This guy is something else !
Big stick of Barrack Obama - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOS26z553HE&feature=related)

Biden would know,its how he became his running mate.

I hate to break it to you...but it's not that funny.

-spence

I hate to break it to you...but it's not that funny.

-spence


Ya Spence
We know how protective you are about Obama's stick !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

always remember - Biden was Spence's choice for 2008 presidential candidate. This is the guy Spence believed was best prepared to run the country.

Jimmy Kimmel and President Obama Did Their Best With the Jokes at the Correspondents’ Dinner

Best Joe Biden Joke: "It’s kind of hard to be funny with the president of the United States sitting right next to you, looking at you. And somehow day in and day out, Joe Biden manages to do it."

always remember - Biden was Spence's choice for 2008 presidential candidate. This is the guy Spence believed was best prepared to run the country.

He was my second choice in the beginning of the primary.

having foot in mouth disease does not mean he isn't capable... if anything, comments like this, "This is a big #^&#^&#^&#^&ing deal' etc... make him less 'fake' to me.... I've been known to say stupid things before...

He was my second choice in the beginning of the primary.

having foot in mouth disease does not mean he isn't capable... if anything, comments like this, "This is a big #^&#^&#^&#^&ing deal' etc... make him less 'fake' to me.... I've been known to say stupid things before...

he is a moron

he is a moron

Yes he is. We all put our feet in our mouths occasionally. He has taken it to an art form. He's also a political hack, who essentially invented the concept of striking down an obviously-qualified Supreme Court nominee (Robert Bork) for political reasons. Biden is an admitted plagiarist, and identifies himself as a devout Catholic, despite the fact that he is rabidly pro-choice. Finally, in his last 2 income tax returns that were published, he gave about $1,000 to charity, out of $300,000 in income.

He is a buffoon, as well as an unprincipled, greedy, hypocritical cheapskate.

And amazingly, with all of that, he's still a million times better than his boss.

joe for plumber

At least he didn't claim he invented the internet, but it is
scary to think he's a heartbeat away.

there's a rumer that it will be a murmur

there's a rumer that it will be a murmur

I assume you mean Biden will be off the ticket for November? If so, I agree. If it's a close race, Obama has little reason to keep Biden around. Biden adds NOTHING to the Democratic ticket, as Obama is going to win Deleware with or without Biden. The only thing is that dumping the VP appears desperate, and Obama may not want to appear that way. But if they framed it as a health issue for Biden, Obama can claim that he had no choice but to replace him.

I see no reason for keeping Biden. None.

According to the Washington Post, bin Laden wanted to kill Obama, in part, because he felt Vice President Joe Biden was "unprepared" to step in as commander in chief. Bin Laden's planned assassination of Obama involved hijacking Air Force One, the Post said.

"Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make Biden take over the presidency," Bin Laden wrote in a message to one of his top lieutenants, the paper said. "Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis."

According to the Washington Post, bin Laden wanted to kill Obama, in part, because he felt Vice President Joe Biden was "unprepared" to step in as commander in chief. Bin Laden's planned assassination of Obama involved hijacking Air Force One, the Post said.

"Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make Biden take over the presidency," Bin Laden wrote in a message to one of his top lieutenants, the paper said. "Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis."

So OBL is now a credible source for compentency?

So OBL is now a credible source for compentency?

No, but thought it was pretty funny......

I assume you mean Biden will be off the ticket for November? If so, I agree. If it's a close race, Obama has little reason to keep Biden around. Biden adds NOTHING to the Democratic ticket, as Obama is going to win Deleware with or without Biden.
I see no reason for keeping Biden. None.

Agree, he has used up his usefulness for the administration.

I'm thinking Hillary might be his choice. Bill is starting to get
involved with Obama's re-election and Hillary is supposed to
resign Sec.of State end of term.

I'm thinking Hillary might be his choice. Bill is starting to get
involved with Obama's re-election and Hillary is supposed to
resign Sec.of State end of term.

If Obama wants a pick for mass-appeal, Hilary is the logical choice. The downside is that I'm guessing he doesn't like her. His other option is a popular up-and-comer in one of the swing states, in hopes of capturing that state. Obama needs Ohio, Nevada, Wisconsin. There is no reason to keep Biden around, all he is, is a liability.

On the GOP side, I still say Rubio is the best choice, but lately, I've been hearing the name Condaleeza Rice thrown around. In my opinion, that's a superb pick, because she's experienced, brilliant, talented (classicly trained pianist and a world-class figure skater to boot), and a nice lady. Downside is that she's probably too closely tied to the Bush administration, and the nation is still suffering from Bush fatigue. But I really like her.

We've got a real chance in November, and I never thought I'd say that. Not with (1) Obama's cult status, and (2) the way the media is in the tank for him. But even with that, he's done such a God-awful job, he's vulnerable.

I don't know Jim, even if he hated her if he thought he could win, he
would choose her. Then there is 2016 where she would be set for
Presidential election.

Gotta agree on Condaleeza Rice, bright,experienced and above the
fray with class.

I think Obama's cult status is pretty much gone, he let them down
with most of his campign promises, except of course the other pschyics
that can read minds.

I don't know Jim, even if he hated her if he thought he could win, he
would choose her. Then there is 2016 where she would be set for
Presidential election.

Gotta agree on Condaleeza Rice, bright,experienced and above the
fray with class.

I think Obama's cult status is pretty much gone, he let them down
with most of his campign promises, except of course the other pschyics
that can read minds.

She is also semi-Pro choice... which would make her a tough pick for the right. The So-Con's will be up in arms...

I think Hillary will sit for 4 years and then run in '16. It will be BHO-Biden, unless it comes out Biden has the big C or something....

She is also semi-Pro choice... which would make her a tough pick for the right. The So-Con's will be up in arms...

I think Hillary will sit for 4 years and then run in '16. It will be BHO-Biden, unless it comes out Biden has the big C or something....

You're right, she describes herself as "mildly pro-choice".

That won't play well in a lot of places, which is too bad, because I really think she's terrific. I read her autobiography, it was really interesting, she was born in the segregated south, overcame a whole lot of obstacles.

On Biden, why keep him? What value does he add?

1. He is a good attack dog, which in an elevtion is the Veep's main role.
2. Dumping him looks like a hail Mary and that far out weighs any gain (short of bringing on Hillary)

1. He is a good attack dog, which in an elevtion is the Veep's main role.
2. Dumping him looks like a hail Mary and that far out weighs any gain (short of bringing on Hillary)

"He is a good attack dog"

I'll respectfully diasgree. From what I recall, he didn't bloody-up Sarah Palin in their debate, and she's not all that formidable in that setting. He's been around forever, which gives the appearance of experience. Though in my opinion, despite the fact that he was in the Senate forever, he did nothing of consequence. Then again, nether did Obama.

"Dumping him looks like a hail Mary and that far out weighs any gain "

Bingo. The only reason for dumping him is that it smells of desperation. And our megalomaniac-in-chief does not like to appear ruffled.

I’m not an Obama fan at all but what is he supposed to do. If he keeps Biden then it is a weak link and could hurt. If he lets him go, it shows desperation. That is the problem with politics today. If he just came out and said, “Biden did the best he could as VP. He did some good things but I think Hilary will be a much more effective VP moving forward”? The private sector does it all the time to make themselves better, can’t do it in politics though and that is wrong. I don’t like Obama’s politics but that is something that could be respected. Come out and fire him and hire someone he thinks would be more effective. Although then some people would call him a back stabber etc...

According to the Washington Post, bin Laden wanted to kill Obama, in part, because he felt Vice President Joe Biden was "unprepared" to step in as commander in chief. Bin Laden's planned assassination of Obama involved hijacking Air Force One, the Post said.

"Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make Biden take over the presidency," Bin Laden wrote in a message to one of his top lieutenants, the paper said. "Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis."

Yup, heard it on CBS News today. Maybe leaked on purpose?
I put nothing past some politicians will do to win.

What if.....for the good of the country...Obama picks someone who could step in, if God forbid something happens to him.,,, Or maybe having Joe as 2nd in line is a form of protection.

Or maybe having Joe as 2nd in line is a form of protection.

Maybe he keeps him so it makes him look smarter, and cooler? :)

Maybe he keeps him so it makes him look smarter, and cooler? :)

sort of like the hot chick, ugly chick thing?

1. He is a good attack dog, which in an elevtion is the Veep's main role.
2. Dumping him looks like a hail Mary and that far out weighs any gain (short of bringing on Hillary)

This is why they keep Biden.
Is it rhetoric? sure. But I do think, that way more than Romney and Obama, he actually can make connections with 'the rest of us'

If it is going to be a few blue collar independents that swing the election, he offers a lot.

Joe Biden slams Romney in Ohio speech "They Don't Get Us" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1o-CApj1v4)

Even better were his comments during a stop at Dairy Queen....

"they dont get us, they dont get who we are"

They? I guess he is referring to the people who made it, vs. those that dream of making it. Those that made it didnt make it off the backs of taxpayers anf Joe, that is the only solution you and your boss have come up with, thats it buddy. Any BTW, its a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty plan. I get you.

"they dont get us, they dont get who we are"

They? I guess he is referring to the people who made it, vs. those that dream of making it. Those that made it didnt make it off the backs of taxpayers anf Joe, that is the only solution you and your boss have come up with, thats it buddy. Any BTW, its a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty plan. I get you.
No, he's talking about the uber rich who believe they don't have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

Agree or not it's a strong line of attack against Romney.

-spence

No, he's talking about the uber rich who believe they don't have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

Agree or not it's a strong line of attack against Romney.

-spence

There are many more free loaders that don't think they have to play by the rules. Just saying.

There are many more free loaders that don't think they have to play by the rules. Just saying.
Agree, but they don't have the ability to rig the game in their favor...that's the difference and what Biden is talking about.

-spence

Agree, but they don't have the ability to rig the game in their favor...that's the difference and what Biden is talking about.

-spence

Obviously, SOMEBODY rigged the game in their favor. Probably politicians like Biden in order to get and keep their votes.

Obviously, SOMEBODY rigged the game in their favor. Probably politicians like Biden in order to get and keep their votes.

How unfortunate that starting with FDR and then Johnson with the Great Society welfare has become what it is.
The ones who need it the most don't get enough and the ones that don't get way too much.
There are those who truly can't work because of mental and physical disability and not nearly enough is done for them. The freeloaders rip the system off.
The churches and synaguges do the best job in admistering help for the needy as the
Priests, Rabbis and Ministers know what goes on in their communities and who the real needy are.
Politicians just throw money against the wall for political reasons and it just doesn't work.

Obviously, SOMEBODY rigged the game in their favor. Probably politicians like Biden in order to get and keep their votes.

A politician like Biden wouldn't extend the hand of government for freeloaders but might do it out of a perceived need by a group. Nobody is trying to rig the game so freeloaders can continue to exist.

The elite by contrast do have the ability to rig the game for specific and usually profit motivated interests...be it a company or industry...

I think there is a difference, but also, it's about the line of attack and if it will be successful against Romney.

-spence

A politician like Biden wouldn't extend the hand of government for freeloaders but might do it out of a perceived need by a group.

When the government extends its hand full of cash and goodies, takers will gladly empty what becomes a fist to those who must pay. And the demand will outgrow the supply as the "group" (which the federal gvt. is not constitutionally authorized to "help" beyond what it is granted to do for everybody equally) grows as it naturally will. Throwing money out the window will attract a crowd. And politicians like Biden should know about such axiomatic behavior. The Founders were aware that if the citizens were entitled to the public largesse, the republic would be doomed.

Nobody is trying to rig the game so freeloaders can continue to exist.

A constituency is created through unconstitutional means, and that constituency can be maintained and expanded to help sway elections.

The elite by contrast do have the ability to rig the game for specific and usually profit motivated interests...be it a company or industry...

The game can be rigged only with the complicity of the government. It is the government that regulates at the behest of the elite or the "freeloaders". And politicians like Biden are glad to accept the money from the "elite" and the votes from the "freeloaders".

I think there is a difference, but also, it's about the line of attack and if it will be successful against Romney.

-spence

Not "also," but all. That is the whole point. Divide and conquer.

Nobody is trying to rig the game so freeloaders can continue to exist.



-spence

Spence, ya gotta be kiddin me.Not only do they try to rig the game with freeloaders but also allowing ilegals stay in the country. It's two of the cheapest ways, for them, to buy/get votes, imho.

Spence, ya gotta be kiddin me.Not only do they try to rig the game with freeloaders but also allowing ilegals stay in the country. It's two of the cheapest ways, for them, to buy/get votes, imho.
With any macro scale plan you're going to get waste. There will always be welfare cheats, Medicare fraud etc...while the majority are good people.

Same goes for business. Less regulation and responsible companies will benefit from the flexibility yet still do the right thing...and others will just pollute more or pass risk onto others to make a buck.

I don't see much difference.

-spence

...while the majority are good people.

spence

I couldn't disagree more.

With any macro scale plan you're going to get waste. There will always be welfare cheats, Medicare fraud etc...while the majority are good people.

Same goes for business. Less regulation and responsible companies will benefit from the flexibility yet still do the right thing...and others will just pollute more or pass risk onto others to make a buck.

I don't see much difference.

-spence

You can do away with most of the freeloading by restricting participants to
show proof every 2 weeks where they have looked for a job by listing the companies and telephone #s of where they looked as they go to pick up their checks at a govenmrnt office, not walk down to their mailboxes and collect a check.
Then there should be proof of citizenship to vote.
Those would be big steps forward, but what politcian would go along with either
of these? Not many, as liberal regulations produce the nanny state and along
with it the votes for free stuff.

Whatever the regulations, business must adhere to them or pay fines.

No, he's talking about the uber rich who believe they don't have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

Agree or not it's a strong line of attack against Romney.

-spence

BTW, how does having $$$ take away from not being qualified for
being a good canidate or President?

Remember Kerry, Kennedy, Roosevelt, George Washington?
I don't remember the fact they were wealthy detracted from them running or being elected.

Just another example by the left to try and divide, playing on jealousey and entitlement thinking.

BTW, how does having $$$ take away from not being qualified for
being a good canidate or President?

Remember Kerry, Kennedy, Roosevelt, George Washington?
I don't remember the fact they were wealthy detracted from them running or being elected.

Just another example by the left to try and divide, playing on jealousey and entitlement thinking.

It isn't about wealth. Or jealousy or entitlement. It remains about opportunity. Case in point re: opportunity.
I heard an interesting take on the Facebook IPO. lots of people made lots of money yesterday, BUT (with the Painter and other exceptions) MOST who made a lot of money already HAD a lot of money to invest in the first place (i.e. Bono). Kudos to them for taking the risk, but unless you had 10's of millions to invest in the first place, the opportunity for, say me, to have invested a few 10's of K in it as a start up and then make a lot of money isn't there. It is tough to feel like the game isn't rigged to those who already have a lot of money to begin with....


JFK, Roosevelt etc.. at least had the ability to (or appear to) connect with the middle class, to understand the plight. I don't think Romney appears that way. Even Regan had the ability to connect with blue-collar workers.

I don't think Obama does either. He connects well with the so-called the liberal elite.

I think Biden does connect, very well, which makes him valuable to the election cycle and image of the whitehouse

It isn't about wealth. Or jealousy or entitlement. It remains about opportunity. Case in point re: opportunity.
I heard an interesting take on the Facebook IPO. lots of people made lots of money yesterday, BUT (with the Painter and other exceptions) MOST who made a lot of money already HAD a lot of money to invest in the first place (i.e. Bono). Kudos to them for taking the risk, but unless you had 10's of millions to invest in the first place, the opportunity for, say me, to have invested a few 10's of K in it as a start up and then make a lot of money isn't there. It is tough to feel like the game isn't rigged to those who already have a lot of money to begin with....

This is like saying that existence is rigged. There is nothing you or the government can do about what species you were born into. The game seems to be rigged for humans. There is nothing you or the government can do about Jupiter's unpropitious distance from the sun. There is no way to have less fortunately endowed people be reborn with the genes necessary to play professional sports, or be mathematical wizards, or possess the drive and desire to accumulate wealth, or even to be reborn into a family that had accumulated wealth. So, what should be done? Give everybody 10's of K so they can invest more easily? Not feasible, and even if it were, would most invest it or spend it, and of those that did invest, would they succeed? Or should we just make it more difficult for those that have the 10's of K to invest to make it more fair? If life were "fair," life as we know it would not exist. I can imagine a bland total equality of all things so boring as not to be worth existing. No adventure, no diversity, no wonder, no striving, no reason for anything else except your inconsequential solipsistic self mirrored by the rest of existence. What is so evil about INVITING those that have wealth to invest it? Isn't that a good way to redistribute it, a more creative, diverse way than disincentivising such investment by taxing it at the same rates as income? We keep talking about investing--in education, in health, in opportunity--but somehow investing in wealth, which makes all the other nice investments possible, is not so important?

JFK, Roosevelt etc.. at least had the ability to (or appear to) connect with the middle class, to understand the plight. I don't think Romney appears that way. Even Regan had the ability to connect with blue-collar workers.

I don't think Obama does either. He connects well with the so-called the liberal elite.

I think Biden does connect, very well, which makes him valuable to the election cycle and image of the whitehouse

The problem with perception being reality is that it often is not. This business of image that is fostered by media spin is a pernicious method of giving us leaders who appear to "connect" with us, but neither do they really, nor does it matter if they do. The job of running the Federal Government is not to connect with a sector of the population, but to allow all sectors to function as freely as possible from the coercion of government. That is, if we truly believe in freedom.

I couldn't disagree more.

Were you talking about businesses?

-spence

When the government extends its hand full of cash and goodies, takers will gladly empty what becomes a fist to those who must pay. And the demand will outgrow the supply as the "group" (which the federal gvt. is not constitutionally authorized to "help" beyond what it is granted to do for everybody equally) grows as it naturally will.
You could say the same about manufacturing or power generation. Nobody should have the right to pollute, but if given the opportunity history has proven that they will...and a lot. The people subsidize the business behavior with their health.

The game can be rigged only with the complicity of the government. It is the government that regulates at the behest of the elite or the "freeloaders". And politicians like Biden are glad to accept the money from the "elite" and the votes from the "freeloaders". "also," but all.
I think the difference is that the elite seek to rig for profit while the non-elite seek to maintain a minimum threshold. The freeloaders are a bi-product of both systems...

That is the whole point. Divide and conquer.
It is an election.

-spence

You can do away with most of the freeloading by restricting participants to show proof every 2 weeks where they have looked for a job by listing the companies and telephone #s of where they looked as they go to pick up their checks at a govenmrnt office, not walk down to their mailboxes and collect a check. Then there should be proof of citizenship to vote.
Those would be big steps forward, but what politcian would go along with either of these?
I'm not sure either would produce a significant benefit.

Whatever the regulations, business must adhere to them or pay fines.
But that's exactly Biden's point. The elite can use their incredible leverage to trump the public interest.

Take the recent JP Morgan 2 Billion dollar debacle. We have a global credit crisis and the response is regulation to help reign in risky behavior. The elite (in this case JP Morgan who's banking business is insured by taxpayers mind you) use their influence to delay the implementation of new rules so they can continue risky behavior without penalties.

Fortunately it's a big company that can absorb the loss, otherwise the taxpayer could have been held liable...Wait, didn't the taxpayer just loan the banks hundreds of billions of taxpayer money a few years ago because of banks taking massive risks allowed under law because they used their influence to shape regulation?

-spence

BTW, how does having $$$ take away from not being qualified for
being a good canidate or President?

Remember Kerry, Kennedy, Roosevelt, George Washington?
I don't remember the fact they were wealthy detracted from them running or being elected.

Just another example by the left to try and divide, playing on jealousey and entitlement thinking.
Nobody is asserting that wealth alone would invalidate a candidacy.

It's a targeted attack because Romney's own personality portrays him as an elite and out of touch. It's an attack that wouldn't work say against a Mike Bloomberg because he comes across as more grounded with real world issues.

If anything it's a much less nasty version of the effort to portray Obama as a Kenyan and out of touch with American values.

-spence

You could say the same about manufacturing or power generation. Nobody should have the right to pollute, but if given the opportunity history has proven that they will...and a lot.

What's that got to do with your saying that freeloaders don't have the ability to rig the game? What is their freeloading a product of if not some rigging? And if they don't have that ability, then somebody is rigging for them. And "history has proven" that politicians promise and give goodies for votes, so "groups" of voters have the power to rig by holding their vote as ransome for goodies. Besides, the "right" to pollute, as far as I know, was not considered an unalienable one by the founders, so could only be a right if it was granted by government. Unalienable rights, such as life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were considered unalienable if they did not impinge on others right to the same. Government can giveth or taketh away the "right," to pollute, and it does. Nor is freeloading an unalienable "right." But government can provide legislation that provides it.

The people subsidize the business behavior with their health.

People do not subsidize business with their health. That's the type of "interpretation" of words and language that progressives have used to neutralize constitutional limitations on government and transform rights from being unalienable to being granted by government. People don't directly subsidize business, and only do so (when it's done) indirectly through government which uses their confiscated taxes. Or, more commonly, by lowering taxes on business, either as corrupt crony capitalism, or to motivate business. The people's health can be a benefit to business only if the people are healthy enough to earn an income and spend it on business products ,or if sick, gain a government subsidy (at the expense of business or other tax payers) to spend it on business products. But either is commerce, not a subsidy.

I think the difference is that the elite seek to rig for profit while the non-elite seek to maintain a minimum threshold. The freeloaders are a bi-product of both systems...

Nobody will dispute the obvious. By definition, there is a difference between elite and non-elite. BTW, the non-elite are comprised of the largest segment of our population, and the largest portion of that segment does not merely seek to maintain a minimum threshhold, but strives for and enjoys a much higher standard of comforts. And a difference between elites seeking profit and non-elites seeking to maintain a minimum threshold, is that profit seeking promotes business and the wealth that makes possible assistence to the poor. The poor don't contribute to the formation of wealth, but can only profit from wealth created by others. Which is not to excuse the collusion between powerful businesses and government, but that also doesn't mean that there is not a collusion between non-elites and other special interests and government via distribution and legislation for votes

It is an election.

-spence

Yes, and we know that it is more important to spin character traits that don't exist rather than discuss the character of the nation and what is becoming of it. That's the real ticket to fundamentally transforming this country.

It isn't about wealth. Or jealousy or entitlement. It remains about opportunity. Case in point re: opportunity.
I heard an interesting take on the Facebook IPO. lots of people made lots of money yesterday, BUT (with the Painter and other exceptions) MOST who made a lot of money already HAD a lot of money to invest in the first place (i.e. Bono). Kudos to them for taking the risk, but unless you had 10's of millions to invest in the first place, the opportunity for, say me, to have invested a few 10's of K in it as a start up and then make a lot of money isn't there. It is tough to feel like the game isn't rigged to those who already have a lot of money to begin with....




So the liberal eletist says, take all the money from everyone, divide it up and let everybody share in the IPO, or anything else, so everyone has the same.
Forget about the sacrafices,hard work, 60 hour weeks, being away from home
and family and the toal it takes to become sucessful.
Anybody can succeed in this country as the opportunities are here if you want
to work and sacrafice. What gives the right of the lazy to ride the backs of those
who worked and sacraficed all their lives, and where is the fairness with that?

The problem with perception being reality is that it often is not. This business of image that is fostered by media spin is a pernicious method of giving us leaders who appear to "connect" with us, but neither do they really, nor does it matter if they do. The job of running the Federal Government is not to connect with a sector of the population, but to allow all sectors to function as freely as possible from the coercion of government. That is, if we truly believe in freedom.

Nail square on the head. :hihi:

Were you talking about businesses?

-spence


No. The people that take more then they give.

But that's exactly Biden's point. The elite can use their incredible leverage to trump the public interest.



-spence

But he doesn't have a problem along with Obama to take campaighn dollars from
the rich like Sorros, Hollywood, etc and etc to leverage their agenda.

It's a targeted attack because Romney's own personality portrays him as an elite and out of touch.

-spence

It's a targeted attack against Romney,who I agree is not the most amiable guy,
but one of the few attacks they can make because they don't have a record to run on. Meantime a lot of Obama's personal history, including his Havad records are still under wrap.
Here's the way Obama's campaighn is shaping up, instead of policy, issues and record, blame Bush for the deep recession and knock Romney all the way back to his teen years.

If anything it's a much less nasty version of the effort to portray Obama as a Kenyan and out of touch with American values.

-spence

such a crazy notion :rotf2:

1991-2007

Doug Ross of Director Blue used the wayback feature to investigate Obama's literary agency's website and it shows that there were a number of revisions to the literary agent-distributed Obama biography that said he was born in Kenya; these revisions reflected changes in Obama's life. But it wasn't until 2007 when he threw his hat in the ring for the presidency that the bio was changed to state he was born in Hawaii.

The Director Blue link shows that Obama or his literary agent did not change his biography (April 2007) until a couple of months after announcing he was running for president (February 2007).

probably just an "oversight"...for 16 years...I mean...who checks their own bio for accuracy anyways? :uhuh:

probably just an "oversight"...for 16 years...I mean...who checks their own bio for accuracy anyways? :uhuh:

LOL, maybe he was just suffering from amnesia and his memory came back
to correct the record.