It's time for a new poll! (1 Viewer)

Will bin Laden make an appearance before Nov 4?


  • Total voters
    14
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.
 
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
 
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:
 
Why would he need to bring it to court? It is available right here:
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom