It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in


posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:13 PM
why does it matter where this guy was born ?. im not american so i dont see what all the fuss is about. but it seems everytime you vote a new president in you start complaining about them.

does he have to be an american to be president ?. and what is it that you guys dont like about him.. it was the american people who voted him in .

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by King Loki

King Loki, you are really just not understanding should quit now because you are looking kind of silly.

Just because you connect your PRIVATE computer to the internet does not mean that all the information on your computer is public information. There is no question about it...that is just how it works.

I'm not confusing internet and are just grasping at straws here.

I'm honestly out of ways to try to explain to you just how wrong you's like trying to convince someone that the sky is blue when they are insisting that it is are ignoring everything that is being told to are just grasping onto your silly theory that everything on the internet is public...which is just not true.

If I put a server on the internet that contains no files on it at all...and I put all the security in place to make it private with passwords...and I put a notice on the login page that this is a PRIVATE server and those who access it without authorization will be prosecuted...guess what...if you hack that are going to jail or paying a doesn't matter that there is nothing on the server.

I'll try one more real world example....If you break into a bank that has no money in it at you go to jail???

Come on Loki...give it is kind of sad.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Shadowflux
If you're willing to pay the service fee on a background check website, then yes. If you know how to research these things you could have the history of my family dating back hundreds of years.

If it is that simple then why not pay the same money, do the same check on Obama and be done with it?

Obama is no longer a private citizen, his history should be open to those who pay his salary. He rules by our consent, he is our employee

You do not pay his salary. If you pay taxes, he president gets paid. If you fail to pay taxes, the president gets paid. If you scam the IRS and make illegal money through tax schemes, the president still gets paid. You cannot withhold his pay. You cannot reduce his wages.

He does not rule by our consent. He was elected by our consent to do HIS job. You have representatives that are supposed to REPRESENT you and confer with higher government so that the entirety of it moves to serve the people; ALL THE PEOPLE - NOT JUST YOU.

He is not our employee unless you can present a solid argument otherwise.

There seems to be a huge misconception in this thread between what a public servant
does and what a public servant IS.

WTF does how he gets paid have anything to do with what shadow said ... the reason he gets payed anyway is because hundreds of millions of people pay taxes not just 1 person ... and that cash flow is so large it doesn't matter what happens to most of it because there is so much he will get paid anyways.

talk about deflecting ... i haven't seen one post of yours yet that has you answering the actual question of the person you are quoting ... u just go off on personal tangents and start spouting crap that makes no sense the the quoted person ????

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by filosophia

You don't remember an FBI director named Hoover? How many files did he have on presidents?

People don't remember Hoover? He was the sterling image of uncorruptable integrity.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

I don't see your views being consistent.

For one situation you are basically saying sometimes you need to ignore the law to do what is right (ends justify the means) and on another topic you are saying that doesn't apply because you personally think it hurts the country.

The consistency I see in your views is that you use your personal feelings on the subject to determine right or wrong and ignore the law. I'm not saying that is wrong...I'm just saying you think it is ok to ignore the law when YOU think it is ok...but not when others think it is morally right. I would consider feeding my family more morally correct than trying to dig up some information on a President I don't like.

But to put it into you believe that the guy that hacked Sarah Palin's email was in the right as well? His motives were the attempt to uncover some damning evidence against a political figure he didn't agree with. So do you respect what he did as well?

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

no you have told me your opinion that it is not proof of anything ... you haven't proven anything to me, you have just let me know what your opinion is and i don't deal with that as fact ... all im doing is asking you questions and you haven't provided a link to any proof of anything that you are saying.

if i wanted to listen to opinions all day ill go and watch TV and listen to them and believe everything they say ...

i don't care if im wrong but prove me wrong don't give me your opinion of what you think is the right answer and expect me to believe you ... that would be pretty ignorant of me wouldn't it ...

or should i just carry myself the way you do and start a thread saying ALIEN UFO LANDED IN THE MIDDLE OF NEW YORK CITY ... NO PROOF OR SOURCE BUT IM SAYING IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE ...

would you believe me if i said that ... NO ?? well why do you expect the same from me ???

[edit on 13/5/10 by King Loki]

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:33 PM
You know, if these people are smart, they would go to City Hall and file the necessary paperwork to form a telecommunications company. Then they would get retroactive immunity for their spying, with Obama's blessing.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:42 PM
So its OK for TBTB to check up on us mear mortals but when normal people snoop around and try to uncover the truth about an individual who weilds power its a jailable offence?that stinks!

just another reason to tell those in power "what you got to hide"so much for freedom of speech.GOOD ON THEM,i hope that more hack into the goverment and get all the sleez out in the open.not that this needs to really happen as we already know that TPTB are a bunch of suspender wearing submisive nappy soiling retards.

guy folks should of privaled.


posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by King Loki is freaking common should be at least.

You sound retarded sitting there saying you don't think it is illegal to hack a website...because it is on the internet and so it is public information.

Then you have this gem:

you don't need a password to get into a data base

It's hard talking to you when you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You don't think databases have passwords now??? WTF?

You want me to prove that unauthorized access to a federal computer or database is a crime???

Here...if you are that ignorant that you don't know there is a law for this....look HERE

Here...I'll even give you the relevant part for this topic

(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer;
(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;

Guess what...they have a whole department for Cyber Crime

The internet is a COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, it does not store information. PRIVATE COMPUTERS connect to the PUBLIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM and share the information that they want and protect other information. Just because you are connected to a PUBLIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM does not make your informtion public.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself (because I am) and you just are unable to comprehend this topic.

At first I thought you just didn't understand...but now I think you may just be unable to understand.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:46 PM
this is a great original post

this is the speculative thinking that ats is known for

star and flag, way to use the thing on your shoulders vitchillo

[edit on 5/13/2010 by indigothefish]

[edit on 5/13/2010 by indigothefish]

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by Vitchilo

If they did the same to me or you, it would still be a crime. Probably the only reason that they got caught was because it was on someone that was high profile.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:51 PM
Ahhh thats funny, I live 20 mins from Coralville.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:57 PM
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Not quite. It's like this. What is 'right' to others can be subjective. And we're speaking about what we feel is right in our hearts- not the law, since this is the road of your inquiry.

For instance, some in this thread think what the accused did was 'right' and even a duty to their country even if it is illegal. Others think what they did was 'wrong' because it was an invasion of privacy (and illegal).

Likewise, some in the illegal immigration debate will feel it is 'right' to secure our borders for the benefit of legal citizens, national security, economic stability (or whatever their reasons). Others will feel it is 'right' to shirk the law because their concern lies in aiding the less fortunate, feeling we were all immigrants once, believe we should be one world without borders (or whatever their reasons).

Does that make sense?

For instance, I have no idea what your position is on the illegal immigration situation either. But let's say you're opposed to the recent Bill in Arizona and are for open borders. In this case, you are morally opposed to the law. In the case of those who accessed Obama's records, you may be on the side of the law, both legally and opinion-wise for your own reasons.


Me (Immigration): My opinion on what is right is on the side of the law.
Me (Accessing Obama's Records): My opinion on what is morally right is not on the side of the law.

You (Immigration): Your opinion on what is right happens to conflict with current laws.
You (Accessing Obama's Records): Your opinion on what is right happens to jive with the law.

It doesn't mean our value of the law changes and we're tossing out what doesn't suit us. It just means we disagree with the principle behind it, the enforcement, or whatever our objection happens to be. And those are opinions we're entitled to have. It doesn't mean we'd willfully go out and break them. It just means that is the way we feel.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by King Loki

WTF does how he gets paid have anything to do with what shadow said ... the reason he gets payed anyway is because hundreds of millions of people pay taxes not just 1 person

Actually it was really a reference to this entire list

You can not write him up.
You can not suspend him.
You can not deny him a raise.
You can not approve or deny vacation requests.
You can not have him into your office for a "corrective" chat.
You can not fire him.
You can not set his scedule.
You can not decide his tasks.
You can not declare his salary as one of your tax expenses.
You can not etc...

as was pointed out. I thought it was kind of pointless to repeat something that had already been posted since, you know, you can just go back a page and read things. But anyway.

Yes, he is paid by taxes. Since you not paying your taxes does NOT prevent the president from getting paid, he is not actually in your employ.

... and that cash flow is so large it doesn't matter what happens to most of it because there is so much he will get paid anyways.

Uh huh, and...?

talk about deflecting ... i haven't seen one post of yours yet that has you answering the actual question of the person you are quoting ... u just go off on personal tangents and start spouting crap that makes no sense the the quoted person ????

Obviously you are not even reading my posts because you would have seen that in the one you replied to I referred back to the other items I listed and you would have also seen the list and you would have known that your question was then out of context.

Thanks for the commentary but telling me how a movie seems from the lobby means little.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by piddles
reply to post by jibeho

it's absolutely ridiculous that'd you'd compare the dailykos to WND. Dailykos uses facts and WND uses BS, huge difference.

Right wing blogs in general are known for lying and exaggerating, it's such common knowledge that no one can/should take them seriously (and most people don't)

Thank you for backing up my statement regarding opinions.

Of course, the progressive blogs are always right and the evil satanic conservative blogs are filled with angst and lies.

Funny how the Daily Kos state of the nation polls are always in stark contrast to the majority of main stream polls. If all you read is Daily Kos, you would never know that our nation is in economic trouble or that HCR will cost $115 billion more than projected.

Common knowledge in the esoteric and lost world of the progressive movement perhaps. That was just my opinion of course.

I just read the dailykos hatemail, it's the biggest conservative lol since the birther movement. I don't actively pursue political blogs, i only read the ones with articles posted on fark. It's pretty hard to make your own opinion about something political when your news has a slant on it.

you can generalize the "progressive" movement all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the right has a bigger share of outspoken liars than the left.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by AshleyD


Ok...I must admit...I sometimes will ask a question that isn't actually the question I'm looking for an answer to. Some people call this "baiting"...I call it indirect questioning

Ok, here is the deal...I'm often accused of what you just described...supporting the law in some cases and not others (because I am in fact against the Az bill). When I saw your statment...and I kind of knew a general idea of your position of immigration looking at your history...I just wanted to see if you would stick to your position or just try to make an excuse. may not be the most honest tactic...but I've been curious about your stance on things since the whole Conspiracy Chicks thing came out.

So I'm very glad you stuck to your position and have a similar reasoning for it as I do. When I'm accused of picking and choosing when to support the law...I don't do it because I want to push an agenda...I do it because I don't agree with the philosophy behind the law itself. I'm not going to support the same law for one situation and oppose it on another...but I will consistently oppose the same law for all situations...or support a law for all situations.

So sorry for being indirect...but I find it is easier to get a true opinion at times instead of flat out asking...people will be more honest about topic "B" if they think they are just using it as an explanation for topic "A"...if you know what I mean. This won't help the "paid dis-info agent" accusations I get...but oh well...those are fun.

So all makes sense...and we are on the same page...just on opposite ends
Which I am fine with...we all have our opinions.

Hey...maybe I'll give the Conspiracy Chicks show a shot...I'll admit I wasn't a big fan at the announcement of it.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:23 PM
Transparency or not just because he's a public figure doesn't mean that everyone can go look at whatever record they want. It doesn't mean that the individual all of a sudden has no privacy just because YOU want to look.

You want' to see something? Get a court order.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:35 PM
Ok I have seen more people speaking about the birthers and Obama’s eligibility for more info on the truth as it has been forwarded to me look here

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

so the government can access your computer anytime they want, but you access theirs and your a criminal. great, just like the british guy who accessed military computers and got proof of aliens. the only reason he's not doing 99 years is because they are trying to keep it as low key as possible.

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by drmeola

Doesn't matter how you play with the words, he was and is eligible to be president. He was born in Hawaii. If he has dual citizenship, which country is it for, when did he obtain it? Proof please.

<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in