Hey Zeb, I like how you left out the part about how you constructed a strawman and it really has nothing to do with the thread, and the part that involved 8 years of Bill Clinton and what SHOULD have been four years, maybe eight, of Gore after he won the popular vote in 2000.
Regardless, I was foolish enough to argue back for one post, but I’m not wasting any more time on you… you’re just not interesting enough.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This would have NEVER, NEVER happened to a white president named Mike Smith, even if he was from Hawaii.
This just proves that the inherent racism of the far right is still nothing but bullshit.[/quote]
So the congressional hearings in which McCain had to produce his official birth certificate were due to the fact that McCain is a negro?
The birth certificate debate was stupid, and a waste of time.
College records are a different story. Time to see how much affaumhtib axshun got him by.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I applied for a new passport, I was required to bring my birth certificate to show I was a citizen, fucking racists.
Fucking Cretins.
Goddam you birthers, how dare you make me prove that I am who I am, and all I wanted was a fucking new passport, not even running for president even.
Fuck you Visa, every time I use you, you card me, making me prove that I am who I claim to be.
Fucking cops, you pulled me over giving me a bullshit speeding ticket, and you DARE to presume that I am not an American? When my first name is Massimo? And my middle name has 27 letters in it?
If I wasn’t a fair skinned Italian guy, this would have NEVER happened.
Racists all of you !!![/quote]
Yeah but you could get that passport with the short form so sorry![/quote]
WRONG. There is no short form for a passport application. My point (which you missed) was that I was not offended to provide the information being asked of me.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I applied for a new passport, I was required to bring my birth certificate to show I was a citizen, fucking racists.
Fucking Cretins.
Goddam you birthers, how dare you make me prove that I am who I am, and all I wanted was a fucking new passport, not even running for president even.
Fuck you Visa, every time I use you, you card me, making me prove that I am who I claim to be.
Fucking cops, you pulled me over giving me a bullshit speeding ticket, and you DARE to presume that I am not an American? When my first name is Massimo? And my middle name has 27 letters in it?
If I wasn’t a fair skinned Italian guy, this would have NEVER happened.
Racists all of you !!![/quote]
Yeah but you could get that passport with the short form so sorry![/quote]
WRONG. There is no short form for a passport application. My point (which you missed) was that I was not offended to provide the information being asked of me. [/quote]
Don’t worry Max, he is too busy living the dream down in sunny mex-ee-co to worry about such trivial matters.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hey Zeb, I like how you left out the part about how you constructed a strawman and it really has nothing to do with the thread, and the part that involved 8 years of Bill Clinton and what SHOULD have been four years, maybe eight, of Gore after he won the popular vote in 2000.
Regardless, I was foolish enough to argue back for one post, but I’m not wasting any more time on you… you’re just not interesting enough.[/quote]
Well I think you’re very interesting for an amnesiac.
This is what I responded to when I made the original statement:
You said:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’m gonna be laughing when he gets another four years, even though you nutjobs here do your best to convince people he’s the antichrist.[/quote]
Now what does that have to do with the main topic of the thread? Right…nothing.
So I responded with this:
Now that you’re all up to date .
As for Bill Clinton Keep in mind that he was elected BOTH TIMES by a minority vote as Ross Perot split the republican vote. So would Clinton have won if Perot had not run? I highly doubt it. Most people wanted someone more center right such as Perot or Bush. Understand yet Irish? I’ll be glad to school you more in American politics, God knows you need it. Oops, sorry I didn’t mean to offend you by mentioning God.
Anyway since you have nothing to back up your foolish assertion I don’t blame you for bailing.
All the best,
Zeb
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for Bill Clinton Keep in mind that he was elected BOTH TIMES by a minority vote as Ross Perot split the republican vote. So would Clinton have won if Perot had not run? I highly doubt it. Most people wanted someone more center right such as Perot or Bush. Understand yet Irish? I’ll be glad to school you more in American politics, God knows you need it. Oops, sorry I didn’t mean to offend you by mentioning God.
Anyway since you have nothing to back up your foolish assertion I don’t blame you for bailing.
All the best,
Zeb[/quote]
I don’t care about your opinions, so I’ll just address the idea that Clinton would have lost if not for Perot- what about Nader, who stole votes from Clinton? If you’re considering Perot, you have to consider Nader, as the Green Party was semi-popular at that point in time.
Clinton and Nader’s combined numbers exceed Perot and Bush’s. Hell, you can even throw Harry Browne’s 485,000 votes in, and they beat that too. So the idea that more people voted conservatively in that election- is still, unfortunately for you, wrong.
So…fuck off.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1996
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I applied for a new passport, I was required to bring my birth certificate to show I was a citizen, fucking racists.
Fucking Cretins.
Goddam you birthers, how dare you make me prove that I am who I am, and all I wanted was a fucking new passport, not even running for president even.
Fuck you Visa, every time I use you, you card me, making me prove that I am who I claim to be.
Fucking cops, you pulled me over giving me a bullshit speeding ticket, and you DARE to presume that I am not an American? When my first name is Massimo? And my middle name has 27 letters in it?
If I wasn’t a fair skinned Italian guy, this would have NEVER happened.
Racists all of you !!![/quote]
Yeah but you could get that passport with the short form so sorry![/quote]
WRONG. There is no short form for a passport application. My point (which you missed) was that I was not offended to provide the information being asked of me. [/quote]
Don’t worry Max, he is too busy living the dream down in sunny mex-ee-co to worry about such trivial matters.
[/quote]
Way to spin this as a “victory”. The birthers were just proven wrong.
Settling on their talking points: The hard core will go on about how the BC is a fake, most will simply declare themselves victorious for “forcing” Obama to show his certificate.
Of course, for some people this isn’t about race at all. They were just hoping for some technicality. Still, why wasn’t the first BC enough?
Lies work.
I see PWI is still amazing…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
As for Bill Clinton Keep in mind that he was elected BOTH TIMES by a minority vote as Ross Perot split the republican vote. So would Clinton have won if Perot had not run? I highly doubt it. Most people wanted someone more center right such as Perot or Bush. Understand yet Irish? I’ll be glad to school you more in American politics, God knows you need it. Oops, sorry I didn’t mean to offend you by mentioning God.
Anyway since you have nothing to back up your foolish assertion I don’t blame you for bailing.
All the best,
Zeb[/quote]
I don’t care about your opinions,[/quote]
What no more accusing me of taking the thread off its original intent now that you’ve seen that YOU were the one who did that? Good move Irish.
And of course you care about my opinions or you wouldn’t be responding.
Do you ever get tired of embarasing yourself? You’re now claiming that Nader was a force in the 92’ and 96’ elections? Oh please. Nader got just under 700,000 votes which was less than 1% of the total in 96’ and was barely a blip on the radar screen in 92’. Perot on the other hand got 19 million votes in 1992 and over 8 million in 1996. Both times making a difference in the final outcome. Ralph Nader…PULEASE!
Wrong again! And in fact not even close.
Clinton received 42,909,808, or 43% of the vote. George Bush got 39,104,550 and Perot garnered 19,743,821. Where as Ralph Nader, as I said was a tiny blip on the screen gaining less than 10,000 votes. So do the math Einstein. Bush plus Perot equals 58,848,371.
Please stop it Irish. You are okay when you have a topic that you fully understand but when you wade into politics you become a complete disaster.
There you go…yes…now that’s what you’re good at. Typing stuff like this. Go to threads where teens and very young adults are impressed with this sort of thing and then you might win an argument. Around here where facts are more important than profanity, you have no chance.
As I said I am willing to school you on American politics so post back and we can do more.
I wasn’t talking about 1992- The numbers in 1996 are clearly stated in that site I referenced. You said both times. You’re wrong. I’m right.
.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Reagan had a great run. I’ll give you that, he was a strong candidate, and Bush rode his coattails. But Bush was still a one termer, followed by eight years of a Democrat.
[/quote]
Do you think we could ever have a democrate take 95% of the electorate? What would it take?
Honestly I think that if you took Republicans and Independents who are conservative about the economy, and showed them a conservative economic platform, and could convice the Republicans to leave most of the social issues out of the realm of the FEDERAL government, you would get the presidency, house and senate every year for the next 40 years. By that time you’d have a fairly strong constitutionalist Supreme court, and court system as well.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
In my humble opinion, the POTUS should be the single most vetted person in the country.
We should have every piece of information on that person made totally public. Birth certificates, ALL school transcripts, parking tickets, fucking netflix cue.
Christ this is the most powerful person on earth…everything should be transparent.
How can anybody argue with that??[/quote]
Disagree completely. Next thing you know we’re requiring the same of the VP, S of T, etc. etc. 30 years from now we’re requiring all CEOs of big businesses.
There are plenty of powerful people in the world, it’s a slippery slope and releasing all private information is not something I’d endorse.[/quote]
Lanky, if you were going to hire somebody that important to run your company…you are going to dig into EVERY aspect of their background…education, criminal record, ability to work in the U.S…references, background check, credit history ect.
Shit, I do that for manager level positions I hire for in my company…why should the most powerful person in the country be exempt? [/quote]
There is a difference between an HR exec running a criminal background check, etc. and releasing that information to the entire world. [/quote]
Except we are hiring him to run the entire country…he works for us.
It’s simply a matter of scale, politicians should not be exempt.
[/quote]
A CEOs background check is not shared with the entire company.[/quote]
A CEO does not control Naval battle groups and Thermonuclear weapons either.[/quote]
As usual, I’m a little late to the party, but I felt it prudent to weigh in on this particular part of the discussion. Let’s see what the constitution says, shall we?
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Natural born citizen? Check
Over 35? Check
14 years resident in the US? Check
END OF DISCUSSION
If you don’t like the requirements for president, then run for congress, draft an amendment and put it to vote. But THAT’S all it takes according to the CONSTITUTION (you know, that document that has been eroded for the last half a century or so?).
All the rest of it is just MEDIA bullshit, making mountains out of molehills, making chicken salad out of chicken shit and extreme assholes on BOTH sides of the aisle shouting lies at the top of their lungs.
It’s just a distraction, though. Congress has been in the pockets of the Super Rich for some time now. It isn’t about Obama’s birth certificate, it never was. It’s about SQUEEZING the middle class dry and making the Super Rich, RICHER. IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY. “Democracy” here is DEAD, carved up by lobbyists and special interest groups.
Our country is in decline in so many ways you can’t really comprehend it all at once. It is fundamentally broken. And, like every other empire that preceded it, the US will surely decline, kicking and screaming about birth certificates and dimpled chads the whole way - cuz that’s what the MEDIA tells us to think about. Bunch of fucking sheep…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Reagan had a great run. I’ll give you that, he was a strong candidate, and Bush rode his coattails. But Bush was still a one termer, followed by eight years of a Democrat.
[/quote]
Do you think we could ever have a democrate take 95% of the electorate? What would it take?
Honestly I think that if you took Republicans and Independents who are conservative about the economy, and showed them a conservative economic platform, and could convice the Republicans to leave most of the social issues out of the realm of the FEDERAL government, you would get the presidency, house and senate every year for the next 40 years. By that time you’d have a fairly strong constitutionalist Supreme court, and court system as well. [/quote]
I don’t think so.
It was Reagan’s charisma that made him win. No other Republican is going to take California, NJ, NY, Mass. etc. Hell, union workers voted for him and he regularly went out of his way to fuck them- they literally voted against their own self interest.
[/quote]
Those union workers had solvent pension plans with 11-16% interest rates. They might have had a harder time buying a house, but you could get a CD with 14% interest in '83. And total government revenue went up as the top tax rate dropped from 70+% to 28%. OK, OK technology revolution. But that tech revolution was not hurt when the top tax rates came down on people who may have a billion dollar invention.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I wasn’t talking about 1992- The numbers in 1996 are clearly stated in that site I referenced. You said both times. You’re wrong. I’m right.[/quote]
If you have other facts which contradict these post them:
Clinton received 42,909,808, or 43% of the vote. George Bush got 39,104,550 and Perot garnered 19,743,821. Where as Ralph Nader, as I said was a tiny blip on the screen gaining less than 10,000 votes. So do the math Einstein. Bush plus Perot equals 58,848,371.
Now don’t get me wrong you can say that you’re right but of course you’d be wrong.
