OSBF wrote:houndawg wrote:
W was only elected once.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
...and Obama's not American. Are we gonna go down that road again, dawg?

OSBF wrote:houndawg wrote:
W was only elected once.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()


got evidence to the contrary?GannonFan wrote:Sure, okay Ralph.houndawg wrote:
W was only elected once.

have we seen a birth certificate yet?OSBF wrote:got evidence to the contrary?GannonFan wrote:
Sure, okay Ralph.


many times...AZGrizFan wrote:have we seen a birth certificate yet?OSBF wrote:
got evidence to the contrary?![]()
![]()

and here i was just starting to think you were only a dumbass and not a complete and total dumbass, then you have to go and say somrthing that incredibly stupid................AZGrizFan wrote:have we seen a birth certificate yet?OSBF wrote:
got evidence to the contrary?![]()
![]()

Says the guy wanting to have a discussion about who was elected President in 2004?OSBF wrote:and here i was just starting to think you were only a dumbass and not a complete and total dumbass, then you have to go and say somrthing that incredibly stupid................AZGrizFan wrote:
have we seen a birth certificate yet?![]()
![]()


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rida,_2000OSBF wrote:got evidence to the contrary?GannonFan wrote:
Sure, okay Ralph.

I think, and you do as well, that what hound was refering to, was the FACT that more people voted for the other guy than voted for the guy the Supreme Court eventually seated behing the desk in the oral office.GannonFan wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rida,_2000OSBF wrote:
got evidence to the contrary?
It's Wiki, but the Florida Ballot Project and the review done by BDO Seidman showed that had the events run their course in 2000, Bush still would've won. Doesn't mean you have to like the results, but really the burden of proof should be on you to provide evidence to the contrary since the major reviews and recounts of that election still point to Bush winning.

And that fact and $6.50 will buy you a double half caff-decaf no foam mocha latte grande with sprinkles at Starbucks.OSBF wrote:I think, and you do as well, that what hound was refering to, was the FACT that more people voted for the other guy than voted for the guy the Supreme Court eventually seated behing the desk in the oral office.GannonFan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rida,_2000
It's Wiki, but the Florida Ballot Project and the review done by BDO Seidman showed that had the events run their course in 2000, Bush still would've won. Doesn't mean you have to like the results, but really the burden of proof should be on you to provide evidence to the contrary since the major reviews and recounts of that election still point to Bush winning.


Actually, I didn't think he was referring to that at all. Popular vote is nice and all, but clearly our Presidential elections are not determined by popular vote.OSBF wrote:I think, and you do as well, that what hound was refering to, was the FACT that more people voted for the other guy than voted for the guy the Supreme Court eventually seated behing the desk in the oral office.GannonFan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... rida,_2000
It's Wiki, but the Florida Ballot Project and the review done by BDO Seidman showed that had the events run their course in 2000, Bush still would've won. Doesn't mean you have to like the results, but really the burden of proof should be on you to provide evidence to the contrary since the major reviews and recounts of that election still point to Bush winning.