Texas Taking Obama off the Ballot for 2012

Originally posted by JauntyFlannigan
Dear Obama loyalists:

Please stop citing FactCheck.org

Why? Because it posts facts that are against your ideological bias? Instead of attacking the website, why don't you point out where exactly Factcheck.org has mislead? Or lied? Please oh please let me know. Because we had three goofballs on a fringe website with no credentials declare Obama's short form a fake and because Fackcheck and other websites debunked them, its not a credible source?

I know WND and free Republic are non-credible sources because of their past articles that were debunked. You on the other hand can only attack Factcheck over its history, not what it actually puts out there. Maybe you should try alittle harder?

By the way the Annenberg family were good friends with the Reagan family and much of the Republican establishment.

reply to post by rusethorcain


As you like. You can "don't like much" on Texans... and I absolutely wouldn't put anything in your mouth. I can only imagine where it's been! You know we do have to use rubber boots, (it won't fit in nuthin' else.)

Keep this up, and I might start to like you, and make you an honorary Texan out of spite. Reposte? s'il vous plait.

I think its great that the holy one will have to stoop down to us lowly people and be made to provide some sort of proof, fake or not, the holy one needs to be humbled a bit.

Originally posted by Captain_Sense
We sure get some BRILLIANT folks out of Texas, huh? He is just as ignorant as our former President who ALSO was from Texas. Obama's GENUINE birth certificate scans can be found NUMEROUS places on the web. Then again, perhaps that Einstein from Texas does not know how to operate a computer yet. IDIOTS.

2 retards hail from Texas, and the entire populous is stupid/responsible, eh?

Yeah, that's about as brilliant. Moron.

Originally posted by Binder
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

As you like. You can "don't like much" on Texans...

and I absolutely wouldn't put anything in your mouth. I can only imagine where it's been! You know we do have to use rubber boots, (it won't fit in nuthin' else.)

Keep this up, and I might start to like you, and make you an honorary Texan out of spite. Reposte? s'il vous plait.

I used to own a horse so I am used to being ankle deep in horse manure.
We might just get along! Here's a present for you....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc4d38d5807e.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 27-4-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain


Only ankle deep? Yankee horses. When a Texas horse takes a dump you better run for the hills buddy!

reply to post by Southern Guardian


What's your point? Ronald Reagan's own son is a flaming liberal/democrat. The Annenberg Foundation is now being run by family members 2 generations removed from it's original founders. See my point?

The New York Times was once regarded as the "Paper of Record" by both liberals and conservatives, yet I think we can both agree they lost their non subjective/non bias status quite a while ago. See my point?

I didn't mention WND or FreeRepublic did I? In fact, I didn't even mention where I stand on the whole birth certificate situation, now did I?

Deny ignorance, right?

reply to post by rusethorcain


Which Texans are acting like Bill Ayers?

When you elevate Bill Ayers to the level of 24 million Texans, you give him a pass.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by JauntyFlannigan
Dear Obama loyalists:

Please stop citing FactCheck.org

Why? Because it posts facts that are against your ideological bias? Instead of attacking the website, why don't you point out where exactly Factcheck.org has mislead? Or lied? Please oh please let me know.

Sure.

We can all do this.

Right after people such as yourself stop doing the same thing regarding Fox News - "because it posts facts that are against your ideological bias".

Hypocrisy alert ...

Originally posted by centurion1211
Right after people such as yourself stop doing the same thing regarding Fox News - "because it posts facts that are against your ideological bias".

Its not hypocrisy. I know that Fox news has mislead and lied in the past in their reports, I didnt just lump them as a non-credible source because I did not like watching them. The same cannot be said for those who claim factcheck is not credible. Thus far the only argument I get from people making this claim was how, through various tubes and indirect links, the annenberg foundation was somehow linked to the president. That does not make Factcheck non-credible.

If you can list me afew examples of where Factcheck mislead that would be much appreciated.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by centurion1211
Right after people such as yourself stop doing the same thing regarding Fox News - "because it posts facts that are against your ideological bias".

Its not hypocrisy. I know that Fox news has mislead and lied in the past in their reports, I didnt just lump them as a non-credible source because I did not like watching them.

You know, you know, but just how do you know?

And what's the problem with raising the yellow flag on factcheck due to their ownership?

Haven't you and other liberals done the same regarding polls by Rasmussen?

Still hypocrisy ...

Originally posted by centurion1211
You know,

So in other words you cannot prove that Factcheck distorts or lies? I'm waiting for those example. What information did Factcheck.org put out there that made them any less credible? I will honestly look into it if you let me know where exactly they mislead you.

what's the problem with raising the yellow flag on factcheck due to their ownership?

What? Like the fact the Annenberg family were close friends, supporters and associates of the Reagan administration and the Republican party?

In anycase arguing about the websites indirect connections to somebody you don't like does not make what they report or post any less credible. It is good to highlight the backround of a source but to do this as an excuse to dismiss everything they post or report is incorrect. The facts don't change upon somebodies associations.

Haven't you and other liberals done the same regarding polls by Rasmussen?

I never denied thats liberals do the same things. Infact I did state afew times that rasmussen is more to the conservative side and their founder was a Bush campaign advisor for 2004. But then again we are talking about polls in general which I stated none are completely 'credible' in anycase. Rasmussen happens to poll more to the conservative side on nearly every occasion, MSNBC polls to the liberal side on nearly every occasion. Polls in general cannot be compared to a news outlet that is suppose to report fact, not opinions.

This still doesnt change the fact that there is little to nothing from conservatives over the argument against Factcheck aside from their indirect connections to the president.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian

This still doesnt change the fact that there is little to nothing from conservatives over the argument against Factcheck aside from their indirect connections to the president.

Indirect as in directly working for them, serving on their board?

2nd

[edit on 28-4-2010 by JauntyFlannigan]

Originally posted by JauntyFlannigan

Indirect as in directly working for them, serving on their board?

Well by your assumption of a direct connection from Factcheck to Obama, you would argue that Obama participated in 'Factchecking' with 'Factcheck'. Did Obama work for the factcheck website?

Obama participated in the 'Chicago Annenberg' challange which was a public school reform project. It had little to nothing to do with anything political or anything in relation to 'Factchecker.org'. They may be from the same foundation but that does not mean that because he served in one campaign, he participated on factchecking from Factchecker.org.

I suppose George Shultz, former secretary of state to Reagan and served under Nixon also proves that factchecker is controlled by the Republicans? As he served along with Obama. What about the Annenberg families relations with Reagan and the Republican establishment? Will you continue to ignore that?

Both you and Centurion still fail to show me where Factchecker distorts information. Instead of derailing and insisting that their indirect associations somehow disqualify what they post, why don't you actually show me where they mislead or lied in their factchecking?


[edit on 28-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Georgia is also trying to pass a law to remove Obama from the 2012 ballot. Seems like a moot point because he will never win Georgia anyway.

Souce: www.examiner.com...

Originally posted by Binder
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

Hey don't mess with Texas! (It's where I keep all my stuff)

Besides as I was driving around this "hell hole" today the bluebonnets were in bloom, all the stores had groceries at a decent price, and there were even lots of "help wanted" signs on several businesses. Um... yeah sounds like a hell hole to me. - Erm... Come to think of it you're right. Ya'll stay away in droves. This place is a hell hole argh! it's horrible! Really don't come look, just take my word for it.

Be right there

California is getting olllllllllllllllllld.

Not allowed as no state is allowed to remove the incumbent candidate off the ballot.