If I have to Put up with a Bazillion Trump aka neuveua Palin Threads ....

Who do you trust more?

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 38 67.9%
  • Barrack Obama

    Votes: 18 32.1%

  • Total voters
    56
Obama was vetted.

You can't boast that FOX is the #1 news channel in ratings and then say that Obama wasn't vetted.

Debates were all televised and unedited.

Google makes vetting people a fuck-ton easier and a fuck-ton more thorough then it was in the 70's 80's and 90's before the boom. Noone's "unvetted."

One station is not 'vetting'. Vetting is for the whole media to investigate, research and provide facts - and, if they really must - opine about it. All FNC did was balance to total sycophantic shit from the rest of the MSM.

And, I can't believe you actually said that about Google. Oh. My. Gawd. How stupid are you? :lol::lol::lol:

OK, who was stopping FOX from vetting and reporting their findings? If they had found anything factual, the rest of the media would have reported on FOX's findings.

And you are questioning other people's intelligence????
 
Obama was vetted.

You can't boast that FOX is the #1 news channel in ratings and then say that Obama wasn't vetted.

Debates were all televised and unedited.

Google makes vetting people a fuck-ton easier and a fuck-ton more thorough then it was in the 70's 80's and 90's before the boom. Noone's "unvetted."

One station is not 'vetting'. Vetting is for the whole media to investigate, research and provide facts - and, if they really must - opine about it. All FNC did was balance to total sycophantic shit from the rest of the MSM.

And, I can't believe you actually said that about Google. Oh. My. Gawd. How stupid are you? :lol::lol::lol:

OK, who was stopping FOX from vetting and reporting their findings? If they had found anything factual, the rest of the media would have reported on FOX's findings.

And you are questioning other people's intelligence????

They did report on it and the other stations opted to discuss the "Fox Agenda" as opposed to what Fox found.

For example...they reported on Wright...that was factual. Fox reported it and the other stations also reported on it...but the other stations then added commentators who discussed the Wiright issue as a "non issue and Fox has an agenda"

But if you notice...not one of those other stations brought up the dicussion of how credible an answer of "I didnt know he had those sentiments" was for a Presdiential candidate.

I mean...really.....NBC News did not feel it apporpriate to say to the candidate..."you call him your mentor...you have known him for 20 years....and you had no idea he had such sentiments? Then how can you ask the American people to trust you to be the good jusdge of character necessary for international diplomacy?"

They certainly asked McCain that question when it came to the Keating 5 situation.
 
Obama was vetted.

You can't boast that FOX is the #1 news channel in ratings and then say that Obama wasn't vetted.

Debates were all televised and unedited.

Google makes vetting people a fuck-ton easier and a fuck-ton more thorough then it was in the 70's 80's and 90's before the boom. Noone's "unvetted."

Excuse me...Fox News DID vett the candidate Obama...and the other news agencies, as opposed to addressing the issues, tended to address the "agenda" of Fox News....minimizing the normally concerning issues that were attached to Obama.

As for the deabtes.....the debates are not nearly as effective as the ensuing analyses of the media...

So when Obama gave this answer...

"Lots of people were friends with Ayers so whats the big deal that I was...."

No one in the media analyzed it as it should have been analyzed....

Such as:

Those other people are not asking to be electeds Presdient.
lots of people were friends with OJ but that doesnt rationalize it
that doesnt answer the question of WHY you deemed it appropriate to be friends with someone who was invoved with an organization that used violence to make a point

Any other candidate would have been thrown those questions...but not his time around...

instead?

"see, he has a very rational explanation"
First off, source that Ayers quote from Obama, because Google doesn't recognize it as you wrote it.

Second, they were not friends. Ayers is a professor, Obama was a professor, so they had mutual friends and acquaintances. They met at a fundraiser for Obama - big whoop!

If it comes out that Chris Cristie has met a mafia member at a party, does that disqualify him from the presidency?
 
Even prominent Democrats are admitting that Obama was never vetted to ANY degree to which all other candidates are subject.

One thing Donald Trump has going for him is that he has been vetted 1000%. He is a household word. There is nobody on the planet who doesn't have a perception or opinion about him. There is essentially nothing of his public or private life that hasn't been written about ad nauseum. What can the media do to him or for him that hasn't already been done? Practically nothing.

I don't know if he is serious about running for President or if he would be electable if he did. But I do know he will make things miserable for all other candidates if they try to dodge any issues. For that reason, I hope he runs.
 
One station is not 'vetting'. Vetting is for the whole media to investigate, research and provide facts - and, if they really must - opine about it. All FNC did was balance to total sycophantic shit from the rest of the MSM.

And, I can't believe you actually said that about Google. Oh. My. Gawd. How stupid are you? :lol::lol::lol:

I dare you to tell me that the Wright and Ayers shit didn't air on every news station.

Google sees everything.

Just because it wasn't obsessed over, ala Fox, doesn't mean it wasn't reported.

Also, let's hear one thing you didn't know about him then that you know now.

(there's nothing stupid in pointing out that Google is essentially the world's largest library, but then again, you're not the best judge of stupid, stupid.)

Please show me a link on Google of a NBC, CBS, ABC ot CNN reporter asking Obama why he had 3 different answers to his relationship with Ayers.
Recall...

1) He is just a man in the neighborhood.
but then Fox revealed that he had a personal relationship with him
so...next was...

2)I knew him but I did not know of his past
but then fox revealed that he DID know of his past
so next was....

3) I knew of his past but I thought he was reformed.

So why was he not asked about this?

Do you recall what happened whn Bill Burton was asked that on Fox?

He refused to asnwer and kept on saying:

I can answer that question all day loing and my answer will not change. It is not what the American people want to hear about.

Megan Kelly said

"But you didnt answer it and my viewers do want to hear it"

And he said

"I did answer it and there is no reson to continue answering it becuase my answer wont change"

And that was that....and he never did answer it.....and no one else in the media cared.
You need to learn to source what you claim. Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.

Source every one of your Obama 'quotes'.
 
How about political ally.
I consider a poitical ally who opens his houde to a campaign meeting on my behalf and with me in attendance as a friend.

Palling around? Exactly where did I say that? Playing hoops? Nope. Nerver implied it.

But I noticed you completely diverted away form the fact that he had three different answers and no one asked him to explain it...THAT was the reason for my post.

And yet, Obama is BushII. Go figure, Ayers and Barack musn't have been as close as Fox thought.
Hannity was the only one who exaggerated the relationship.

Fox news accurately reported it...as a relationship that went beyond Ayers being some guy in the neighborhood.
So has Hannity lost all credibility with the Right due to his outright lies? Nope!
 
Obama was vetted.

You can't boast that FOX is the #1 news channel in ratings and then say that Obama wasn't vetted.

Debates were all televised and unedited.

Google makes vetting people a fuck-ton easier and a fuck-ton more thorough then it was in the 70's 80's and 90's before the boom. Noone's "unvetted."

Excuse me...Fox News DID vett the candidate Obama...and the other news agencies, as opposed to addressing the issues, tended to address the "agenda" of Fox News....minimizing the normally concerning issues that were attached to Obama.

As for the deabtes.....the debates are not nearly as effective as the ensuing analyses of the media...

So when Obama gave this answer...

"Lots of people were friends with Ayers so whats the big deal that I was...."

No one in the media analyzed it as it should have been analyzed....

Such as:

Those other people are not asking to be electeds Presdient.
lots of people were friends with OJ but that doesnt rationalize it
that doesnt answer the question of WHY you deemed it appropriate to be friends with someone who was invoved with an organization that used violence to make a point

Any other candidate would have been thrown those questions...but not his time around...

instead?

"see, he has a very rational explanation"
First off, source that Ayers quote from Obama, because Google doesn't recognize it as you wrote it.

Second, they were not friends. Ayers is a professor, Obama was a professor, so they had mutual friends and acquaintances. They met at a fundraiser for Obama - big whoop!

If it comes out that Chris Cristie has met a mafia member at a party, does that disqualify him from the presidency?

My quote was a paraphrase. The fact that you dont know about the situation is troubling...and makes my point.

And compare apples to apples please...

If it was found that Christie attended a fund raiser for himself that was thrown by a member of the mafia? Dam well it should be held against him. We dont need people with connections to dirt representing us.
 
And yet, Obama is BushII. Go figure, Ayers and Barack musn't have been as close as Fox thought.
Hannity was the only one who exaggerated the relationship.

Fox news accurately reported it...as a relationship that went beyond Ayers being some guy in the neighborhood.
So has Hannity lost all credibility with the Right due to his outright lies? Nope!

lol...he lost me.
And he lost many of my friends.
The guy is an entertainer...and that is fine...but I believe there is a time and a place for his type of entertainment...and during very serious times like these, I do not need someone exaggerating facts for me.
On the flip side...I dont need people hiding facts from me either...which is why I dont watch NBC or CBS...
 
Toro you got the hiccups.lol

As for the Birth Certificate thing, I don't see how you can say it is the height of buffoonery, when a large MAJORITY of people have questions about it.

Trump is repeating what a lot of people are asking, where the hell is the ORGINAL COPY.

I have a copy of my Hawaii birth certificate and it looks NOTHING like the Obama's.

A large majority do not question whether or not Obama was born here. A large majority of WND readers question it. About half of Republicans question it. A majority of Americans do not.
 
Toro you got the hiccups.lol

As for the Birth Certificate thing, I don't see how you can say it is the height of buffoonery, when a large MAJORITY of people have questions about it.

Trump is repeating what a lot of people are asking, where the hell is the ORGINAL COPY.

I have a copy of my Hawaii birth certificate and it looks NOTHING like the Obama's.

A large majority do not question whether or not Obama was born here. A large majority of WND readers question it. About half of Republicans question it. A majority of Americans do not.

and no democrats?
 
Foxfyre said:
Do you really think it is 'bemusement'? If so, why isn't more of the left making fun and joking about these people causing such bemusement? Why do they instead so quickly and immediately flock to the threads to post again and again and again the most derogatory adjectives and/or anything they can find that ridicules or demeans or degrades or demonizes the subject?

Same reason why the Right does it to Obama when they call him a Marxist communist fascist racist Muslim nonAmerican.
 
Even prominent Democrats are admitting that Obama was never vetted to ANY degree to which all other candidates are subject.

One thing Donald Trump has going for him is that he has been vetted 1000%. He is a household word. There is nobody on the planet who doesn't have a perception or opinion about him. There is essentially nothing of his public or private life that hasn't been written about ad nauseum. What can the media do to him or for him that hasn't already been done? Practically nothing.

I don't know if he is serious about running for President or if he would be electable if he did. But I do know he will make things miserable for all other candidates if they try to dodge any issues. For that reason, I hope he runs.

True story. :thup:
 
Foxfyre said:
Do you really think it is 'bemusement'? If so, why isn't more of the left making fun and joking about these people causing such bemusement? Why do they instead so quickly and immediately flock to the threads to post again and again and again the most derogatory adjectives and/or anything they can find that ridicules or demeans or degrades or demonizes the subject?

Same reason why the Right does it to Obama when they call him a Marxist communist fascist racist Muslim nonAmerican.

the fascist racist Marxist American hater are truths. the rest I'm not sure on yet.
I think we can add wannabe little dictator also.
 
Last edited:
first; obama is looking as bufoony as any president in history. second, he's indebted america more than all of the presidents in u.s. history. third, there is an alarming (for obama ) amount of americans that question the bc, partly because he's so nefarious and has such sketchy associations.

trump say's he'd be in jail if he had done what obama did real estate wise with rezco, anything to that ??

but the hiding of the birth certificate trumps all of obama's problems (i know i could have said transcended).
i'm getting a tremendous response on interest for the summer birther rallies in d.c. sorry harper, but then, you had chretian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chrétien
talk about devisive losers...

the made up obama b.c. looks like a car title and has less information. my goal is to put so much public pressure on him he has to show or go, the he will belong to the ages. i want to see the document in my lifetime, you know since he was president and all. right now he's a non denial denial... watergate.
 
Last edited:
first; obama is looking as bufoony as any president in history. second, he's indebted america more than all of the presidents in u.s. history. third, there is an alarming (for obama ) amount of americans that question the bc, partly because he's so nefarious and has such sketchy associations.

trump say's he'd be in jail if he had done what obama did real estate wise with rezco, anything to that ??

but the hiding of the birth certificate trumps all of obama's problems (i know i could have said transcended).
i'm getting a tremendous response on interest for the summer birther rallies in d.c. sorry harper, but then, you had chretian... Jean Chrétien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
talk about devisive losers...

are you charging the birfers to attend? you should. $1 each.

hey that's a good idea. maybe I'll organize my own birfer rallies and charge birfers. I'll say it's for legal expenses to expose the birth certificate. they'll buy that.
 
no you're wrong colonel sanders, nobody has to buy anything, in our country we expect the whole promised transparent truth, not like canada the fifty first..., no wait... the fifty eighth state, where the doors are unlocked and nothing bad ever happens. will trade you obama for getty lee. take off... hoser
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top