The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie

Originally posted by Electro38

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

It doesn't take an A in high school science to figure that one out.
Just common sense. THEY are all in the same back stabbing COUNTRY CLUB.

I agree, it doesn't at all. But there should be rules established now on ATS that restricts the use of the word "Proof" and "real" in thread titles.

If anyone here has ever studied science, forensics, etc. you will know why I get so annoyed by the use of those words in these thread titles. Not only is there no real proof but the people defending such garbage lack the abilities to establish their claims of "proof" and authenticity!

To the people defending this digital image, go learn the term "scientific process", or easier yet go look up the words "real" and "proof" and then learn to apply the meaning of those words to the # you post!

(Stop trying to make all of your thread titles look like sensationalized tabloid garbage headlines. This trend is suggesting we, the people who are reading your thread titles on the front page are idiots who are only attracted to ridiculous/sensationalized claims, exclamation marks, and the use of the annoying OMG!!! OMG!!! childish thing. Some of us aren't 13 years old or complete idiots.)

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Electro38]

OMG, Try applying CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!! to your approach and you can then relax maybe. I think there are science forums you could participate in on ATS somewhere. A mod once told me there are people of all ages contributing on these boards. I am sure teens can handle the fact that things seem out of wack with these documents even if you can't.
If I post s@#t I spell it s$#t so I won't offend the youngsters.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


I was completely agreeing with what you said, but was just using the rest of my reply to you to address the other people (proponents) of this digital image. I was half joking.

I like your use of the word "country club", however I thought "trailer park" would have been more fitting. (Just joking)

I understand some new "crucial" evidence has been revealed. That's exciting but can we not call the digital image a "document", since that hasn't been confirmed. It should henceforth be called, "the digital image", since there is no question that is indeed a digital image.

Well, on to the "crucial evidence"!

Right-wing News is your source???..MM..

..and then you accuse NBC to be Left-wing news...and completely accuse them of being not relative ..

You right wing people are hypocrites..

The reason the Hawaii certification is different is because it is required by state law that the "eligibility clause" be included.

(c) All candidates for President and Vice President of the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under either of the following procedures:
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

(emphasis added)

Source

Now, the question is, what other states have this clause, and if any do, were they sent the alleged "revised" version, or the "long" version with the clause in it. I intend to send out an e-mail to the GA state elections department Monday to request the documents they received. Should be interesting.

Edit to add: I just checked, Georgia has no such clause in the code pertaining to certification of political party candidates.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Highground]

reply to post by Highground


Hold up. I hadn't thought of that. I hope this is a good clue. If the party goes to the trouble of sending the clause regarding adherence to the constitution - but only if so required - what does that say about the state government's stance?

I would love to see which do and which don't. It might prove a useful line of inquiry.

Why would a particular state's party regulations NOT include the restriction? What portion of the party's membership does it represent? Is the republican party also similarly divided in terms of states which require the certification?

I smell a rat.

Where are these people who decide to exclude these requirements at their level, and why do they do it?

Those documents indicate the DNC Chair was Pelosi.
What a a load of e-spoofed crap that is...lol

DNC National Chairpersons
Howard Dean (2005–2009) Vermont
Tim Kaine (2009–Present) Virginia






[edit on 13-9-2009 by Regenmacher]

reply to post by Regenmacher


Chair, National Convention. Not the Democratic Party.

reply to post by Regenmacher

I see your Wikipedia, and raise you the Democratic Party website:

Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, announced today his intention to nominate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California to serve as Permanent Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Source

Originally posted by Highground
I see your Wikipedia, and raise you the Democratic Party website:

Okay, my bad, I see she was chair for 3 days.

Still wondering who or where is the source of the original document.

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by Highground
I see your Wikipedia, and raise you the Democratic Party website:

Okay, my bad, I see she was chair for 3 days.

Still wondering who or where is the source of the original document.

I dunno, I'm still not sure of the veracity myself. I contacted my state elections board,
like I said I would, and this was their response:

Thank you for your inquiry. You will need to contact the National Offices of the Democratic and Republican Parties to obtain copies.

Weird.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Highground]

Copies are being posted here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I just posted the ones for North Carolina for 2000, 2004 and 2008 for both parties here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Electro38
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

I was completely agreeing with what you said, but was just using the rest of my reply to you to address the other people (proponents) of this digital image. I was half joking.

I like your use of the word "country club", however I thought "trailer park" would have been more fitting. (Just joking)

Well, thanks for lightening up.
The motive then in our opinion could be should be, conspiracy to defraud.
Ah so, but not the opposing party.
The people.
This is not about race. It is about whom can use who.
It is a international thing.

canadafreepress.com...

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy – III
DNC Failed to Certify Obama as Eligible in MOST States!