Posted on 06/30/2008 7:16:35 AM PDT by pissant
produce it
So, follow your tagline's advice and investigate, and produce the evidence he wasn't there. It's called an alibi.
You don't need an alibi unless you have been charged with a crime
So when a wife finds her husband didn't stay at the office all evening, he wouldn't need an alibi?
You know, you feel it's fair to ask for evidence that he was there, but you don't feel it's fair for someone else to ask for evidence that he wasn't.
Sinclair is a proven repeated slimebag conman. That doesn't mean he's wrong about Obama, but it does mean that the burden of proof is on him.
Why would he continue to stick to his story when the press won't publish it, he is ridiculed by the majority of the public that recognizes his name, the courts abuse his rights to the point of denying him prescribed medication, and he is threatened to the point of creating suicide-dismissing videos in a country known for political murder? What the heck is he getting out of this?
As far as the burden of proof, we may be in his shoes some day. You know, with the press against us, what chance will we have?
It's not his past; it is his present. He is going to be arraigned for fraud in Delaware. He had three outstanding warrants when he held his press conference. Face it. He isn't believable at all
From Another Thread:
Date of Warrant: February 5, 2008
Type of crime: probation or parole violation
Warrant Number: U708000607
Originating case number: U708000607
NCIC Number: W283822252
What is so telling about this is the following:
1. I am not now nor have I ever been on probation or parole from the State of Delaware.
2. I have not ever been charged with, tried nor convicted of any crime in the state of Delaware
3. The information contained in this letter does not match the case number indicated on the court documents dated June 23, 2008 from the “alleged” warrant used to arrest me by DC Metro Police on June 18, 2008.
I am not on any probation or any parole from any State or Jurisdiction of any kind nor have I been since my Colorado Parole was discharged on May 5, 2000.
You were on the above thread. Didn't you read this? You don't have to take him at his word. It should be public record.
What I don't believe is what great length you go to defending Obama's innocence. You have got to be either:
1. An Obamabot (which I don't presently think you are)
2. Not so much opposed to Sinclair's criminal past as his homosexuality
That has already been refuted. He has an araignment coming up in Delaware. Look into it. The guy is a conman. You can’t use him as a source.
You say no one else is claiming Obama is gay. It's true that one person who may have come forward was suspiciously murdered, but there is another who says he has proof and will produce it at the proper time. Of course, you won't believe it either.
You need proof that Obama was there, but don't think it necessary to prove his whereabouts on those days when he clearly wasn't where he should have been.
You say the burden of proof is on Sinclair and have also commented that there is a current investigation into the South Side gay murders, but have not produced proof that there actually is an aggressive ongoing investigation. We're talking about a supposed investigation on Chicago's South Side, aka Obama/Wright Territory...Are you familiar with Chicago politics? Furthermore, has anyone in the entire Chicago area claimed one of the phone numbers Sinclair provided? No one? Don't you find that odd? Have any phone records been obtained? His? Donald Young's? Obama's ? Burden of proof. Right.
You believe evidence of arraignment from a minor news source that apparently contradicts court records? How many media sources in the country are tied-in to total Obama support?
You don't want me to use Sinclair as a source, yet your blog sources are no more credible.
I'm sure you're perplexed at my defense of Sinclair. I'm equally perplexed at your defense of Obama. Done.
I don't accept blog sources as true, but it does call into question other blog sources. I do not accept photoshopped anything as evidence. No one has been "suspiciously murdered". That is just a rumour.
The internet is full of conspiracy theories. Crazy people make acusations for fame and money. To date, Sinclair has offered no evidence to support his claims. He has failed two polygraphs. He has been, and is, in trouble with the law for fraud.
You wouldn't let Sinclair babysit your kids. You wouldn't loan Sinclair any serious money. You wpuldn't believe Sinclair if he said he say George Bush drunk.
We want to believe Sinclair because we can't stand Obama. Some promote Sinclair because they want their 15 minutes of fame. Some promote Sinclair anonymously on FR maybe because they are Sinclair or his slimebag "lawyer".
Conservatives believe in truth. We accept truth whether it is for us or against us. Truth is good.
I do not know if Sinclair is telling the truth. I only know that the odds are against it. If he has proof, let him produce it. No sane person would accept a convicted conman on his word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.