Why I don't take Obama "expose's" seriously.

I'm not the biggest fan of Obama...but when I don't like him, it's because of real political issues, like an action that directly increases unemployment rates...mistakes he made that I think he should have known better on. But every so often a topic is posted on this website, in the Serious Discussion forum that makes me go, "...Are you kidding me?" Ever since Obama became a serious candidate, prior to ever even being elected, there have been so many people who say they've 'exposed' Obama on a great number of things. And none of it usually amounts to anything. I found a video that painted how I feel about this nonsense on youtube.



The speech that Breitbart made at CPAC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfE1s6_X-A

Some of the people with no brains claiming O'blackman killed Breitbart
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x1-qpqyqAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUQPtt_svf8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YXiWY7vTzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBAoBsldgns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTRkdHCWQsw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJhZ5OskheU

Michael Savage's article on World Net Daily
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/michael-savage-was-breitbart-assassinated/

Breitbart's final video "EXPOSING" Obama for having a cuddle with some guy nobody has ever heard of
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-debuts-breitbart-obama-college-video-media...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnY3sVimtKo

Here are just some of the many batshit covered theories that have "exposed" Obama

Obama was born in Kenya
http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/107524/

His fake birth certificate
http://www.wnd.com/forums/forum-235/

The Birther claims
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/01/obamas-birth-cert...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-cert...
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_discl...

There are roughly 32 different "theories" about his birth certificate

Obama is the illegitamate son of Malcolm X by Pamela Geller
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html

This claim as so retarded even WND denied it was possible
http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/377413/

Obama is a "Secret Muslim" by Robert Spencer, raymond Ibrahim & DrinkingWithBob
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/02/raymond-ibrahim-obama---son-of-islam.html
http://www.wnd.com/2010/08/192801/

The Vlog Brothers explain why he's not
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jQ67cdzDyI

Obama has 39 social security numbers by Orly Taitz
http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/261033/

No he doesn't
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/

He changed his name from Barry Soetoro by Orly taitz
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/proof-obama-went-by-barry-soetoro-at.html

Wrong again Orly!
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/obama-at-occidental-college/

Obama was the BFF of terrorist Bill Ayers by Pamela Geller
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/11/busted-obama-lied-abo...

Obama went to church where Rev Jeremiah Wright inspired him to destroy 'Murica
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/06/obamas-pastor-wright-...

Pastor claimed Obama "threw him under the bus"
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/05/rev-wright-sa...

Geller claims Obama went to Pakistan for Drugs & Jihad & links nude pictures of Obama's Mum +
calls his dad a child rapist & communist...Oh and Obama was banging a crack whore in his youth
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/08/cnn-tells-sells-more-...

She then wrote this article denying she had said the things she actually said in the above article
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/rebuttals_to_false_charges.html

If you need me to debunk any of those claims then I advise you to drink everything under your sink and spare humanity the horror of your genes being passed on

Obama declares WW3 (and nobody noticed) by Alex Jones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOhzRZOOMiU

Is Obama the next Hitler by Alex Jones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d23QZ-cM2Q

So...in essence I guess what I'm asking is...when someone comes along claiming to have exposed Obama on something...why the fuck should I listen?

I'll judge Obama only by what he is, and that is someone who let the federal government become increasingly larger, and as someone who kills innocent Americans. (One who was a 16 year old eating dinner with his cousin...) Plus his foreign policy is just as bad as Bush's. He honestly doesn't look like he has the interests of the American people in his mind though, and that's what worries me the most!

We don't need to deny he's American at this point, because he's just a terrible man, and no case is needed to condemn him beyond that!

It's like you didn't bother to read the title of my topic.

IF you want me to even consider your extremely conspiratorial position on Obama being..."a terrible man" You're going to need to provide sources. Oh he put a gun up to a 16 year old kid and pulled the trigger while he was eating dinner with his cousin did he? Mind elaborating with...EVIDENCE or anything or are we just saying things just cause we feel like it?

"axis of evil" Bush? The same Bush that claimed Iraq had WMDs and so invaded it?

Are you serious?



If you can claim that Obama doesn't have America's best interests, then you are yet another conspiracy nut job that believes Obama is the thrall of Jews/Muslims/Atheists/Communists.



Proof please, or you're pulling this out of your ass.




Biglundi, a number of those links don't work.

Let me say first that I'm not American. but what I've realized here in this post of yours is that a lot of Americans hate Obama.
What do Americans have against him? Is it because he's black? or are they just sycophantic looneys who have nothing better to do?
Muslim from Kenya? Really?
Cocaine user? Really?
Terrorist? REALLY?
I agree w/ the statement that you have ACUSED this man with EVERTHING. because you have.

I like how people from other countries still generally follow American politics because the US has a lot of influence over other nations, and I also like how foreigners sometimes know more about US politics than actual US citizens do.

BigLundi makes a good point. If you don't like Obama, at least make it be for a legitimate political reason, and not for some retarded conspiracy like that he's a terrorist or some shit, that will never be supported by actual evidence. Just read the sources. ^

I apologize when my last post wasn't a big plus for some Fakku members.

Yeah I get you now since I read your posts more carefully.

Yeah there has been several articles claiming he is this and that, and other articles that counter that articles assumptions and conspiracy theories.

Yeah these things are really complicated and I can understand why you don't take this serious because these claims have not been evidenced correctly.

However I don't personally look at this issue very much about claims since I only look at the bigger picture, however I do find some articles kinda fishy and the events happened that wasn't actually supposed to happen. ( I really do find some stuff fishy but after I find evidence of it.)

*I will delete my previous post since it doesn't really have to do anything with this thread.*

*Extra*
BigLundi, Alex Jones has been known to go over the top with his Radio shows so he claims Obama is this and that and that the government and such are "Vampires", so I don't really buy his claims without official evidence behind it.

Alex Jones is a psychotic believer in the idea that demons control the government, who are trying to turn you gay with chemicals in your drinking water.

I don't take him seriously no matter what he says. Even if he's right, a broken watch is right two times a day.

That doesn't stop him from all the time claiming that "We've found the secret documents! We have the government documents!" and never showing them.

I also find Alex Jones over the top claiming he has all these "Documents" and not show it, maybe he just wants the public to not trust the government, but then again.... who trusts the government nowadays?

"Why the fuck should I listen?"

You shouldn't. Almost all those sources are connected to monetary interests, political mudslinging, racism, projected disappointment in leadership, and a variety of other bullshit.

It's funny when Americans complain about more jobs and unemployment rates yet don't want to pay more for consumer products as a result of that. If America shipped all of it's industry jobs back from china then people would have to pay double for their ipads and iphones. We can't have that!

You know what's the best way to create jobs for Americans? Doing nothing because you can't. It's fucked because when America started to ship their production lines overseas because people wanted cheap consumer products it was already in the gutter. Also monopolizing by companies like Walmart and coca cola doesn't help either.

[color=#2e1a6b]Just got back from an AMAZING Basketball tournament (we got 5th place outta 24 teams)


[color=#2e1a6b]Because you'd be guilty of Hasty generalization if you didn't.


[color=#2e1a6b]This is funny; I just starting listening to Alex Jones a few weeks ago. I don't believe that everything he says is true, but it's nice to get news on the stuff that mainstream media deliberately ignores.

98% of the time, the documents he references are not "secret documents". They're publicly available documents that you could instantly find on Google. He doesn't devote his videos to proving that the document exist because he's doing a radio show, not a youtube debate.

We don't have to believe EVERYTHING what they say but we can sure as hell listen.

Besides, articles are there meant for reading and videos are there meant to be seen, so it's all good. People have to make up their own assumptions about the articles/videos they are reading/seeing.

Extended Patriot Act.

Signed NDAA

Signed ACTA

supported a proposal by the I.W.C to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling.

Attempting to regulate the internet.

Stated that his administration can kill U.S citizens without a trial.

Continuation of a policy of indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo bay.

Obama has been trampling our civil liberties. Any "liberal" who still supports Obama at this point in time is mentally ill or really isn't a liberal. Left/Right, Communist/Libertarian/Whatever we can all agree that we have rights and they should be protected from those who would deny them.

Haha double ONLY double the price? Have you any idea what a Chinese factory laborer makes compared to an American factory worker??? Chinese workers make a few dollars a day. IF THAT. lol Outsourcing of labor has become essential to the US. Our economy has evolved past producing, and has instead become a consumer economy. Obama said in his state of the union that he wants to bring factory jobs back into the US, but people educated on the matter are extremely doubtful on that. Americans don't want factory jobs, and the corporations know that. Plus, American workers would never be able to survive on the same pay as a laborer in China, the Philippines, or Mexico. With the current competition in the global economy, corporations will never start investing in American labor. The US will simply have to find another means of bolstering its economy. Perhaps by taking a look at the German means of production.

people are stupid, lazy, and selfish. until it reaches the majority on a personal level, nothing will be done to stop it.

you can scream about it all you want, but the tragedy of the first amendment is that free speach means nothing if no one is listening.

Let me be clear that none of your sources backed up the claim that I asked to be backed up before we go on an investigation as to your own accusations and sources, shall we FPOD?

Ok, here we go. Let's brace ourselves.



This may or may not come as a shock to you FPOD, but I don't have huge problems with the Patriot Act, as it's carried out. You're against it, clearly, because it invades personal privacy. I'm for it, clearly, because from what I know about it, courts still have to approve reasons for investigation before wire tapping can be done. And this is actually in your own source near the bottom, during an ACLU investigation:

"According to a senior Justice Department national security official testifying to Congress last March, the government has sought roving wiretap authority in about 20 cases a year between 2001 and 2010 and has sought warrants for business records less than 40 times a year, on average. The government has yet to use the lone wolf authority.

But the ACLU also points out that court approvals for business record access jumped from 21 in 2009 to 96 last year, and the organization contends the Patriot Act has blurred the line between investigations of actual terrorists and those not suspected of doing anything wrong."

So they still need court permission to wiretap, they just don't need to tell the people they're wire tapping...that they're wire tapping them. They have still, as far as anyone knows, never simply wire tapped someone without court approval "Just because". And if you're against the act because they MIGHT do something they haven't done in over a decade of being able to...then...I'm going to have to say that's a little unjustified. You can't disapprove of something because of what MIGHT happen. And when the statistics show that the application of the Act is done in a way that is conducive to law, and only violates privacy with reasonable cause(and there's no evidence to show they've done otherwise) the extension of the Patriot Act isn't yet, a bad thing. It's just possible that it might be a bad thing at some point. But until then...fuck off about it.



Again...form your source..."The AP has more from the signing statement: “My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”"

So...what's the problem? Because from here, after reading the statement, it seems that he didn't want to sign it, but that he knew Congress would veto his veto and play ping pong with it until he did. So what did HE do wrong, specifically? Because...you still haven't given an instance.



Oh good. Another scare act that people are apparently just supposed to knee jerk react to and say, "This is abhorrant!" without doing any research.

Again, your source.

"Sean Flynn, a professor of intellectual property law at American University, said ACTA is not as "draconian" as the pending U.S. legislation, calling the treaty "SOPA light." Some of its most troubling measures -- such as a requirement that Internet service providers suspend service to customers caught downloading copyrighted works, known as the "three strikes" rule -- have been stripped from the agreement, he said."

""ACTA contains new potential obligations for Internet intermediaries, requiring them to police the Internet and their users, which in turn pose significant concerns for citizens' privacy, freedom of expression, and fair use rights," Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote in a blog post last fall."

So essentially, the real bad stuff is taken away, but internet providers are supposed to be a little more alert to illegal downloading of copy written material, which causes people to be 'concerned' that something 'might' happen to their rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and fair use.

So let me ask you, yet again...why am I supposed to be pissed off at Obama for supporting an act that doesn't even necessarily give the ought that these rights will be infringed upon...just the possibility. A possibility I might add, that still exists right now regardless, it's just not, at the current moment, federally regulated.

So just like the Patriot Act, Why am I supposed to be angry with Obama for what "might" happen? That's just conspiracy theory nonsense.



Please tell me why whales can't be killed for profit? Just wondering. Personally I don't think we have some sort of responsibility to make sure animals continue to live.

But really that's besides the point, as this is about Obama. So...here's your source again:

"The Obama administration argues that the whaling moratorium should be suspended because it has loopholes that are being illegally exploited by Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic whalers. They believe that after 25 years of conflict within the International Whaling Commission, commercial whaling should be legalized in the hope that, by bringing the killing out into the open through agreed-upon quotas, a consensus eventually will emerge in support of a phase-out of whaling altogether."

So in essence, Obama's trying to make whaling go down, by showing everybody in the open that it happens, and that it's morally reprehensible.

The article is more an opinion piece than an actual news article, as ti makes arguments against the position, so...bias anyone? Regardless: "First, the proposed deal nowhere requires a phase-out of whaling. Not in 10 years. Not ever."

So what? Doesn't mean there can't be one in one year.

"Second, legalizing whaling in order to eliminate it makes as little sense as allowing criminal activity in order to eliminate crime." So I guess legalizing pot doesn't lower the crime rate...

"Third, the hope that reaching an agreement with the whalers will, in some undefined way, appeal to their better nature, eventually strengthen their interest in conservation and lead them at some future point to abandon whaling is, at best, wishful thinking."

Well...that's basically just them saying "Whalers are immoral douche bags that can never be reasoned with. So this will fail." Good job at being objective in an article...and does anyone else smell an appeal to incredulity?

"The actual number of whales allowed to be killed if the agreement is adopted is, at this point, anybody's guess." Therefore...we should presume that it's high?

This article isn't very good, especially at reporting.



No...that article has nothing to do with regulating the internet...yet again, let me quote it for you.

"Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages."

...So..he's not trying to regulate the internet...he just wants it to be easier to track messages if they need to.

...What's...wrong...with that?



Can you give a link real quick to anyone who was sent to Guantanamo by his orders? Or is it just that he hasn't shut the place down yet that you're saying is for some reason just as bad as regulating the place and enforcing it?



As I've demonstrated...by quoting your own sources, you haven't really shown him doing that. You've only shown him supporting things that you don't like on a fundamental level. That's just a political problem with him based on a preference of libertarian policies of less government power and more local power, not...Obama being evil.



Well, I'm someone who thinks if someone is out to kill a massive amount of people in a terrorist attack, their rights should be infringed upon, but only if we have sufficient reason to believe that this is in actuality the case. Which is exactly what the government has been doing and has always done.

Please tell me why you think they should be allowed to carry out that plan before being detained.

uh i really don't see how allowing whaling to go on is impeding on your human rights. And i'd also like to point out if you do some research into the whaling industry you will find it to be one of the more tame of the fishing industries and that whaling is one of the biggest over-exaggerations this millenium.

And it's shallow to blame Obama and entirely pin the mess on him for ACTA and the anti-online piracy acts. A large portion of that is music/movie and entertainers not being able to and refusing to adapt a new system of distribution to the new modern age of society.

@BigLundi - If you do some research you will actually find legalizing illegal stuff can be beneficial and actually pull results. In Portugal for example they've decriminalized all drugs (including heroin/lsd/weed/cocaine etc) and they have one of the lowest drug users per captia in the world. In the early 1930's onwards, countries started to ban alcohol like they do with weed today. The result was far more negative, the use didn't go down it just went underground and crime/jail time and illegal brokering exploded out of control of the government.

The ideal is basically it's going to be done anyways, by legalizing it at least the government can keep tabs and regulate it's actions.

I could care less on Obama. He hasn't done anything except... oh say kill Osama. That in it's own is something redeeming. Now I'm going back to playing Silent Hill HD collection.

Yeah, sure, let's forget the group of people who actually did the job. Yep, pay no respect to the ones who risked their lives.

Besides, it's not like it just made the world perfect since that happened. One "resolution" (if one can call it that) does not solve a group of issues.