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.

 

Ariz. sheriff's Obama investigator is making money off this birth certificate investigation

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 




The term "straw man" get bantered about so much by so many whom have no idea the proper definition of the word.


Definition of Strawman Argument (from Wikipedia):


A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.




I am stating a simple fact that mindset cannot change a physical document or object. I used an example, as in a fictitious but approximate set of circumstances to be utilized to more clearly understand something.

Site my straw man.


You said it yourself: " I used an example, as in a fictitious but approximate set of circumstances to be utilized to more clearly understand something."

You "replaced the original argument with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition", that of a "a document is uncovered which is a clear, indisputable, unalterable, absolute proof of something". In this way it is you that is attempting to misdirect the discussion. Such a document does exist, it is the Birth Certificate, and images of it have been published. That is not the point.

The point, and the simple answer to your question, which I believe was answered sufficiently but perhaps not spelled out for you in simple terms, is that is the kindest thing you could say about it is that is "intellectually dishonest" to begin a "police investigation" starting with the assumption that there is going to be a book written about the results. Sheriff Arpaio said that "he was going to look into it to see if there was anything there", but in fact he knew that what he was doing was endorsing a book that had essentially already been written. The only way that the book is viable is if there is something 'interesting', therefore the authors must "find" something interesting to write about, even if they have to lie about it.

And they have certainly lied about the so-called "investigation", blatantly, and with no shame. There was no investigation. Zullo and Corsi took 4 months to cut and paste Corsi's WND blog posts into a single document. And that is the sum total of the "investigation".

The CCP didn't go looking for your document of absolute proof one way or another. The CCP didn't discuss the issue with the State of Hawai'i. The CCP didn't contact the Obama Campaign to ask if they could look at the original document. Their "experts" are not "experts" in anything related to the issues they are attempting to address. Speaking of 'strawman' arguments, they argue (badly) their own strawman, the PDF (WGAS about the PDF? The PDF is not the Birth Certificate, it is an image of the Birth Certificate).

Zullo and Corsi have misled the public about their motives, and conned an elected official into attaching his name to it, damaging the reputation of the County and the State thereby. The people of Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have every right to be extremely indignant about that.




posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by LErickson
 


I am going to explain the relevancy:


I am all giddy here with baited breath.


The OP has postulated that since there was a book deal before the investigation began that the investigations findings are biased. I am asking the OP to explain how a mindset can negate something that is discovered which turns out to be indisputable fact.


So you are arguing nonsense then? What indisputable fact? Of course a mindset does not change a fact. Unfortunately what Joe is lacking here are facts.



I am not now nor have I claimed that the sherif has found anything. I just want the OP to explain how the book deal could somehow negate a physically tangible evidentiary discovery if one were made.


You are trying so hard to have this straw man argument but no one is biting because it is nonsense. The claim is not that FACTS ARE CHANGED by the book deal. The claim is that the INVESTIGATION IS TAINTED by the book deal. Big difference.

That is why there are no indisputable facts for you to use in your question. This is a pretty specific topic.


I can understand the concept that eyewitness testimony could be corrupted or misinterpreted due to a mindset but if a birth certificate was uncovered that showed O'Bama wasn't born in the U.S. how could the mindset of the researchers negate that document?


You are just arguing nonsense to argue nonsense and you know it.
These people planned on selling a book.
THEN they decided to have an "investigation."
They never investigated anything.
They never found anything.
They are still going to sell that book.

Cling to that and let me know where it gets ya.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
So let me get this straight. Anyone who does a free six month investigation


The claim that this investigation took some six months is just a claim. There was nothing really new that Arpaio's posse presented and a significant part of the book they contributed towards has been cut and paste from old World Net Daily articles:

www.scribd.com...
www.scribd.com...

Birthers don't care about whether folks are profiteering on them, provided they get told what they want.


This is serious.


Birthers are serious about getting Obama out of office, quiet right.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I used an example. I never said that my example, should it prove to be true, would negate the OP's postulation that the "investigation" is tainted. I simply asked the OP, whom has not responded, if facts are changed by preconceived notions.

Please site where I attempted to negate the original argument. Please site where I said that mindset cannot have an affect on an investigation if facts cannot be changed by an investigation. If I had said that then yes I would be using a straw man. Until then I am simply asking the OP a question and have yet to be answered by the OP.

You'll notice how I didn't insinuate anything about your character or mental capacity in that response. I gave a simple logical reply without hostility or innuendo. I'm curious if you are capable of that too?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


The following is the OPs post which led to my desire to discuss the effects of mindset upon discoveries made by an investigation.


Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by yahtzeestone
reply to post by bknapple32
 


We'll see how many ebooks are sold. I'm not sure they'll make much money off of this, at least not enough to compensate a 6 month investigation. Maybe..., I don't know.



.... (first paragraph omitted)

But when the people leading the charge on it are just blatantly going to make money off it, it no longer becomes a movement or a cause, it becomes a fraud and the theft of misinformed americans wallets.


This post is why I have asked if mindset can somehow invalidate or change a tangible piece of evidence, such as a document, which proves or disproves the research at hand. I feel my point is valid and has not been satisfactorily addressed.


Originally posted by bknapple32
Please, I invite any and all people who are buying into this investigation to come here and explain how making moeny off this doesnt take away anything from the legitimacy.


This post is why I am adamant in my pursuit of a conversation regarding tangible evidence vs. intangible word of mouth or eyewitness. The OP is correct in that word of mouth or eyewitness testimony can be misconstrued but I find the silence regarding tangible evidence and its inability to be influenced somewhat frustrating given the above invitation.


Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by buster2010
 

When one is desperate, one can look at that investigation, stretch the facts, then call it probable cause, then that desperation makes it a confirmed fact in ones head


This makes no sense in relation to my question. My question was dodged with this answer so yes I am repeating it and asking again.

If, despite the above referenced materials, the mods feel I am off topic then please trust in them to remove my posts. If you have "alerted" them and nothing has been done you may want to think about that for a little bit.
edit on 22-3-2012 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


In otherwords, Dill, you introduced a Strawman arguement into the discussion. Which part of "superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition" do you not understand?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 




This post is why I have asked if mindset can somehow invalidate or change a tangible piece of evidence, such as a document, which proves or disproves the research at hand. I feel my point is valid and has not been satisfactorily addressed.


I'm going to try this one more time.

The issue is not about an investigation in any way shape or form; no investigation took place. It is not about a group of journalists that followed a group of Sheriff's Deputies around during a legitimate investigation and then wrote a book about it the team dynamics and the successes and failures encountered along the way and the startling new finds discovered. The 'book' is not a report resulting from an investigation; it is screed resulting from cutting and pasting blog posts and correlating long debunked lies.

This is about an embattled elected official under investigation by several agencies for fraud and dereliction of duty, pandering to a vocal, bitterly biased portion of his rapidly shrinking voter base, by promising to conduct an investigation into something which he has no authority to investigate and would have no authority to do anything about if he found anything, and which if he spent any public money on it it would end up as another nail in his coffin.

This issue is about that embattled elected official agreeing to tarnish the reputation of a law enforcement agency by calling a book endorsement deal an 'investigation'; labelling known and proven con-artists and liars 'forensic experts', and claiming cutting and pasting of blog entries into a 'report' instead of talking to responsible officials, witnesses, and certified experts constitutes good law enforcement investigative practice.

A theoretical discussion about whether somebody looking for damaging info might find something proving there is no damaging info has nothing to do with the discussion of a corrupt sheriff making corrupt deals and lying to the public about it for the sole reason of distracting people from his very real shortcomings. Nobody was looking for anything here; no investigation took place.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
I simply asked the OP, whom has not responded, if facts are changed by preconceived notions.


Why?

If you are not trying to negate the original argument and this question has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, why are you asking it?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by LErickson
 


The following is the OPs post which led to my desire to discuss the effects of mindset upon discoveries made by an investigation.




We have been over this. I know what triggered your question. It is still just a lame attempt to negate the point with an erroneous off topic question. Please pursue it whole heartedly.



This post is why I have asked if mindset can somehow invalidate or change a tangible piece of evidence, such as a document, which proves or disproves the research at hand.


That is not what the OP is suggesting though. You are asking the wrong question. You are questioning a premise set forth by the OP that was never actually put forth. There was no suggesting that a mindset could or would change facts so why ask it?


I feel my point is valid and has not been satisfactorily addressed.


It is good to feel things but sometimes in life you are going to go without. Especially when you are demanding someone answer something for you that has nothing to do with anything they are discussing.

You have to make up your mind. Are you trying to negate the point or just change the topic?




This post is why I am adamant in my pursuit of a conversation regarding tangible evidence vs. intangible word of mouth or eyewitness. The OP is correct in that word of mouth or eyewitness testimony can be misconstrued but I find the silence regarding tangible evidence and its inability to be influenced somewhat frustrating given the above invitation.


Well first you need tangible evidence. Have any? Or are you just trying to be abstract because mom says kids at school like it?




This makes no sense in relation to my question. My question was dodged with this answer so yes I am repeating it and asking again.


That is because your question has nothing to do with what he is saying. See how that feels?


If, despite the above referenced materials, the mods feel I am off topic then please trust in them to remove my posts. If you have "alerted" them and nothing has been done you may want to think about that for a little bit.
edit on 22-3-2012 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)


Maybe you need to re-read this thread and figure out what point you are trying to make. You had one until someone called you on how stupid it was but now, now it is just irrelevant rambling which seems worse somehow since you are smarter than that.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Respectfully RNAA... "you're opinion" in fact as there is no tangible legal proof of most of what you are saying.

Just as everyone accuses the 'birthers' of propgandizing, in fact those who defend Obama, "The Obamaites" I call them, use similiar unsupported and twisted disinformation tactics.

You make accusations which you can only support by your opinion as there has been no investigation by any offical authority regarding the supposed 'Cold Posse Investigation', so no outside investigation = no proof = your opinion.
Now your opinion counts the same as mine, so 0 playing 0.

I doubt you could have gotten the infamous Judge Wapner to have given you a 'prepondence of the evidence' verdict in civil court, based on 'all' the information I've seen on here.

I must say, IMO, its all simply more unsupported rhetoric and diatribe by Obamaites.

I might mention here, a political agenda is also very much at work here attempting to dethrone the sitting Sheriff Arpaio.
My opinion, the 'only chance' the Obamaites have of defeating Arpaio is subterfuge and disinformation.

I also might add as "fact", yes I said "fact", the same Federal agency which is being employed by the donkeys in a veiled political attack on Arpaio, is the same Federal agency which gave approval for the "illegal" debacle of Fast and Furious. What a great bunch of guys huh? Our AG has been shown to date to "LIE"... oh my, and some of them are going to be proven criminals.

Everyday, count them, everyday which goes by and every email which comes into evidence drives another nail into the coffin of this administration.

'Law enforcement agents' from various agencies in Arizona and the SW, who btw were sickened by this illegal operation in the beginning but were told to 'shut up and do your job' are coming forward with more nails.

To employ an old saying, Eric Holder has "one foot in a grave and the other on a banana peel", legally speaking... lol.. and 'he' is going down.

Now I think there is a possibility, albeit unlikely that President Obama will be charged directly as the 'slow playing' of the AGs office in turning over evidence is giving the administration time to wipe the Presidents fingerprints from this debacle.

Face it, as everyone tries to confuse the issues with 'birthers' and other nonsensical circuses, the wheels of justice are turning slowly but surely and creeping up on the President, and his minions, and the President's only chance to escape being caught red handed here is, can you say "Oliver North".

You're more than welcome to your opinions as I am mine, and you can blow all the smoke and use mirrors as you like, but lets wait and see what the full investigation by Congress into F n F reveals. BTW, I can hardly wait for Congress to find Holder in contempt, which is likely to happen very soon from current reports and for sure pre election.

F n F is not going away, and this failure of his administration will haunt the President forever. I would agree that it is unlikely (due to an Oliver North substitute) that you Obamaites will be faced with a President proven guilty, but you can be sure this will go down in history worse than Clinton's white house blowjob and his lying about it, and the greater majority of Americans who are sick of the lying and corruption which is Washington, will look on the President as culpible due to association.

BTW... we have the liberals to thank for this 'guilt due to association' as GOP Presidents are regularly bombared with it.

I'll close with one thought: who is likely to believe a high priority BATFE project like F n F was not in the morning briefings to the President?

Doesn't look too good for him right now.

So accuse, disinform, subterfuge as best you can, but President Obama is still in deep doo doo.




edit on 22-3-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Spelling

edit on 22-3-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Spelling



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 





Respectfully RNAA... "you're opinion" in fact as there is no tangible legal proof of most of what you are saying.


Yes there is: Arpaio and his management of the MCSO are under investigation by the FBI for fraud and dereliction of duty. The 'allegations' brought up in the book report are years old, fully debunked by actual experts, and tested in court with a 100% failure rate, currently 0 wins for 198 loses (counting original jurisdiction, appeals, and administrative hearings).



Just as everyone accuses the 'birthers' of propgandizing, in fact those who defend Obama, "The Obamaites" I call them, use similiar unsupported and twisted disinformation tactics.

You make accusations which you can only support by your opinion as there has been no investigation by any offical authority regarding the supposed 'Cold Posse Investigation', so no outside investigation = no proof = your opinion.
Now your opinion counts the same as mine, so 0 playing 0.


Only I never made that accusation. The Sherrif's problems predate this CCP crap, I am accusing him of using it to distract his followers. And yes that part is my opinion.



I doubt you could have gotten the infamous Judge Wapner to have given you a 'prepondence of the evidence' verdict in civil court, based on 'all' the information I've seen on here.


What are you talking about here?



I must say, IMO, its all simply more unsupported rhetoric and diatribe by Obamaites.

I might mention here, a political agenda is also very much at work here attempting to dethrone the sitting Sheriff Arpaio. My opinion, the 'only chance' the Obamaites have of defeating Arpaio is subterfuge and disinformation.


Incorrect. Arpaio, if he runs again, will be defeated. The people of Arizona don't suffer fools for long. More likely however, he will be offered a plea bargain by the FBI to resign. Seen in this light, the book endorsement deal is part of Arpaio's exit strategy - he's fishing for a gig at WND. And yes, that is my opinion.



I also might add as "fact", yes I said "fact", the same Federal agency which is being employed by the donkeys in a veiled political attack on Arpaio, is the same Federal agency which gave approval for the "illegal" debacle of Fast and Furious. What a great bunch of guys huh? Our AG has been shown to date to "LIE"... oh my, and some of them are going to be proven criminals...


You won't get any kind of a argument from be that F&F was a great idea, is was monumentally stupid right from the start. What I will point out is that while F&F happened on Obama's watch, it's prototype, Operation Wide Receiver, was all on Bush. The mindset that allowed F&F to happen was put in place by Bush. And no, that is not 'just my opinion'.

I repeat, F&F was bad; and so was Wide Reciever. Obama has to take the blame for F&F, but neither he nor Holder dreamed it up. John Kennedy takes the blame for the Bay of Pigs, but it was the Eisenhower White House that dreamed it up. And no, that is not 'just my opinion'.

But talking about Fast and Furious has nothing to do with Arpaio either. And no, that is not 'just my opinion'.


edit on 23/3/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
reply to post by rnaa
 


Respectfully RNAA... "you're opinion" in fact as there is no tangible legal proof of most of what you are saying.

Just as everyone accuses the 'birthers' of propgandizing, in fact those who defend Obama, "The Obamaites" I call them, use similiar unsupported and twisted disinformation tactics.


Where is that happening?
I do not believe you.
Care to offer some examples?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Again, in each response, Ive stated that what you call tangible evidence, I call the opposite. In another case and hypothetical, then we can have that argument. In this case, I cant. There is NO irrefutable evidence presented... All conjecture, thus easily can be swayed one way or another depending on motive...

In hypothetical land, then yes, you are right. 100% proof cant really be changed despite motive.. Although one could try...

But in this case, sorry, yes, It is very apparent the motives determined the results here. They conducted an "investigation" in which they already knew the results they wanted. And thus, created those results to help sell a booke.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Again, in each response, Ive stated that what you call tangible evidence, I call the opposite. In another case and hypothetical, then we can have that argument. In this case, I cant. There is NO irrefutable evidence presented... All conjecture, thus easily can be swayed one way or another depending on motive...

In hypothetical land, then yes, you are right. 100% proof cant really be changed despite motive.. Although one could try...

But in this case, sorry, yes, It is very apparent the motives determined the results here. They conducted an "investigation" in which they already knew the results they wanted. And thus, created those results to help sell a booke.


You are absolutely correct that there has been no irrefutable evidence discovered by the investigation. I was speaking of a hypothetical discovery of a tangible fact and the resulting validity of that fact coming into question due to the mindset of the researchers involved. It was your lack of a clear yes or no answer to my hypothetical scenario which frustrated me; now that you have addressed the issue I feel more positive about your view of the investigation. My concern stemmed from if you did believe that even a tangible fact was negated by the researchers bias then you were just as biased agains this investigation as the investigators are against O'Bama.

I appreciate your response.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


LErickson,

Please take a moment to review my post history on ATS. You will find that I do not "introduce straw men", I do not "insult and demean other people" just debate and criticize their erroneously held viewpoints, and you will find that I tend to keep my responses limited to a courteous debate on the topic at hand.

I've noticed in your post history that you tend to manifest that stereotypical internet attitude of superiority. Using expressions like "sometimes we have to do without" and "because mom says the kids at school will like it" do nothing to bolster the logical and supportable aspects of your position. When you feel the need to either directly, or through rather thin veils, insult someone you are debating with it shows that you are aware of a weakness in your position that warrants distraction from.

There are several of your posts which show me you are capable of rising above the typical ATS style of using emoticons, labeling those that disagree with you as shills, and using misinformation like we so typically see around here.

In the future should you find yourself tempted to insult or demean someone during a debate you may wish to reconsider doing that. Your not making yourself superior, cool, or in any way a master orator. What you are doing is betraying your intelligence, your cause, and your fellow ATS members.

Dilligaf



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join