Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Theliberalvoice, I think that parts of your statement here are right but not right enough. in other words Kootr and I are in total agreement about The Man's citizenship.
And yes, he is a citizen on the United States. Obviously, he has gone through background checks and such or else the Democratic party would not risk and invest that much into him. I am sure Hillary Clinton or someone would have found some evidence to get rid of him.
I agree that he is a citizen of the US. I do not agree that he is a natural born citizen, however. He could settle that argument by producing the vault copy of his birth certificate but he spends money keeping from having to do that. Is it that he can't produce one or that it says something he doesn't want seen that holds him back?
The Man was never vetted by the media or the Democrat Party, since his speech of 2004 was so good and real money men like George Soros believed he could take the Presidency back. If he had been completely vetted there would be a copy of that birth certificate and there doesn't seem to be one. Better yet, would someone like Soros, Pelosi, Reid and the rest tell the world if he weren't a natural born citizen. I think not, but then . . . . .
I don't know when all the important records that were sealed got that way but it was obviously before the Clintons feared him at all. Once sealed they can only be seen when the man himself unseals them. We could well have a usurper as President but I am sure that a way will be found to ok that before anything is really learned about that subject.
It's not censorship it's stopping crazy people like you from dividing this country with lies about Obama. Wikipedia is suppose to stick to fact, not some propaganda made up by people who thought John McCain should've won.
That's funny. Lies about Nobama? He lies for himself! lmao. He needs no help there.
ELO....Are you getting mad because they keep editing your post that states he's a "muslin' " "terrist"
When did i ever call him a Muslin terrist? Or are you just projecting your liberalism again, If you could please stop kissing NObama's ass long enough to provide a link..untill then, you are just another mindless automoton spewing that ridiculous "Yes we can" BS.
If anyone has the time, compare the highly edited Obama page to the GW Bush page. Also, more than editing is going on. Members are being kicked out and not able to log back on. We must not speak ill of our great leader.
Lol. "Wikipedia" is not "banning any negative references to Obama" as wnd says and the Op obediently repeated.
Your post is unnecessarily hysterical and paranoid. Wikipedia is watched carefully by those who feel responsible for its integrity, you'll be chagrined to learn, especially in hotbed topics like political information. Blatantly false information is removed and as I said before, people are banned from editing it.
Why not look around in it before you make silly (though no doubt satisfying) statements like the above quote?
If you ever look at Wikipedia you'll notice that statements within entries that usually dont have warning notices at the top ("This article needs citations" for example) have cite numbers after them. The cite numbers reference external articles - they're the footnotes the author uses to back up his claims.
In other words, let the buyer beware, watch for cites and check those cites.
If you feel an article is partisan or slanted, you can open the "edit" tab and add information that contradicts or clarifies it (with cites you'd stand by, of course).
You can also complain to the editors who watch the place like hawks.
Also you may have noticed the warning, "The neutrality of this article is disputed," as well as people's questions and comments right inside entries.
I do recommend visiting the "history" tab - you can see who added what, by name, when - follow the history of the entry. This can be pretty amusing when squabbles arise - which surprisingly isnt very often. Go to the entries wnd is talking about and follow the story.
You too can edit Wikipedia entries, and Im sure you'd do so responsibly.
I would only edit something on wikipedia that retained to me. I have been on the site and seen many things I would consider questionable.
Which is why it goes back to my point that people who read something don't look at history follow the trail and most importantly think whatever is written is truth.
"As to WND’s main complaint, that Wikipedia is “completely lacking… any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama’s eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief,” that’s also untrue: Wikipedia maintains a page about discredited Obama conspiracy theories, just as it maintains a page on 9/11 conspiracy theories. What WND and Gateway Pundit are complaining about is the refusal of moderators to let racist, libelous junk into its main page on Obama."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wiki banning any negative references to Obama..
Much Ado About Nothing (Again)
