Who am I ?

[skydelta34]

Who said I voted for him? I just think poor arguments are more demeaning to the cause of people who post them then they do good. The only thing this does is polarize an already divisive issue and make you look less rational to the other side (the people you need to convince you're right to in order to get change).

Also the 'no one knows anything about him.' argument doesn't help your case. He's a major politician, his whole life has been gone over multiple times with a fine tooth comb. Do you really think the entire republican campaign structure sat around twiddling their thumbs instead of looking for any dirt on the guy? And the best they can come up with is "He was on a council with a guy who was in an anti war terrorist group that solely managed to kill it's own members!."

It just seems like the tinfoil hat is on a little tight when when you honestly believe that someone would lie about their religion, past, and love of country to run for president.

Then again I'm probably wasting my breath since the majority of the country seems to have a hard on for the mud slinging politics that normally gets engaged in.

That is not entirely true. He has repeatedly denied requests for information to be released regarding his college years.

 

[colt45er]

Who said I voted for him? I just think poor arguments are more demeaning to the cause of people who post them then they do good. The only thing this does is polarize an already divisive issue and make you look less rational to the other side (the people you need to convince you're right to in order to get change).

Also the 'no one knows anything about him.' argument doesn't help your case. He's a major politician, his whole life has been gone over multiple times with a fine tooth comb. Do you really think the entire republican campaign structure sat around twiddling their thumbs instead of looking for any dirt on the guy? And the best they can come up with is "He was on a council with a guy who was in an anti war terrorist group that solely managed to kill it's own members!."

It just seems like the tinfoil hat is on a little tight when when you honestly believe that someone would lie about their religion, past, and love of country to run for president.

Then again I'm probably wasting my breath since the majority of the country seems to have a hard on for the mud slinging politics that normally gets engaged in.

As stated, he wont release his college records.
He refuses to provide additional documents to support he was a natural born citizen. BTW the birth cretificate he did provide was questioned and only cleared by an organization he once helped fun. When there was a lawsuite for him to provide documents he refused.

And we do not know anything about him, unless you look at his voting record. Almost every thing he said in his campaign was against his voting record.

He has more than one questionalble tie.

We do not know this guy, plain and simple.

 

[rcuhljr]

That is not entirely true. He has repeatedly denied requests for information to be released regarding his college years.

Yes I can see how critical undergraduate transcripts are to assessing character.

only cleared by an organization he once helped fund. When there was a lawsuit for him to provide documents he refused.

He didn't need to provide anything to the lawsuit because it got thrown out like the joke it was. If you seriously believe an organization is going to lie and say a federal document is real just because some guy served on a council one time that donated to one of their activities you need to take a break. Do you really think so little of your fellow humans? You really think an entire organization is in a giant conspiracy to hide the truth?

Regardless I'm done with this thread, it's just an excuse for people who aren't interested in coherent discussions that would actually benefit the republican party to rep me down; enjoy the ride down on the sinking ship. Bob barr++

 

[flagtag]

Yes I can see where actually being interested in a topic is defensive. Have fun with your circle jerk.

That's JERKETTE, thank you very much.

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[4sarge]

That's JERKETTE, thank you very much.

Silly me, I thought that it was JERKETTE

 

[flagtag]

Silly me, I thought that it was JERKETTE

Ooooh! I like YOUR version MUCH better! Thanks!

 

[GetA2J]

Yes I can see how critical undergraduate transcripts are to assessing character.


He didn't need to provide anything to the lawsuit because it got thrown out like the joke it was. If you seriously believe an organization is going to lie and say a federal document is real just because some guy served on a council one time that donated to one of their activities you need to take a break. Do you really think so little of your fellow humans? You really think an entire organization is in a giant conspiracy to hide the truth?

Regardless I'm done with this thread, it's just an excuse for people who aren't interested in coherent discussions that would actually benefit the republican party to rep me down; enjoy the ride down on the sinking ship. Bob barr++

Look rcuhljr,
You seem to have such a hardon for B.H.O.....
What exactly drew your vote for him????
Was it: His stance on partial birth abortion?
... His policy on gun control?
... His belief that our Constitution is "fundamentally flawed"?
... His "redistribution of wealth" policies?
... His apparent lack of understanding of historical facts?
... His history of voting far left of any other senator ever?
... His answer when asked "when does life begin in an embryo?" (that's above my pay scale) talk about laughable!!!!


Maybe we hit a nerve in you sensative for a socialist/communist move for our once great country.

 

[skydelta34]

Yes I can see how critical undergraduate transcripts are to assessing character.

You may be correct in that his transcripts are meaningless. However, there are more than just transcripts he will not produce and it goes to prove that your claim that Obama's entire life has been gone over multiple times with a fine tooth comb is simply not true.

 

[10ring]

Whew. Behold the wisdom of the 25 year old liberal.

 

[flagtag]

If there was nothing in the transcript - and Michelle's papers, then why did Obama have them blocked? That kind of stuff (well maybe not the transcript) is usually open to the public.

Those two certainly "hid" a lot about themselves.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes I can see how critical undergraduate transcripts are to assessing character.


He didn't need to provide anything to the lawsuit because it got thrown out like the joke it was. If you seriously believe an organization is going to lie and say a federal document is real just because some guy served on a council one time that donated to one of their activities you need to take a break. Do you really think so little of your fellow humans? You really think an entire organization is in a giant conspiracy to hide the truth?

Regardless I'm done with this thread, it's just an excuse for people who aren't interested in coherent discussions that would actually benefit the republican party to rep me down; enjoy the ride down on the sinking ship. Bob barr++

I haven't rep'd you up or down at all. I also recognize you may not read this. So be it, I'm still going to answer.

His undergrad transcripts are relevant. Why? Because in theory, it is based on those that he got into Harvard Law, which reportedly is an understatement to call "difficult", even for those with excellent grades. There are questions as to the funding of his Harvard education, and if the possible/suggested answers are accurate, then the next question is why a student who "graduated" from Columbia (not "graduated with honors", note) was allowed to enter. It couldn't possibly have been because someone played a "race" card, could it? Or maybe because someone dropped a whole load of cash on someone else's doorstep to allow a less-than-perfect student (I'm being generous here) in? Additionally, since he opened that can of worms by running in part on having been president of the Harvard Law Review, and also since the political leanings of his suggested financiers are less than amicable with traditionally American ideals, we might ask why said persons would finance the career of a young would-be lawyer and not anyone else (of whom we yet know.)

Further, it is my understanding that the case Mr. Berg brought against Obama was only half the story: He was reportedly born in Kenya to a woman who under US law at the time, could not pass citizenship to him by birth due to her own age. He also gave up US citizenship when he became a citizen of Indonesia, since they do not allow dual citizenship. There is no record of him being re-naturalized, at least not of which I've become aware. Either point would disqualify him, however, rather than investigate the claim, the judge simply claimed Mr. Berg (an American citizen) "didn't have standing" to sue.

How does any American who is registered to vote not have standing to sue a person who is accused of conspiring to violate the US Constitution insofar as his eligibility for the Presidency is concerned?

Blessings,
B