It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ah...just FEEL the patriotism of the birthers and the extremists of the right-wing.
Inciting mutiny, and encouraging people who don't want to deploy to use this birther *snip bs* as an excuse to stay home (Or more likely, in the brig.) Is perfectly acceptable, patriotic behavior. Protesting a war, or criticizing a Republican on the other hand, is of course high treason. Makes perfect sense.
Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Yeah because the army doesn't want one nut in their army means that Obama is illegitimate. Oh you birthers can be pretty funny sometimes. Really now, they probably just did this to avoid making it a big issue. This has nothing to do with the military's stance on Obama. You already know the military is sworn to protect the state, and, the head of the state here is the President. And, this is because of statism. Chill people.
He is already a known liar, why wouldn't he lie about this?
And your statement of "there is no point too" is about the most lackadaisical most ignorant comment that I've ever heard.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by JulieMills
"Slipped through the noose?"
I think we found the real reason you don't like Obama.
Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by amazed
So, anyone who questions the birthplace of President Obama is a "birther"? This seems like a baiting tactic to me -- it detracts from intelligently debating the issue, and quite possibly provokes one to shift to a subjective and personal response ---- like mine.
Not everyone who is interested in this issue is a data miner looking for ANY reason to oust the POTUS. I reject your box.
Wait, I get it....... you want a label of your own, right?
reply to post by whatukno
[edit on 15/7/09 by argentus]
If a news organization repeatedly reported falsehoods, would you read it? Of course not.
Yet, somehow, WorldNetDaily remains in business despite a long history of lying to its readers. WND's favorite targets of lies are Democratic presidential candidates.
In 2004, WND uncritically repeated unverified rumors about a John Kerry affair and never apologized when they were proven false. It peddled every misleading or completely false claim made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- then hired Jerome Corsi, co-author of the book that first promoted those claims, as a reporter. WND published a Kerry attack book by the discredited conservative activist David Bossie, about whom WND itself asserted a few years earlier was "either extremely incompetent or was intentionally trying to sabotage investigations" in his previous role as an anti-Clinton investigator for a House committee. And WND editor Joseph Farah himself falsely claimed that money donated to a group by Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, went to "radical causes"; in fact, it was earmarked toward specific environmental projects.
WND started off the 2008 presidential season by targeting Hillary Clinton -- repeating dubious claims against her from a pair of discredited figures, documented liar Kathleen Willey and convicted felon Peter Paul. But as Barack Obama surged in the primaries, WND reacted by uncritically repeating never-verified claims by career criminal Larry Sinclair that he and Obama did drugs and had sex. This came, by the way, just a few days after settling the Clark Jones lawsuit, so one would think that verifying information it published to see if it was true in order to avoid future legal action would have been foremost on Farah's mind. Apparently not.
After Sinclair's claims fizzled -- he later discredited himself even further in a press conference a few months later -- WND settled for manufacturing controversy about Obama, mostly through reporter Aaron Klein's repeated attempts at guilt by association.
Well he is a politician, don't think that Bush ever lied, don't think Clinton ever lied, don't think Bush sr. Ever lied? Don't think Reagan ever lied?
Because he's a reserve soldier who volunteered for an active duty tour he can "ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty," a public affairs officer explained. Cook volunteered for the tour in May of this year. It is not clear why he did so, considering his current objections.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
The OP is seriously touting WorldNetDaily as a reputable source?!?