LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Produce the certificate Obama, tell you supporters to stop the name calling

R

renard_ruse

Break up Amazon
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Posts
16,094
Its time for President Obama to raise the level of civility in the discourse by calling on his supporters to stop using the overt slur "birther" for those fellow Americans who would simply like him to produce his birth certificate.

Making up and then repeatedly using a mean-spirited slur like "birther" to denegrate opponents is exactly the sort of incivility that should be unacceptable after the events in Tucson a few months ago. If the President doesn't want to produce his birth certificate, at the very least he can do the right thing and tell his supporters to cease using slurs like "birther" for those who feel he should.

This sort of slur is not acceptable in the mainstream dialogue. Enough is enough of this kind of tactic.
 
I hope he calls a press conference on the last day of his second and says, Here it is: I was just fuckin; with y'all.
 
renard_ruse said:
Its time for President Obama to raise the level of civility in the discourse by calling on his supporters to stop using the overt slur "birther" for those fellow Americans who would simply like him to produce his birth certificate.

Making up and then repeatedly using a mean-spirited slur like "birther" to denegrate opponents is exactly the sort of incivility that should be unacceptable after the events in Tucson a few months ago. If the President doesn't want to produce his birth certificate, at the very least he can do the right thing and tell his supporters to cease using slurs like "birther" for those who feel he should.

This sort of slur is not acceptable in the mainstream dialogue. Enough is enough of this kind of tactic.
Click to expand...

Moron.

JenAltArmy said:
well we shall see in 2012 if obama does this!
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
Moron.



Ditto.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are a moron, or just an ignorant fool. obama had at most 49% of the American population for him, and with his piss ass job as prez, I'm thinking that obama is down to what 30-40%?

as people wake up and see the light, on what a bad leader obama is, obama's numbers will continue to drop. but for you UD keep on living that dream....have another 6 pack
 
renard_ruse said:
Its time for President Obama to raise the level of civility in the discourse by calling on his supporters to stop using the overt slur "birther" for those fellow Americans who would simply like him to produce his birth certificate.

Making up and then repeatedly using a mean-spirited slur like "birther" to denegrate opponents is exactly the sort of incivility that should be unacceptable after the events in Tucson a few months ago. If the President doesn't want to produce his birth certificate, at the very least he can do the right thing and tell his supporters to cease using slurs like "birther" for those who feel he should.

This sort of slur is not acceptable in the mainstream dialogue. Enough is enough of this kind of tactic.
Click to expand...

The birth certificate issue was a Democratic plot to show what percentage of the Republican party were simple minded sheep who are gullible, but tenacious.

The plan was as simple as it was evil. Simply spread a story about Obama's birthplace. If it were true, Obama could not serve as President, no matter how many votes he gathered. After that, the gullible tenacious sheep can't let go. The get more and more desperate as time goes by. Then evidence is produced which convinces sensible people and the sheep are left holding the torch for this moronic lost cause.

The undecided middle voters look at all the noise and decide they want no part of it and certainly don't want any of these people in office. It tips the balance and Obama wins.

The Republican Party leaders have a dilemma. If they tell the birthers to shut up, because it costs votes, they lose the gullible sheep element of the party. The sheep will then all go vote for Lyndon LaRouche.

The problem may have solved itself when the Democratic Dirty Tricks squad showed up at a Rand Paul rally and started handing out tea bags.
 
Or obama is a fraud and there is no birth certificate



bronzeage said:
The birth certificate issue was a Democratic plot to show what percentage of the Republican party were simple minded sheep who are gullible, but tenacious.

The plan was as simple as it was evil. Simply spread a story about Obama's birthplace. If it were true, Obama could not serve as President, no matter how many votes he gathered. After that, the gullible tenacious sheep can't let go. The get more and more desperate as time goes by. Then evidence is produced which convinces sensible people and the sheep are left holding the torch for this moronic lost cause.

The undecided middle voters look at all the noise and decide they want no part of it and certainly don't want any of these people in office. It tips the balance and Obama wins.

The Republican Party leaders have a dilemma. If they tell the birthers to shut up, because it costs votes, they lose the gullible sheep element of the party. The sheep will then all go vote for Lyndon LaRouche.

The problem may have solved itself when the Democratic Dirty Tricks squad showed up at a Rand Paul rally and started handing out tea bags.
Click to expand...
 
For the past few years snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it as the 'tell-all, final word' on any comment, claim and e-mail. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com.

It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers...It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issues, when in fact, they have been proven wrong.

Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.

When Snopes had falsely claimed that Obama's Birth Certificate had been properly validated, people realized that something was wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with both.

A few months ago, when State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, supposedly, the Mikkelson's claimed to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever took place.
 
and maybe.. just maybe the name is based off the song called " badbabysitter" by princess Superstar

or you're a dumbass again.. one of the two
 
PannieMonster said:
For the past few years snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it as the 'tell-all, final word' on any comment, claim and e-mail. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com.

It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers...It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issues, when in fact, they have been proven wrong.

Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.

When Snopes had falsely claimed that Obama's Birth Certificate had been properly validated, people realized that something was wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with both.

A few months ago, when State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, supposedly, the Mikkelson's claimed to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever took place.
Click to expand...


fine


then here

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
 
badbabysitter said:
fine


then here

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Click to expand...

Politifact only tells half truths, according to Arianna Huffington. The American Spectator, says this:

When reporters claiming to be neutral political fact-checkers go beyond mere reporting to state with absolute certainty things they cannot possibly know, they run the risk of churning out political opinion masquerading as high-minded investigative journalism.
This is exactly what the reporters at the fact-checking operation PolitiFact.com sometimes do. A project of the St. Petersburg Times, the website's "Truth-O-Meter" purports to check and rate "the accuracy of statements by candidates, elected officials, political parties, interest groups, pundits, talk show hosts."
Click to expand...




So, maybe you have another source?
 
PannieMonster said:
Politifact only tells half truths, according to Arianna Huffington. The American Spectator, says this:





?
Click to expand...


Of course Arianna said that.. politifact has attacked the Huffpo after all.. and a conservative magazine like the American Spectator saying a site that attacks them is half true... has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt


and the beauty of both articles is that you never attacked their veracity at all.. in case one you mentioned another case while ignoring the first article.. as for the second article you took the opinions of the site as gospel and didn't mention any greivances with what was reported
 
badbabysitter said:
Of course Arianna said that.. politifact has attacked the Huffpo after all.. and a conservative magazine like the American Spectator saying a site that attacks them is half true... has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt


and the beauty of both articles is that you never attacked their veracity at all.. in case one you mentioned another case while ignoring the first article.. as for the second article you took the opinions of the site as gospel and didn't mention any greivances with what was reported
Click to expand...

Similar to what you did with Politifact, right? Since Politifact is attacking both a liberal rag like HuffPo and a conservative rag like American Spectator, one has to reason that, maybe, just maybe, it is Politifact that is in err.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SugarDaddy1
Can't you just feel the love? Obama adviser David Axelrod slams Biden's slow campaign: 'Get out or get going'
Replies
4
Views
457
JoePepsiCo
JoePepsiCo
Counselor706
Biden suggests he’s not calling the shots: ‘I’m supposed to stop and walk out’
Replies
8
Views
402
YDB95
YDB95
B
You can worry about the Russians if you want,
4 5 6
Replies
125
Views
4K
about_average
about_average
adrina
The Orange Snowflake Needs A Safe Space
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
JasonBourneAgain
J
Wrong Element
Rating the Presidents 1-42
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
pecksniff
P
Back
Top