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.

 

Lindsey Graham calls birthers 'Crazy'

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't know how this thread got to be about Obama

Obama has shown his legal papers to the world. Just because some don't accept doesn't change a thing.


and with that....

Could all the BCers and Obama bashers please keep that stuff for one of the 8 million threads already on ATS about both topics.

This thread is specifically about the Right finally deciding to distance itself from the "death panel/BC/keep government out of my medicare" nutjob fringe.
The Republicans are finally realizing that patronizing a small minority of radicals only gets you... a small minority of radical support.

Plenty of threads to discuss legitimacy of the BC and in which to hate Obama.




posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


And could this distancing be a play to become a 2012 front runner?

Is it even possible to run someone in 2012 whom this base would not support? If this base stayed home on election day, could the party win without them?

Or would someone like Graham speak one way in public but wink ala Palin to this base?

Is this strong rebuke from a politician the first shot fired in a battle to take back the party or merely a shot across the bow of a boat filled with a base gone wild?

Having groomed this type of media and base over three decades, maybe the only thing Graham is trying to accomplish with his remarks is to sacrifice one of their own, to cut loose some reeds that accidentally got tangled in the propeller.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by desert
 

I think people are overestimating this "base." Look at their pitiful march on Washington that Beck had to lie about to even pretend was a decent number. There just does not seem to be enough to really control anything anymore.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Obama has shown his legal papers to the world.

No he hasn't.
No matter how many times you claim he has ... it doesn't change the truth that he hasn't.


Originally posted by Mak Manto
I mean, what about the Hawaiian newspaper that showed his birth?

It's been said a bunch of times already .... the newspaper announcement means nothing. The address given in the papers was WRONG. The Obama's didn't live there. It's worthless as evidence.


Originally posted by Mak Manto
Actually, Obama showed his birth certificate both ON AND OFF the internet.

Actually, he hasn't.


Obama was born within the United States.

Most likely. However, until he releases his real original BC from Hawaii, this just will never go away. It'll be like 'the grassy knoll' or 'we didn't land on the moon'. The only one who can end most of this is Obama and he is going out of his way to make sure his original BC isn't out there for all to see. THAT is what makes even those who think he was probably born in the USA, like me, think that there is something else that he is hiding on the BC. Race? Delayed copy? whatever.

As for Graham calling people crazy .. he'd best not throw stones in glass houses.


[edit on 10/4/2009 by FlyersFan]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
RINO!!

You know this place (ATS) is crazy. A conspiracy site that has so many who believe in althenians and greens in cahoots with our government for the purpose of soul mining, or that Pee Wee Hermann is dead from over stimulation but his twin has taken his place, but a large number can't see a REAL conspiracy right before their eyes.

Yes sure it probably isn't about the birth certificate, its probably something else and if he lets the focus stay on the BC then his other records are safe BUT how can ANY of you say it isn't conspiratorial for obama to not just show his records already or use lawyers to block disclosure?

You really think there isn't a problem SOMEWHERE with some part of his past? Isn't it obvious that there is something he doesn't want us to see? He is intentionally keeping us all from seeing it yet you see nothing wrong with that ? Really? cmon.....

Actually, Obama showed his birth certificate both ON AND OFF the internet.

Obama was born within the United States.


No, all Obama has shown is his Certificate of Live Birth, not his original birth certificate. The former is just a print-out of data from a health department computer in Hawaii of information provided by Obama's parents. It certainly does not prove that he was born in Hawaii. Sidney Ann Dunham could have lied about giving birth to him in Hawaii if she thought disclosing that he was born of a British father in a foreign country might make her son British. Which in fact it DID.

When some of you "anti-birthers" can better understand what constitutes scientific proof (as opposed to mere legal evidence), we shall take you more seriously.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


True, by numbers. But look at the way the march and townhalls were used by politicians to say that Americans, meaning a majority, agreed with the protesters. The IMAGE of the protests was enough for politicians to go back to their committees and imply that American citizens don't want what the Obama administration wants for them.

A fart into a megaphone could sound like the end of the world.

If Graham really wants to help navigate the Republican Party away from its extremist positions, he will have to denounce more than Beck. The extremist right media was intentionally built up over years to counter the perceived liberal media. Beck is only one player.

I don't think that the other media personalities who are multimillionaires because of their audience will go away soon.

Would Graham be able to speak out about Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity without apologizing? Maybe all Graham did was to shoot a spitwad at the weaker of the bullies.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by desert
And could this distancing be a play to become a 2012 front runner?


Exactly. Of course, all of this is my opinion, but a presidential bid would be the obvious reason, to me. Lillydale is right. This "base" is a vocal minority. Most people are more level-headed. If this base stayed home on election day, the Republican ticket would likely do worse than it did last year. That's why it's vital (for the Republican party) that they unite. That's why this splintering is deadly to them. It will split their vote and the Democrats will walk away with it. If this split continues and the base votes, it will likely be for someone Independent or not on the ticket at all.



Or would someone like Graham speak one way in public but wink ala Palin to this base?


I wouldn't put it past him to use Palin in some way to bring in the base. Graham/Palin 2012? That backfired big time for McCain, though.



Is this strong rebuke from a politician the first shot fired in a battle to take back the party or merely a shot across the bow of a boat filled with a base gone wild?


I don't think Graham's concerns are with the party right now. I think his motives are entirely selfish. Republicans lost some moderates to Obama last election. Graham might be trying to cut loose the Beck crowd, but gain the moderates back.



Having groomed this type of media and base over three decades, maybe the only thing Graham is trying to accomplish with his remarks is to sacrifice one of their own, to cut loose some reeds that accidentally got tangled in the propeller.


It's certainly possible. Do you think he would have commented on Rush, too, though? Because if Beck is a reed, Rush is a tangle of old fishing line. And Palin, too. Those guys appeal to this vocal minority.


Originally posted by desert
Would Graham be able to speak out about Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity without apologizing?


If he had any guts at all, he would. He sure would gain some respect if he did. But I'm not going to hold my breath. It would be exciting, though. I'd love to see someone stand up to them and take the conservative party back. Better yet, start a new conservative party.


Originally posted by micpsi
When some of you "anti-birthers" can better understand what constitutes scientific proof (as opposed to mere legal evidence), we shall take you more seriously.


And when the "birthers" can realize that other country's laws don't apply to US citizens, then perhaps we shall take you more seriously.



...foreign citizenship makes no difference under US law if one is also a US citizen.
...
If a person is a US citizen and is currently within the jurisdiction of the US, any other citizenship(s) he or she may hold are really not relevant in US law.

A "dual citizen" has no special status in the US by virtue of holding citizenship in some other country too.


US Dual Citizenship FAQ

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'd love to see someone stand up to them and take the conservative party back. Better yet, start a new conservative party.



To take the Conservative party back, you have got to get rid of the invertabrate moderates like Graham. Starting another party without fighting to take over the Republican Party will never work. Demand that the GOP fund and take serious challengers to McCain, Snowe, Collins, and Graham. I'm tired of the GOP selecting and backing only one candidate for elections. That is why I stopped sending them money in the first place. President Bush 2004 was the last time I sent a dime to the GOP. That was about the time Bill Frist added an amendment to the Port Protection act restricting offshore betting. BTW Saints -7 over the Jets is the bet of the day!!! My offshore book is still up and running and loves taking my money! LOL



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert
reply to post by Lillydale
 


True, by numbers. But look at the way the march and townhalls were used by politicians to say that Americans, meaning a majority, agreed with the protesters. The IMAGE of the protests was enough for politicians to go back to their committees and imply that American citizens don't want what the Obama administration wants for them.



You definitely have me there. I continue to be completely dumfounded as to how politicians were able to convince each other of something that every poll, census, NEWS story was telling was wrong and that Glenn's manufactured and then hugely inflated little parade was reality.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
When some of you "anti-birthers" can better understand what constitutes scientific proof (as opposed to mere legal evidence), we shall take you more seriously.


Scientific proof of where Obama was born? What do you have? I hate to get off on this topic but I am really confused as to what you are talking about. The only thing that actually matters here is "legal evidence." Ask McCain.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
... I continue to be completely dumfounded as to how politicians were able to convince each other of something that every poll, census, NEWS story was telling was wrong and that Glenn's manufactured and then hugely inflated little parade was reality.


Maybe because they've spent the better part of the last three decades ignoring what American citizens wanted and instead listened more attentively to their corporate donors. The only time Washington seemed to care was always around election time, dropping bread crumbs that lead to the voting booth, for those who cared to vote.

Politicians didn't care by how big a margin they won, as all it would take was one more than half. (Hence, an alarming call to the base.)

As I've seen the phrase lately, we truly have been paying taxes without representation!!

Oh, BTW I caught a tiny bit of Graham on tv today, making the rounds of the Sunday morning talk show, I really feel his beef is only with Beck, and will go no further. I had higher hopes, sigh. I'm the eternal optimist, as I always say, things can't get any worse!



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Seems Graham may be willing to name other names. Source



He speculated that Fox News host Bill O'Reilly would complain that "Ben Franklin [is] giving in on something."


Maybe he just started with Beck?

I must say, after reading that story, I could even start to think that Graham is a fairly decent guy. Not because of his opinions of Beck and O'Reilly, but because of his position on some things. He sounds downright level-headed.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


O'Reilly now, but landing a softer blow it seems. Well, Graham has irritated Michelle Malkin (Sotomayor and immigration), but I'm still holding out for a complete take down of the Big One, Rush.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
This was an unbelievable thread, like several people talking through others, and like all ideologues, some are stuck in their vision of what is going on and what is important in the world, their world. Whenever I observe ideologues it brings to mind the old "Bell Curve" and the fact that it take all kinds to properly fill out the bell curve. We have ideologues left and right, up and down, and we have pragmatist in the middle. The ideologues spitting out their positions and arguments at each other and the pragmatist trying to hash out the issue with debate in between. Recognize yourself in this thread? Course, everyone thinks they are a pragmatist wouldn't you say?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
RINO!!

You know this place (ATS) is crazy. A conspiracy site that has so many who believe in althenians and greens in cahoots with our government for the purpose of soul mining, or that Pee Wee Hermann is dead from over stimulation but his twin has taken his place, but a large number can't see a REAL conspiracy right before their eyes.

Yes sure it probably isn't about the birth certificate, its probably something else and if he lets the focus stay on the BC then his other records are safe BUT how can ANY of you say it isn't conspiratorial for obama to not just show his records already or use lawyers to block disclosure?

You really think there isn't a problem SOMEWHERE with some part of his past? Isn't it obvious that there is something he doesn't want us to see? He is intentionally keeping us all from seeing it yet you see nothing wrong with that ? Really? cmon.....

Actually, Obama showed his birth certificate both ON AND OFF the internet.

Obama was born within the United States.


No, all Obama has shown is his Certificate of Live Birth, not his original birth certificate. The former is just a print-out of data from a health department computer in Hawaii of information provided by Obama's parents. It certainly does not prove that he was born in Hawaii. Sidney Ann Dunham could have lied about giving birth to him in Hawaii if she thought disclosing that he was born of a British father in a foreign country might make her son British. Which in fact it DID.

When some of you "anti-birthers" can better understand what constitutes scientific proof (as opposed to mere legal evidence), we shall take you more seriously.

Oh, yes, I see! And various courts, state agencies, school agencies, newspapers, people's testimonies, and etc. are all lying to keep the fact hidden that Obama was born in Kenya!

YES! I WONDER WHO SOUNDS MORE SERIOUS?

The President who has tons of evidence that he was born within the United States, or the people who didn't want Obama as president in the first place, that are bringing up Orly Taitz.

And you birthers think that a conspiracy is going on that everyone is hiding away information that the President is not a natural-born citizen...



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I agree with his general premise and much of what he says overall. That said, even though Lindsey Graham appears to have gotten this one at least partially right, at least in a 'blind squirrel' kind of way, I still think he's a toad. I think he's a guy who will say absolutely anything if he believes its to his political advantage.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pappie54
This was an unbelievable thread, like several people talking through others,


I know. It's like the thread has a split personality!



Originally posted by vor78
That said, even though Lindsey Graham appears to have gotten this one at least partially right, at least in a 'blind squirrel' kind of way, I still think he's a toad. I think he's a guy who will say absolutely anything if he believes its to his political advantage.


Well-said. I agree. I thought after my last post that people might think I was taking him seriously, but it's clear to me that in spite of what comes out of his mouth, he's just saying it to appear level-headed to the people. What he's SAYING sounds downright reasonable, by design, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

Ooh, I take back what I said about him sounding reasonable:

Here's His Latest Opinion



Two senior Republican senators say the United States, and not Israel, should attack Iran if military action becomes "necessary."

They also say a simple strike at the country's nuclear capability wouldn't be enough -- the US would have to launch an "all-or-nothing" war against Iran with the aim of crippling the country's military capabilities.
...
But Graham doesn't think an attack should be limited to airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. "If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float," said Graham.


Oh, dear...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Lindsey Graham has seen the real and original Obama birth certificate..? I don't think so. People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. If that birth certificate had nothing damning on it, we would have seen it already, but, as you know they will not let anyone see it, that is, except the one they offered.
So in the end I believe Obama is a Kenyan and not entitled or qualified to be President.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Yeah, that sounds more like the typical Lindsey Graham we conservatives know and despise. That statement is idiotic on a number of levels and at the very least, you'd think the dip**** would realize how bad of an idea major military action against Iran would be right now. Apparently not.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join