Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama: Because mud washes easier than blood

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Whats' the MUD? All the slinging from the neocons to try and dispell a man beacuse they fear him.

What am i talking about? What follows is a series of common myths that are seen, both in ATS, and in the MSM.
My structuring is simple:
i give the "myth" in big letters
i give the myths supporting arguments
and i give links that dispelled the myth.

enjoy.


He’s anti-2nd amendment.


SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS
He’s anti-2nd amendment


Debunked:


Q:[To Senator Obama] Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets. Source

Sure, you can twist his words if you wish, to make it sound like he’s against guns. Or you can read it for yourself and see that he’s saying its up to local governments to decide. See, what most people don’t stop to think about before they go ‘shootin from the hip’ (so to speak) is that different areas call for a different set of rules.

For example, in 2006:

***********************************************************
Louisiana had 12 murders for every 100,000 people.
And opposite that
New Hampshire had 1 murder for every 100,000 people
Source
***********************************************************

So obviously – one could make the argument of “why punish new Hampshire, for the heathens in Louisiana who cant stop killing each other” ? This is what Obama is saying. Never once did he say “get rid of all hand guns, roar!!” now did he?




OBAMA IS A MUSLIM!!!!!


Supporting arguments and Debunkery in ONE paragraph
The Israelinsider posts a story about Obama’s brother, but then retracts their story, after being exposed as frauds. WAIT A SECOND. Arent these the same people who said “Obama’s birth certificate is faked – confirmed!!!”

Oh, and here’s a story that just proves Israelinsiders complete LACK of credibility.
how many chances are you going to give a tabloid to get it right, before you stop listening to what they have to say?

[side note] What would it matter if Obama WERE Muslim? Do you see now where the term ‘smear’ gets its name?




Obama is going to jail!!


This one made me laugh more than anything. Basically – people are insinuating that Obama has plagiarized the Presidential seal and will be going to jail for it. Im going to go for the Guinness book of records’ record (?) for the fastest debunkery in history:
…1
2
3

SUPPORTING ARGUMENT
The seal !
DEBUNKED
HERE

*sweats* man that was tough….*takes swig of Gatorade*

(more on next page)








[edit on 26-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

His birth certificate is faked!


SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

WHERE IS OBAMAS B.C. ??!! *evil eye*

Oh, there it is. Hey wait, is this photo shopped?

Oh. its not photoshopped huh....hmm...oh wait!! LOOK here's proof its fake! CONFIRMED!

They actually used this link as “proof” that Obama’s certificate is faked. (ill get to the irony later)


Debunked:
The recurring theme you’ll see in all of the above posts, generally, goes like this
Argument 1 (dispelled  concoct argument 2 (dispelled)  concoct argument 3  dispelled.
So lets discuss:

First the ironic part of the last link above. I want you to look at the “#1 answer” which is used to “prove” that Obama faked his certificate. Now look at that guys signature, below where it says “asker’s rating”. Case closed. This is not a viable source of information. Going to the KKK for advice about black people won’t do you much good.


“Hey its photoshopped, for sure, look” as in link 2 shows. Many come forth with credible information that makes it “not for sure” faked, but it also doesn’t make it “not for sure *not* faked”. It is always possible that its faked, you can do amazing things with computers these days. Once that point was proven, its on to war machine product of ACME ANTI-OBAMA #2


It’s fake Here is proof was the opening theme for the third supporting link. Quickly dispelled as “definitive proof” by obvious flaws in the actual website its self. The website makes numerous mentions of “allegedly” fake and “maybe fake” but never “definitely” fake.
That idea was further debunked – This article discusses the words of a Hawaiian state official, who says that Obama’s certificate of birth is valid. Totally dispelling all other claims that it was an invalid certificate.


What about that “mysterious” seal that doesn’t appear anywhere on this certificate of birth? Whom the opposition merely states “why isn’t it there! ITS FAKED BECAUSE ITS NOT THERE”


Well, straight from the horse’s mouth again, the same Hawaiian official explains some possibilities for the absentee seal.

And finally – possibly my favorite.


Once Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, came onto the scene in defense of Obama’s validity….they changed gears again.

Now we’re going to talk about actual definitions of words. We are getting into the nitty gritty here, ladies and gentleman.

The new argument attempts to discredit Ms. Okubo because she uses the words “birth certificate” but obama’s file is called a “certificate of birth”


Now, she’s immediately stupid, has no idea what she’s talking about, and totally un-creditworthy?
Wrong. They’re making a mountain out of no-hill.

BUT! Once again quickly dispelled You see – ‘certificate of birth’ is just a ‘quick access’ version of a ‘birth certificate’. Obama has to go through some loopholes to get a ‘birth certificate’….really you should read the “source” outlined in this post provided in this paragraph.

Benevolent Heretic pretty much sums it up with her newest post.





SO what does all of this have to do with “blood”?

You can easily wipe off the mud that has been slung at Obama. I (a loyal obama supporter) will be the first to admit



  • Obama has flip flopped on certain issues
  • Obama has lied on certain issues
  • Obama has skeletons in his closet


But, I will also admit that I share those same three things with Obama myself. And so do you. There’s not a single person reading this who can honestly say that these 3 things don’t apply to them.

The blood?
Well, ill say this:
This post has gone on long enough, you’re probably tired of reading my words by now:
So I urge you, if you want an answer to the blood question

Go read this and think about it.











[edit on 26-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
You forgot one thing...

Obama is possibly the single most Liberal, Socialist Candidate to ever run for the office and will effectively destroy this country if elected...

And yes, I have done my research, I am not "afraid" of anyone, (That is just silly) and I don't sling mud....

I look at the candidate, his voting record and his stance....

Semper



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
You also forgot that Barry O. wants to stop development of U.S. weapons systems, not put weapons in space, is for NAFTA or against NAFTA depending on who's he's talking to, says we're in a recession but wants to increase taxes, and thinks terrorists should be given Constitutional rights but residents of Washington D.C. shouldn't be given those same rights.

I don't know anybody who fears Obama. I do know people who fear for the well-being of America if he gets elected.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
You forgot one thing...

Obama is possibly the single most Liberal, Socialist Candidate to ever run for the office


You say that like it's a bad thing.


Originally posted by semperfortis
and will effectively destroy this country if elected...

Look at how much good 8 years of the opposite has done us.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I do look at the last 8 years, and quite frankly until we voted the Dems in power, I was doing marvelous....My investments were up substantially, my standard of living was incredible and life was fantastic...

2 years ago when they, the Dems/Socialists, took control of the House and Senate, the economy was booming, gas was reasonable, unemployment was historically low and the housing market was outstanding...2 years with the Liberals in power and what we have now is quite the opposite...

So, thanks for the advice, I do look...

Semper



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by semperfortis
You forgot one thing...

Obama is possibly the single most Liberal, Socialist Candidate to ever run for the office


You say that like it's a bad thing.


Originally posted by semperfortis
and will effectively destroy this country if elected...

Look at how much good 8 years of the opposite has done us.


Yes, 8 years of what you call the opposite still has the economy growing even in spite of $4 gallon gas and two wars. And what is problematic is that Obama's economic policies are going to exacerbate the problems affecting the very weakest parts of our economy.

No economy every grew from taxation. it's impossible to create wealth by taxation.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
it's funny how - after providing examples of myths that have been inarguably debunked and proven false

here come more

the punch line is : Still no proof to back it up


semper, i respect your posts 100%. You almost always give information to back up what you think, and i believe you to be a well-informed man who knows his stuff. I believe we can both agree to disagree.

That still doesnt make either of us 'right'


i know that its 'common' in all message boards that if someone posts something you agree with - you rate it - and move on, because "well, i have nothing to add to it" or what ever. But i believe silence is killing posts like this one (and there are a lot of truthful posts about obama, so far, not a single one has proven a myth about the man)

but lots of them disprove the myths.

As i said, he's not perfect, so to make the argument of imperfection = unqualified to be president.....i think you get my drift



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


I have to agree 100% here.. I hate Obama threads, and I don't read the so called "mud". I have however read the stances he holds on key issues.

1. Increase taxes
2. Cut military funding, reduce armed forces size
3. Reduce armed forces presence in allied nations
4. End "all" nuclear development and "work with" Russia to destroy US Nuclear stockpiles.
5. Gun control
6. For plans of redistribution of wealth
7. Supposedly will pull out of Iraq, but I know he wouldnt do that
8. Reduce taxes for the poor .. because getting a refund check back every year .. just isn't enough for them I guess...
9. Subsidize subprime loans, a method of wealth distribution to pay off mortgages of those who don't pay their bills.

10. Will push legislation to and I quote "get minorities into homes". WTF ever that's supposed to mean.
11. Supports strict government regulation of the US Stock exchanges ..

12. Extend a "stimulus plan" to elderly people and the unemployed. Because it worked so good the first time around.
13. Looks to make any "hate speech" against illegal immigration punishable by law - deserves a thread in it's self!
14. The black community proclaim Obama as the next "MLK"
15. This one though I laughed my arse off, apply affirmative action to poor white college students.
One way to bankrupt the education system.
16. Not even going to delve into Obama's education plans in his new socialized America .. a fiasco if I ever saw one.. perhaps worse then Bush's No Child Left Behind, which is a pretty big joke to overcome!

So ya, I don't care if hes black, Muslim, has no birth certificates or if hes really the flying purple people eater..

I care that hes a socialist, and a socialist is NOT what this country needs. Last thing I need is to end one government telling me to give up my personal liberties for safety, to be replaced by a socialist regime telling me to give up my personal liberties for the sake of the common good!



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
well - hey - you actually posted real reasons you dont like Obama.


MY post is about the MUD that does get slung.
So if you dont like my post because it poitns out the ignorance of some people who are against obama, well, fine, you have your opinion.

Post all the anti-obama stuff you want, as long as its not "OMG HES MUSLIM" im fine with it.

I fail to see how you could argue with that?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


I am not arguing with you at all. In fact, I had stated quite clearly that I don't like Obama threads, don't read Obama threads, and generally don't listen to garbage about candidates (except Hillary who actually has a past to discover)

I know why I don't like Obama. I get the feeling you think that the majority of people who don't like Obama only dislike him because of things like "omg hes a Muslim!" ..

Oh well. The right guy won ... he is much easier to beat then Hilary simply because he actually has positions, where as Hilary did not have a single one.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 

I get the feeling you think that the majority of people who don't like Obama only dislike him because of things like "omg hes a Muslim!" ..

Uhh...yeah. What person that subscribes to this forum and watches fox news, wouldnt think this is the main stream attack methodology?
I've seen THREE people now in all of ATS attack obama on his political stature. You. Semperfortis. Bluetriangle. All others have been posting the same MSM lies that you see every day on TV.



Oh well. The right guy won ... he is much easier to beat then Hilary simply because he actually has positions, where as Hilary did not have a single one.


I find this one HILARIOUS as the professor of the institution for advanced conservative studies created 'operation chaos' in order to get clinton against mccain, because "clinton was an easier opponent"
No offense to you rockpuck, im just saying that it didnt matter which democrat won, someone would make the argument "well, that person will be easier to beat"

If nothing else can be said to be true, then i say we let history do our talking about who will possibly win.
Its to my recollection (and i have nothing to back this up except my own memory...which can be hazy at times)

After a rebpulican has been in office, and we go to war, and the economy sucks, etc etc etc, this country elects a democratic president.

Also - more and more people (who never had an interest in politics) are coming out in support of Obama.
If even 1/2 of those people show up to vote, i fail to see how McCain will stand a chance.

Of course, this is just my opinion.
I guess we'll all find out in about 5 months?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
IMO, I find Obama easier to beat.. not having a stance was good for Hilary, as she morphed into what ever the crowd wanted at that particular time. People ate it up.

And I don't know what MSM is saying about Obama, as I don't watch TV or read political commentary. I find it childishly immature and pathetic the way America handles elections.

On top of that I will add that traditionally in an on going war a Republican is elected into office, and in times of economic turmoil, a Republican is elected into office..

Those are the two strongest positions Republicans have, defense and economy.

And technically, the economy was fine until the last election and Dems took over....



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck.

On top of that I will add that traditionally in an on going war a Republican is elected into office, and in times of economic turmoil, a Republican is elected into office..

Those are the two strongest positions Republicans have, defense and economy.


As for the "economy" part of your argument: Reagan and Bush, Republicans, both ran up enormous debts, and Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wiped out the deficit. The 90's (the Clinton years) were a period of peace and prosperity. Roosevelt, a Democrat, guided the country out of the Great Depression and established Social Security. Truman, a Democrat, was president at the beginning of a 20-year-period of peace and prosperity, and JFK and Lyndon Johnson were both president during those good times economically.

As for the "war" part: FDR, a Democrat, was president during WWII. He was so popular he was elected to office four times (presidents can't serve that long anymore). Harry Truman was there at the close of WWII and during the Korean war. Lyndon Johnson was president during the Vietnam war.

I'm voting Democratic, because they have a better way of establishing peace, prosperity and economic opportunity for all.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   


Obama is possibly the single most Liberal, Socialist Candidate to ever run for the office and will effectively destroy this country if elected...


Now Semper, I respect you, but that's utter hooey.
You guys say that about whatever Dem is running, like clockwork every four years


Fact is, no Democrat since has come anywhere near FDR in terms of being "socialist", and he's one of the most popular Presidents in US history.

Even Dwight Eisenhower presided over far higher top tax rates than we have now, go look it up.

When Obama starts talking about nationalizing industry, closing down stock markets, etc. then the "socialist" label will be more than empty election-year fear mongering and hyperbole.

As I said in the other thread, Obama is a capitalist: ask any real socialist.

A market economy with a welfare state (what we have now, what we've had under Democrats and Republicans alike for decades) is not "socialism"



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
here is some more blood for ya


tisk tisk senator McCain

assaulting a vietnam veteran?

you disgust me man. You disgust me.
this has gone beyond political. This guy is just out of control.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 



I believe we can both agree to disagree.

That still doesnt make either of us 'right'


Exactly!!!!!

That is because neither of us IS RIGHT...

We have opinions, differing opinions and that is as it should be...

What if everyone agreed with me? WOW, I would definitely NOT want to live in the "United States of Semper" and trust me, neither would you...

I'm glad you disagree with me, that way we can carry on a stimulating, interesting intellectual discourse. ATS would not exist if not for differing opinions...


but that's utter hooey


I believe what I believe and it is not "hooey" anymore than what you believe is, no matter what anyone may say.

You believe what you believe and it is not "hooey" either.. (I love that word)

If you want dirt, you can find it on anyone... ANYONE.... Now some are interested in the dirt, and sadly, as things stand today, there is a place for it in politics. I don't like it, but the current popularity of the scandals and "dirt" renders my position one in the minority.

So we must ask ourselves this: Are we presenting the dirt here in an attempt to change peoples minds, their votes, or just because we hate the other persons opinion so much we want to "dirty" it????

I think that Obama is a hard line Socialist... Others may not agree and that is fine as stated previously. Some may agree and also may believe that is what the United States needs right at this time in Her history... That is also fine...We are all entitled to and have the right to our individual opinions....

Some don't like McCain because he is somewhat advanced in age... or because he is a Conservative.. or because he doesn't floss every day....

Just try and remember why we present these things... To satisfy our own needs to "dirty" someone, or are we really trying to change minds and votes...

Semper



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It seems to me that you are going out of your way to try and convince people that Obama is a saint.
I'm trying to figure out if you may be trying to convince YOURSELF.
Why such long detailed threads??
You must sit up all night thinking about the next thread you will start on defending Obama.

I only read part of your first post and my eyes cross.

Besides, I already have my opinion of Obama and anything you say will never change my mind.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jetxnet
 


Sigh...

Jetxnet, don't you find it funny that most of the people that have posted in this thread that don't like Obama have stated legitimate reasons for this and categorically reject the type of threads you and a few other anti-obama members create on a regular basis?

They reject the mud people throw, kind of like you are doing to the OP here.

Again you miss the point entirely.

People that disagree with Obamas ideas don't like or resort to the type of mud you throw. They are above that sort of mess, and use their time to contemplate/debate over the issues.

They reject your melodramatic lies...they look to what is actually important instead.

You should take note of their example and follow it.

- Lee






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join