Obama's SS # challenged in Ohio

[Tucker134]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-so...er-challenged/

read this article...SOMETHING is up with this Prez- there are too many question marks- hopefully he'll continue to get the proper vetting he should have gotten in 2008.

[Warfish]

Conspiracy Theories and Birtherism is a sure route to an Obama win in 2012.

There are real issues to wrangle over.

This isn't one to anyone other than the fringe-right kookbrigade.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Ridiculous

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Tucker134

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-so...er-challenged/

read this article...SOMETHING is up with this Prez- there are too many question marks- hopefully he'll continue to get the proper vetting he should have gotten in 2008.

The writer may be on to something with this. I will tune in tonight to Hannity to get the full story.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

The writer may be on to something with this. I will tune in tonight to Hannity to get the full story.

Shouldn't you, given your crusade against corruption (R), tune in to Thom Hartmann instead for today's update on the Roberts-Ruled-for-Big-Insurance/Pharma Corruption Theory?

[Jungle Shift Jet]

^ ^ ^ all 0 votes except for the OP, so who cares about the fake indignation?

If we have to care about heat and wind-burned dogs on the roof of Romney's VistaCruiser, 8 degrees of separation abortion disposal, the Romney family viaje to Mexico and suchlike then we also have to care about 0's entree to Harvard, post-Harvard wilderness years and most importantly the fact that B. Hussein was ineligible for the office from the get-go because of his dad's citizenship, his own opaque origin aside.

The right handled 0 with kid gloves last go-round when it "should of" been on the attack 24x7. This election season, expect nothing more than a tsunami of everything the "principled" voters who mindlessly ushered in this disaster hate from negative ads to more sunlight on 0's shady cronies funders and bundlers.

I wish some of you on-the-fence stand-for-nothing dopes were listening to Levin the other night. Basically, he tore you a new one for continuing to invent excuses to enable 0 and what the consequences will be.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

^ ^ ^ all 0 votes except for the OP, so who cares about the fake indignation?

A factualy incorrect statement. There is a 0% chance of my vote going to Obama.

The question you SHOULD ask yourself is "who cares about yet another birther conspiracy theory" in the General Electorate.

The answer: not enough to win the 2012 election.

Isn't that what counts most to a pragmatist such as yourself? Winning, hence keeping Obama out of office?

Or do you really, truly, honestly, think that the key to victory in Election 2012, the key to the Moderates and Independants who are not already safley locked up as (R) voters, is Birther Conspairacies and Legal Challenges? If so, I'd enjoy reading your argument for that position.

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

I wish some of you on-the-fence stand-for-nothing dopes were listening to Levin the other night. Basically, he tore you a new one for continuing to invent excuses to enable 0 and what the consequences will be.

I listen to him almost every evening, I quite enjoy his show on the way home. For a man who previously all-but-loathed Romney, he has certainly done a rather floppy 180 turn on him.

Pragmatism, I'm sure, but hardly convincing given his previous aggressive rants against Romeny.

[shakin318]

Originally Posted by Warfish

\
I listen to him almost every evening, I quite enjoy his show on the way home. For a man who previously all-but-loathed Romney, he has certainly done a rather floppy 180 turn on him.

Pragmatism, I'm sure, but hardly convincing given his previous aggressive rants against Romeny.

Levin still has no qualms about voicing his disappointment in Romney.

[Tucker134]

I read the article and it certainly seems to have merit. I want this America hating racist out of our White House by any legal means available. If this woman found a glaring discrepancy concerning hid SS # then let's look into it. Phuk him.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by Tucker134

I read the article and it certainly seems to have merit. I want this America hating racist out of our White House by any legal means available. If this woman found a glaring discrepancy concerning hid SS # then let's look into it. Phuk him.

Grandma the PI is on the job! Please stop.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

The writer may be on to something with this. I will tune in tonight to Hannity to get the full story.

I am sure he will do a splendid job covering this.

Not as good as Ed or Rachel though.

[DDNYjets]

The funny thing is these stories actually help Obama b.c the deflect away from what people should really be talking about which are his failed policies and broken promises.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Warfish

A factualy incorrect statement. There is a 0% chance of my vote going to Obama.

The question you SHOULD ask yourself is "who cares about yet another birther conspiracy theory" in the General Electorate.

The answer: not enough to win the 2012 election.

Isn't that what counts most to a pragmatist such as yourself? Winning, hence keeping Obama out of office?

Or do you really, truly, honestly, think that the key to victory in Election 2012, the key to the Moderates and Independants who are not already safley locked up as (R) voters, is Birther Conspairacies and Legal Challenges? If so, I'd enjoy reading your argument for that position.



I listen to him almost every evening, I quite enjoy his show on the way home. For a man who previously all-but-loathed Romney, he has certainly done a rather floppy 180 turn on him.

Pragmatism, I'm sure, but hardly convincing given his previous aggressive rants against Romeny.

No, a guy called (prolly a RP freak) and went on about how he didn't like Romney and that he's just like Roberts etc. Levin alluded to all his own concerns about Romney, mentioned who he was for (Bachmann, Sanatarium) but concluded vehemently that now it is time to not waste votes on 3rd parties because the only way to extricate B. Hussein out of the WH is to vote for Romney. Pure and simple. Long ago Chiefs in this forum mentioned the strategy of a (R) Congress forcing Romney right and nominating more conservative jurists when the sinister R. Buzzi Ginsberg retires/kicks the bucket and so forth. It's not just about winning, the court could be packed with more (D) rubber stamps like Unwise Latina and It's Pat then all your handwringing about whatever concerns you re the rule of law, "immigration" and 0/Big Sis/Withholder's non-enforcement of it will be for naught.

Unlike crypto-liberals and faux libertarians I am for free speech in all ways. I care not one iota how much money (D) or (R) spends on political ads from private sources. I lament that that is reality of politics when people are in need but the money spent on elections is a pittance compared to the multi-T (D) waste of 0's reign of error. I loathe the Truther, Paulistinian, Occufilth and garden variety (D) sicko-phant with equal venom but they are free to speak, opine, speculate about any situation political or commercial as they see fit. I welcome klieg lights shined into the opaque murk that is B. Hussein's shady past and I could not possibly care less about what dopers/people who stand for nothing think about the propriety of it. I do care about money paid in tax sent to (D) unions sent back to B. Hussein but that can be cured by voting intelligently. Smart people can analyze ALL of 0's failings, lies and misrepresentation simultaneously. All the investigations about the (intentionally) hidden background serve a very valid purpose - to expose and dehumanize a sociopathic, racist liar who had been elevated to sainthood by the MSM and (D).

What Levin is saying as I have said the new Romney broom can sweep clean but if you vote for a ineffective Swiffer and we still have the filthy 0 vacuum in the closet sucking $ out of our wallets it's all on you.

[Warfish]

Here is my trouble understanding Flushing.

On one hand, you (and Levin) are being VERY Pragmatic, encouraging us all to vote for a man, frankly, Levin loathes and has loathed the entire (R) primary process. Fine, I get the pragmatic belief there and (IMO unrealistic) idea that a (R) Congress (assuming wins in House and Senate) would push Romney "right". I tend to think that’s a lot of if's, maybe's and outright fantasy, but I understand the pragmatism behind it.

On the other hand, you, as a defender of free speech, encourage looking at the "shadowy history" of Obama, a total loser with the electorate. Not just a loser, but the kind of issue that drives all the many Moderates (crypto-liberals), Independents (crypto-Liberals) and Undecided (Stupid crypto-liberals) to vote (D). That’s not very pragmatic at all, quite the contrary, it's quite counterproductive to the idea of an (R) win in November.

Now, I am well aware you have no love for the crypto-liberals. But we both know elections are at the most basic level math problems. A > B or you lose. And (R) cannot > (D) if you reject/alienate/tell to **** themselves all the various middle crypto-liberals via "issues" they simply don't buy into such as Obama's shadowy past, specifically birtherism.

So it seems to be a contradiction. On one hand, I (crypto-liberal) must suck it, ignore many of my own deeply held ideals and principles, and vote for a guy I, and Mark Levin, absolutely hate as a candidate......because he must be elected over Obama.

But on the other hand, you (dedicated Conservative Republican), get to sit back and freely hurf-a-blurf and support hurf-ablurfing on a proven electoral loser and vote-rejecter like Shadowy Obama Birtherism?

Would it not be fair to say you should also suck it, shelve the conspiracy theory voter offending silliness, and focus on the issues, and aggressively stamp down birtherism as the non-pragmatic, non-vote getter it is?

I'm having trouble seeing consistency here. How can you tell others to vote Romney, pragmatism, and still be supportive (and dismissive of those not supportive) about a total electoral loser in the vital non-party voters?

It just doesn't make sense to me. Seems very "cake and eat it too" to me.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Here is my trouble understanding Flushing.

On one hand, you (and Levin) are being VERY Pragmatic, encouraging us all to vote for a man, frankly, Levin loaths and has loathed the entire (R) primary process. Fine, I get the pragmatic belief there and (IMO unrealistic) idea that a (R) COngress (assuming wins in House and Senate) would push Romney "right". I tend to think thats alot of if's, maybe's and outrigth fantasy, but I understand the pragmatism behind it.

On the other hand, you, as a defender of free speech, encourge looking at the "shadowy histroy" of Obama, a total loser with the electorate. Not just a loser, but the kind of issue that drives all the many Moderates (cryto-liberals), Independants (cryto-Liberals) and Undecideds (Stupid crypto-liberals) to vote (D). Thats not very pragmatic at all, quite the contrary, it's quite counterproductive to the idea of an (R) win in November.

Now, I am well aware you have no love for the cryto-liberals. But we both know elections are at the most basic level math problems. A > B or you lose. And (R) cannot > (D) if you reject/alienate/tell to **** themselves all the various middle crypto-liberals via "issues" they simply don't buy into such as Obama's shadowy past, specificly birtherism.

So it seems to be a contradiction. On one hand, I (crypto-liberal) must suck it, ignore many of my own deeply held ideals and principles, and vote for a guy I, and Mark Levin, absolutely hate as a candidate......because he must be elected over Obama.

But on the other hand, you (dedicated Conservative Republican), get to sit back and freely hurf-a-blurf and support hurf-ablurfing on a proven electoral loser and vote-rejector like Shadowy Obama Birtherism?

Would it not be fair to say you should also suck it, shelve the conspiracy theory voter offending sillyness, and focus on the issues, and aggressively stamp down birtherism as the non-pragmatic, non-vote getter it is?

I'm having trouble seeing consistency here. How can you tell others to vote Romney, pragmatism, and still be supportive (and dismissive of those not supportive) about a total electoral loser in the vital non-party voters?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

1st, I am not and have not been in agreement with Levin's positions on candidates or for his preferred 2012 candidates at any time. IMO his judgment this cycle has been very poor. Although I agree with many of their stances on social issues they were wasting time with social issues when the primary issue is the awful economy. I voted for Romney in both of the last 2 GOP NYS primaries because he understands how an economy should work. I trust him on other issues as well.

The only thing I really agree with in your semi-overlong navel-gazing post is that the FOCUS should not be on 0 but on his poor record as our leader. I do not hear Romney making 0's birth details or peripatetic travails an issue, do you? After the election if Romney wins the Birthers etc. can and will go to town. Nothing to do with my tacit, implicit, or overt approval of such an investigation. If you don't vote for Romney because you don't like some guy or gal in OH looking into B. Hussein's background that is pretty dumb/lame...but it's OK for (D) to fund harassment of Palin with incessant nuisance lawsuits before/during/after a national election....because you don't like her...not that I do or don't...I got it now

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

I am not in agreement with Levin's positions on candidates or for his preferred 2012 candidates. IMO his judgment this cycle has been very poor.

I voted for Romney in both of the last 2 GOP NYS primaries because he understands how an economy should work. I trust him on other issues as well.

Fair enough.

your semi-overlong navel-gazing

Just had to get that in, eh?

If you don't vote for Romney because you don't like some guy or gal in OH looking into B. Hussein's background that is pretty dumb/lame

Indeed. Thankfully that would not be my reason.

...but it's OK for (D) to fund harassment of Palin with incessant nuisance lawsuits before/during/after a national election

You'll have a hard time finding me saying anything like that.

....because you don't like her...not that I do or don't...I got it now

No, I don't like her. And no it's not ok. And no, you don't got it (on this count).

Short enough?

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Fair enough.



Just had to get that in, eh?



Indeed. Thankfully that would not be my reason.



You'll have a hard time finding me saying anything like that.



No, I don't like her. And no it's not ok. And no, you don't got it (on this count).

Short enough?

But yes I get your confusion, I am citing Levin, then it seems odd to you that I would differ from him when it comes to Romney. That shows (R) is not in lockstep. And yes it may also seem odd that Levin would work so diligently to diminish Romney in the primary season then have to regretfully conclude that Romney must be supported by all (R) to evict (D) and reverse the red tide, which I agree. At least Levin stands by his beliefs, he's not like a Michael Savage who goes nuclear on 0 (which I love) then he turns around and knocks Romney and qualifies his words by saying it's just one man's opinion, what do I matter? HTF does that effect change? It only effects a "meh", Eeyore, (D) = (R) attitude.

Like myself, Levin doesn't support the RP/crypto-liberal fantasists that the GOP must be destroyed and lose today and rise like a phoenix from the ashes in the future. That was said in '08, we all had to endure the (D) supermajority disaster as a result. The TP was very effective but served up just enough losers to let (D) keep the Senate. Levin knows (R) could destroy itself, but also knows that the (D) misrule must not stand and enabling (D) is foolish.

Romney is not the ideal GOP candidate for many, I don't think such a thing exists. Personally I wish Romney had Gingrich's or some commentators eloquence when it comes to criticizing 0, but I think the message will be focused when the convention and debates come along.

[piney]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

And yes it may also seem odd that Levin would work so diligently to diminish Romney in the primary season then have to regretfully conclude that Romney must be supported by all (R) to evict (D) and reverse the red tide, which I agree.

Like myself, Levin doesn't support the RP/crypto-liberal fantasists that the GOP must be destroyed and lose today and rise like a phoenix from the ashes in the future.

It is funny to me that Flush constantly has to defend this point of view. Most of the time from the strongest Obama opponents on this board.

Maybe too many people see Obama and Romney as the same guy, I know I do, but the thought that a conservative voter will think Romney > Obama shouldn't really shock anyone. The idea that any R > than any D may not really make sense, but it does to a staunch conservative. If an R has to go, then an R better take their place.

This abbreviated POV makes sense to me from a conservative, and I don't see how anyone could have a problem with it.

I'm defending Flush, and the guy hates me.


well, he doesn't think of me as important enough to hate, or whatever the insult du jour will be.

[Frequent Flyer]

There is no doubt the POS registered as a foriegn student at Occidental and Columbia.