Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The American People Demand to Know: Who Sent You???

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dalek
 


Exactly. And thank you. Not just the GOP but the Clintons too.

Half the people complaining on this thread also claim that all of our election choices were pre-selected anyway...
If you buy that argument, how can you expect to really find anything anyway?

The OP is just chattering to rile up the GOP base, "When in doubt, scream and shout." It helps to run in circles too.

And Fourwinds10!? Puhleeze.

[edit on 30/11/2008 by kosmicjack]




posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
There is NO garruntee of privacy ANYWHERE in the Constitution.


The words "right to privacy" are not there, but:



The Right To Privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. ... In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.


Source



It only says that you must be secure in your papers and persons and houses and can only be searched and seized by warrant.


And there has been no warrant or other legal demand for Obama's vault copy of his BC or any of these other papers. They are HIS papers. And he has the legal right to keep them private unless ordered to release them by a court. And even then, they will be released to the COURT and not to us. (as we have no right to see them)



We as citizens must know who our leaders are and have the absolute right to know backgrounds and possible conflicts of interest.


And where is that right enumerated or implied?



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


You have no idea how down the wrong path you are.

I am not even from your country, nevermind political bias of any sort. Do you think this thing is limited to bipartisan sqabbling? This is international.

What happens to the US affects us all.

The best of social engineering. You are being played. This is a farce, and the men behind the curtain are having a good giggle at your expense.

Critical thinking is Dead.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkabit
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


I am not even from your country, nevermind political bias of any sort. Do you think this thing is limited to bipartisan sqabbling? This is international.

What happens to the US affects us all.


A thousand pardons...the OP is titled "The American People Demand to Know..."

So we are all being played because we don't have "answers" to questions that are circular and beg the issue? It seems to me that no answer under the Sun would possibly satisfy those who are unhappy with the election's outcome.

The ones being played are those who buy into this hysterical rhetoric.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkabit
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


You have no idea how down the wrong path you are.

I am not even from your country, nevermind political bias of any sort. Do you think this thing is limited to bipartisan sqabbling? This is international.

What happens to the US affects us all.

The best of social engineering. You are being played. This is a farce, and the men behind the curtain are having a good giggle at your expense.


The sad truth is that it does not matter when they own both sides, and all you are given is the illusion of free choice.

I just hate to see the deception. I don't get my jollies from being negative. I get my jollies from exposing the truth.

And the truth is that we have more quesitons than answers.

It should at least concern you.





posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkabit
The sad truth is that it does not matter when they own both sides, and all you are given is the illusion of free choice.


Thanks. You just made my original point.

To really understand a situation you have to look at it from every angle. You should also be asking who benefits from perpetuating this doubt about Obama? You can't just pursue one side of the argument and expect to find the truth.

Oh, and somewhere Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their advertisers are thanking their lucky stars for your OP.

[edit on 30/11/2008 by kosmicjack]



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
"One Happy Obama Supporter - Willing to wait for the Change... "

Sure, and when that rather large bubble bursts, and you start getting indigestion from the lie you swallowed, along with the rest of the nation, then you have to deny reality to protect ego, .... on and on it goes.

Check out the appointments... any evidence of change? Hate to disappoint with facts, but if it looks too good to be true, at least get suspicious.

Hegelian Dialectic. It's not new. Still being employed, because it is not recognized.

Do we have more unity or more division now? Ingenious.

The charade is allowed to continue becuase it gives the people exactly what they are starving for: Hope. After 8 years of disappointment. So desperate the public will look at any alternative with relief. Naturally so. Little bit of psychology is all it takes.

Yummy Fast food fills you up.

With empty calories.

Just don't look too closely at the label.


[edit on 30-11-2008 by Tinkabit]



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic




It only says that you must be secure in your papers and persons and houses and can only be searched and seized by warrant.


And there has been no warrant or other legal demand for Obama's vault copy of his BC or any of these other papers. They are HIS papers. And he has the legal right to keep them private unless ordered to release them by a court. And even then, they will be released to the COURT and not to us. (as we have no right to see them)


He's hiding them for a reason. We have a right to know under the FOIA. Why is he hiding them? Because his step-daddy Barry Soetero adopted him and that made him a citizen of Indonesia.




We as citizens must know who our leaders are and have the absolute right to know backgrounds and possible conflicts of interest.



And where is that right enumerated or implied?


Hah! There you go again, interpreting the Constitution for your own personal gratification.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Sigh.

I guess my own hope is that if enough people, a critical mass if you will, understand and perceive how the game is being played at the top, their ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the public will be diminished.

Awareness. If that does not make a difference, then we are all at the mercy of the forces that manipulate.

If anyone really cares to understand the manipulation at work here, then check out this document that was found in a photocopier and made public by a very brave, and very dead, man.

www.scribd.com...


Chapter One says it all.

If you are able to follow the language and the complexity, it is worth your perserverence. They are so far ahead of the masses it's truly frightening.


(If not, I think there is a Britney special on tonight to further alienate you from the dangerous reality that surrounds. )

I only hope this is a figment of somebody's paranoid delusional nightmare. But from what I see around me.....there is little to dispute it. This is a construct of reality.

Carefully planned.

I would love some factual refutation if anyone has any to offer.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Tinkabit]



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tinkabit
 


Dude, this is ATS and that doc, though highly interesting and seemingly accurate, is sooo last year.

You are derailing your own thread. Pick a topic and stick to it.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Tinkabit
 


Dude, this is ATS and that doc, though highly interesting and seemingly accurate, is sooo last year.

You are derailing your own thread. Pick a topic and stick to it.
ar

Sigh

I am not a dude. The document is not last year, but your tomorrow I fear.
It is a manifesto.

To illustrate how little I care for threads, stars, ego blah blah blah, I am getting rid of my account here.

I only came to shed some light on some disturbing things....I have children that are inherting a very dangerous world.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." --E Burke

I hope at least one person has grown in their awareness of unseen manipulation.

Pax



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Tinkabit
 


Sorry, I should certainly make no assumptions about gender...and don't quit ATS, that's just silly. You're making good points.

But do answer this: Do you not see that * if information is power * that certain interests do benefit from perpetuating this fear, uncertainty and doubt about Obama?



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Liisten, if fear was not a manipulator, 9/11 would not have happened, and we would not be hearing of impending Subway attacts, on the heals of an India-9/11.

Fear is what will eventually make people beg for Martial Law, "protect us please".

From ourselves.

I do need to cancel but can't find how to do that....*blush*, anyone know how?

I just don't think this is healthy for me.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Tinkabit
 


NO! Don't leave. Don't let them chase you away.

There are many like-minded people out there. We are with you.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
He's hiding them for a reason.


That's just an opinion. Speculation. A thought. You have nothing to back that up.



We have a right to know under the FOIA.


That's for GOVERNMENT records. FOIA



The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552, generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information.
...
The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies.


What a loosey-goosey interpretation...




Why is he hiding them? Because his step-daddy Barry Soetero adopted him and that made him a citizen of Indonesia.


More opinion and speculation with no back-up.




Hah! There you go again, interpreting the Constitution for your own personal gratification.


I have made no interpretation at all. I have ASKED where he got the idea that we have that "right". I ASKED. No interpretation given.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


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

You absolutely have a "Right" to privacy

Businesses, such as mine, also have the "Right" to NOT hire you if you don't produce a valid Birth Certificate for your personnel file.

You want the job? Bring in the paperwork..

Seems like a no-brainer to me..

Also VERY legal



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



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


True. But we don't know that he hasn't produced the proper documentation to the proper authority.

Besides, I'm not talking about proving that he's eligible for the job. He should prove that. Not necessarily to us, though. But I'm talking about all the crazy demands made by the OP. His parent's marriage license, adoption records, school applications and transcripts, his passport, his college theses and articles, BAPTISM record???

You ask this of people you hire?



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
I've asked this before and got no answers from anybody. Does anyone here know of anyone who was taught by this man in the coledge he had a profesorship with.


Many of his students have been interviewed. Names are named.
www.suntimes.com...

Picture of him at chalkboard (2007) along with story and names:
www.nytimes.com...

University statement:
www.law.uchicago.edu...

He had been quoted in the media back when he was a professor:


Legal affairs reporters sought out Obama for years before he ran for U.S. Senate or president. CBS News quoted him as "Professor Barack Obama" in a 2000 story on whether African Americans deserve reparations for slavery.

source: www.suntimes.com...


Factcheck.org checked the facts. He was a lecturer/senior lecturer (aka professor). This is not honorary and is common... I have had senior lecturers for my professors and they're all called "professor" :
www.factcheck.org...

Archive.org shows his faculty pages going back to the year 2000, although only the ones from 2004 and onward open. Here's that page:
web.archive.org...

His publications that year (one book) :
web.archive.org...

...courses and seminars, along with old exams (they typically give those to students so they can see the types of questions asked previous years) :
web.archive.org...

...note that he's taught Constitutional law.

From the New York Times, the archive of the February 7, 1990, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final Edition where he's given a full article as the first Black elected to head the Harvard Law Review. His name is on all the back issues of Harvard Law Review:
query.nytimes.com...

...etc.

I think your "there's no documentation" sources may not be familiar with how to find out about ex-professors and they may not be familiar with advanced search techniques. I can easily find all sorts of references to him.



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


School Records
Pass Ports
Birth Cert
SS Card
Finger Prints
Drug Tests
Polygraph
Employment History
Past Rental or Mortgage Information
Credit History
Bankruptcy
Known Associates

Yep

That and more

Semper



posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Half the people complaining on this thread also claim that all of our election choices were pre-selected anyway...


Well of course the choices were "pre-selected"
I don't think that is debatable.

It seems as though Obama is a man of the people, but lets be realistic here.

Would a man for the masses ever be allowed to be president?






top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join