Obama's Security Clearance

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Is it even conceivable that Barack Hussein Obama could receive the required security clearance for the United States Presidency given his known associations?

If you or I attempted to get a United States Security Clearance with Barack Hussein Obama's known associations would we be eligible for a Security Clearance?

If he is actually sworn in as President could we be looking at a first where various government officals will be constantly telling him, "I'm sorry Sir, but you are not cleared for that kind of information?"

Could we be looking at a Commander and Chief who is not actually allowed to know anything? OR does a United States President-elect automatically qualify for such Security Clearances? If so/not should they?

Do you think, given his associations, Obama would even be allowed to know where the location of his nearest military base is? Should the entire configuration, designs, and plans of Air Force One be changed after his presidency to protect future presidents? What about other important and secure information?




posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
do you have a stable mind, my friend? how do you expect to be taken seriously with the above comment. if someone has an association with a known murderous dictator and supplied him with biological weapons to use on his own people (as did our own secretary of defense (rumsfield) with explicit approval of our own president (bush), should both of them have had their security clearences taken away?




..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link


[edit on 16-11-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


First, why attack the messenger, nothing constructive to say?

Second, I fail to see how your comment nullifies my point? It only strengthens it by making clear that something need be done.

4 years (2008-2012) of Bush and his crew did it does not solve the problem. Are you that indoctrinated by the television and newspapers to not see that? How do your statements answer the question other than placing blame (which does nothing)?

Are you on some political side, or are you on the side of the Constitution and the American people?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
First I'd have to ask which "associations" you're speaking of. If it's the Ayer's thing, I'd say that other than knowing the man slightly in passing, he's not exactly best friends with President-Elect Obama. Secondly, I love the way you try to make a none too veiled attempt at equating Obama's name, (By using his full name several times in a row, as if his name makes him a terrorist) and the issue of security clearances. I'll just chalk this down as yet another one of those....BOO HOO MCCAIN DIDN'T WIN posts. They're definitely not helping the signal/noise ratio on ATS of late.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Zenagain
 


Every president's middle name is listed - you are trying some sort of weird prejudice tactic that makes about 0% sense.

How is it disrespectful for me to use the man's middle name UNLESS you are prejudice and believe I am using it for racist or prejudice reasons WITHOUT any support for your beliefs?

Barack Hussein Obama (in all respect - since I obviously need to say so for the feable minded) has an association with William Ayers, the Industrial Areas Foundation (founded by Saul D. Alinsky- known communist, a foundation he was trained by), Carl Davidson, and Frank Marshall Davis.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
reply to post by jimmyx
 


First, why attack the messenger, nothing constructive to say?

Second, I fail to see how your comment nullifies my point? It only strengthens it by making clear that something need be done.

4 years (2008-2012) of Bush and his crew did it does not solve the problem. Are you that indoctrinated by the television and newspapers to not see that? How do your statements answer the question other than placing blame (which does nothing)?

Are you on some political side, or are you on the side of the Constitution and the American people?


aahh yes...here it comes, you questioning my patriotism...what a shocker!!! that boat has long left the dock and is now just tiresome

ok..i will put it simply for you...obama was elected president, therefore he has the highest clearance as any other president has ever had.
his "associations" have nothing to do with his security clearance, therefore your original point is moot (not of any consideration)



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Man... It is nearly impossible to hold a debate with a circular thinker (I don't have to say it - most know what that means).

I never questioned your patriotism - in fact, if you have a problem with the government in my book that makes you more patriotic!

I merely suggested you were trying to relate back to the left-right paradigm, which seems apparent. I am sorry if I offended your not so center or right feelings.

The point is not moot unless you want it to be (and you do). Going back to what you stated in summary: "my point is negated because of Bush and his administration". You are wrong -admit it!

Bush and his administration does not excuse communist associations being a national security threat, or more to your and my liking - a threat to our Constitution!

As a last point, I think Bush and his goonies are fascists. It appears to me all the republi-fascists and demo-socialists give us is just that. We need true belief in the Constitution!



[edit on 16-11-2008 by HillbillyHippie]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
reply to post by Zenagain
 


Every president's middle name is listed - you are trying some sort of weird prejudice tactic that makes about 0% sense.

How is it disrespectful for me to use the man's middle name UNLESS you are prejudice and believe I am using it for racist or prejudice reasons WITHOUT any support for your beliefs?

Barack Hussein Obama (in all respect - since I obviously need to say so for the feable minded) has an association with William Ayers, the Industrial Areas Foundation (founded by Saul D. Alinsky- known communist, a foundation he was trained by), Carl Davidson, and Frank Marshall Davis.


You only mention one president so how is "every" presidents middle name listed? I daresay that even now, 40% or more Americans both don't know nor have EVER known Bill Clinton's middle name. (Jefferson) I in no place said that it was "disrespectful" for you to post his full name, I just understand it as a shock tactic used since early in the campaign wherein those opposed to an Obama presidency hope that the average American will equate his middle name with Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that it's an incredibly common name. In addition, how many Barack Obama's have you heard of other than his father? Did the inclusion of his middle name somehow separate him for the readers from the scads of OTHER Barack Obama's we might have confused him with? As for his associations, I presume you have links to your sources?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Yes, he is the president and he will and has the right to see everything that goes on. There are actually people with brains in this world you know. People like you waste bandwidth on ATS, asking stupid questions. What do you mean if he will be "allowed" to see these things? If he is the president then obviously yes, Jeez. As far as his "associations" as you call them, Joe Biden, his cabinet etc, what is wrong with them?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Zenagain
 


WOW! Nevermind I might as well be talking to the most illogical human I can find. Who ever suggested I wrote every presidents' name? I was suggesting looking them up - wow! What am I dealing with here? Furthermore, do you know how to do research or do I (or the state) need to do it for you in order for you to know where I get my references?

I suppose you are of the type who believes parenthood should be licensed yet you are unwilling to look up what I said... No big surprise to me, such types require the "experts" to tell them the truth.

Such types also call my type the uneducated "redneck" - seems to me its the other way around.

I'll bet you never even heard of 25% of those I mentioned (I'm correct, aren't I?). Public education - kills the brain.

I "could" quote references to you, but then you'd just believe what the Messiah Obama says - try looking up the facts for yourself. BTW, you might also want to look up "who" gives those facts. Factcheck.org would be a good start if you put stock in them (they are grossly associated with Obama).



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Man... It is nearly impossible to hold a debate with a circular thinker (I don't have to say it - most know what that means).

I never questioned your patriotism - in fact, if you have a problem with the government in my book that makes you more patriotic!

I merely suggested you were trying to relate back to the left-right paradigm, which seems apparent. I am sorry if I offended your not so center or right feelings.

The point is not moot unless you want it to be (and you do). Going back to what you stated in summary: "my point is negated because of Bush and his administration". You are wrong -admit it!

Bush and his administration does not excuse communist associations being a national security threat, or more to your and my liking - a threat to our Constitution!

As a last point, I think Bush and his goonies are fascists. It appears to me all the republi-fascists and demo-socialists give us is just that. We need true belief in the Constitution!



[edit on 16-11-2008 by HillbillyHippie]


ok, i'll bite

how would obamas "associations" affect his security clearance?
you seem to imply that obama will jeprodize the the united states and its security by having had an association with a man that has worked with republicans as well as democrats, and who was named chicago's "man of the year" and is a tenored professor at the university of chicago and whose bombs went off when obama was 8 yrs old. so how would obama put the united states in so much harm that his security clearance would not be valid or it would be somehow less then that of a normal president?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie
 





4 years (2008-2012) of Bush and his crew did it does not solve the problem


Are you living in a different time line? 2008 to 2012 of Bush????

What does "did it does not solve" mean???



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by -zeropoint-
 


Nevermind. Go back to watching TV. Gee, isn't MSLCD great?

Do you have anything to back up your arguement? Certainly, if I can be asked to back up my arguement without being asked to rely on self-responsiblity to come to my conclusions you must believe the proof is left to the individual who makes the statement!

I personally predict no one who has had an Obamamy will look into the facts deep enough to see the truth.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by HillbillyHippie]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
reply to post by Zenagain
 


WOW! Nevermind I might as well be talking to the most illogical human I can find. Who ever suggested I wrote every presidents' name? I was suggesting looking them up - wow! What am I dealing with here? Furthermore, do you know how to do research or do I (or the state) need to do it for you in order for you to know where I get my references?

I suppose you are of the type who believes parenthood should be licensed yet you are unwilling to look up what I said... No big surprise to me, such types require the "experts" to tell them the truth.

Such types also call my type the uneducated "redneck" - seems to me its the other way around.

I'll bet you never even heard of 25% of those I mentioned (I'm correct, aren't I?). Public education - kills the brain.

I "could" quote references to you, but then you'd just believe what the Messiah Obama says - try looking up the facts for yourself. BTW, you might also want to look up "who" gives those facts. Factcheck.org would be a good start if you put stock in them (they are grossly associated with Obama).


You're calling somebody dumb, neocon "HillbillyHippie" who believes that Presidents don't have rights to anything involving the country? Hah, you shouldn't be the one calling anybody anything offensive, especially not dumb.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
reply to post by -zeropoint-
 


Nevermind. Go back to watching TV. Gee, isn't MSLCD great?

Do you have anything to back up your arguement? Certainly, if I can be asked to back up my arguement without being asked to rely on self-responsiblity to come to my conclusions you must believe the proof is left to the individual who makes the statement!

I personally predict no one who has had an Obamamy will look into the facts deep enough to see the truth.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by HillbillyHippie]


A necon's attempt to belittle someone's demeanor, it didn't work in the election, it doesn't work on me, and it doesn't work on ATS. "Go watch TV" - what does that have anything to do with this thread and how do you know I watch TV, or have a TV for that matter? Necons are so desperate and predictable, always spewing crap and trying to persuade someone's mind to their own sour agendas. It doesn't work, retards can only fool retards. My truth may not be your truth, but don't insult me because I don't want to submit to agendas I disagree with. Control freaks. Who the hell is "Obamamy" BTW? It shows your whole package and agenda.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by -zeropoint-
 


Prejudice assumptions about someone's arguements only prove every point I will make and have made while on this board. I never once stated I was a neo-con (I emphatically despise neo-cons), and I despise neo-liberals as well - nuff said.

Again, what does the messenger have to do with the message? We all know what you are (by your assumptiuons concerning others) - no hiding it now!



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by -zeropoint-
 


A prejudice comment that shows your true colors - I never said I was conservative, nor would I EVER be neo-conservative.

Why must such people who claim liberty and freedom always put such ugly labels on those who disagree with them?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Please keep responses focused on the topic of discussion and NOT each other's perception of fellow member's character and or person.

Thank you.



» General Conspiracy Discussion » Obama's Security Clearance




posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by -zeropoint-
 


Where is the word "dumb" in any of my posts Zeropoint? And where is the word "neocon"? Who is calling who what? Who do you think you are fooling with your prejudice?

You do nothing but exclaim the prejudice belief that those who love Obama are racists and prejudice bigots who are attempting to show the opposition otherwise. Please, do keep going...





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join