certificate. The question is why doesn't he present his birth certificate????

This is what people have observed on his "Hawaiian" birth certificate:

• There is no embossed seal and/or registrar’s signature?

• Comparing it to other Hawaii birth certificates, the color shade is different.

• Date stamp bleeding through the back of the document says “June 2007?” (this is very strange since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)

• There’s no crease from being folded and mailed.

• It pretty clear this is a photoshopped certificate...

Only Obama can put this to rest by presenting a vault copy of his certificate. The biggest scandal here is that while we have this requirement in the constitution we have NO ONE who is responsible to verify a person meets constitutional requirements to run for President.
It actually doesn't matter where he was born. Check out what I wrote in post 78 in this thread. The important thing is that he was born a US citizen and so is eligible to be elected President.

I don't know if he was born in Hawaii or not. One thing pretty clear is the birthcertificate that is presented as his birth certificate is not his legitimate birth certificate. The question is why doesn't he present his birth certificate????

This is what people have observed on his "Hawaiian" birth certificate:

• There is no embossed seal and/or registrar’s signature?

• Comparing it to other Hawaii birth certificates, the color shade is different.

• Date stamp bleeding through the back of the document says “June 2007?” (this is very strange since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)

• There’s no crease from being folded and mailed.

• It pretty clear this is a photoshopped certificate...

Only Obama can put this to rest by presenting a vault copy of his certificate. The biggest scandal here is that while we have this requirement in the constitution we have NO ONE who is responsible to verify a person meets constitutional requirements to run for President.

Congratulations! You have now joined dk and one other person on earth in believing that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

Just for fun, do you think that snopes, truthorfiction, and factcheck are all in cahoots with Colin Powell, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Larry Pressler, Charles Freid, and Scott McClellan in believing that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii as his birth certificate states?