The b/c issue - Stating factcheck as a reliable source
Posted By: Is like say Michelle Obama said its okay on 2008-12-03
In Reply to:
Since they are all one in the same. Factcheck is not an independent source.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Repeat - Factcheck is not a reliable source, Repeat - no reliable
You keep citing Factcheck and we keep having to tell you Factcheck is not reliable. Why is it not reliable? Because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation in which Obama is part of. AND because Obama was Chairman of the Board. It really is like talking to a wall. So let me repeat and read this nice and slow. Factcheck...not a reliable source. Cheese-o-Pete...you might as well just say you asked Michelle Obama and she said it's real. Additionally....the b/c they put up there was found to be a forgery. So...once again...factcheck not reliable...b/c submitted was a forgery.
So are you a fortune teller? You don't know if he will be elected or disqualified and neither do I. If the SC comes back and says he is legite I will drop the subject. If they find anything out of the ordinary then I will most likely say I told you so. If they say he's not legite but we'll change the constitution just for him, then I will be madder than a hornet and you'll hear from me. But all in all I will be satisfied with what the SC says. We won't know what their decision is until they make it.
If it comes back that he is ineligible and he lied, he better do some explaining to this country about why and he better calm his worshippers down. I think overall the country will be okay. For as many supporters that he has there are an equal number of people who don't support him and view him to be ineligibile. There are even people who support him, but are saying...wait a minute here, things are not adding up. Just show us the certificate and be done with it. In fact more so now since all this info came out and many people upset about it that they didn't know ahead of time.
As for what I think will happen. I really don't know. I do believe that quite possibly Hillary will step in and become President because she is the one that he wronged by campaigning when he knew he did not meet qualifications. So I believe probably she will become the next President and Biden will remain VP, or Biden will step in as President and she becomes VP.
I highly doubt the SC will just elect McCain because the republican party did not win and now that we have a congress/senate that's all democrat (or mostly democrat) they would prevent that somehow.
As for McCain? Heck no I didn't want him in there. I wanted one of the following - Chuck Baldwin from the constitutional party (but he had no chance whatsoever). I was also interested in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I really like Dennis Kucinich. I agreed with a lot of his ideas (especially impeachment of Bush) and I have agreed with a lot of what he has voted on in the past.
So maybe what I would really like to see happen is if the O is disqualified to have another "mini" campaign. All the candidates can run again and then the public decides after one or two months of campaigning. So, instead of having a President inaugerated in January they could be inaugerated in February or March. It would be different, but nothing like this has ever happened before.
I'll just say this on the whole b/c issues and this is why I say this and I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
1. Let me first say I voted for Obama in the primaries. So in no way do I hate him or a racist or whatever else people want to throw out. I voted for him because he has some ideas I thought were good (thought is the key word).
2. After he was elected I read about the stolen election from Hillary (even though I was way so not supportive of her). I started learning about his lies to the people. His dealings with Ayers, ACORN, Wright, Farrakhan etc, etc.
3. He funds different groups who create websites to detract from the issues.
4. The media treated him like a prince while trashing McCain/Palin. I was no fan of theirs by all means but what happened to them was uncalled for.
5. The b/c he put up on the "factcheck" site was found to be a forgery.
6. We find out he's born in Kenya and legally goes and has the records sealed, along with his school records. He is hiding something and that is not very reassuring for over half the country here.
7. His grandmother was in the room when he was born along with his sister and brother.
8. His sister mentions multiple hospitals he was born at, while Obama mentions something totally different.
Those are only a few of the issues that are my concerns about his legitimacy.
On the other hand you have the issues/policies of his that I don't agree with and am finding out more and more how unsafe our country is going to be.
The incident in India has the you know what scared out of me and the thought of that happening here in our country is a real issue for me.
I was in the US Army. I spent 8 years in the service defending the country. It just makes me a bit upset to hear that people don't care if the Constition is not upheld, just so Obama gets in no matter what. All I want is the Constituion protected. That's all I'm asking for. Our founding fathers created it for a reason and we need to abide by it and not change it. I saw where Barney Franks tried to change it so that a foreign born could become president as long as they had been a citizen for 20 years (it was quite odd timing because not too much longer after that Obama decides to run and then we find there is a forged b/c. Timing of all this is just way too suspicious. All I say is let the supreme courts decide. That is what they are there for. I have read articles that say The Supreme Courts job is to protect the constitution and even if it means that a decision they make is not going to be popular, they are bound by their duty to defend the Constitution and they will.
So, once more I want to repeat that Factcheck is not reliable source because Obama/Annenberg Foundation and Factcheck are one in the same.
Factcheck not reliable and b/c is forged
Look at it yourself and then read what the experts say.
reliable source for this please. nm
.
Not a reliable source - sm
The Huffington post is not a reliable source. It's radical left-wing propaganda. It's even less credible than MSNBC.
Exactly what would you consider a reliable source? n/m
As far as I know it is a reliable source, but not
totally. At least, so I guess, it is controlled for neutrality, whereas other sources just smell partisan.
As we can see, there is no reliable source. Twisted, misleading passages out of context
rasberries
The source is not the issue
the voting record is.
Right, because they are so much more reliable.
Note sarcasm.
to me that factcheck did not say she did not do it -
left it up in the air whether she approved of it or not.
Factcheck may or may not be a
credible source. I happen to think it is. I am satisfied with the b/c photos there AND the certification. What would it take? Does Obama need to go door to door with the b/c? I really don't expect the SC to ever even hear the case. The lawsuits are obviously brought with people who have an axe to grind.
As for the Constitution.........George W. Bush would have destroyed it, didn't he say something like "it's just a piece of paper." Why no uproar about that?
Think for a minute of what would happen if Obama were to be disqualified as you and others seem to want. The election was held. It is over. People had ample time to study the candidates BEFORE the election. The PEOPLE spoke. We're at the brink of disaster on so many levels. I have researched probably as much as you have...including Factcheck. One thing is sure, I don't watch Fox News!
Re FactCheck, I'm a
democrat, and there have been plenty of times through the years that FactCheck and Snopes have posted facts/findings that I haven't liked and that were none to flattering, so I do believe both sources try to stick to FACTS.
And as far as everything else you posted, I agree 100%! How can ANYONE with a brain still argue against a certified birth certificate AND an old birth announcement from the newspaper archives?! People are grasping at straws. But then again, these are people who think the country was doing great under republicans, that Iraq attacked the WTC, and who don't even recognize the impending DEPRESSION Bush threw us into, which McCain would've continued exactly the same, so what else can you expect from these people.
Drudge is as reliable as any of the MSM
He routinely/daily posts articles leaning both ways, but when someone doesn't tout the liberal mantra verbatim then you write them off. You don't want anything to do with fair and balanced reporting do you?
I'm sure reliable info is out there somewhere...... sm
but it would be hard to find. Any national coverage for the UAW would be the same, I would think, as the national coverage that Obama wants to put in place for all Americans.
Aaaah, there's that factcheck you seem to get
Don't forget that factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation that employed Obama in Chicago
AND here's the LATEST proof of which you have none to refute it....
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/028_Obama,%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20and%20First%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
AND IF YOU WILL DO YOUR HOMEWORK.....you will discover this case HAS NOT been dismissed as of today.....it's still going forward
Ah, there's that factcheck.....hmmmm
Don't forget that factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation that employed Obama in Chicago.
Strange bed fellas, aren't they?
just a note from factcheck.org
A second false quote has Obama saying he would "stand with the Muslims," words that don't appear in his book. What he actually said is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
And how does factcheck know what they mean and why does it take an interpreter...
xx
So is Factcheck.org. What is your point???
Welcome back Sam.
Finding reliable news sm
If you want facts, the best place is the internet and alternative news sites. Those that rely on the mainstream news for information are not well-informed. The only news I watch on the TV is BBC World.
Here is a good article on the subject:
The Difficulty in Being an Uninformed American.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/010909Roberts2.shtml
I just found factcheck.org. They debunk a lot...sm
of the statements being circulated by both parties.
FactCheck.org wrote about this in August
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.
Cannot trust anyone it seems.
Reliable link? More fear mongering I think. You...sm
republicans will believe anything!
factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html:
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Factcheck.org link inside - Obama birth certificate - nothing wrong with reputable sources for your
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Either that or this is one heck of a fake, plus someone planted an announcement back in the 1961 Honolulu newspaper....
!!!!!
No issue is no issue. Denying that
nm
Thank you for stating this.
there is a good chance Clinton is out or (which of course will happen) government will change the constitution.
Thanks for stating this. (NM)
x
Stating that sin
is sin is not passing judgement. If I was judging, I would be telling people they were going to burn in hale. Anyone can repent of their sins but pointing out a sin is not a judgement. It's reiterating what God tells us.
Thank you for stating this.
This is why I am ticked off with Obama and government. He is just taking over EVERYTHING!
I was stating my opinion. sm
I was simply stating that my father has 3 purple hearts and I was a military dependent, living 6 years of my childhood in cold war Germany. I am tired of the right referring to anyone who does not support the Iraq civil war as "unpatriotic". I am a soldier's daughter, and I want our troops home, because I do support the troops.
Yes 911 was a terrible terrorist thing. What does that have to do with Iraq? Nothing. Never has, never will.
No problem....just stating
proven facts. Hoover raised taxes during a recession and it lead to the great depression. FDR spend money on goverment programs and it actually prolonged the duration of the depression. History, my friends.....history.
Just stating facts
and the fact is that McPalin's campaign money was spent on those hateful calls. Dirty, dirty politics. I am just the messenger so don't take it out on me.
Just stating facts
Obama has been caught in lies and distorting the truth. One man cannot change this country. One man did not get this country into this mess. You can't blame the President for every dang thing happening.
Do you know what Obama called Pennsylvanians? "Those white people," "bitter," "cling to their guns and religion," "they'll call me a black man."
Sound like a great, caring candidate to you?
No, was just stating that we are still paying them...
its not like they are not getting an income while they are campaigning.
The point was that he could share his own wealth if he wanted to without being forced to by the government...lead by example, before he forces the rest of us to join in whether we want to or not.
True, but GM is stating it will take
x
As my post above, stating
We did not rush in. Gave Iraq plenty of time so they could move their weapons.
Stating the obvious
resemble a personal attack. You have clearly defined yourself here. All I did was to tell it like it is.
I never heard her stating that about herself.
nm
If you are stating that he is lying, then
Yes, I did read the whole post. You wrote I'm more concerned about **the lying**, not **I would be concerned if I found out he was lying** or something along those lines. **The lying** -- again, WHAT lying?
I was merely stating there are TWO sides....
to every story. I have not taken sides, as apparently you have. That is all I am saying. The Palestinians are not without fault either, and their present governing body are on the terror watch list. That should mean something....?
If you had stopped at stating it was from Newsmax...
and not followed that with conservative propaganda in the body of your post...obviously said in an effort to discredit whatever was in the article. I can read between the lines, as can other posters, right and left, I feel sure.
Good for you for stating your views on the war then...
I find it ultra annoying when people start calling others unpatriotic when they don't agree with the war or something else the government is doing. Isn't being passionate about what you feel is best for the country the epitome of patriotism!? I think so.
I agree. Sam is stating the facts as well (sm)
as opinions. Take them or leave them. Stop bashing others for your benefit. Sam is above that and doesn't play the bashing game. Just a strong poster with opinions that don't agree with yours. You guys are like a pack of wolves. You are really full of yourselves, aren't you? Shame on you.
This is a forum for posting opinions, observations, and finds. Leave it at that and stop the catfighting.
All I'm stating is that this election may determine
At no time did I say other countries are directly involved in our system of picking a President. (That system already sucks enough as it is. Look at the Florida fiasco a couple elections ago).
What I'm saying is, if we don't get some leaders in office that have less ego, and more people skills, who can speak AS WELL AS LISTEN, then we're doomed to continue to have the same problems, and very likely worse.
If our next leader is more into bombing than talking, then we better dust off our nuclear arsenal, 'cause we could end up having to use it. Personally, though, I'd rather see the next Prez. talking and using diplomacy, rather than bombing the s**t out of the rest of the world. What goes around does have a tendency to come around.
I haven't condemned anyone...just stating
xx
nope, just stating facts
and not providing backup - seems to be a common thing on this board. But, since I posted it, it must be true, and if you don't take me at my word, you are blinded by the light of your favorite (insert name here) politician.
I don't think there was any insinuation there. Just stating the facts. sm
Obama better wear a bullet proof vest all the time. I am voting for McCain, not because I like him but as a vote AGAINST Obama. I don't want a president that is not an American citizen much less one who believes in a different God than I do.
Stating our servicemen died for nothing.....
is misinterpreted. No one wants to lose one single troop. The war is senseless and our troops have to believe in what they are doing in order to survive. But, most could claim all wars are senseless. No, I did not know people were protesting our service people (the war, YES, but not our actual service members - head in the sand on that point). Ignorance, if they understood anything at all, they would understand that our troops are doing their jobs by following orders.
Horrible signs were stating
x
|
