And it still has nothing to do with anything. "Obama mentioned transparency in his campaign and then used the word in a completely unrelated context later with some link to Romney’s tax returns and therefore Obama should release his college transcripts?
And why should we care what David Maraniss says or does?
Then you have no integrity.
I wonder if there was any reason to supect that Warren was registered as an Indian?
Must be some records “opened up”.
Please explain… I probably don’t but I fail to see how your statement applies to mine.
It must be difficult to play along when your worldview falls in line with that of 98% of the SDMB. You know… standing out and showing how extra smart you are and all.
You implied that you’d agree this was a ridiculous fishing expedition if the shoe were on the foot, that is, your moral standards depend entirely on whose ox is being gored. Of course people do this unconsciously all the time, but it’s pretty slimy when someone admits to doing it knowingly.
Really I just sit here in shock whenever the other 2% decides to stand up and show how extra dumb they are. It’s not difficult, but it is disturbing at times.
I follow you but I don’t agree…I don’t believe that this is a ridiculous fishing expedition… and I reserve the right to use your comeback when I think the left is going on one. Like when the lady DNC leader called for Romney’s tax returns dating back to the 70’s.
Lots of slimey politicians do it all the time. Not admitting it makes it better?
Imagine your shock if the dumb 2% somehow get their guy elected this fall.
Looks like I win again again !!
Just like Charlie Sheen and Starving Artist. Good company.
If you keep “congratulating” yourself like that, you’ll go blind.
I’m the last poster. Looks like I win again!!!
Nope. The rule is that you have to be the last poster of something at least semi-substantive.
You get extra point if you bring up related topics (Elizabeth Warren tells Harvard she is an Indian/David Maraniss somehow found some new info that “opened up” on Obama) that the other side won’t address.
Also, your name has to start with W and contain at least six punctuation marks.
Because they’re **not **“related”. They’re utterly irrelevant.
The last post of any substance was mine, back at #224. Everything else has been pointless distractions and attempts to move the goalposts, responses to those, or general mockery. So I guess I win.
neener neener! your side did it too! Great defense there. :rolleyes:
no, but when you consciously admit you’re applying a double standard, that makes it worse.
Now go ahead, say “neener neener, you’re not criticizing person X on your side who did the same thing”. We’ll all wait.
I imagine it excites you greatly to imagine people gasping in confused horror if a right-wing idiot gets elected, and I don’t want to do anything to take away the small pleasures in your life. But you should know I’ve seen enough electoral idiot revolts in my lifetime to know that they’re nothing but unsavory nuisances that come and go, like the wind off the sewage treatment plant at certain times of the year. Perhaps it’s that time again, but it doesn’t change the odor.
Utterly irrelevent to what and who gets to decide where the goalposts are? I did start the thread after all. It’s been about 50% threadshitting from the begining and 98% since it got moved.
I think post #20 was the real winner.
Utterly irrelevant to the topic of Obama’s transcripts. And the goalposts are where you planted them at the beginning of the thread. And your original question was immediately answered, repeatedly, in the first several posts.
You are of course welcome to continue to pretend that the questions haven’t been answered and that you’re just asking questions in pursuit of the facts and that all these little tangents somehow support whatever it is you’re trying to argue. And when the rest of us give up on your little game because you’re clearly not interested in our answers, you can go back to claiming that you’re “winning!”
Well there you go. Another early post which answered your question. I guess we can close the thread now.
No they weren’t. … but I don’t see any point in arguing any more. There are more important topics upon which to weigh in.
True. You haven’t started a new anti-Obama thread in AGES. There are so many possibilities - I can’t wait to see where you focus next!
Care to help?
How about one on drug use during his high school days?
How about his campaigning efforts compared to other recent Presidents and relative to his efforts running the country ?
There must be more … I’ll come back with some other suggestions if you don’t like either of those.
I don’t think we need a vote. Those seem sufficiently ridiculous. Have at it.