Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama - "continent of his birth" quote

page: 14
86
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

In all these threads Birthers use failed tactics



Nice turn of phrase there. Did you get that from the Obama/Clinton/Progressives taking points election cycle playbook?

We get your drift already. Your whole premise is to bypass the certification issue, and blindly strike out at what you perceive to be Obama's opponents, and attempt to villify them.

It's the standard Progressive play of Minimize, Misdirect, and Marginalize.

Talk about "failed tactics"! when will you ever just give up, and demand integrity from your government, rather than placing blind faith in them?

I'm guessing never. That's no better than the NeoCons, same thing, just on the other side of the fence.

You ought to realize by now that your opposition will never give up, until verification is made, or the point has been mooted.

Regardless of how much mud you can sling at 'em.




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

It has little to do with the president and much more to do with destroying the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This is the real agenda of these Birthers.

Ya see, if they can force the president to bring forth his personal papers without due process they can do it to everyone they deem as a threat.

They don't actually care whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii. (least the ones behind this idiotic fallacy) The true goal is to make sure that people can go around in an angry mob and demand papers from citizens and if they are rebuffed or refused they send them off to a camp somewhere.


That's quite the stretch. Where I come from, court proceedings ARE due process. Maybe it's different in your country.

Or the country you WANT it to be.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


It sure is, In my country, The United States of America, the court has no jurisdiction in these matters. The only people that can bring forth articles of impeachment are the House of Representatives.

Ya see, If it is true (makes me want to laugh at the thought) but if it is true, that Obama is not a legitimate president. He should be impeached.

Now Impeachment goes like this...


The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass by a simple majority articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.

In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.


Wanna know where all that is derived from? The points above are actually from Wiki.

But the Constitutionality of the entire mess is actually from the United States Constitution.


The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.


Source:www.law.cornell.edu...



[edit on 7/17/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I want solid and concrete proof that Obama was not born on US Soil and therefore not eligible for the office of POTUS.

Talk to Obama. He is the one with access to his original birth certificate.



Is it too much to ask that someone come up with some evidence that Obama isn't who he claims?

It's very difficult considering Obama has blocked access to all his documents which most other Presidents have offered. So again, talk to Obama.

Besides his birth certificate, there are other numerous documents which Obama refuses to reveal like other Presidents:

The undisclosed documents include:
Obama kindergarten records
Punahou school records
Occidental College records
Columbia University records
Columbia Thesis "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"
Harvard Law School Records
Harvard Law Review articles
University of Chicago scholarly articles
Passport
Medical Records
Files and schedules from career as IL state senator
Client list from Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard
Illinois State Bar Association records
Baptism records
Obama/Dunham marriage license
Obama/Dunham divorce documents
Dunham/Soetoro marriage documents
Adoption records

Oh well, so much for transparency and openness.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


As I have said before.

Anyone who believed that the Obama administration would be open and transparent, really needs their head examined.

EVERY record you indicated has nothing to do with the Office of POTUS with the notable exception of the Birth Certificate.

What do you need his transcripts for? They do nothing. Your entire list makes no difference whatsoever.

Anyway, as I have said in other threads.

Go to the House of Representatives with your accusations. They are the ONLY ones that can do SQUAT about Obama at this point.

Bring EVIDENCE. Not bull dunk. REAL evidence.

After all. You are the accuser. Not Obama, and in this country, you are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.

And your gonna whine cause Obama won't release whatever document you want? Oh boo hoo.

Cry me a freaking river why don't you?

Bring a case, subpoena the evidence. Conduct it as if it were a case in a courtroom. Except the people that you want to hear it are the members of the House of Representatives.

Then Guess what? if you somehow convince them, you get to have a trial in the Senate. Where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside.

If you can't do that please by all means sit down and be quiet till the next election.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
EVERY record you indicated has nothing to do with the Office of POTUS with the notable exception of the Birth Certificate.

Of course it does.

When these records in the past wanted to be viewed by reporters, they were always given access to these documents so the people could actually know who in the hell they were voting for. So people could actually know just a little about the person for who they would be voting for. This is not a difficult concept so I don't know why you have difficulty with it.


What do you need his transcripts for? They do nothing. Your entire list makes no difference whatsoever.

Are you serious?

Sure, tell the people nothing and prove nothing about the person running for President. I guess we are just supposed to sit back and believe every word coming out of his mouth right? Let's see how good the President did in school. Oh wait, we cannot because he will not release his records even though other Presidents have released their documents.

So please stop with your lame arguments as you are only embarrassing yourself with your faulty logic. You make no sense.



Bring EVIDENCE. Not bull dunk. REAL evidence.

Trying, but its difficult when the President blocks access to all his information.



And your gonna whine cause Obama won't release whatever document you want? Oh boo hoo.

Cry me a freaking river why don't you?

Now I see why you are confused and ignorant.


You associate whining and crying with attempting to know even just some basic facts about our President. You don't care that he has blocked access to everything and we must just believe the words coming out of his mouth. Pathetic! Sad, just sad.

Get your head out of the sand and stop being ignorant.


If you can't do that please by all means sit down and be quiet till the next election.

Now I see why you are on Obama's 'disclose nothing' side.

You and Obama's motto: Sit down, shut up and believe what I am saying. Trust me even though I offer no proof.
Gold, just comedy gold.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Whatever, you have no evidence, your simply being the typical conspiracy theorist.

No evidence, just speculation. No legal standing just assumption.

If someone balks at your claims you just attack them instead of supplying evidence to support your case.

That's the thing, you haven't supported your case at all, you just attacked me on no basis whatsoever. You haven't offered up any contradictory evidence to support your side of the argument.

Which makes it weak and means you will always fail.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Whatever, you have no evidence, your simply being the typical conspiracy theorist.

Huh? What?
I just gave you a list of documents which Obama refuses to release and somehow that is not evidence.



If someone balks at your claims you just attack them instead of supplying evidence to support your case.

The last resort of a losing argument.

I have not attacked you.

I might use sly comments which you seem to love by being condesending to everyone. I guess you can dish it out but cannot take it.



That's the thing, you haven't supported your case at all, you just attacked me on no basis whatsoever. You haven't offered up any contradictory evidence to support your side of the argument.

Yes I have but you just don't like it therefore you dismiss it.
BTW, your opinion and interpretation is not fact.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


You made a list. a list of things you don't know.

There is no constitutional requirement for everyone to know any of the things you have stated.

None.

sorry, but you don't have a case.

If for some odd chance you bring up some evidence, bring it to the House of Representatives. They are the only ones that can do anything at this point.

The SCOTUS already swore the President in.

They can't do anything to him now.

I could make a list of sexually abused children and say you were the perpetrator, does that count as evidence against you? No it doesn't. Bring up evidence and present it to the House of representatives. Your list? Doesn't count for squat.

[edit on 7/18/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
You made a list. a list of things you don't know.

That's the point.

It's a list of things we don't know about him because he refuses to release the documents.


There is no constitutional requirement for everyone to know any of the things you have stated.

So what? That is not the point not did I say it was a Constitutional requirement. So your point is moot.


The SCOTUS already swore the President in.
They can't do anything to him now.

You keep repeating this same point which nobody is contesting.


The courts cannot remove the president but they can hear a case regarding his eligibility. Why would they not be able to?
Once they make a ruling, Congress can go forward with impeachment. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 



That's the point.
It's a list of things we don't know about him because he refuses to release the documents.


So What? Big Deal, you don't know, that isn't a crime. Ya should have asked when he was a candidate.


So what? That is not the point not did I say it was a Constitutional requirement. So your point is moot.


That is my point. Unless you have a constitutional issue, not knowing things about the president is not a reason to have him removed. None of what you have presented constitutes any sort of crime whatsoever.


You keep repeating this same point which nobody is contesting.

The courts cannot remove the president but they can hear a case regarding his eligibility. Why would they not be able to?
Once they make a ruling, Congress can go forward with impeachment. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?


They have no legal standing! That is what I am getting at. SCOTUS cannot hear nor make any ruling on the eligibility of the POTUS at this point.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
So What? Big Deal, you don't know, that isn't a crime.

I did not say it was a crime. Do you have reading comprehension problems?


Ya should have asked when he was a candidate.

Oh, I did and Obama refusing to release these document is just one of many reasons why I did not vote for him.


That is my point. Unless you have a constitutional issue, not knowing things about the president is not a reason to have him removed.

Now I see why you are confused and perhpas you really do have comprehension issues.

I never said anywhere that him refusing to release that list of document is somehow unconstitutional or a reason to remove him. I just said it proves that he is hiding his true self and unlike other Presidents which have released this info.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Your point?

Is this about the transparency bull that Obama said? You did know that he was full of it when he said that right?

The people that bought into this right wing horse manure theory, have as of yet to bring forth to the House of Representatives any evidence to support their case.

What you bring to us has been debunked faster than a blurry UFO pic.

Not once has the people that believe in this junk brought up anything substantial. They don't bring forth any law to back up their claim. They don't bring up any facts to support their claim. It's just assumption. Its an assumption based on theory. It's speculation and that is not a case that can be tried.

The people behind this theory want Obama to "Just show it" as if he has any legal duty to do so. Please, if he does have some legal obligation to show every man woman and child in this country all that you claim he has to, please by all means show me the law that states he does.

If you can't provide any legal shred of proof in the matter, and are just telling me your right because you say so. Please talk to a wall, you will get further with that.



[edit on 7/18/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Your point?

If you don't get it yet, I guess you never will. ** SIGH **


If you can't provide any legal shred of proof in the matter, and are just telling me your right because you say so.

Proof for what? Are you paying attention?
Your flawed opinion has been debunked, so get over it.



Please talk to a wall, you will get further with that.

That is true because you are hard headed and refuse to accept reality.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Your flawed opinion has been debunked, so get over it.


Just curious.

How is an 'opinion' - debunked?

Hoaxes, conspiracy theories sure, but an opinion?

Oh and BTW, anyone recall Bushes ACTUAL National Guard service records being revealed.

Just to add the "Kindergarden" records on the prior list is hilarious.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
How is an 'opinion' - debunked?

Hoaxes, conspiracy theories sure, but an opinion?

The point was that what the poster called facts, I call his opinion.
His supposed 'facts' were debunked, hense his opinion. I realize it's difficult, but a little focus will go a long way.



Oh and BTW, anyone recall Bushes ACTUAL National Guard service records being revealed.

yes



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Funny how you are now preoccupied with "facts and accuracy" after one of your recent ramblings which was UNTRUE:

Palin to replace Steele as GOP Chairperson

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"He who throws mud, loses ground." - Fat Albert

We forgive, but we don't forget.


[edit on 18-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Funny how you are now preoccupied with "facts and accuracy" after one of your recent ramblings which was UNTRUE:

Oh boy, another useless attempt by you to derail.

As if that has anything to do with this thread.

Also, as I'm sure you realize but just convienently 'forgot', I did not claim that my OP in the thread you mentioned was fact.
I clearly stated it was hearsay and only possible. Given this, how does this interfere with facts when I claimed none? Answer: It does not. It's just your lame attempt to confuse.


If you don't have anything useful to say regarding the topic at hand, please keep your sly, snarky & useless comments to yourself. Oh wait, this is your normal behavior.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
As if that has anything to do with this thread.


It is to show a pattern, an obvious agenda. A modus operandi.

But you are right, I should just point out:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Easier to see the vast majority are Obama smear jobs or neocon slanted.



[edit on 18-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
It is to show a pattern, an obvious agenda. A modus operandi.

How is it a pattern when I have only made one post in regards to some sort of prediction which was not my prediction and I clearly stated in the OP that it was hearsay.

So please try and get your 'facts' straight.



But you are right

Of course I am right. There is never any doubt about that so thanks for noticing.



Easier to see the vast majority are Obama smear jobs or neocon slanted.

Now you are moving the goalposts and changing your argument.

Typical liberal strategy.


First you were talking 'facts' which is why you mentioned the Palin thread and now you changed your argument by pretending you were talking about the Obama threads I started.


Secondly, my Obama threads are not smear theads. They are accurate threads which show how Obama and his administration are a bunch of lying thugs whose policies are dangerous for America. Your opinion that they are smear threads is simply your flawed thoughts trying to make sense of reality.


Anyway, keep slinging mud and making baseless claims as I'm sure sooner or later something might stick.









 
86
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join