Statistics: Posted by imuakahuku — Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:48 am
Statistics: Posted by scott715 — Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:12 pm
Hey Nuk, check out this chart:The other day a local talk show host said Obama was not a bad person and had been true to his wife, he is just a bad president. I do not think that anymore. I have heard that he and the legislature have spent somewhere around 5.5 TRILLION more than has been taken in during his term! That is immoral. No wonder he wants to tax the "rich" but even the rich can't pay that amount. That is just one of the problems I see with this man.
Statistics: Posted by nuk13 — Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:27 am
False--at least on this version I looked up on the web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 54248.html2. On Pres. Obama's Birth Certificate is lists him as African American. No big deal - now. Bu back in 1961? No way - that term was not used. The accepted, respectful way to refer black people was as Negroes. How could a Birth Certificate in 1961 define Pres. Obama with a term that was not even in use?
Statistics: Posted by Cougarfan87 — Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:14 am
Statistics: Posted by CougarClaw — Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:07 pm
Statistics: Posted by Ddawg — Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:36 am
Hey, I'm all about a good conspiracy. I actually believe Obama IS hiding something with the birth certificate, college records, etc etc etc. IT will all eventually come out, but not now. BUt all that stuff doesn't matter to me right now.I agree with you that the Republicans need to focus on Obama's dismal record - and it is dismal.If Republicans spent half the time pointing out his record as they spend on "birthing", Obama's image would be seriously damaged. Spending too much time on his origins make people look obsessed and desperate. Keep the argument focused on how terrible his first term was.
However, there are a number of problems with just stating that Republicans have not focused on Obama's record - they have. The problem is, the role of a very biased media.
I read a study by a UCLA professor - about media bias. It is a scholarly work, and he concluded that biased liberal media gave a Democratic presidential candidate 10% pts. That is stunning.
As for the whole "Birther" phenomenon. I am not a "birther" - however - those folks do have some interesting points.
I'll list a few points of interest.
1. On the Birth Certificate released by the Whitehouse it lists President Obama's father as Barack Hussein Obama. Good right?
A. But, it lists his father's birth place as "Kenya." At first glimpse - no problem. But, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was born June 18, 1934. Kenya did not even exist until Dec. 12, 1964 (Wikipedia - look it up).
B. Note - Kenya was created 27 years after Barack Hussein Obama Sr.'s birth. Pres. Obama was born in 1961 - 3 years before Kenya was formed. How could Kenya be listed on his Birth Certificate in Hawaii, when a place called Kenya did not exist?
2. On Pres. Obama's Birth Certificate is lists him as African American. No big deal - now. Bu back in 1961? No way - that term was not used. The accepted, respectful way to refer black people was as Negroes. How could a Birth Certificate in 1961 define Pres. Obama with a term that was not even in use?
There's more - but that suffices. There are legitimate questions - and they are not kooky. However, Obama's people and the liberal media paint the folks that raise serious, legitimate questions about his birth certificate as "kooky." The same way they attack Romney and Ryan as extreme, and "wingnuts." That's the easiest way to marginalize and dismiss serious questions is to portray the questioners as weird, kooky, and odd.
It worked.
Statistics: Posted by Ddawg — Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:29 pm