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.

 

Obama Still Has A Lot Of Explaining To Do

page: 14
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
This thread was started to posit the question about Obama's past.

His reluctance to be transparent about his schooling, his transcripts.


Just like every previous President, but as soon as the first black man gets elected president you start demanding all sorts of documents from him, as you refuse to accept the reality that a man with an African for a father was legally elected POTUS!


And the people that pose these questions are called liars (why?


Because they tell lies! Simple really.
Remember this lie that you told?

Obama does not have a right to privacy!

and this one

I have a right to privacy, you have a rght to privacy, when you becomea public figure you lose that right

and this one

but as a public servant you certainly give up rights to privacy

remember this?

But if you want law, I'll look up disclosure rulings

and this lie

Obama won't disclose his past.



Why not use actual proof to prove use wrong intead of shrill hyperbole.


When you are shown proof you ignore it, as it is not about any bit of paper Obama shows, it is about a black man being the legal POTUS!




posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 
You have vomited hyperbole and personal attacks.

Still waiting for the truth, though.

Deny, don't embrace, ignorance.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Don't know if this video has been posted yet, still a good watch. I don't know if it is 100% accurate and is certainly biased against Barry. There is a lot about Obama that is not talked about, if I question some of the inconsistencies in his life story in front of the wrong crowd I get called a racist. So much for the 'transparent' president.




posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Still waiting for the truth, though.


You refuse to accept the truth, that a black man is the legal POTUS.

sad really



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by m0rphine
 
Brilliant!
I've bookmarked your post!



And yes, what you've posted is a mainstay here with some posters!



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by beezzer
Still waiting for the truth, though.


You refuse to accept the truth, that a black man is the legal POTUS.

sad really


Pathetic!

You have to bring race into this debate.

How juvenile.

edit on 20-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
You have to bring race into this debate.


The birthers did that by refusing to accept a black man is the legal POTUS - otherwise why are you demanding all sorts of records from the first black president, when you never demanded the same records from previous white presidents....



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by beezzer
You have to bring race into this debate.


The birthers did that by refusing to accept a black man is the legal POTUS - otherwise why are you demanding all sorts of records from the first black president, when you never demanded the same records from previous white presidents....


You call me a birther -name calling
You use race again - race baiting
hyperbole - I just want to see college transcripts
and you claim I never asked the same from another president - baseless assumptions.

You have brought "fail" to an art level.

Kudos.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by beezzer
Still waiting for the truth, though.


You refuse to accept the truth, that a black man is the legal POTUS.

sad really


The truth is he may have dark skin but he is not an American black man. He used his looks to fool many blacks across America to vote for him. He has nothing in common with true African Americans in the US. He is not a descendant of slaves, he never lived in the projects and never faced the difficulties or the racism that poor black men in the US face. He has always been fed with a silver spoon and it is disgusting that so many like yourself see a man with dark skin and can't look past that to see who he really is.

I was happy when he was elected, I wasn't aware of his past. I am now and I do not like his ideals, his agenda, and his lies.

Go ahead call me a racist, the truth is I would proudly vote for Herman Cain if he was on the ballot. He truly was a victim of racism, white men in his position do the same thing(sleep around) and no one says a word. When a black man who threatens the establishment starts polling well, they found a way to de-rail his train.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by m0rphine
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think it's obvious what "spoor" and "still" are doing here. I agree with the guy a while back who said something about an odd obsession or agenda.


Then I have to wonder what pedophilia, Santorum, birth control, Catholics, OWS, Judge Napolitano, Ron Paul, Notre Dame, Conservatives sucking, etc have to do with what you call my obsession. Can you use real examples instead of just cutting and pasting crap propaganda from somewhere else?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
A couple of years ago I managed to get through reading Obama's "Dreams From My Father" in an attempt to learn more about him. Why? because no other information really existed. The book is ripe with contradictions, fluff and vague details.

For some reason all of the focus has been on the BC with little attention paid to other aspects of his vague past or the history of his mother and his alleged "father".

I would love to have Obama explain why his mother left Hawaii when he was a newborn to attend classes in Washington. The fact is not covered in his book. We are expected to believe that he and his mother were living in Hawaii when Barack SR. abandoned them to move on to Harvard. It would seem that momma and baby left "papa" first.

Then there are several Hawaiian address discrepancies suggesting that Barack Sr. kept a separate address from mommy and baby Obama.

The press never dug into Obama's relationship with his mentor Frank Marshall Davis (a self avowed pedophile and bi sexual) who was also friends with Obama's grandfather. His grandfather actually fostered the relationship with Davis and Barack to help Barack with his identity crisis.

Move on to his college years... According to Obama when he arrived to attend Columbia he was so broke that he spent a night in the YMCA and yet had the funds to travel for 3 weeks to Pakistan, India and Indonesia during his time as a student there. He never wrote about working odd jobs or holding any job while in college to earn money.

Move on to Harvard. How did he pay for Harvard? He claimed to have recently paid off student loans around the time of his 2008 campaign with proceeds from the sale of his book. Yet, in years prior (his Senate Years) he never disclosed any outstanding student loans.

Then look at the process used for Selecting Obama to be President of Harvard Law Review. By that time Harvard Law was using two methods to select a president of HLR. Half were chosen by grades and half were chosen by a special writing competition. This was aimed at opening the door for minority Students. Guess What? Obama won the writing competition. Yet the article he submitted for this process has never surfaced. Obama was the first black editor/president of HLR and yet his award winning article has never been found.

I'd love to read this article that was better than any other submitted to win this highly coveted position at HLR. Perhaps Obama can only thank Affirmative Action for his appointment and not his academic prowess or his writing skills.

Still Unanswered regarding Obama's Harvard Years

The Obama campaign told Newsmax that Obama self-financed his three years at Harvard Law School with loans, and did not receive any scholarship from Harvard Law school.

LaBolt denied that Obama received any financial assistance from Harvard or from outside parties. “No - he paid his way through by taking out loans,” he said in an email to Newsmax.

At the time, Harvard cost around $25,000 a year, or $75,000 for the three years that Obama attended. And as president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, Harvard spokesman Mike Armini said.

“That is considered a volunteer position,” Armini said. “There is no salary or grant associated with it.”

So if the figures cited by the Obama campaign for the Senator’s student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.

Where did he find the money? Did it come from friends of Khalid Al Mansour? And why would a radical Muslim activist with ties to the Saudi royal family be raising money for Barack Obama?

That’s the question the Obama campaign still won’t answer.


Obama's got some explaining to do. STILL

Michelle Obama Speaks Out

Speaking at a campaign event in Haverford, Pa, in April of this year, Michelle Obama claimed that her husband had “just paid off his loan debt” for his Harvard Law School education.

In an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio, in February she bemoaned the fact that many American families were strapped with student loan payments for years after graduation.

“The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books,” she said. The first of those best-sellers netted the couple $1.2 million in royalties in 2005.

In response to Newsmax questions about the Obama’s college loans, a campaign spokesman cited a report in The Chicago Sun claiming that Obama borrowed $42,753 to pay for Harvard Law School, and “tens of thousands” more to pay for undergraduate studies at Columbia.

The same report said that Michelle Obama borrowed $40,762 to pay for her years at Harvard Law School.

But a Newsmax review of Senator Obama’s financial disclosures found no trace of any outstanding college loans, going back to 2000.

www.newsmax.com...

edit on 20-2-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   


Newsmax


Oh yeah Newsmax said so, you know....the shining beacon of unbaised fair and balanced reporting...LOL

FYI:

It was founded by conservative Christopher Ruddy, formerly of the New York Post. According to SourceWatch, it utilizes the "echo chamber effect" - it knowingly posts misinformation in hopes other outlets will replicate it (such as its fallacious report that Pennsylvania GOP figure Rick Santorum joined rock band U2 for a fundraising event). Sounds very similar to Joseph Goebbel's Nazi propaganda campaigns. That is, repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, and eventually people will start to believe it.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 
So you attack the source and not the contents?

Isn't that the equivalent of putting fingers in ears and saying, "Lalalalalala I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by XyZeR
 
So you attack the source and not the contents?

Isn't that the equivalent of putting fingers in ears and saying, "Lalalalalala I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"


No I debunk the messengers's motives, I never attacked, just pointed out that Newsmax's journalistic credibility is non-existent.

And... Ha that's rich, for someone who is constantly ignoring FACTS and CHOOSING to embrace ignorance about all the myths people who can't stand having "non-white man" in the White house.

It's so pathetic, it's beyond belief. Accept reality: Obama is your president: if you would have asked the same "proof" of any previous President, you'dd be labbeled a traitor some years ago.

Edit: There is no debating possible people who are that deluded it seems...

The real question is: what do these deluded people want to get out of this constant repeating of things which have been debunked. Taht Obama resigns? HAHA LOL...
edit on 20-2-2012 by XyZeR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by XyZeR
 
So you attack the source and not the contents?

Isn't that the equivalent of putting fingers in ears and saying, "Lalalalalala I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"


No I debunk the messengers's motives, I never attacked, just pointed out that Newsmax's journalistic credibility is non-existent.

And... Ha that's rich, for someone who is constantly ignoring FACTS and CHOOSING to embrace ignorance about all the myths people who can't stand having "non-white man" in the White house.

It's so pathetic, it's beyond belief.


Why bring race into the debate?
Why can't one, one single obama thread just discuss his lack of tranparency, lack of disclosure, lack of honesty, nd poor policy making?

The race card has been maxed out.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR


Newsmax


Oh yeah Newsmax said so, you know....the shining beacon of unbaised fair and balanced reporting...LOL

FYI:

It was founded by conservative Christopher Ruddy, formerly of the New York Post. According to SourceWatch, it utilizes the "echo chamber effect" - it knowingly posts misinformation in hopes other outlets will replicate it (such as its fallacious report that Pennsylvania GOP figure Rick Santorum joined rock band U2 for a fundraising event). Sounds very similar to Joseph Goebbel's Nazi propaganda campaigns. That is, repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, and eventually people will start to believe it.





Please refute the evidence presented in the Newsmax article. I give Newsmax credit for asking the questions that the MSM outlets never asked or the evidence that they never pursued. Obama is still riding the 10 point bonus that the MSM gave him in the 2008 campaign. Guess what? New campaign new election. Time to readdress the unanswered. How long can these facts be ignored by Obama? Long enough to reach martial law right before the 2012 election? Long enough to suspend the election for a couple of years??




top topics



 
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join