Well, I'm glad we're talking. I, for one, don't think the voting was completed when the SCOTUS stopped the re-counting. It was a hard-ball court fight and the Repub's spared no tactics. But when he was elected, he was inaugurated, he was President Bush. I don't think he's all that smart, but that kind of doesn't matter. A lot of the overboard stuff was from the far-far left, not just the far left or left. But under the Constitution, once we went through all the stuff and the inauguration, the person becomes and owns the title of POTUS, whether a liked one or not, IMO. Until/unless he/she's impeached, that remains the case.

John,

Let me be clear--9/11 truthers are every bit as much vile scumbags as birthers are and their allegations against President Bush and Dick the War Criminal are nothing short of heinous. You might have done better to realize that the only comment above which referred to President Bush was mine and I showed him due respect. I think that lying to the American public was an impeachable offense and that the man should stand trial for making us a nation of torturers (which I believe to be immoral and I know to be ineffective), but he was made POTUS by the SCOTUS acting within their authority (if, in my opinion making one of the all-time worst decisions ever****) so he deserves to be called president although the job he did through, in my opinion, his inattention and incompetence deserves nothing but contempt. As for President Obama--first off, he went through the Constitutionally specified process so he deserves to be called by his title until removed by one of the Constitutional mechanisms. When someone makes allegations in this country there is no presumption of guilt, is there? Second, most people on the right (and I'm not accusing you--just making an observation about people in general) dislike President Obama for reasons that I can only describe as propaganda--he's liberal*, he's socialist, he's communist, he's raised taxes**, etc. If you think that we should pay private companies more money so we can receive worse health care, that's fine (not smart in my book, but you are entitled to your opinion), but complaining about "death panels" and socialized medicine while warning people to keep their hands of your Medicare (and Social Security) is hypocritical. It's always fair to ask if we treated President Bush with the same standard and likewise our question of why birthers wish to hold President Obama to higher standards than any of his predecessors is likewise legitimate, but this isn't a group of whackjob moonbats, it's a group of well educated people who tend towards the left side of the spectrum--I wouldn't assume that the people here are hypocrites without having some evidence first...

* his policies are actually to the right of Nixon's***--hardly what I would call liberal

** He's presided over the lowest tax rate of any modern president

*** I don't think that Tricky Dick need be shown the respect of the office he disgraced...

**** In no particular order Dred Scott v. Sanford, Brown v. Board of Education,Bush v. Gore,Citizens United are the bottom four SCOTUS decisions in my opinion--and I vote for Justice Thomas as worst justice ever.

I don't think you mean Brown v. Board of Education, Slarti, but the decision Brown reversed, Plessy v. Ferguson. That was the case establishing the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine, i.e., the case that judicially sanctified Jim Crow.

Oops.

My bad.

*Whew* I was about to flip out.

Welcome to our world, John. Many of us have ended up seated in Sterngard's interrogation er, cross-examination chair. It's what happens when one has a discussion with a trial attorney.

It was only 11 years ago, almost to the day, and you've forgotten the US Supreme Court stopped the recounting?* How convenient. I haven't forgotten. I got over it, but I'll never forget the bitterness I felt. I despise George W Bush. I think he's a despicable, ignorant, characterless individual who might even rise to the level of war criminal, but I never denied he was legally the President or felt any ongoing need to put an asterisk next to his name because he hadn't "proven" himself. But I think he will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents, if not the worst. I think this country would be in much better shape today if Al Gore had been President because I'm confident we'd have never gotten ourselves into a 10+ year war and an 8+ year war conducted off-balance-sheet until Pres Obama took office. I was ashamed for him when he fled DC on 9/11, leaving an insane person at the helm. Thank FSM our military didn't forget the chain of command. I laughed my head off at the chimp references and took particular glee in mocking that ridiculous flight suit, mission accomplished charade. I was embarrassed for him that after Nov 4, 2008 he pretty much laid down and turned over Presidenting to the Obama transition team. Never, though, did I try to argue he wasn't rightly the President.

*Even afterward, when several groups conducted their own surveys of the ballots and the results, the outcome depended on how strictly or not you counted the ballots.

Back on topic: I hope John decides to continue to contribute to The Fogbow.

I believe that was June Bug's question. It's at page 3 of this thread. (Page 3 as my computer organizes this website.)

I would hardly call the 2000 elections comparable since the vote counting was stopped and there was a direct conflict of interest with Kathryn Harris also being his chair from election in Florida and being the person that certified the vote. Also he didnt win everytime they counted the votes. A full recount showed gore winning. Now three years into it people accepted bush as the president. This is totally different from Obama where the election wasn't even close, the election was certified, there were no objections and for the hell of it he showed his birth certificate before the election. I don't get how you could compare the two. There was no legitimate belief that Obama wasn't the legal president. Now back to the actions you claim "others" see as suspicious from Obama could you elaborate?

I was very unhappy about the 2000 election results, but I accepted them, and the fact that someone who I thought was morally and intellectually incapable of being President was, in fact, President.

Republicans and those on the right for the most part don't seem capable of accepting much less equivocal results leading to President Obama's overwhelming victory. And I, for one, think it relates to melanin.

I also find it amusing that anyone who considers himself a serious person could believe President Obama was in some way unqualified to be POTUS, or that he was born outside of the United States. People holding such beliefs must have very short memories (and have very strong wish fulfillment fantasies). President Obama went through two stiff political challenges, where everything else was thrown at him. How these people think Hillary Clinton's or John McCain's campaigns would not have used ineligibility is the height of hubris. Only these people could see it, not the experienced professional pols who were actually running campaigns against Senator Obama and had unlimited money for opposition research. Yeah, right.

Yes, I regret overreacting a bit and I apologize for that. It was Saturday night and the wine was good you know (well maybe you don't).

This is the second time in a few weeks I have seen a conservative register here then post "I am taking my ball and going home." I think I was doing a bit of stereotyping. I really do hope you continue to read and post at the Fogbow.

I'll confirm that Stern does this to literally everyone and this is his specialty on Reality Check. He does this to our own people who attend court hearings and report on them. The purpose is to get information out. While it can be a bit intimidating, it's very effective.

I heartily agree. I asked to be grilled, in fact.

One of the problems in coming into a new community is that newbies don't know the quirks of long-time members. Don't take the "abuse" personally. Not everyone is a flaming commie liberal (although there are more here than I encounter in real life -- and I live across the river from the People's Republic of Cambridge). It helps to ignore those you consider way over the top. (There's an "ignore" function in the User Control Panel, makes it so you don't see their posts.)

Hang out a bit John, you'll come to enjoy it.

I wanted to add to this. While I was more circumspect than Slart, Stern, Kimba, Zorbas and Ross, I fully associate with what they had to say. Going off-topic enough to deserve another thread, I think, I hope you'll follow this link, John and others and chime in: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=6930#p313187

The main thing I remember was all the talk about SCOTUS justifying their decision to stop the ballot counting because if the recount showed that Gore had won, then it might case questions of legitimacy on Bush's presidency, as if Bush was going to be president whether he actually won the election or not.

That aside, though, like you, I never refused to use the title "President" even when I was writing stuff excoriating him for the idiotic nithing he is.

I should certainly hope so!

Since we're walking down memory lane*:

*

By the way, what is it with Republican women (at least the evil ones who want to screw around with Presidential elections, anyway) needing an entire display counter's worth of makeup on their faces? It doesn't make 'em look anymore trustworthy or likeable (nor does it make them more attractive from what I hear guys say)

I used to be a RINO, now I'm a Hell-if-INO. And a Huntsman fan.

Way too much. He thinks we should listen to scientists regarding scientific matters.

I think its like star wars the more you're on the dark side the more haggard and screwed up your looks become

Media Matters gives a linky to Woodman's book in an article about porn 'stache saying looking into the nativity of any other candidate is a distraction.