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.
Originally posted by Grambler
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?
Originally posted by Sheeper
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 topic 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.
Originally posted by Majal
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.
Originally posted by EvilAxis
Your logic falls apart there.
If a Presidential candidate were to appoint a politician who is connected to a Klansman, how could it not serve the interests of the KKK?
Originally posted by Majal
It's perfectly logical if you think of it in terms of your own life.
If you have a good friend whose father is anti-semitic and believes that the Holocaust never happened, will you choose end the friendship simply because he's "connected" to an ignorant racist? Technically, it would link you to racism and allow people to assume that you, too, are racist--but, in reality, it has absolutely nothing to do with your own beliefs or even your friend's.
Originally posted by Grambler
Let me rephrase a little, probably the biggest reason Obama beat Hillary was the idea of change. Without it, he didn't stand a chance. It was the one thing he could use to separate himself from Hillary. Because of this idea of change and reforming lobbyist control of Washington, he was able to garner enough support, including by energizing young fed up voters, to beat Hillary. Then in late May when it was obvious that he had beat Hillary, he choses the vice chairman of a multi-billion dollar hedge fund to chose his VP. Also, this person has a history of being an effective lobbyist and lining his own pockets. Again, none of this is speculation, this is all fact that has been posted to this board. How can anyone in their right mind vote for this person?
As of March 31, 2008, Senator Obama had raised an unprecedented $101 million in small individual contributions of $200 or less, which represents 45 percent of his $225 million in total individual contributions raised for the primaries, according to the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI).
Furthermore, according to an article in The New York Times (May 19, 2008), Obama has received contributions from more that 1.5 million individual donors.
Source
Originally posted by Majal
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 it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -Barack Obama
David Axelrod called on Hillary Clinton's campaign to firmly rebuke Geraldine Ferraro for saying in a recent interview that: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
"They should be denounced, and she should be censured by the campaign for them," Axelrod said of Ferraro's remarks.
If Clinton's campaign does nothing, Axelrod said during a call with reporters, they are reinforcing a politics-as-usual approach.
"They ought to set a tone and do what we've done when people have said things not in keeping with what is the spirit of our campaign," he said, adding, "the bottom line is this when you wink and nod at offensive statemens you really send a signal to your supporters that anything goes."
Source
So far, you've provided us with nothing but fallacious arguments and unsubstantiated statements that would be laughable if they were slightly less worrisome.
Originally posted by jamie83
OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.
Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.
Source
Originally posted by Majal
You do realize that, as of March 31st, 45% of Obama's campaign financing came from donations under $200, right? If that's not a legitimate attempt to separate himself from interest groups, then I'm not sure what is.
Originally posted by Grambler
In an answer to your first point, if I was Obama, I would have chose someone who wasn't a lobbyist. I would have lost. But if he truly believes his own message then he would have had to do this. If he couldn't have won without a highly powerful lobbyists, then it proves that he is incapable of enacting meaningful change.
You say he one only partly because of his message. Fine, I'll grant you that. Yet that was still part of the reason, and he won only by the slimmest of margins. If he even won one state because of this, then this is the reason he is the nominee.
As far as changing the system being the message, and that somehow being different than lobbyists, prove it. I would like to see some quotes backing that up, I searched, heres what I found:
“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”
— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007
Lastly, I've already adressed the, "well most of his money didn't come from lobbyists" claim.
"The thinking seems to be, "If he didn't take money from them, then there is no wrong doing" I think that this is just not true. What difference does it make if he took money from Johnson or Perseus if he voluntarily is letting them influence decisions about his campaign. He just cut out the first part of how lobbyists work. Most politicians accept money from a group, then allow that group to influence them. Obama just skipped right to the influence." from a previous post
"America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past."
Source
"Changing the definition of success to stay the course with the wrong policy is the wrong course for our troops and our national security. The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now, not six months from now."
Source
"All of us should be in the solutions business, but too often it becomes business as usual. ... What we need is a president in the business of solving problems and will solve them by bringing the country together."
"I did not get into this race to tear anybody down. I got into this race to build America up."
"I intend to lead the party of tomorrow, not the party of yesterday."
"We don't need somebody who can play the game better. We need somebody who can put an end to the game plan."
If elected: "You'll have a president who respects the constitution, believes in the constitution and will obey the constitution of the United States of America."
"We want to change the mindset that got us in to war."
Source
Originally posted by Majal
By claiming that Obama's race was the only thing keeping him in the race,
she was completely ignoring the drawbacks of his heritage and simultaneously undercutting her own candidate by making the race more about race and sex than the issues themselves.
Originally posted by jamie83
The issue is why is Obama and the news media hiding James Johnson's position as Vice Chairman of Perseus LLC and their partnership with George Soros?
How much money will James Johnson and George Soros make if Obama is elected President and implements policies favorable to Johnson's and Soros' investments?
If you don't know the answer to this question, which of course you don't, then there is no way to tell if Obama is planning on doing their bidding or not.
The problem lies in the fact that this information is being kept from the public. Why not disclose it?
If Obama has nothing to hide, why not disclose that the man he picked to vet his VP candidates runs a multi-billion dollar hedge fund and is partnered with George Soros?