# Obama's Not Exactly's:



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This speaks for itself so I will include no lengthy commentary. Also, I am in the process of trying to verify some of these things before I speak of it. I am a little lazy this morning, so I know if I post it I will get help in that process.



> 1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google 'Obama Selma' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)
> 
> 2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
> 
> ...





> 'Qui non intelligit aut discat aut taceat'
> Who does not understand should either learn, or be silent.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I thought this would have been torn to pieces by now. I didn't get to look any of it up, as I was busy laying bricks for the church. If half of this is true would anyone vote for him?
Considering his appetite for taxes I wouldn't vote for him. Considering his disdain for the second amendment I wouldn't vote for him. Considering that he will spend all the taxes he collects in the inner-city and doesn't even know North Dakota exists I wouldn't vote for him. etc etc..


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

that and considering he has the balls to make his own replica of our US seal, yeah....he's a little too much of a renegade for me, bordering on disrespectful of many American traditions and institutions.

NO-bama!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

dosch, Me thinks you maybe should be back in jr high. Please delete that.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

The vanity of some people, always plastering there flame on the internet :roll: .


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

You make that bottle a Blue Moon and you've got yourself a date! LOL (I can't believe she's got an opener in there) (Was that bottle going in or coming out?)


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

That must be the new Champagne Vending Machine I've been reading about. I don't want to know where you put the quarters.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sorry to interupt your fantacies guys, but I had to dump that pic. I hope you downloaded it so you can use it to recover after watching ugly babes like Jessica Simpson.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

I realize that many of you swing to the right side of things, and as such you tend to lap up any negative stategments about liberals. However, I refer you to the snopes analysis above. As you will see, there is little validity to these claims. However, I am sure that the facts of the matter will not hinder some of you from continuing to believe it and circulate it to your conservative friends.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

True or not, (i personaly think most of it is loosely based on truth, than overly-exagerated), but snopes isnt what id call a "reliable" source either.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Fair enough, barebackjack. Then, I'd suggest reading Obama's two books, The Audacity of Hope and Dreams From My Father for information on his childhood and background. You can also look for objective, apolitical sources of news for accurate information more so than the "cut and paste" posters that exist on this board.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

There is no way I would read his books. He is full of nothing but lies and half truths. He will write and say anything, it makes no difference to him if it is the truth or not. I wouldn't give him one cent of my money. As to snopes, they have been wrong before.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I like factcheck.org After finding snopes wrong I don't trust that site at all. As for the list I posted, I thought perhaps 20% were true, 50% were exaggerated, but based on truth, and the rest were just wild ideas. As I stated I put them up to be ripped apart. It was easier than spending a lot of time looking. I knew I could count on my liberal friends. 

I don't like to spend a lot of time on a site that I am at for fun. I have posted things that turned out wrong before and that is embarrassing. Now I post them without background checks, but I will inform the reader, as I did in the original post, that I have not done background on the information. Some things are just to good not to post and get a reaction, but they are not worth half my day to validate.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Did anyone read the snopes attempts at putting down the information being talked about. Even a blind person could see which side of the fence the author was coming down on and it sure wasn't on the side of facts or truth. Example.. 
CLAIM =*I don't have lobbyists-LIAR, you have 47 lobbyists and counting.

SNOPES = Senator Obama did not claim he doesn't "have lobbyists" [sic]. He stated he doesn't employ federal registered lobbyist. 

Give me a break :lol: The rest of the authors excuses or denial attempts are just as transparent. Some are down right insulting. You will also note that snopes constantly uses the term "the author seems to be unaware of" but turns around and offers no supporting links or guidance to support what the author supposedly should have been aware of.

I use to pay attention to snopes and a lot of times depend on it for verification but have lately ran into a lot of not just questionable information but some I knew to be down right false itself.

"As you will see, there is little validity to these claims." Now that is a classic comment. Shouldn't be no validity but I wonder which ones are a little truthful and is it a little truth in each claim or just a little over all?

Plainsman thanks for reminding me about factcheck.org. I'd forgotten all about that site and hadn't visited it in a long time.


----------

