I was hoping to stir things up with my above post. Didn't quite work. Oh well. I'm losing my touch.

Yes, I'm a Conservative. But I did not vote for McCain. I respect him and his military service, but didn't think he'd make a good president. I considered Obama unqualified to be president and didn't vote for him either. I voted for Clinton once. So, I am willing to vote for the so-called other side.

It is not a race issue for me because I'd vote for Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice (spelling?) probably in a heartbeat based on their experience in the white house, political views, and Powell's additional military experience. And yes I do realize Powell endorsed Obama. But I think he was just enthralled, like alot of people, about the possibility of our first Black president.

I was willing to give Obama a chance. But what ticked me off is the following. He was sworn in early in 2009, February I think? The economic is going south in a hurry. I've been working my tail end off for 27+ years and never been unemployed and also willing to work multiple jobs to get it done. April of 2009 I file for unemployment for the first time in my life. Something I took pride in not ever having to do in my lifetime, but it came down to having to do it unfortunately. What does our bozo president do? Like a kid in a candy store, he pushes his own private healthcare agenda and pretty much immediately ignores the economy. People are suffering, losing jobs, losing homes, the value of the dollar dropping, etc...........what does bozo do? Pushes Government Healthcare.

I was pretty much finished with him at that point. And he continues to be a bozo over and over and over. He was unqualified to be president and nearly every action he takes backs that up.

That's all.

Any truth to the following?

Quote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

By George Ore

Birther Issues Continue............IT SEEMS TO BE A TOTAL CUT & PASTE!



The release of the (pick your terms here) purported, alleged, so-called, yada, yada) birth certificate by the White House has turned into a major boner. I mean, this one puts Viagra to shame kind.


Here's a hint at why: The Smoking Gun's article is a good start "Will Release Of Obama's Purported Birth Certificate Give Rise To New "Certer" Movement?"


Up until now, I had blown off most of the 'birther stuff' since Obama is the nominal president and ain't no removing him, since the PTB run the country anyway, despite representations contrary wise. We learned that with the Big Bank Free Money Festival on the Potomac .



But that was until a reader - we'll call him "Joe" - sent me this amazing email which includes (gasp!) source documentation on some serious inconsistencies: "As you all know, Donald Trump made a big deal about Obama's birth certificate. As of yesterday, the White House released the birth certificate.



I will tell you right now that I had never given this "birther" issue any credit. I watched the hype and the crazies come out. I completely dismissed the entire ordeal altogether. In fact, it was not until the White House released the birth certificate that it had gained my attention.



I am the studious sort of guy, and I have plenty of time on my hands. So, I took a close look at this document. While I would have thought that this issue would have been closed for good (and, got the crazies to crawl back into their holes), I found two extremely strange inconsistencies that merit some attention.



First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". But, this is not the only thing that I found that just does not jive.



The other item that I looked into was the hospital that Obama was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? Go ahead, look it up. I am not talking crazy talk, these are the facts. Like I said, I thought that this was a non-issue until the actual certificate was released. Now that it has been released, of course I had to look into it. I have found these issues, now I know that something is up. If you doubt me, just look at the following resources:

Sure as hell, the hospital part is true, as you can read about the 1978 merger here.

(05-05-2011 10:35 AM)Overrated Wrote:  Who cares about his religion. This is America. He is free to practice whatever religion he chooses. Does anyone know of any legitimate responses to the videos?

Honestly practicing any religion execpt arryan nation Christianity is a crime.

(05-05-2011 01:53 PM)b Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 01:23 PM)icehole3 Wrote:  

(05-05-2011 11:23 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Overrated- To that end.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/...ate-legit/

It didn’t take long for some of President Obama’s doubters to claim the long-awaited birth certificate posted online by the White House on Wednesday had been altered or might be a fake.

But a leading software expert says there’s no doubt about its authenticity, and he dismisses claims of fraud as flat-out wrong.

The doubters have latched onto the idea that Adobe Illustrator — the premier program for computer graphic artists — “reveals” evidence of document manipulation in the Obama birth certificate. They note Illustrator reveals nine separate layers of the document, and claim it’s “proof” the file has been altered.

But that’s not so, says Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator.

“You should not be so suspicious about this,” Tremblay told FoxNews.com, dismissing the allegations.

Related Links
Obama Birth Certificate Moved to More Secure Location Months Ago

He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work – and nothing more.

“When you open it in Illustrator it looks like layers, but it doesn’t look like someone built it from scratch. If someone made a fake it wouldn’t look like this,” he said.“Some scanning software is trying to separate the background and the text and splitting element into layers and parts of layers.”

Tremblay also said that during the scanning process, instances where the software was unable to separate text fully from background led to the creation of a separate layer within the document. This could be places where a signature runs over the line of background, or typed characters touch the internal border of the document.

“I know that you can scan a document from a scanner most of the time it will appear as one piece, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no software that’s doing this kind of stuff,” he said, adding that it’s really quite common.

“I’d be more afraid it’d be fake if it was one in piece. It would be harder to check if it’s a good one if it’s a fake,” Tremblay said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/...z1LUlPHPto

great another teacher offering his opinion

You're never gonna change peoples minds. Obama never should have even posted his BC. Hell, I've seen his more then I've seen my own brothers.

it's amazing how someone you don't know post a youtube vid and you all jump on the bandwagon. when someone disputes said youtube post--an expert no less , now you decide to get cynical. this will go back and forth till something better comes along. he's proven himself a citizen time and time again. 3 years in office and this is what you b!tch about? I guess he's doing OK.

mccain was not born in the US and I never seen that brought up. when Ahnold became governor of cal, there was thing set in motion to overturn the only american born citizen can become president law.

my point, stop acting like this is such a matter of principal with you. if obama was a republican it would never have been brought up. not by republicans at least.

here's my point on this and then Im moving on, when Bush was president, the wacky libby liberals day in and day out, joked, slammed, wanted him arrested, tried for war crimes, impeached, BBQed him, etc... I said then "just remember when your guy gets in office what comes around goes around." So no Im not going to stop Im having so much fun just like the libby liberals did for eight years and since the media's gonna help Obama win another 4 years, I'll beat this drum until the end of his presidency because if a republican gets back in office the libby liberals will start up again, thats the way it is.

Quote:here's my point on this and then Im moving on, when Bush was president, the wacky libby liberals day in and day out, joked, slammed, wanted him arrested, tried for war crimes, impeached, BBQed him, etc... I said then "just remember when your guy gets in office what comes around goes around." So no Im not going to stop Im having so much fun just like the libby liberals did for eight years and since the media's gonna help Obama win another 4 years, I'll beat this drum until the end of his presidency because if a republican gets back in office the libby liberals will start up again, thats the way it is.

OK

there's no denying that Bush caught more hell then any other President. I often do/did the same to illustrate how hypocritical we are when we talk politics.

i get it.

apologies if already included. there are many other folks reporting on this.

b, this is one thread i did not read thru its entirety.

Quote:Liberal Radio Host Mike Malloy Suggests SEAL Team Six Should Go After Dubya Next


If you’ve never heard of Mike Malloy, it’s likely because you rarely hear a peep from progressive talk radio hosts. The words of liberal talkers don’t usually reverberate around an invisible left-wing echo chamber like they do on the right. So, quick intro: Mike Malloy is a liberal radio host based out of Atlanta.

On his Monday radio show — yes, the day after Osama bin Laden was killed — Malloy had the temerity to suggest that SEAL Team Six should “drop in on George Bush” because, as he reasoned, the former president was responsible for “a lot more death” than bin Laden.

You can listen to the comments here, but this is the part that raised eyebrows:

MIKE MALLOY: I have heard some commentators talk about the fact that, all the lives that have been lost in this war on terror, and now the summary execution of the person responsible. But as soon as I heard that, I thought, well, bin Laden really didn’t have anything to do — did he? — with Iraq. And I think his only relationship with Afghanistan was geographical.

But Iraq — all the death in Iraq was not caused by bin Laden. The death in Iraq was caused by George W. Bush. Five thousand Americans, tens of thousands permanently damaged and shot to pieces, a million Iraqis dead — that wasn’t bin Laden. That was George Bush. So when does Seal Unit 6, or whatever it’s called, drop in on George Bush? Bush was responsible for a lot more death, innocent death, than bin Laden. Wasn’t he, or am I wrong here?

Malloy is correct when he says that bin Laden was the person responsible for the “War on Terror.” He’s also correct when he asserts that bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq. He’s also correct when he says that the death toll in Iraq was not caused by bin Laden. So far so good.

But then he just completely simplifies the discussion and succumbs to faulty logic. Yes, it was President Bush who, right or wrong, authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that was a decision he made, which, at the time, was supported by most of the politicians in America.

Here’s where the wheels come off: Malloy erroneously says that a million Iraqis have been killed because of President George W. Bush, when that number could be anywhere from 66,000 to 150,000 realistically, as opposed to some surveys which put that number closer to a million. And to say that the former president should be executed by his own military because of that is problematic and troubling.

“If A, then B” is clearly Malloy’s line of thinking. But the issue here is “If A and if B....”

read more here:

http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/liberal-...ubya-next/

(05-07-2011 11:32 AM)gruehls Wrote:  apologies if already included. there are many other folks reporting on this.

b, this is one thread i did not read thru its entirety.

Quote:Liberal Radio Host Mike Malloy Suggests SEAL Team Six Should Go After Dubya Next


If you’ve never heard of Mike Malloy, it’s likely because you rarely hear a peep from progressive talk radio hosts. The words of liberal talkers don’t usually reverberate around an invisible left-wing echo chamber like they do on the right. So, quick intro: Mike Malloy is a liberal radio host based out of Atlanta.

On his Monday radio show — yes, the day after Osama bin Laden was killed — Malloy had the temerity to suggest that SEAL Team Six should “drop in on George Bush” because, as he reasoned, the former president was responsible for “a lot more death” than bin Laden.

You can listen to the comments here, but this is the part that raised eyebrows:

MIKE MALLOY: I have heard some commentators talk about the fact that, all the lives that have been lost in this war on terror, and now the summary execution of the person responsible. But as soon as I heard that, I thought, well, bin Laden really didn’t have anything to do — did he? — with Iraq. And I think his only relationship with Afghanistan was geographical.

But Iraq — all the death in Iraq was not caused by bin Laden. The death in Iraq was caused by George W. Bush. Five thousand Americans, tens of thousands permanently damaged and shot to pieces, a million Iraqis dead — that wasn’t bin Laden. That was George Bush. So when does Seal Unit 6, or whatever it’s called, drop in on George Bush? Bush was responsible for a lot more death, innocent death, than bin Laden. Wasn’t he, or am I wrong here?

Malloy is correct when he says that bin Laden was the person responsible for the “War on Terror.” He’s also correct when he asserts that bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq. He’s also correct when he says that the death toll in Iraq was not caused by bin Laden. So far so good.

But then he just completely simplifies the discussion and succumbs to faulty logic. Yes, it was President Bush who, right or wrong, authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that was a decision he made, which, at the time, was supported by most of the politicians in America.

Here’s where the wheels come off: Malloy erroneously says that a million Iraqis have been killed because of President George W. Bush, when that number could be anywhere from 66,000 to 150,000 realistically, as opposed to some surveys which put that number closer to a million. And to say that the former president should be executed by his own military because of that is problematic and troubling.

“If A, then B” is clearly Malloy’s line of thinking. But the issue here is “If A and if B....”

read more here:

http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/liberal-...ubya-next/

As a result of your past trickery which caused me to take a broader look at issues, I now know that the left ain't the angels I thought they were.

For at least a year I tried to start an argument with someone about fox news and how they "Brainwash" you guys on the right. I stockpiled a ton of evidence but no one would bite.

Then one day I realized that I don't watch fox. Hell I set my tv up so that fox doesn't even show up on the program guide. So how do I know fox is so bad and brainwash everyone? I don't. I felt lower then whale crap when it dawned on me that I was brainwashed.

Now deprogramming don't happen overnight. I still feel fox does what it can to help the right, but I know there are networks and shows hellbent on helping Obama as well.

G, I'm sure you and I don't get our news from the same place. my sources say paint the right as pretty evil on nearly all accounts. and by some of the stories posted on here many of you guys receive info that paints all dems in a very negative light. I get we don't agree on how our politicians run the country, but no one is as bad as we make them out to be. And I get that that probably would not have come out of my mouth when bush was president but now I expect everyone else to take a hit of the peace pipe.

I don't know how to wrap up this post, but I think I get this political forum. it's a place to vent. Any republican who disagrees with Obama is a GD racist. Bill Maher and other lefties make a black joke about obama and everyone is falling out of their seats laughing.

I'll figure all this stuff out one day.

and BTW if anyone cares, we had an election recently.

Three wars and the Osama assassination...

If anything, he's a shoo in for another Nobel Peace Prize.

brother b,

if you figure out the mysteries of the political universe and the how/why of the coverage of same, please share.

i do look forward to the day i get to buy you a beer and some chips and salsa, and we can chat about this and that.

be well,

g

p.s. delhi and everyone else invited.