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.


Update! Officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence

page: 19
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:50 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

But it is not exactly moot then, is it? Actually it is the foundation of "political capital" or "Don't say this and I won't say that." That is, if Hilary knew anything at all or if there is "anything" to know.

As for the rest of your post, I will say nice deflection from the topic and the point that I made. For future arguments along these lines you may find this old thread educational. The 36 Stratagems: Lessons in Deception

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by Southern Guardian

But it is not exactly moot then, is it? Actually it is the foundation of "political capital" or "Don't say this and I won't say that."

It is a moot. Obama's long form birth certificate has little to no relevance to Hillary's supposed involvement with Nixon, neither does Obama showing his birth certificate change your argument that the system is corrupt. Obama tending to the demands of the birthers will not change that the system is corrupt, it will not change the numerous conspiracy connected in conjunction with this birth certificate conspiracy, so it's a 'moot' to argue whether he should release more of his records or not. At the end of the day you will still be sitting here plucking out more conspiracies about the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. The birther conspiracy is just one small piece of the conservative held conspiracy theories about Democratic governments.

As for the rest of your post, I will say nice deflection

I was responding to your argument. You made this point about Hillary and her involvement with Nixon, this is a totally different conspiracy theory, but you used this as evidence of some cover up in the Obama administration. We can apply all the conspiracies we know about government and apply it to Obama being born in Kenya. It is deflection I agree as we are moving away from the core of the birther conspiracy, and I responded to your deflection.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

No, it is a response to the deflection that "if there was anything to the BC theory then Hilary would have found it and used it" argument. I know that you are aware of such of thing.

I say no, the fact that her own past could be thrown back at her would have been more than enough to "buy" her silence on the issue.

However, even I have said that Obama was probably born in Hawaii. But that all the obfuscation surrounding the issue is suspect. Do you not agree? Do you honestly think that the person that has control of the US Nuclear Arsenal and can order the US Military into action or to stand down to a situation should not have a bit of minor scrutiny?

I mean, after all, if I see a person on the street that looks like a punk, I do look the guy over to see if there is any sort of apparent danger. Like oh, reaching for a gun or other weapon, shouting to people that are not there... those sorts of things.

And frankly, I am rather shocked to find that you have zero problem with the question of Obama's background being repeatedly asked (in legitimate calls of question such as this officer questioning the validity) and repeatedly denied any response or inquiry.

And quite frankly, if GW Bush was a chronic nose picker for example, the American public has the right to know. Especially if there was a chance of them shaking his hand.

But more to the point. There are back room deals in Washington. You will also find that part of being a politician is projecting a persona. The hard line Democrat and Ultra Conservative Republican that have shouting matches on Larry King and other venues, quite often calmly ask each other their dinner plans or how their hotel accommodations are when the cameras are not on air.

Need proof on that? Then go back to the Primaries and listen to all the things that Biden said about Obama. Or Look at what GHW Bush said about Reagan in the 1980 Primaries.

Ultimately what you have in Obama is a short time politician that rose in the ranks pretty fast, had a some coincidental luck along the way and took the 2008 Election away from some very established long time insiders. Many of whom see the Presidency as the capstone of a long political career.

If you honestly think that their was no deals and collaboration within the Democratic Party for Obama to have the nod, I am, to say the least, disappointed SG because I would have thought you to be more intelligent and observant than to fall for the "He was just that darn good" ideology.

Personally, I suspect that the Republicans played along. And used McCain as "no chance of victory" placeholder in the 2008 Election as there were far better candidates out there that were not used. Even Rudy Giuliani spoke of nothing but the fact that 9/11 happened in NYC and he was there, instead of focusing on his work of cleaning up the city with the adult shops, public and private prostitution rings, etc. when he was mayor. But I think that a Powell-Giuliani ticket would have been hard to beat.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by Ahabstar

I have to disagree with your take on this. There is too much evidence to point to Obama being born in Hawaii as he has always maintained for this to be anything sinister.

Honestly McCain didn't have much of a hope in hell of winning that election. His (I am suspending my campaign to go to Washington to deal with the economic crisis!) thing really cost him. Besides the fact that his campaign was a running joke on SNL that entire season.

Washington is full of egomaniacs and megalomaniacs, besides Hilliary, there were other contenders that would have turned Obama's campaign into dust before it got off the ground.

Sometimes there really isn't a conspiracy.

top topics
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in