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's Security Clearance

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:17 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]


look, it doesn't matter what associations he had, the people of the U.S. heard about it day and night for months and still 8 million more people voted for him to be the next president. he has the same clearance as any president has had in the past.
he's been investigated over and over, and they still couldn't make their case. it wasn't logical, reasonable, or consequencial, there was nothing there, period. why is this so hard to understand? an elected president has full security clearance. there is no law, or no court ,or no politician, or no statue, or no precident, that can change an elected presidents security clearance. again...what do you think obama would do that would jepordize the security of the U.S.?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


I am truly sorry, Moderator, and I hope to keep discussion civil and to the point. All further posts by ME will be according to your instructions.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by HillbillyHippie]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
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?


I don't care what you are, but you made the first low, probably explains why nobody who posted on this agrees with you, or has flagged this thread. Your wording is poor, it's desperate and careless, full of personal attacks of which you know none of to verify, "Go watch TV", "llogical human", "I suppose you are of the type", "who believes parenthood should be licensed", "such types require the "experts" to tell them the truth", "I'll bet you never even heard of 25%", "I'm correct, aren't I?", your attitude sucks, and when someone addresses it in a eye-meets-eye way you cry prejudice, but it's just hypocrisy on your part. Can we have a real discussion without your filled bigotry and personal attacks? Actually too, there's NO discussion Mr. expert, we already said that President Barack Obama will be "allowed" (who would be stupid to think otherwise) the privilege to BE the president, um, yeah... cuz he's the president right?

[edit on 16-11-2008 by -zeropoint-]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie
 



And now with the "Messiah Obama". No, you're not pigeonholing yourself at all....... Thank you for proving my assertion that this is merely another "Wahhhh Obama won!" post. My work here is done.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Good point. Now my question was, is that good for us as a people?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by -zeropoint-
 


My whole point the other way - you'd understand if on the other side.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by -zeropoint-
 


Once again "first low" is an excuse, not an arguement.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Good point. Now my question was, is that good for us as a people?


yes



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
reply to post by -zeropoint-
 


Once again "first low" is an excuse, not an arguement.


I guess you have nothing else to address about the other points in my post? I thought so. You're quite backing down because you have nothing constructive to say, well nothing with sense that is. All the posters minus yourself has answered your thread, your own blindness prohibits the opportunity to be unbiased of course, necons at best eh?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by -zeropoint-
 


What did you suggest in your post other than stating I was attacking others and that I had no basis for my discusion which you gave no support for? If you wish to end an argument with some sort of evidence you may want to actually say something that supports it! You attacked me, not my initial message - you only made statements and personal opinions with no factual basis.

Any veteran KNOWs they could not get a security clearance with Obama's resume - I don't need to support my facts (they are well known).

Simply making statements will NEVER change the mind of veterans, nor will making statements that such questions are prejudice or racist (veterans know the truth).

Either way, even if being elected president gives you the right to have security clearance SHOULD IT based on the candidate's associations (as would be taken into account for active military and veterans)?

Look... I was at Ground Zero (I volunteered to go) and I had to have various security clearances just to get within ten feet. The fact that my family had fought in every war this country had ever been in and the fact that my father had a top secret security clearance helped.

When my brother got his security clearance to work 3 floors underground at Offett AFB in Nebraska I had a Defense Department guy sitting outside my house in a white sedan for a week who kept asking neighbors questions and who even went and questioned my brother's kindergarten teachers.

National Security is a serious issue whether you want to believe so or not, and Obama comes nowhere near the requirements that ANY veteran has ever known!

So, while it is easy to say "who cares" you need to understand the stress and actual duress people who ACTUALLY SERVED have been under just to have the right to stand near something the president could easily open - comprenda?

My family has been here since before the Revolutionary War, served in every war and still goes through hell to get a security clearance. Who the "F" is Obama?



[edit on 16-11-2008 by HillbillyHippie]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
Is it even conceivable that Barack Hussein Obama could receive the required security clearance for the United States Presidency given his known associations?


Umm...

I'd say you were 8 years too late asking this question, giving Bush's connections with big oil - or did the link with that and invading a country with massive oil reserves pass you by?

Plus, there are plenty of sites out there that can provide you with video of a certain Mr.Rumsfeld shaking hands, smiling and chatting with a certain Saddam Hussein, just prior to the talks where the US agreed to sell the Iraqi's the chemical precursors that were used in the weapons that gassed the Kurds.

I'd say Obama's tenuous links to Bill Ayers pales into insignificance with those two "associations" wouldn't you?

Smear smear and more smear. Your candidate lost the election. Please, get over it.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Again, how does George Bush and his administration negate the facts? It is a flase agruement.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Its not a false argument, its recorded truth.

Were you protesting their "associations" when they came to power, or when they were voted in for a second term?

If not, I'd say you're being hypocritical, and your "argument" is being made out of sour grapes, for the sake of it.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
Is it even conceivable that Barack Hussein Obama could receive the required security clearance for the United States Presidency given his known associations?


I would ask if it's conceivable to you that he does in fact have the security clearances required by the office of the presidency because all the accusations against him are bull...

Does it even occur to you that all the internet buzz about his "associations" has been totally embellished and made out to be 100 times worse than they are to convince impressionable people that he's not fit for the presidency???

Does it completely escape the logical minds of those of us here that to become the president (not to mention a US Senator) and get the REQUIRED security clearances, a person MUST prove their citizenship to the government agency and answer the very same questions that he is now asking of people who will become part of his cabinet???

The daftness of this situation totally amazes me!



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


How do Bush's horrible appointments towards our country's national security make Obama's election and appointments any better? YES, your arguement is poor.

If you give one ounce of a damn about our country how do Bush's actions make Obama's any better given our knowledge about associations?

Since I am not a Neo-con as some would like to suggest (simply because they love and worship Obama which is weird in itself) allow me to suggest this:

Should we, as Americans be concerned when ANY president has associations with or appoints cabinet members who are questionable towards National Security concerns? Could this issue be why we seem to be screwed in the first place? Could it be that we keep electing presidents who don't care about US?

Could we be fooled by the very (in my opinion untrue concept that there is a basic good in the heart of every man) nature of man (which in my belief is wicked - according to the Bible)?

Just maybe, the New Age/ Secular Humanist concept is wrong and there is a basic evil in the hearts of every man (like the Bible says), and we should be suspicious of this one world "I love everyone" crap. Which have you seen more of when you NEGATE CHRISTIANS AND MISSIONARIES...? LOOK AT CHARITIES NOT POLITICIANS (fake people who claim to be anything) AS THE HATERS OF GOD WOULD HAVE YOU FOCUS ON (when such people would claim to be anything profitable)!

Do you REALLY think man can acheive total utopia and LOVE for all without a super-natural force (God) or are you un-intelligent enough to truly belief man can acheive it on his own (because you obviously have some proof of that)? Is it crazier to think man can (and never has), or that something you never saw is in control and can? Or is it more possible to realize that if everyone believes something ABOVE THEM can (even if it is true or not)? What do you think wil TRULY work?

[edit on 16-11-2008 by HillbillyHippie]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


What was asked of him and BY WHOM? By whom is the most important. Have you asked or has the money behind him? Where is the strength behind your arguement accept by money (which you hate because of Bush)?

Have you asked where Obama's money came from?

[edit on 16-11-2008 by HillbillyHippie]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
reply to post by neformore
 


How do Bush's horrible appointments towards our country's national security make Obama's election and appointments any better? YES, your arguement is poor.


Because its been accepted before - see?

No one is perfect. Not Obama, Not McCain, not Biden, not Palin.

None of the past presidents of the US were, and none of the future ones will be.

There is not one single person walking the face of the earth who is in politics that doesn't have - at one stage or the other - some dubious associations in their past, and if you think that there are then sadly my friend, you are suffering from a delusion that will literally shake you one day when you realise its not the case.



If you give one ounce of a damn about our country how do Bush's actions make Obama's any better given our knowledge about associations?


Your country, not mine. And they don't. Thats not the point I'm making. I'm saying that no one is perfect.



Since I am not a Neo-con as some would like to suggest (simply because they love and worship Obama which is weird in itself)


Problem is you say you aren't a neo-con but you use their language with the subtle jibes. So maybe if you want people to engage and discuss things with you, the first thing to do would be to stop labelling and trying to smear them for their political beliefs, which are just as valid as yours are.



Should we, as Americans be concerned when ANY president has associations with or appoints cabinet members who are questionable towards National Security concerns? Could this issue be why we seem to be screwed in the first place? Could it be that we keep electing presidents who don't care about US?


Moot point. As I said above, no one is perfect. Everyone has associations, everyone has skeletons in the cupboard and everyone is subject to their own personal agenda, driven by many factors. Unless someone in the US can raise a kid in a completely sterile environment away from the rest of the world and then back them to become president and let them run without any exposure to the real world then you're trying to flog a horse thats so dead its fossilised.

As for all the religious stuff...whats that got to do with anything?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 16/1108/08 by neformore]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

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)


The president does not have the highest clearance and hasn't since JFK. This is for his security and the security of those secrets. What if a president decided to go public with some of our best military secrets because he didn't think it was right to keep secrets? They tell him troop movements and anything in the active military arsenal but the generals keep the new toys a secret unless they need them.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Whether any of you has noticed or not, Obama already has a security clearance, and it is hiogher than any that any of you have ever held. Just as having a driver's license doesn't qualify you to fix cars, having once held a clearance doesn't qualify you to describe a process you obviously know nothing about. Specualation about Obama's eligibility for a clearance was stupid before he was elected. Now that he is our president, it is betyond idiocy.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
What was asked of him and BY WHOM? By whom is the most important.


When I see a person driving a car, I assume they have a license and got it from the DMV.

When I see a married couple, I assume they got their marriage license from the state.

When I see a US Senator, I assume he's been checked out by the election committee of his state.

Now, I personally haven't seen the driver's license, the marriage license or the qualifications of the people above, but there have been procedures in place for MANY years now to see that only qualified people have certain jobs and privileges.

I ask you - can you conceive of everything being in order and on the level?



Have you asked or has the money behind him? Where is the strength behind your arguement accept by money (which you hate because of Bush)?


I have no idea what this means. And it seems you joined ATS today. What makes you think I hate something because of Bush? And what does Bush have to do with what I said?



Have you asked where Obama's money came from?


What money? His campaign money? Some of it came from me! And millions of people across this country. If everyone who voted for him gave him as much money as I did, he would have had a lot more than he got!
So no, I haven't asked because I know much of it came from people just like me.



new topics




 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join