Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: K3N
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: K3N
Jerome Corsi a tough critic of Obama got arrested in Kenya not too long ago for trying to obtain forbidden information
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...ica/article4897758.ece
This is getting better and better. Now you're pulling out Corsi, the total loon? The 9/11 conspiracy guy who thinks our government demolished the World Trade Center, and that we're about to form a "North American Union" and replace the dollar with the Amero in the next few years?
Yeah, that guy's definitely someone you want to use to bolster your argument. Do you even stop for a minute to learn about the things you are mentioning or do you just google what you want to hear and cut and paste the first link that comes up?
You still fail to recognize the point. The point is why would the Kenyan authorities unlawfully detain this man?
Why do you benevolently keep defending obama, he is a sellout to the wall street banksters, who got our economy in this current mess. He supports the phony drug war, and bush's wiretapping.
Ralph Nader bravely exposes Obama on FoxNews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo
if you can enable private message, i'd like to send you a very important documentary
No, that's not the point. What you are trying to do right now is commit a vague smear by insinuation. The line of logic you are relying upon is for people to think:
1.) There is incriminating evidence about Obama to be uncovered in Kenya. (zero proof of this)
2.) Kenyan officials are aware of this and are attempting to hide it. (zero proof of this)
3.) Kenyan officials are aware of Corsi's anti-Obama stance and were afraid he would find it. (I'm not sure if they knew who he was, but again zero evidence they were afraid he would uncover something)
4.) They arrested Corsi on trumped up charges to do so. (zero evidence of this)
And yet this... this is your argument. Do you see how pathetically weak it is? You've started with a conclusion and then attempted to work backwards into a plausible chain of events instead of the other way around.
There are plenty of good reasons not to like Obama, I don't like his support of the drug war or Bush's rape of the 4th amendment either. (although there was a 100% chance that whoever got elected to the presidency would be a drug war supporter so I don't exactly see why it matters.) Why don't you focus on actual things that he does/supports that you don't like instead of linking to insane people's ranting about debunked issues? Why don't you re-examine whatever world view you have that makes you think factcheck.org is a pro-Obama site?