Obama's Fake Social Security Number: Audio Interview with Private Investigator

Please link to the articles he wrote in the Harvard Law Review, WDF. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Can you not understand the written word? My point was that some of you nuts now think he was not President of Harvard Law Review.Just like some think he was not born in this country, you know birthers.... I said nothing about how many articles he wrote....WTF is wrong with you. You gone senile?

I think the largest scam in history is the war on poverty started under LBJ. Over 17 trillion dollars transfered from those that made to those that need it. We have more people living in poverty than we did back in 1967. Imagaine, $17 trillion and I got was this lousy T-shirt (and the bill).


By the way, here is the link to a 1990 New York Times article that says Harvard Law Review presidents ARE NOT chosen by their grades. They are chosen as part of a popularity contest it seems. Grades are part of it, other things (like race) are another part of it. Seems that women and other minorites got elected before the first black person at Harvard. What a liberal bunch.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us...anted=2&src=pm Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So the president of Harvard Law Review is chosen by a popularity contest. We've been told over and over again that being president of Harvard Law Review is proof positive of Obama's great intelligence. I don't remember any Dimo's pointing out that it was just a popularity contest.

This is just another indication that Obama is a fraud, an imposter. I still want to see his transcripts. His poor writing skills are not consistant with graduating manga cum laude from Harvard Law, unless they grade based on popularity.

Unfortunately, politics is essentially a popularity contest. More often than not, the more likeable candidate beats the more competent candidate. If Obama beats Romney, it will probably be because people thought he was a cool guy.

That was my point, Joe. He didn't write anything. An editor of a law review, with no writing. That is extremely rare. Normally it is the quality of your writing that gets a person on the editorial board. To become the editor after having written nothing of significance (case comments are the easy way out) is very strange.

Imagine. The smartest person to ever graduate Harvard Law School never wrote anything of any substance. Amazing. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I just wanted to be completely accurate about Obama's role at Harvard Law Review. Technically, his contribution wasn't nothing; it was almost nothing.

JD says that Obama was chosen for president of Harvard Law Review by a popularity contest. If that's the case, he was more of a mascot than a functioning writer or editor. Why would you let someone, chosen by popularity, edit the work of people chosen for their knowledge of the law? Popularity over excellence is certainly a terrible way to chose a president of a law review, or a country.

It's like saying "He was a Homecoming King, I'll be he'd be a good president."

It figures. You have nothing so you demand something. You feel entitled. OK then. Suck my dick while you apologize for your failings as a human being.



What a loser. When iifuckoff is done, take your turn. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Yo, fuckwad, if I want any lip from you, I'll scrape it off my zipper.....

To be completely honest, minus the snarkiness, the president of the Harvard Law Review is based on many things. In the 70s (according to the NYT article) presidents were chosen by their grade point average. In the 80s and beyond other intangibles became part of the process. This was done to allow minority and female candidates. Seems they couldn't make the cut on just grades. So your writing ability played a part, your subclass (race, sex, etc), your personal popularity, and anything else that could sway your fellow classmates. The important point to take away is just because Obama got elected it was not about grades. So the argument that Obama must have been brilliant is a bogus argument according to the NYT.
The president is expected to publish a major article to be published in the Review every month. That means there should be no less than 12 articles authored by Barack Obama. There is one that is acknowledged and that one seems to be embargoed. Comments on the article published in the early 90s have not been complementary. So that is what we have to work with...a description of a shadow and we can't see the real object.

Yo, fuckwad, if I want any lip from you, I'll scrape it off my zipper..... Originally Posted by seedman55

Now I remember why I put munchmasterbater on ignore. What a creep.

To be completely honest, minus the snarkiness, the president of the Harvard Law Review is based on many things. In the 70s (according to the NYT article) presidents were chosen by their grade point average. In the 80s and beyond other intangibles became part of the process. This was done to allow minority and female candidates. Seems they couldn't make the cut on just grades. So your writing ability played a part, your subclass (race, sex, etc), your personal popularity, and anything else that could sway your fellow classmates. The important point to take away is just because Obama got elected it was not about grades. So the argument that Obama must have been brilliant is a bogus argument according to the NYT.
The president is expected to publish a major article to be published in the Review every month. That means there should be no less than 12 articles authored by Barack Obama. There is one that is acknowledged and that one seems to be embargoed. Comments on the article published in the early 90s have not been complementary. So that is what we have to work with...a description of a shadow and we can't see the real object. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We never get the straight truth about anything in Obama's past. All his personal history is shrouded in mystery, half truths, lies and sealed records. This guy is an imposter. Obama can not be trusted. If the complete truth is ever told about Obama, I believe people will be shocked, even the Dimos. This guy makes Frank Abagnale ("Catch Me If You Can") seem like an amatuer.

We never get the straight truth about anything in Obama's past. All his personal history is shrouded in mystery, half truths, lies and sealed records. This guy is an imposter. Obama can not be trusted. If the complete truth is ever told about Obama, I believe people will be shocked, even the Dimos. This guy makes Frank Abagnale ("Catch Me If You Can") seem like an amatuer. Originally Posted by joe bloe

The same was said about George Bush by the far far left. Ya'll sound that idiotic

Are you saying, WDF, that since we failed to learn some things about George W. Bush's past, we are therefore precluded from inquiring about President Obama's past? Even if those items may be directly relevant as to how President Obama desires to govern?