Sheriff Joe To Vet Obama's Eligibility

Quote from bighorn:

...For the record, I don't care for Obama's white half either.
Too low a percentage for you? You have already waddled and quacked like a duck. Don't trouble yourself with damage control. Just continue dog-whistling your way to full agreement with your fowl friends.
 
Quote from Trader666:

If called I would serve under Obama but I would fight for my brothers in arms and of course the United States.

Why do you think I wouldn't (at least enough to ask)?

I dunno, you have never stated it, but some of your friends are calling for treasonous activities. I just wanted to know. If the federalists call, you are going to put on the uniform and fight for the flag.
 
WTF are you talking about? Would you elaborate please?
Quote from RCG Trader:

I dunno, you have never stated it, but some of your friends are calling for treasonous activities. I just wanted to know. If the federalists call, you are going to put on the uniform and fight for the flag.
 
Quote from Trader666:

WTF are you talking about? Would you elaborate please?

Not to sound like McCarthy, but I got the obviously mistaken idea that you sided with people who hoped that change would come, "the old fashioned way". 377 said this. That is when I began to actively turn on him. We have a system, we are the greatest in the world democratically because of that system.

I am relieved and thankful that you will support the government and structure of the United States if asked to do so.
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

You can stop right there friend. You make things up as you go. No need to go any further.

I gave you my definition of "racist". If you are too terrified to give yours, simply say so.
 
Quote from Trader666:

If called I would serve under Obama but I would fight for my brothers in arms and of course the United States.

Why do you think I wouldn't (at least enough to ask)?

Would you server under Obama if its a civil uprising to overthrow the government ?
 
Quote from Brass:

Too low a percentage for you? You have already waddled and quacked like a duck. Don't trouble yourself with damage control. Just continue dog-whistling your way to full agreement with your fowl friends.


Typical Lib response - "I have nothing to support my weak position, so I'll just make a public ass of myself."
 
Quote from AK Forty Seven:

I don't find Gingrich that intelligent.His academic achievements are in a very easy subject,history.He also didn't go to schools comparable to Harvard.He is quick witted,but when I think of some of the ridiculous ideas he has put forward I don't think he is that smart


Obama Romney is a good match up.Obama graduated Columbia ,Romney graduated Brigham Young with Honors .Columbia is the better school but Brigham Young is a fine school and Mitt graduated with honors

Both went to Harvard Law.Mitt graduated Harvard Law cum laude,Obama graduated magna cum laude.magna cum laude tops
cum laude


cum laude, meaning "with honor"

magna cum laude, meaning "with great honor"

summa cum laude, meaning "with highest honor"


Obama was also editor and then President of The Harvard Law review


While Obama gets the nod in Harvard Law Mitt also got a Harvard MBA at the same time.I cant imagine taking Harvard Law and Harvard Business school at the same .Mitt was also more focused on Business and only took law due to his fathers advice

Due to Romney taking Harvard Law and Harvard business at the same time and his 250 million dollar financial success Mitt gets the nod imo

Your analysis is accurate if scholastic achievement , especially scholastic and financial achievement is the most important criteria. But what about how the two see science? While on evolution they are the same, on GW, Mitt's (convenient ?) skepticism shows he does not comprehend the issue very well.

But I suspect what he "knows" is very dependent on which way the political winds blow. So can we trust such a shifty intelligence? That scares me more than staid stupidity.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Your analysis is accurate if scholastic achievement , especially scholastic and financial achievement is the most important criteria. But what about how the two see science? While on evolution they are the same, on GW, Mitt's (convenient ?) skepticism shows he does not comprehend the issue very well.

But I suspect what he "knows" is very dependent on which way the political winds blow. So can we trust such a shifty intelligence? That scares me more than staid stupidity.

I believe that Mitt believes in GW and is only pandering to the right for the nomination

http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-04/news/29685848_1_global-warming-climate-change-greenhouse-gases


Romney reaffirms stance that global warming is real

Bucking skeptics, he urges changes

June 04, 2011|By Matt Viser, Globe Staff



MANCHESTER, N.H. — In the first town hall of his freshly announced presidential campaign, Mitt Romney yesterday reaffirmed his view that global warming is occurring and that humans are contributing to it, a position that has been rejected in recent years by many Republicans as the issue has taken on a greater partisan tinge.

After opening remarks in which Romney blamed President Obama’s policies for the new anemic hiring figures, the first questioner from the floor — a software developer from Hanover, N.H. — wanted to know the candidate’s position on climate change, an issue his opponents have generally avoided so far.

“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course,’’ Romney said. “But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that … so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0DRBuQmEE0E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Back
Top