It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama and the Bilderbergers -PROOF!

page: 15
133
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
a) George Soros and Perseus execs invest billions of dollars in industry X, or in currency Y,

b) George Soros and Perseus execs help Obama get elected,

c) Obama implements policy z that makes investments in X and Y skyrocket.

d) Soros and Perseus execs make hundreds of millions while American interests are sold out.

Is this logic simple enough for you to follow?


If you could provide proof that Obama being connected to James A. Johnson means that he's also connected to George Soros, then this would be an acceptable conclusion. Unfortunately, all you're doing is declaring Obama guilty of pandering to big business because he's been associated with someone who happens to be connected to big business.

Do you have any idea how many people this fallacious line of logic could be applied to?

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Majal]




posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
Its funny how you and everyone else defending Obama attack the guilt by association mentality. That is basically the platform Obama has been running on. The idea that his campaign was better than McCain's or Hillary's because he doesn't take money from lobbyist is just another way of saying the latter two are guilty by association. He has no proof that they would allow these contributions to affect policy, he only claims that his lack of association with these people make him preferred.


Exactly!

The word that fits Obama's campaign more than any other is hypocrisy.

If you're against Obama, you're called a racist even though Obama claims to be transcending racial issues.

If you're white and vote against Obama, you're by definition a racist, but if you're black and vote for Obama your voting for somebody who can relate to you.

If you're in the media and you ask Hillary tough questions you're doing your job, but if you ask Obama tough questions your bashing him.

So far, the media has let Obama's campaign get away with this approach. It's too juvenile to work forever. In this day and age, people are too smart and too connected online not to see through this nonsense.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majal
If you could provide proof that Obama being connected to James A. Johnson means that he's also connected to George Soros, then this would be an acceptable conclusion.


I'm glad you agree. George Soros and Perseus are partners in a biotech fund. Jim Johnson is Vice-Chairman of Perseus.


PERSEUS-SOROS BIOPHARMACEUTICAL FUND, L.P., which Perseus co-manages, was formed in 2000 with capital commitments totaling $449 million to make investments in life sciences companies.

Source







Unfortunately, all you're doing is declaring Obama guilty of pandering to big business because he's been associated with someone who happens to be connected to big business.



Not even close. Jim Johnson runs a hedge fund and sits on the board of Goldman Sachs. He's in the position to make hundreds of millions depending on who becomes the next President. Jim Johnson was also chosen by Obama to find a VP. This is a direct conflict of interest, not just a nebulous "association" to big business.

And just like Obama's choice to pick his church, it is Obama's CHOICE to put Jim Johnson in charge of finding a VP.





Do you have any idea how many people this fallacious line of logic could be applied to?


Ok, if you think this is common, just name ONE person involved in any presidential campaign that runs a billion dollar hedge complex and is partnered with George Soros in another hedge fund.

Just one.

I'll wait patiently for your reply.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by jamie83]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83The word that fits Obama's campaign more than any other is hypocrisy.

If you're against Obama, you're called a racist even though Obama claims to be transcending racial issues.

If you're white and vote against Obama, you're by definition a racist, but if you're black and vote for Obama your voting for somebody who can relate to you.

If you're in the media and you ask Hillary tough questions you're doing your job, but if you ask Obama tough questions your bashing him.

So far, the media has let Obama's campaign get away with this approach. It's too juvenile to work forever. In this day and age, people are too smart and too connected online not to see through this nonsense.


I like how you've tried to connect the opinions of a very small number of Obama supporters and members of the media to Obama's campaign itself. I suggest that you find a single example of anyone within Obama's campaign stating that you're a racist if you're white and vote against Obama and/or racist if you simply ask Obama tough questions.

So far, you've provided us with nothing but fallacious arguments and unsubstantiated statements that would be laughable if they were slightly less worrisome.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I think the thing that troubles me the most about the political system in the US is the hypocrisy that occurs over party lines. Not only is this true in the pulic, but also here on ATS.

For example, most people who support Obama hate Bush. These people all the time draw conclusions from people Bush is connected to (i.e. Bush was friends with Jeff Skilling, etc.) They show this as proof of the shady nature of Bush and our political system (and in my opinion they are right). But when someone shows factual evidence of someone they support appointing very shady people to their staff its seen as a smear tactic and as "disturbing that people would believe this".

The same is true from the opposite side. McCain and Bush supporters would gladly point to this thread as evidence Obama is shady, yet would themselves decry similar connections to Bush or McCain as nonsense.

The point is that this is a major reason that the US political system is as corrupt as it is. The PTB want you to fight over political parties, because while you do, they are all working towards the same goals and corruption. I'm not saying you have to be a conspiracy theorist, but call a spade a spade. I genuinely challenge anyone who has defended Obama on this post to honestly say that the facts being discussed here don't at a bare minimum strike some tension in his message of change.

One last thing. I think that many people find it hard to believe that the Bilderberg controls all of the worlds decisions and that there is a NWO, which is perfectly understandable. The problem is when someone posts a fact and then uses it to prove that a "conspiracy" might be true, these people ignore the fact. You don't have to belive in 9-11 and NWO conspiracies to look act the facts and see that the government is very corrupt and filled with people that are liars and out for self interest. Don't cop out and discredit facts because you don't agree with the conclusions drawn by the poster.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majal
Honestly, I'm shocked that people would believe any of this without a shred of evidence to support the conclusion. This is one of the most ridiculous fallacies I have ever seen.

X is linked to Y, and Y is linked to Z, so X must also be linked to Z

Because X is linked to Z (a false conclusion), X must also be linked to Z's plan A (an unproven plan)

The fact that some people buy into this stuff is extremely worrisome.



Shocked? Without a shred of evidence? Logical fallacies again?

Gimme a break...

Perseus has a very small management team. Jim Johnson and Frank Pearl are not just "linked" because they happen to work at the same company. They run a $3 billion hedge fund together with a small handful of other top executives.

Obama named Johnson to head his VP search committee. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that Johnson's support of Obama would be independent of the potential hundreds of millions he and Frank Pearl might make if Obama is elected.

And if this is just an innocent association, why hasn't Obama made it public? Why is the media describing Johnson as a "former CEO of Fannie Mae" instead of saying he's currently Vice Chairman of Perseus LLC, a $3 billion hedge fund partnered with George Soros in a biotech fund. And that Perseus' investments are not public?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83



Do you have any idea how many people this fallacious line of logic could be applied to?


Ok, if you think this is common, just name ONE person involved in any presidential campaign that runs a billion dollar hedge complex and is partnered with George Soros in another hedge fund.

Just one.

I'll wait patiently for your reply.


Your response is not appropriate to the statement I made, but since you've essentially asked me to provide examples of your fallacious line of logic, I will do just that.

Here are a few examples that are about on par with the one you've provided: www.firethelobbyists.com...

Charlie Black, in particular, is an interesting case. There's even more circumstantial evidence to "support" McCain's connection to brutal dictators and child enslavers than there is to "support" your assertion that Obama is connected to Perseus.


Charlie Black, McCain’s senior counsel and spokesman, began his lobbying career by representing numerous dictators and repressive regimes

* Black’s firm represented the governor of Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. According to a 1985 report, the firm Black, Manafort & Stone earned $950,000 plus expenses for its work to provide “advice and assistance on matters relating to the media, public relations and public affairs interests.”1
* Black’s firm lobbied on behalf of Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, earning $1 million a year for his efforts.2
* Black’s firm lobbied on behalf of Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre.3
* Black’s firm represented Nigerian dictator Ibrahim Babangida, earning at least $1 million for his efforts.4
* Black’s firm has represented Equatorial Guinea, an oil-rich state “best known for the outlandish brutality of its rulers.”5
* Black represented Angolan rebel and “classical terrorist” Jonas Savimbi, a job that earned him $600,000.6 “We have to call him Africa’s classical terrorist,” Makau Mutua, a professor of law and Africa specialist told the New York Times. “In the history of the continent, I think he’s unique because of the degree of suffering he caused without showing any remorse.”7
* In recent years his client list has also included the Iraqi National Congress8, Blackwater, and the China National Off-Shore Oil Corp.10
* Since 2005, BKSH has received more than $700,000 in fees from foreign entities.11

Source


[edit on 9-6-2008 by Majal]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Majal
 


You have no idea how badly you have been owned. I think the point Grambler made of hypocrites is spot on btw. And how can you so blindly ignore these connections, it's not "my grandma knew some guy who's cousin's bf was related to so and so", it's more like "The head of my VP selection is a member of bilderburg", not really that far removed smarty pants.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83Obama named Johnson to head his VP search committee. It's a logical fallacy to conclude that Johnson's support of Obama would be independent of the potential hundreds of millions he and Frank Pearl might make if Obama is elected.

And if this is just an innocent association, why hasn't Obama made it public? Why is the media describing Johnson as a "former CEO of Fannie Mae" instead of saying he's currently Vice Chairman of Perseus LLC, a $3 billion hedge fund partnered with George Soros in a biotech fund. And that Perseus' investments are not public?


1. If Obama was interested in pandering to Perseus and George Soros, isn't it more logical to assume that he'd choose Frank Pearl or George Soros himself to head his VP search committee?

2. You say that Perseus' investments are not public, but I just found a listing of several of their investments and a bid for an Airlines company during a 5-10 second Google search. Apparently, you haven't done your homework.




Perseus is a sophisticated U.S. private equity investment firm with successful holdings in other leading clean technology companies, including Clean Energy Fuels Corp., of which both Westport and Perseus are shareholders.

Source



The offer from Perseus includes the following terms: Perseus would acquire all or a majority of the airline's assets, including its cargo division, under a new entity named "Newco"; the company would pay USD50m - USD41m toward working capital and USD9m toward paying off creditors; and Newco would also pay off the airline's USD65m bridge financing.

Source


3. The line of fallacious argumentation you are attempting to use by claiming that "it's a logical fallacy to conclude that Johnson's support of Obama would be independent of the potential hundreds of millions he and Frank Pearl might make if Obama is elected" is called a Slippery Slope. If you are not familiar with this, I would suggest that you visit the following site:

www.nizkor.org...

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Majal]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheeperYou have no idea how badly you have been owned. I think the point Grambler made of hypocrites is spot on btw. And how can you so blindly ignore these connections, it's not "my grandma knew some guy who's cousin's bf was related to so and so", it's more like "The head of my VP selection is a member of bilderburg", not really that far removed smarty pants.


I hate to have to keep referring back to the logical fallacies people are committing in this thread, but I'm afraid that in order to argue something like this effectively, I really don't have much of a choice.

In your particular case, you may want to look up Ad Hominem attacks and Appeal to Ridicule.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Majal
 


No thanks, I don't want to, but you enjoy living in blissful ignorance while we try to figure out the cancer that is taking over.

edit-I take that back, many people have allready figured it out, I'm just in aggeance. Your problem is really simpler than any arguments you keep referring to, you just can't handle the truth.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Sheeper]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
So my question is... could Obama have picked ANY politician in Washington to help him and NOT be "associated" with the big B group? Honestly could he have picked people with experience that werent linked to the "elitist" group?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sheeper
No thanks, I don't want to, but you enjoy living in blissful ignorance while we try to figure out the cancer that is taking over.

edit-I take that back, many people have allready figured it out, I'm just in aggeance. Your problem is really simpler than any arguments you keep referring to, you just can't handle the truth.


If you were truly interested in "figuring out the cancer that is taking over," you wouldn't be taking flawed conclusions as proof of anything. That does no one any good whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Majal
 


"Charlie Black, in particular, is an interesting case. There's even more circumstantial evidence to "support" McCain's connection to brutal dictators and child enslavers than there is to "support" your assertion that Obama is connected to Perseus."

Do you truly believe that this connects McCain to dictators. If so, doesn't it seem hypocritical of you to believe this, but refuse to show scrutiny to Obama's nefarious connections?

If you don't believe either of these connections prove influence is being exerted on these candidates, then my question is what would it take for you to believe that corruption is occurring? If one of the candidates appointed a klansmen to their staff, would you still be seeing its a fallacy to believe just because a person appoints someone who wants to exterminate a race doesn't mean they want to?

I can understand and respect your apprehensiveness to believe something like this because you don't want to jump the gun, but here is the problem. We the lowly people on the outside of big business and government will probably never be privy to all of the facts in a particular situation. This is because the very nature of control of these groups, especially when secrecy is so prized by them. For example, no matter what you believe about the JFK assassination, you have to admit that you don't know all f the facts. Even the government admits they haven't released all of the facts, and have lost evidence. So assuming you believe the governments story, you are still having to make a decision without all of the facts.

If your stance is to believe the government all of the time unless they are 100% proven wrong, then you will believe whatever they tell you blindly. All we can do is make our best judgments in particular situations by looking at the facts in front of us. That, and we have to look at the credibility of the parties involved. Because time and time again both parties have lied to the people, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by shug7272
 


Thats actually a good question. My answer would be no, not if he wanted to win. Sadly, in the current political environment of the US, these type of people are needed to even stand a chance. Ron Paul tried to make a go of it without these groups and he was barely mentioned by the MSM and didn't stand a chance.

The problem though in this situation is twofold. First, Obama made it a point to say he wouldn't do these things. That is his entire campaign. So at the very least in this situation, he has been somewhat dishonest. If it seems like his credibility for real change in Washington is suspect, then his entire platform is thrown out.

The other problem is that so many people let this fact act as an excuse to not change things. The big reason that the political climate is so bad is because we the public notice that if you want to win, you have to kiss up to big businesses, etc., and yet do nothing about it. Not until a large enough group of people start voting for people that have zero connections to these people (like a third party) will real change ever happen. It a very disgusting paradox. Candidates get in line with these groups because its the only way to get the win, but people only vote for candidates that do this because there the only ones with a chance to win.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler

"Charlie Black, in particular, is an interesting case. There's even more circumstantial evidence to "support" McCain's connection to brutal dictators and child enslavers than there is to "support" your assertion that Obama is connected to Perseus."

Do you truly believe that this connects McCain to dictators. If so, doesn't it seem hypocritical of you to believe this, but refuse to show scrutiny to Obama's nefarious connections?

If you don't believe either of these connections prove influence is being exerted on these candidates, then my question is what would it take for you to believe that corruption is occurring? If one of the candidates appointed a klansmen to their staff, would you still be seeing its a fallacy to believe just because a person appoints someone who wants to exterminate a race doesn't mean they want to?

I can understand and respect your apprehensiveness to believe something like this because you don't want to jump the gun, but here is the problem. We the lowly people on the outside of big business and government will probably never be privy to all of the facts in a particular situation. This is because the very nature of control of these groups, especially when secrecy is so prized by them. For example, no matter what you believe about the JFK assassination, you have to admit that you don't know all f the facts. Even the government admits they haven't released all of the facts, and have lost evidence. So assuming you believe the governments story, you are still having to make a decision without all of the facts.

If your stance is to believe the government all of the time unless they are 100% proven wrong, then you will believe whatever they tell you blindly. All we can do is make our best judgments in particular situations by looking at the facts in front of us. That, and we have to look at the credibility of the parties involved. Because time and time again both parties have lied to the people, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt.


1. I don't believe that McCain is connected to dictators and child slavers. I was making a point.

2. If a Presidential candidate were to appoint a politician who is connected to a Klansman as an important member of their campaign staff, then yes, I would have a problem with it. I would not, however, assume that the candidate himself was serving the interests of the KKK, which is almost exactly what the original post was attempting to do. It also doesn't help that every businessman and private banker is being treated like the Rothschilds, Halliburton or Enron simply because they're businessmen or private bankers. Not everyone is involved in a world-wide conspiracy.

3. I absolutely do not believe the government 100% of the time. In fact, I'm one of those people who have learned to question everything, which is why I'm questioning this post to begin with. If you think that unconstitutional governmental policies and the complete disregard for the citizens of our country are going to disappear simply because we've chosen to stoop to their level and make unsubstantiated claims that are intended to divide rather than unite, then I'm afraid that nothing is going to change.

This post was clearly meant to make people cautious of Obama and more receptive to John McCain, despite the fact that both of those candidates will undoubtedly be linked to people who are involved with some of the richest and most powerful people in the world. That is simply the nature of politics.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Majal]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majal

3. I absolutely do not believe the government 100% of the time. In fact, I'm one of those people who have learned to question everything, which is why I'm questioning this post to begin with. If you think that unconstitutional governmental policies and the complete disregard for the citizens of our country are going to disappear simply because we've chosen to stoop to their level and make unsubstantiated claims that are intended to divide rather than unite, then I'm afraid that nothing is going to change.


Unsubtatiated claims? Ok, leave Bilderberg out of it for a moment. Obama is the candidate for change and ending lobbyist influence. He has appointed a man to find a VP candiate that as the head of Fannie Mae admiditted that lobbying was of huge importance www.washingtonpost.com...
and that also lined his own pockets by effectively lobbying to get the government to look the other way and to actually give him special privileges, www.slate.com...
(all of this was previously posted)

How are these unsubstantiated claims? Even when looking at Bilderberg there are people making warranted claims about what they are about, and clearly much evidence has been given to prove that Johnson is a member. Even if you think the Bilderberg line is a crock, what have you said to dispute the rest of these claims. You are quick to point out the flawed argumentative strategies of your fellow posters, but why not look at yourself. You disregard facts that are cited merely because some people use them to draw conclusions you don't like. Why don't you post some cited facts as opposed to lumping everything together as "unsubstantiated"?

As far as Bilderberg goes, again, what more can we do but make inferences as to what is going on their. We know Johnson was their, along with the worlds elite, and we know that they meet in secret. We also know that despite the fact that this is huge news and the fact that media professionals attended, the story got no coverage on the MSM. How is digging into this mystery harmful to the discussion. If there is nothing to hide, why the secrecy. Your starting to sound like the Bush administration "Questioning us empowers our enemies"



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler

Unsubtatiated claims? Ok, leave Bilderberg out of it for a moment. Obama is the candidate for change and ending lobbyist influence. He has appointed a man to find a VP candiate that as the head of Fannie Mae admiditted that lobbying was of huge importance www.washingtonpost.com...
and that also lined his own pockets by effectively lobbying to get the government to look the other way and to actually give him special privileges, www.slate.com...
(all of this was previously posted)

How are these unsubstantiated claims? Even when looking at Bilderberg there are people making warranted claims about what they are about, and clearly much evidence has been given to prove that Johnson is a member. Even if you think the Bilderberg line is a crock, what have you said to dispute the rest of these claims. You are quick to point out the flawed argumentative strategies of your fellow posters, but why not look at yourself. You disregard facts that are cited merely because some people use them to draw conclusions you don't like. Why don't you post some cited facts as opposed to lumping everything together as "unsubstantiated"?

As far as Bilderberg goes, again, what more can we do but make inferences as to what is going on their. We know Johnson was their, along with the worlds elite, and we know that they meet in secret. We also know that despite the fact that this is huge news and the fact that media professionals attended, the story got no coverage on the MSM. How is digging into this mystery harmful to the discussion. If there is nothing to hide, why the secrecy. Your starting to sound like the Bush administration "Questioning us empowers our enemies"


If the title of this thread were simply "Obama Chooses Head of VP Search Committee -- Someone Who Supports Lobbying" then I wouldn't even have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is the subsequent conclusions that many people have drawn that really have absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand.

What makes you think the head of a VP search committee has the power to affect the opinions of a Presidential candidate, to begin with? That's like claiming that because a personal injury attorney enjoys playing golf--which has absolutely nothing to do with his job--and feels that it contributes greatly to a person's social life, anyone who hires him to represent them automatically feels the same way about the entirely unrelated sport of golf.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majal


If the title of this thread were simply "Obama Chooses Head of VP Search Committee -- Someone Who Supports Lobbying" then I wouldn't even have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is the subsequent conclusions that many people have drawn that really have absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand.

What makes you think the head of a VP search committee has the power to affect the opinions of a Presidential candidate, to begin with? That's like claiming that because a personal injury attorney enjoys playing golf--which has absolutely nothing to do with his job--and feels that it contributes greatly to a person's social life, anyone who hires him to represent them automatically feels the same way about the entirely unrelated sport of golf.


First, the title of the thread merely claims to prove a link between Bilderberg and Obama, which it did. You claim that these conclusions have nothing to do with the argument at hand, well what is the argument at hand? I find it odd that you are so adamant to attack some conclusions because they hurt the discussion, yet have not once acknowledge the seriousness of Obama appointing lobbyists of this magnitude. If you are so concerned with the discussion to berate people trying to make inferences using the facts they have access to, then why not chime in with your thoughts on these facts?

As far as what makes me think this man could influence Obama? Well, Obama makes me think that. He has told me and every other American that lobbyist are a huge problem and that they control Washington, and that I need to vote for him to end this. So either he is being deceitful to some degree which means I have trouble believing he can bring change, or lobbyists aren't that powerful and there is no need for change. Either way, I have no reason to vote for him.

Your attorney analogy makes no sense. Let me shape it up for you. Lets assume this same attorney owns a country club. The person comes to him and seeks advice, and along with good advice about the injury, proceeds to tell the man how much attending his golf course will help him. You make it seem as if Johnson just has a belief, and doesn't stand to gain. But thats just wrong. The Washington Post article shows that he heavily believes in lobbying to achieve his goals, and the slate article shows that he has been very effective in the past at lobbying congress to allow him to line his own pockets. If you have evidence or warranted claims to show that Johnson won't be influential then by all means share. But until then try not to attack others for tpoints they make.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majal

In fact, I'm one of those people who have learned to question everything


Do you say these things to convince yourself of a lie or do you really believe that.
Then you go on to say you think this is just a smear tactic to rip on Obama and make McCain look good....o.O, that pretty much tells me all I need to know about you, you were on the time to defend Obama train before you even read the thread. I'm sure, your points are irrational and blind faith. In order to "question everything" you need to question their motives and see that their vested interest is a conflict of interest.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Sheeper]



new topics

top topics



 
133
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join