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.

 

Soldier doubts ( Obama's) eligibility, defies president's orders

page: 19
48
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


Why is it that when someone disagrees with the liberal ideology being force fed to the Americans that person is labeled a racist or accused of disparaging a person? You really need a new battle cry. When you change the use of terms no one will understand your point.
The majority of people really don't care about labeled by "Progressives" as whatever new term they feel has a buzz and a zing to it. Go back to watching your TMZ and stay out of the adults conversations.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjdny
reply to post by saint4God
 


Why is it that when someone disagrees with the liberal ideology being force fed to the Americans that person is labeled a racist or accused of disparaging a person? You really need a new battle cry. When you change the use of terms no one will understand your point.
The majority of people really don't care about labeled by "Progressives" as whatever new term they feel has a buzz and a zing to it. Go back to watching your TMZ and stay out of the adults conversations.


Wonderfully stated. I couldn't have said it better.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Hey cjdny, I sent you a U2U message.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dankai
 


Got it check the email address you sent me



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Well, well, well...page 19, and as usual, the locomotive is going off the tracks.

I suggest some recent posters take a deep breath, have a cup of coffee (as if you need MORE caffeine!) and re-read page 1.

I had to go back to re-read it, because I was getting thrown off by the sniping and agenda-mongering that is being displayed.

There is a Certificate of Live Birth, from the State (yes, it WAS a State in 1961) of Hawai'i. There was a clear majority in the popular vote (something like 7 million...clear enough for ya?).

This soldiers' claims seem to be based mostly on igorance and innuendo, fed mostly by right-wing media.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjdny
reply to post by saint4God
 


Why is it that when someone disagrees with the liberal ideology being force fed to the Americans that person is labeled a racist or accused of disparaging a person?


I haven't labeled anyone. I myself disagree with liberal ideology. The accusation of disparagement was from someone saying "You are an idiot" and the like. You don't think this is disparaging? ( www.merriam-webster.com... ). Also notice I'd pointed out that the person accusing someone else of being racist was making a racist remark.


Originally posted by cjdny
You really need a new battle cry. When you change the use of terms no one will understand your point.


I don't expect anyone to use my terms, rather I use the terms set forth by this dictionary: www.merriam-webster.com... . Any disagreements in terms from thenceforth can be directed to them. My cry is not one 'for battle' and find it odd you've gotten any of these impressions from me.


Originally posted by cjdny
The majority of people really don't care about labeled by "Progressives" as whatever new term they feel has a buzz and a zing to it. Go back to watching your TMZ and stay out of the adults conversations.


It's hard to go back to something I'd never began. What is "TMZ"? Apparently it's something you're familiar with, so between the pair of us, perhaps it is something that you could 'go back to'. Regarding adult conversations, it is my age group and see no reason for exclusion nor even age discrimination for those who are mature enough to discuss such matters.

Shall we get back to the topic or is there further reason to make wild and oft incorrect assumptions about each other?



[edit on 26-2-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, well, well...page 19, and as usual, the locomotive is going off the tracks.

I suggest some recent posters take a deep breath, have a cup of coffee (as if you need MORE caffeine!) and re-read page 1.

I had to go back to re-read it, because I was getting thrown off by the sniping and agenda-mongering that is being displayed.

There is a Certificate of Live Birth, from the State (yes, it WAS a State in 1961) of Hawai'i. There was a clear majority in the popular vote (something like 7 million...clear enough for ya?).

This soldiers' claims seem to be based mostly on igorance and innuendo, fed mostly by right-wing media.


It is STILL his Constitutional obligation to do what he is doing. Notice I didn't say Constitutional right (although it is that also), but rather OBLIGATION. A Certificate of Live Birth is not the same as a Birth Certificate. Why not just show the people of the U.S. that he's CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
You can't break a law because you "have doubts". In my timein the service I would never leave my buddies swinging in the breeze because I have "doubts", and he's going t jail, of that I'm fairly certain. You don't defy a lawful order given by your commanding officer, much less the commander in chief because you have "doubts" you better have some poof.
He has no constitutional authority to do wht he's doing.

I don't feel sorry for him at all, I feel sorry for the soldier who has to take his place because he's afrad.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

I haven't labeled anyone. I myself disagree with liberal ideology. The accusation of disparagement was from someone saying "You are an idiot" and the like. You don't think this is disparaging? ( www.merriam-webster.com... ). Also notice I'd pointed out that the person accusing someone else of being racist was making a racist remark. ..

Regarding adult conversations, it is my age group and see no reason for exclusion nor even age discrimination for those who are mature enough to discuss such matters.
[edit on 26-2-2009 by saint4God]


Are you kidding? You just labled me a racist and I made no racist remark! Where did I make a RACIST remark?

And just because someone is old enough to discuss matters of our "age group" doesn't mean they are...how did you put it..."mature enough to discuss such matters."

The soldier has a right to do what he is doing, scared or not. Again, I repeat....when was the last time any of you "Arm-Chair Generals" stood up for what you believed in in the face of criticism from your ENTIRE COUNTRY? Integrity is lacking these days and more and more I see the the People being led off a cliff by being brain-washed to accept anything they are told without question. It's almost a crime to hold our government accountable for any actions. Once the majority of the People believe this should be the way, it will be our end.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by uaocteaou
You can't break a law because you "have doubts". In my timein the service I would never leave my buddies swinging in the breeze because I have "doubts", and he's going t jail, of that I'm fairly certain. You don't defy a lawful order given by your commanding officer, much less the commander in chief because you have "doubts" you better have some poof.
He has no constitutional authority to do wht he's doing.

I don't feel sorry for him at all, I feel sorry for the soldier who has to take his place because he's afrad.


Again......IN YOUR OPINION.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by jd140
 


Dude,

For all I know you just a new member trying to get some attention, I been here for a while and have posted about my military experience for quite a while and for a wide range of issues.

Not a soldier but an airman that has served in Iraq TWICE!... I hated Bush and HATED even more the War In Iraq a war which is legality was always in question, I went I did my job because that was what I sign up to, I didnt sign up in the Air Force to be a politician but I did remember that oath that I took about following the orders of those appointed over me.

Thats why the Army is the way it is, from top to bottom all you have is people doing whatever they want. Leaders have lost control of the Army for quite a while now...


How can you hate Bush? You did follow your advice and stayed away from politics right? If you did then you wouldn't know what the hell is going on. You don't follow politics then you don't have a reason to hate Bush.

Yes and Army personnel would say the same about the Airforce. The rivalry will never die. I been here about a year and have yet post anything for the sake of attention. Just because you have been here longer means very little. Maybe you have been seeking attention for a long time now?

I still doubt you served.

Or you are a robot airman who blindly follows the orders given to him by people he doesn't know. Unless you lied and follow politics? Either way you are a lier.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dankai
 


No, dan.....What part of the words 'certificate' and 'birth' are you missing there?

Symantics.

Scroll back a few pages...there is a post from a bloke who had no trouble getting a US Passport based on HIS 'cetificate of live birth'.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dankai
 


Of course it's my opinion, just the same as EVERYTHING you have posted is your opinion. The problem is that you attack the people who disagree with you. That stifles discussion.

I've been in the service, I've been to Iraq, So what I say does have some bearing in reality regarding military service, and the law.
You don't put others on the line to fight your battles, after you signed the papers to join. Jesus, it's not like he was drafted into the service.

*edited to remove sacasm*

[edit on 26-2-2009 by uaocteaou]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dankai
 


No, dan.....What part of the words 'certificate' and 'birth' are you missing there?

Symantics.

Scroll back a few pages...there is a post from a bloke who had no trouble getting a US Passport based on HIS 'cetificate of live birth'.


Let me spell it out for you then....

If he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy.It is not valid

Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very low resolution -- on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.

The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image -- what now appears to be a crude forgery -- raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide.

Now, what aren't you understanding?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by uaocteaou
reply to post by dankai
 


Of course it's my opinion, just the same as EVERYTHING you have posted is your opinion. The problem is that you attack the people who disagree with you. That stifles discussion.

I've been in the service, I've been to Iraq, So what I say does have some bearing in reality regarding military service, and the law.
You don't put others on the line to fight your battles, after you signed the papers to join. Jesus, it's not like he was drafted into the service.

*edited to remove sacasm*

[edit on 26-2-2009 by uaocteaou]


Just because you were in the service doesn't mean you understand the law. Many, and I mean almost every one, of my military buddies care not about politics or the like. All they know is what they're told. Most don't even know WHY we are fighting! They think it's do defend our freedom here. What utter nonsense!

I always ask them, why are you fighting in a war that you care not to understand? The silence is deafening.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dankai
Are you kidding?


No. When I'm kidding I typically include after it a
or a
or in cases of sarcasm



Originally posted by dankai
You just labled me a racist and I made no racist remark! Where did I make a RACIST remark?


Where have I labeled you racist? Where had I said you made a racist remark?


Originally posted by dankai
And just because someone is old enough to discuss matters of our "age group" doesn't mean they are...how did you put it..."mature enough to discuss such matters."


This I know, as I have said likewise that those who may not be see as 'of age' should still be given due audience based upon maturity.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dankai

Originally posted by uaocteaou
reply to post by dankai
 


Of course it's my opinion, just the same as EVERYTHING you have posted is your opinion. The problem is that you attack the people who disagree with you. That stifles discussion.

I've been in the service, I've been to Iraq, So what I say does have some bearing in reality regarding military service, and the law.
You don't put others on the line to fight your battles, after you signed the papers to join. Jesus, it's not like he was drafted into the service.

*edited to remove sacasm*

[edit on 26-2-2009 by uaocteaou]


Just because you were in the service doesn't mean you understand the law. Many, and I mean almost every one, of my military buddies care not about politics or the like. All they know is what they're told. Most don't even know WHY we are fighting! They think it's do defend our freedom here. What utter nonsense!

I always ask them, why are you fighting in a war that you care not to understand? The silence is deafening.


Personally I think it's disgusting to be asking THAT question to the service personnel, similar in my mind to spitting in th face if viet nam vets returning home.

Do you think they know why they're there, why they're fighting in a war, Jesus Man, they're there, fighting in the war because that's what they were ordered to do. As if they have any part of the decision to go to war.
To do things like confronting our service people about the politics behind the war, does them a seriious injustice and you should be ashamed.

Do you ask the plow horse for the reasons behind the farmers choice of crop?

I'm, out of this, I'm out because your argument is based soley on idealism and not on reality. You don't care why that soldier is refusing to follow orders, you're just happy that he is, and that type of support will only get this foolish soldiers jail sentence length extended.

"Ours is not to woder why, ours is but to do and die"

It's a bad war, based on corruption, but the soldiers have nothing to do with that, and for me to engage the likes of you any further would only be counter productive to me, you and ATS.

Good day sir.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dankai
If he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy.It is not valid

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very low resolution -- on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate.

However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.



You either apparently by ignorance or by laziness haven't looked at the actual evidence and continue to spread those lies.

Stamped and signed (click here for bigger image)



The seal on the document (click here for bigger image)



Here's another look at the document with seal clearly visible.



according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy.It is not valid


Do you mean this spokesman?


To verify we did have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.

"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said after we e-mailed her our copy. source



There is a difference between people who haven't looked at the evidence yet, and then there's people who won't or reject the evidence and continue to spread lies.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Excellent post, converge, but I don't know what will matter.

This issue is not about facts, it's about people believing what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.

The Right can't get their heads around the election, they believe anyone who opposes their ideology must "hate America," and the election must mean that most Americans "hate America."

So instead of taking a look at why they lost (hint: remember the last eight years?), they're trying to undermine our democracy, desperately attempting to overturn the election by finding some "technical foul" even where there clearly isn't one.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join