007
Charter Member
He was born in Hawaii. Thats a fact. He released his birth certificate certified by Hawaii.
That is an outright, unmitigated, blatant, bold faced LIE.
YOU are a LIAR!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He was born in Hawaii. Thats a fact. He released his birth certificate certified by Hawaii.
Oh gosh..it be a birther!
Alinski's tactic of demeaning the opposition without addressing the facts has played out on this one.
Damn right I'm a "Birther", and firmly ensconced amongst the liberals like Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post and Mother Jones News, among others. Oh, yes, not to mention about 45% - 60% of polled Americans, depending on the poll, as well as the legislators and governors of several states who together are enacting new laws demanding that all candidates for president in 2012 show their long form birth certificates - those new laws are not an accident. they're being enacted because of we 'crazy tinfoil hat birthers".
That puts you, my friend, not only a probable national minority, but a severe tactical disadvantage, because those states are demanding a long form and Obama has made it clear he won't release his. There will be no stand-off on this, and if Obama doesn't disclose his records, he's going to look like the ass of all time no matter what, and so will his vocal supporters. What will he do? Does he have a long form? will he turn it over? if not, as seems the case, will he challenge the laws in court? (LOL!) Will he ask for people to write him in? Drop out citing "health concerns' or "love for his family"?
So I ask you, then. What will he do? This isn't theoretical - the laws are going to be passed in at least half a dozen states for sure, and all it takes is one to screw him up royally. So you tell me, since "Skippy' refuses to answer: what will he do?
He was born in Hawaii. Thats a fact. He released his birth certificate certified by Hawaii. But don't let facts get in the way of your racism.
If a majority you mean 25% then yeah. Otherwise you're a crazy minority.
This response by you sounds astoundingly identical to the liberal ("Hawaiian Governor Bear") in this animated video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK2PQIoDPJo
As usual we see liberal democrats doing what they always do when faced with bad news about their party: claim the source is unreliable, make comparisons to Bush who has been gone for 2 years, or change the subject, in this case the Florida housing market.
Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.
Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.
Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.
Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.
Obama's approval numbers are in the low 40's.
Live in the real world. It's a fact. Deal with it.
very cute.
I'll try this again (this is like rainbow Glitter bear debating a liberal - exactly the same!); Obama cannot run without showing at least a few states his long form birth certificate. Stop acting like some uber-cool riviera gambler, because i don't think you've saved enough from mowing lawns to cover the wager, so answer the question instead : Obama needs to show his long form birth certificate to run in all the states in 2012. what will obama do?
answer or lose by default. Your play money is of no value to me.
Oh gosh..it be a birther!
Alinski's tactic of demeaning the opposition without addressing the facts has played out on this one.
Damn right I'm a "Birther", and firmly ensconced amongst the liberals like Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post and Mother Jones News, among others. Oh, yes, not to mention about 45% - 60% of polled Americans, depending on the poll, as well as the legislators and governors of several states who together are enacting new laws demanding that all candidates for president in 2012 show their long form birth certificates - those new laws are not an accident. they're being enacted because of we 'crazy tinfoil hat birthers".
That puts you, my friend, not only a probable national minority, but a severe tactical disadvantage, because those states are demanding a long form and Obama has made it clear he won't release his. There will be no stand-off on this, and if Obama doesn't disclose his records, he's going to look like the ass of all time no matter what, and so will his vocal supporters. What will he do? Does he have a long form? will he turn it over? if not, as seems the case, will he challenge the laws in court? (LOL!) Will he ask for people to write him in? Drop out citing "health concerns' or "love for his family"?
So I ask you, then. What will he do? This isn't theoretical - the laws are going to be passed in at least half a dozen states for sure, and all it takes is one to screw him up royally. So you tell me, since "Skippy' refuses to answer: what will he do?
Barack Obama aka Barry S (2 different last names beginning with S!)The Little Prince is back to where he was for most of last year, in the low 40's approval rating. Maybe this would be different if he didn't freak normal people out - his diehard supporters don't qualify - by bowing to Saudi princes, demanding that NASA's(!) first priority be to "reach out to Muslims" and continue to hide his citizenship records (don't debate why he's doing it, he's just doing it, and that could mean anything from sadism to paranoia to holding the office illegally - ya gotta know if that had been about George Bush the NY Times would have it on the front page every day, like they did Bush's ultimately phony military records created by liberals to embarrass Bush.)
This from Rasmussen Reports, the polling agency that liberals loved when they said Bush's poll numbers were low, but now they hate because they're saying Obama's are poor!
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 (see trends).
Yesterday and today mark the presidents lowest ratings since mid-December. It remains to be seen whether this is merely the result of statistical noise or a change in perceptions of President Obama. For most of 2010, more than 40% of voters voiced Strong Disapproval of the president. However, following his December agreement with Senate Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, the level of Strong Disapproval had declined.
HERE'S the complete story
The OP is a liar.
Obama's poll numbers are not in the low 40's.
The OP is a liar.
Obama's poll numbers are not in the low 40's.
I gave you a link. I guess Rasmussen is a liar. I guess anyone with bad news for liberals is a liar. that's what libs always say. That worked great for you last November, when your side lost to Republicans by the biggest margin in 70 years. I guess that's a lie, too.
Oh gosh..it be a birther!
Alinski's tactic of demeaning the opposition without addressing the facts has played out on this one.
Damn right I'm a "Birther", and firmly ensconced amongst the liberals like Chris Matthews, the Huffington Post and Mother Jones News, among others. Oh, yes, not to mention about 45% - 60% of polled Americans, depending on the poll, as well as the legislators and governors of several states who together are enacting new laws demanding that all candidates for president in 2012 show their long form birth certificates - those new laws are not an accident. they're being enacted because of we 'crazy tinfoil hat birthers".
That puts you, my friend, not only a probable national minority, but a severe tactical disadvantage, because those states are demanding a long form and Obama has made it clear he won't release his. There will be no stand-off on this, and if Obama doesn't disclose his records, he's going to look like the ass of all time no matter what, and so will his vocal supporters. What will he do? Does he have a long form? will he turn it over? if not, as seems the case, will he challenge the laws in court? (LOL!) Will he ask for people to write him in? Drop out citing "health concerns' or "love for his family"?
So I ask you, then. What will he do? This isn't theoretical - the laws are going to be passed in at least half a dozen states for sure, and all it takes is one to screw him up royally. So you tell me, since "Skippy' refuses to answer: what will he do?
First off..it's not "states" demanding this birth certificate bullshit..it's batshit crazy Republican politicians. And it's a well worn tactic. You can't win an election, find something, anything, to make the opponent ineligible or dry up the support..by blocking the vote. Of course it won't work. President Obama is running in 2012 and will likely win. The state of Hawaii, the Federal Government and the state media of Hawaii have all certified he was born there. It's also interesting to note that in 2008, Republicans had no trouble running a foreign born candidate.
In other words. You birthers are a lousy bunch of hypocrites.
It's always funny when some wet behind the ears rightwing noob prances in and posts a Rasmussen poll and expects to be taken seriously.
It's always funny when some wet behind the ears rightwing noob prances in and posts a Rasmussen poll and expects to be taken seriously.
Well, I guess you're more highly placed in the political world than these folks who made the following assessments about Rasmussen Reports:
Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.
From rasmussen:
In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the (Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds and in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically. The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!
There are other testimonials scattered about the website, including from CNN.
BREAKING AS OF 21 MINUTES AGO RASMUSSEN HAS OBAMA DROPPING. DOWN TO 41%!!!! THE LINK IS HERE.
FROM RASMUSSEN
***************************************
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 Thats the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.
Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
****************************************
It's always funny when some wet behind the ears rightwing noob prances in and posts a Rasmussen poll and expects to be taken seriously.
Well, I guess you're more highly placed in the political world than these folks who made the following assessments about Rasmussen Reports:
Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.
From rasmussen:
In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the (Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds and in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically. The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!
There are other testimonials scattered about the website, including from CNN.
BREAKING AS OF 21 MINUTES AGO RASMUSSEN HAS OBAMA DROPPING. DOWN TO 41%!!!! THE LINK IS HERE.
FROM RASMUSSEN
***************************************
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 Thats the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.
Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
****************************************
You didn't answer my question. Why does Foxnews have Obama's approval at 51%?
Why are they wrong and Rasmussen is right?
It's always funny when some wet behind the ears rightwing noob prances in and posts a Rasmussen poll and expects to be taken seriously.
Well, I guess you're more highly placed in the political world than these folks who made the following assessments about Rasmussen Reports:
Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.
Well, I guess you're more highly placed in the political world than these folks who made the following assessments about Rasmussen Reports:
Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.
From rasmussen:
In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Centers Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the (Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds and in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically. The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!
There are other testimonials scattered about the website, including from CNN.
BREAKING AS OF 21 MINUTES AGO RASMUSSEN HAS OBAMA DROPPING. DOWN TO 41%!!!! THE LINK IS HERE.
FROM RASMUSSEN
***************************************
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 Thats the lowest level of Strong Approval yet recorded for President Obama and the lowest Approval Index rating since November.
Republicans have a nine-point advantage over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
****************************************
You didn't answer my question. Why does Foxnews have Obama's approval at 51%?
Why are they wrong and Rasmussen is right?
Rasmussen is more highly regarded than Fox on polling and rightfully so. read the quotes about what LIBERAL experts think (honest ones, anyway). Rasmussen has earned a reputation for coming closest to election results than anyone else. They use the same methodology here (more frequent and more targeted polling, etc)