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 webpage rebutts every defamatory claim!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
The answers are here!

my.barackobama.com...

Ofcourse, if the internet were around in 1939 I'm sure Hitler would have such a page too.


In any case, this may satisfy most concerns. Yes?




posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Why won't he come out with a solid stance on gun control?

Lets hear about his personal stance on gun control and the banning of all semi auto rifles shotguns and handguns. Where is that?

Lets hear about his support for a UN tax on Americans to solve poverty to the tune of 845 billion dollars turned over to the UN with not one single control or oversight in its actual use.

There are more but he needs to clear these up first.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
when claims are

"obama is the antichrist"
"obama is a muslim"
"obama is a terorrist"


The claims are easily thwarted. Its not Obama's fault that the GOP cannot come up with better ways to make him less appealing to the American public.

How about "My opponent, Barack Obama supports _________________ bill, i do not"

Whatever happened to that kind of political debate.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Checked it out, the entire list is worthless, trying to pander off all the junk that's in the MSM... I don't see anything about him not being involved with the CFR, trilateral commission etc. He's the same as Mccain and anyone else the media puts in the spotlight, a puppet



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Are you just now hearing about the Fight the Smears website? It's been around for months and is the subject of several threads...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


That's simple.... Mr. Obama is Mr. Present. Can't support a bill if you don't take a stance on it.

I take anything the candidates say to "fight smear" with a grain of salt. Obviously they don't want to be thought badly of, and want votes. If it loses votes, it's smear. If it gets votes, it's facts.

It's all about the votes, people.... We will never really know the facts from fiction until hindsight. Sucks, but true.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 




How about "My opponent, Barack Obama supports _________________ bill, i do not"

Whatever happened to that kind of political debate.


Its happening, but you guys are constantly busy painting Obama as a victim and anyone who criticizes him as racists. You guys start these threads and than circle jerk about how "right wingers" and "neocons" are attacking your messiah.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I did find the information about the democratic party stance to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Its on page 50.

marcambinder.theatlantic.com...



The sponsored bills however cover a considerable listing of arms that were never banned before including many sporting arms and the all amercan m1 carbine this time.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Illahee]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
y opponent, Barack Obama supports _________________ bill, i do not"

Its happening, but you guys are constantly busy painting Obama as a victim and anyone who criticizes him as racists. You guys start these threads and than circle jerk about how "right wingers" and "neocons" are attacking your messiah.


Hmm. Interesting claim. Except for the complete lack of truth, you're on to something here. Every claim against Obama on his stances on things like the 2nd amendment is defended because we believe his stances are just. You can disagree with them. Thats fine. Nobody of any intelligence has ever said "you're a racist if you dont like Obama's stance on the second amendment"

But other threads like "black people will riot if obama isnt elected" and "black people only vote for obama because he's black"

and

"you shouldnt vote for Obama because he knows people from Kenya"

and

"you shouldnt vote for Obama because i have a source to someone who never knew him who says that Obama is actually a muslim, even though they later came out and said that he's not a muslim at all, but instead my words were twisted and changed to fit that agenda"




All of those ideals exist on these forums in the form of threads.

Prejudice and racism. Bigotry at its finest.

There have been SOME threads that talk about real issues. Most do not. I don't need to call out any names, because everyone already knows who these morons are.

Its hilarious.

Your vehement approach to continuously bring up the race card yourself is hilarious.

Just because you WANT me to call you racist for not supporting Obama doesnt make it so.

But if you want to make a thread like This

well....








I'd warn you to stop chugging that kool-aid so fast because you might get a brain freeze. But when you make comments like this

You guys start these threads and than circle jerk about how "right wingers" and "neocons" are attacking your messiah.

It makes me wonder if you even possess the required equipment.


I'll use your comment quoted above to direct you to This thread

We are trying to clean up these boards, and bastardizing names like you have done, with vulgar reference to a sexual act, certainly go against the premise of an intellectually stimulating conversation.

It does make it much more enjoyable for all involved.

You can take the first step by simply Taking the pledge

Good Luck


[edit on 8/16/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I'll only comment on one thing from his webpage simply because it made me chuckle.


SMEAR: John McCain is attacking Barack Obama for not visiting wounded troops
John McCain, his spokesmen, and his TV ads have all been politicizing our heroes overseas by making the false claim that Barack Obama snubbed wounded troops by not visiting them on his foreign trip.


(Obama's) "TRUTH": Barack Obama’s campaign canceled an originally private visit (no media) to wounded troops in Germany to avoid politicizing our soldiers during his campaign-funded trip in Germany.


What's this now? Obama's version of "Yes, well I voted for the bill before I voted against it"? Apparently the contention point isn't whether or not Obama didn't visit our wounded troops (prefering to rub elbows with Euro-snobs over our wounded boys)... it is rather whether or not everyone should know he didn't visit them. I guess since he didn't invite the media in the first place, it is supposed to be all the same whether he visited them or not?

Now excuse me while I go wash off my hip waders after visiting that site. I'd hate for all this bullcrap to dry on them and become really hard to get off.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

What's this now? Obama's version of "Yes, well I voted for the bill before I voted against it"? Apparently the contention point isn't whether or not Obama didn't visit our wounded troops (prefering to rub elbows with Euro-snobs over our wounded boys)... it is rather whether or not everyone should know he didn't visit them. I guess since he didn't invite the media in the first place, it is supposed to be all the same whether he visited them or not?

Now excuse me while I go wash off my hip waders after visiting that site. I'd hate for all this bullcrap to dry on them and become really hard to get off.


That whole thing is a bit stinky. Seems like its not what you know its who you blow, and the little guy doesn't get squat even when he is blown half to hell from Ieds. Good thing there were poli's to visit.........



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join