It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN places Obamas eligibility in Primetime Spotlight! Cooper vs. Lt Col Larkin (who wins?)

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You seriously have absolutely nothing. It is getting old now. Here is anon and Libertygal explaining things with loads of evidences and sources, and you come along and add NOTHING to the conversation and try to draw away from any of the points with your distractions. It is really quite sickening now.


No, you have nothing. I have documents and facts. What you have is a new thread on the same tired BS every ten minutes. If you need to see me listing facts and proof, try one of the other 800 threads about this we have crossed paths in.

What they have posted is lots of ancilliary nonsense. They are scraping the periphery for their own ideals and cobbling together some shaky narrative.

I have shown you proof Barak Obama was born in Hawaii. I am getting a little tired of doing it.

I would not say I added nothing. I took allllllll that writing and summed it up real quick. If you do not like the fact that what I said is actually pretty damn accurate, refute it instead of mocking it.




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by triplescorpio
 


Thanks for adding something of substance.

You know, an argument with some basis in fact or something.

Since you have nothing, all you can do is attack the poster.


...Says the person who refuses to reply to my request for sources in yet another Obama is Kenyan thread.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Refute what?

Refute the fact that you come into this topic, completely ignore the OP, comment on one reply calling it a "trick" and then dismiss everything based on that.

What exactly am I refuting again because, as I said, you brought absolutely nothing to this topic. If you have no plans of posting evidence to disprove these things, then please, don't participate. There are others that I am sure aren't so quick to "give up on the fight" as you seem to be. However, do remember that your "evidence" that you always refer to holds the same merit as the birthers evidence and can be 'debunked' in the same fashion. Just because you posted something, somewhere, in some other topic, that YOU conclude is empirical evidence, that doesn't make it the end all, be all of all arguments on the subject.

If you want to beat the birthers in what you feel you have LEGITIMATE proof of, then you aren't doing so by stepping into every birther topic, hand picking one or two statements to base your argument on, and then complain that you've already provided the proof so you don't have to again.


Last I looked, there wasn't a topic about the Anderson Cooper interview until this one yet it is, to you anyway, "The same tired BS". It is funny how the "same tired BS" happens to have a new, different source each and every week supporting it, while the "new and refreshing" evidence against the birthers happens to be the same thing it has been for over a year now. So tell me, which side is the one with the "same tired BS" Gunderson?




I have shown you proof Barak Obama was born in Hawaii. I am getting a little tired of doing it.


Once again, you keep stating this with no evidence or merit whatsoever. I have not seen any proof. My offer still stands from the previous topic - if you have some kind of empirical proof that I am unaware of, then we would all like to see it. In fact, why not go make a topic about it now?





Ah the old "Fukino will not answer our questions so she is a liar!!!


The simple fact is that you did not "summarize" anything - you chose one point about the entire topic and chose to harp on that as your focal point. The post in question states a lot more than that and for you to claim your immature reply somehow summarized the content, is ridiculous even by your standards.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Libertygal

Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.


In effect from 1911 until 1972. Obama was born in 1961, when the law stated that they had to have documentary evidence to prove he was born there. Not just a raggedy bit of paper that he signed.



This Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, dated March 14, 1904, was issued after Dr. Sun signed a raggedy type-written statement affirming that he was born in Hawaii on Nov. 24, 1870.


1904. BEFORE the new law that demanded documentary evidence.


The only evidentiary evidence required at the time of Obama's birth was a sworn testiomy.


Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.

Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it.


Can you provide a link to a COLB that shows another state as the birthplace?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You deserve a FLAG!

Thank you for that breakdown.

Calm and collective. Definitely a star.

And, you made a dent in my armor-dare I say...no I can't.

Excellent job.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

You do not have to legally change your name to assume an alias. This does not discount the fact that the alias was legally a former name. When an alias is used on documents, it then becomes attached to you in a term AKA, Also Known As, and in a very real sense, a legally used name.


Most state courts have held that a legally assumed name (i.e., for a non-fraudulent purpose) is a legal name and usable as their true name, though assumed names are often not considered the person's technically true name.[2]
^ Stuart v. Board of Supervisors, 295 A.2d 223 (Md. Ct. App. 1972); In re Hauptly, 312 N.E.2d 857 (Ind. 1974); United States v. Cox, 593 F.2d 46 (6th Cir. 1979). See also 10 U.S.C. § 1551 (2006).


According to the divorce decree, he was listed as the 19 year old son of the couple. Had he not been legally adopted, there would have been no legal reason to name him as the son of the couple who was 19 at the filing of the divorce. He would have been her son alone, hence, no reason to include him in the decree at all.

Legally, even if his birth name never changed, he still went by an assumed name.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Refute what?

Refute the fact that you come into this topic, completely ignore the OP, comment on one reply calling it a "trick" and then dismiss everything based on that.


Not even sure what you are responding to here. Are you the OP's boyfriend?


What exactly am I refuting again because, as I said, you brought absolutely nothing to this topic.


I do not know. I do not know what you are even talking about.


If you have no plans of posting evidence to disprove these things, then please, don't participate.


You just foed me after posting plenty of evidence in another thread this morning. Why do you need me to repeat it here? What facts is the OP asking for? What facts has the OP presented that need to be refuted? NONE. The OP asked who we thought won and that is it. Libertygal is the one trying to present "facts" and she is off topic in doing so so go bother her a bit, ok.


There are others that I am sure aren't so quick to "give up on the fight" as you seem to be.


Again, let me remind you I just got a U2U this morning telling me you selected me as a foe from another thread where I posted plenty of facts. What is the problem with your head that you need me to repeat them in yet another thread for you?


However, do remember that your "evidence" that you always refer to holds the same merit as the birthers evidence and can be 'debunked' in the same fashion.


No it cannot because if that were true it would have happened by now. You sure as hell cannot do it and you will not even try.


Just because you posted something, somewhere, in some other topic, that YOU conclude is empirical evidence, that doesn't make it the end all, be all of all arguments on the subject.


What is that? I thought I never posted anything but off topic little remarks? Maybe go get your story straight, come back and try again?


If you want to beat the birthers in what you feel you have LEGITIMATE proof of, then you aren't doing so by stepping into every birther topic, hand picking one or two statements to base your argument on, and then complain that you've already provided the proof so you don't have to again.


I suggest you read the OP and tell me what the topic of this thread is again.



Last I looked, there wasn't a topic about the Anderson Cooper interview until this one yet it is, to you anyway, "The same tired BS". It is funny how the "same tired BS" happens to have a new, different source each and every week supporting it, while the "new and refreshing" evidence against the birthers happens to be the same thing it has been for over a year now. So tell me, which side is the one with the "same tired BS" Gunderson?


Sounds to me like you need to tell this to libertygal or admit you are not at all worried about thread integrity but just want to lambast me. Can you expalin why her off topic posting of "facts" does not bother you but my commenting on it does? Remember, you are talking about how important it is to be discussing this new Cooper thread and nothing else.

Maybe you just need to take a break because all you do is attack me. I at least attacked the premise put forth by another poster about the credibility of the Dept. of Health. What have you addressed? Oh, yeah...me!!!!

I am looking and I do not see me in the OP or title anywhere so get off it.





Once again, you keep stating this with no evidence or merit whatsoever. I have not seen any proof. My offer still stands from the previous topic - if you have some kind of empirical proof that I am unaware of, then we would all like to see it. In fact, why not go make a topic about it now?


How about this. DEBUNK MY PROOF. Can you do that? Just plugging your ears and covering your eyes does not do it.




The simple fact is that you did not "summarize" anything - you chose one point about the entire topic and chose to harp on that as your focal point. The post in question states a lot more than that and for you to claim your immature reply somehow summarized the content, is ridiculous even by your standards.


Tell me what your "mature" reply is all about? Looks like it is all about me.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
The only evidentiary evidence required at the time of Obama's birth was a sworn testiomy.


Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.

Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it.


Can you provide a link to a COLB that shows another state as the birthplace?


I know this seems to be a really tough question for you but

Source please?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 





Not even sure what you are responding to here.




I do not know. I do not know what you are even talking about.


Wow, we quickly forget our own words. Either that or you just blatantly ignore even yourself.

Posted by... YOU... above.


If you do not like the fact that what I said is actually pretty damn accurate, refute it instead of mocking it.





You just foed me after posting plenty of evidence in another thread this morning.


No, I foed you because of your ignorance.




Why do you need me to repeat it here?


You don't. But a link would be nice. By just referring to the past with no proof or evidence, you aren't going to serve any purpose whatsoever. Once again, please, provide this "proof" that you have provided so vastly in the past.




The OP asked who we thought won and that is it.


Yes, you are correct. By the way, did you answer that question?

Oh yeah... you didn't.

You can complain about Libertygal's post being off topic, but you have yet to be ON TOPIC this entire thread.




telling me you selected me as a foe from another thread where I posted plenty of facts.


I'd like to see the U2U that states which thread I used to base my "foe" opinion off of. You assume, and you assume wrong. I have yet to see this information you are claiming I foed you because of.

I'm not saying you didn't post these, but how hard is it to provide a link to these claims? ATS is a big place, I don't read every single topic and post on the forum.




No it cannot because if that were true it would have happened by now. You sure as hell cannot do it and you will not even try.


I haven't seen anything to debunk yet. As I asked before, what am I supposed to debunk?




What is that? I thought I never posted anything but off topic little remarks?


You put words in my mouth now, how grand. Care to source where I say you "never posted anything but off topic little remarks". Apparently there is some issue of guilt involved if you took that out of anything I've said.

Again, as I said, I didn't see this proof you speak of so please, link me and let's end this instead of playing this "I said this, I proved this, this is fact" game you keep playing.




I suggest you read the OP and tell me what the topic of this thread is again.


Care to show me a reply in which you comments on the topic of this thread?

Eh?





Can you expalin why her off topic posting of "facts" does not bother you but my commenting on it does?


Do you NOT see the question asked in the OP to which Libertygal responded to? Apparently that doesn't count though because you SAY it doesn't. Remember that time where your post in this topic had nothing to do with anything in the OP whatsoever... yeah... that was 1 page ago.




Maybe you just need to take a break because all you do is attack me.


I'm not attacking you personally, but I am attacking your ignorance. It isn't my fault that you are the most vehement anti-birther, showing up in every topic, and at the same time are immune to having an open mind. You placed yourself in this position - not me.

I am anti-ignorance and when someone parades it in a post I feel like being a part of, I am going to call them out on it. If there is a problem with it then let the mods deal with it. I'm sure they will make the correct decision.





How about this. DEBUNK MY PROOF. Can you do that? Just plugging your ears and covering your eyes does not do it.


Does not compute. Searching files... "Proof" not found.




Tell me what your "mature" reply is all about? Looks like it is all about me.


I've already replied to the topic at hand - something you can't quite say as you have completely ignored it. Not sure if you noticed that or not.










I know this seems to be a really tough question for you but Source please?



I know this wasn't a reply to me, but I am happy to be of service.

Laws of Hawaii Scan



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
Wow, we quickly forget our own words. Either that or you just blatantly ignore even yourself.


Pot calling kettle black. Weren't you going underground?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I seem to recall you were headed for the bunker. What happened?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
Wow, we quickly forget our own words. Either that or you just blatantly ignore even yourself.

Posted by... YOU... above.


You mean my reference to the facts in the other threads you cannot refute, oh yeah thanks for reminding me. The facts that I posted in the other thread. Happy now?



No, I foed you because of your ignorance.


I did not say WHY you foed me. I said you did it right after I filled a thread with facts so you know damn well I have them and have posted them. I could care less WHY.




You don't. But a link would be nice. By just referring to the past with no proof or evidence, you aren't going to serve any purpose whatsoever. Once again, please, provide this "proof" that you have provided so vastly in the past.


Because you are just playing dumb and trying to bait me to be even more off topic. How about you get back to the topic of this thread. If you are really curious, go back the the last Obama is a Kenyan thread you were in, it is all right there.




Yes, you are correct. By the way, did you answer that question?

Oh yeah... you didn't.


Nope, I responded to another poster's statement. I do not see MOD anywhere on your avatar.


You can complain about Libertygal's post being off topic, but you have yet to be ON TOPIC this entire thread.


NOPE! You are wrong everytime you write something. How does that feel? I was not complaining that she was off topic. I pointed out that she was off topic and off topic first but that did not bother you until I was off topic.

Let me say it again - I am complaining that you are a hypocrite because if you were upset about people going off topic you would have addressed us both but you did not so your concern is BS.



I'd like to see the U2U that states which thread I used to base my "foe" opinion off of. You assume, and you assume wrong. I have yet to see this information you are claiming I foed you because of.


OK, how about you tell me what thread or post made you foe me and why then. The only other place I have interacted with you was yesterday in another thread about this topic.


I'm not saying you didn't post these, but how hard is it to provide a link to these claims? ATS is a big place, I don't read every single topic and post on the forum.


Well then start a new thread because what you are asking me to do is go more off topic while trying to besmirch me for going off topic.




I haven't seen anything to debunk yet. As I asked before, what am I supposed to debunk?


You could simply start with the birth certificate and I know you have seen that.



You put words in my mouth now, how grand. Care to source where I say you "never posted anything but off topic little remarks". Apparently there is some issue of guilt involved if you took that out of anything I've said.


That was the whole point of your first paragraph to me and it was the bulk of the opening here. You have to make up your mind. Am I off topic or not?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
Again, as I said, I didn't see this proof you speak of so please, link me and let's end this instead of playing this "I said this, I proved this, this is fact" game you keep playing.


OK, I know going to your profile, looking at your posts and going back a whole FIVE posts to see what the last Obama is Kenyan thread we crossed paths in seems like a daunting task so I did it for you. Take the rest of your off topic argument here.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Well this makes two threads in which I have asked libertygirl for sources and have simply been ignored. I have to guess she has me on ignore AND has no sources. She likes including sources for all kinds of stuff but not the key details and I guess anyone that questions that should be ignored. Way to deny ignorance.

Anyway, I am glad this was finally put like this on television so rational normal people can see the kind of nonsense that is so much more prevalent than people want to think.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Not much of the world got to see anything since it was on CNN. Maybe you and about 5 other people. Other than posting it here, most will never see it.

That's why it is here. And we get to discuss it.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
Not much of the world got to see anything since it was on CNN. Maybe you and about 5 other people. Other than posting it here, most will never see it.


Kinda goes against your OP in which you boast of "Prime Time" coverage.

Now suddenly, no big thang. Odd.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by anon72
Not much of the world got to see anything since it was on CNN. Maybe you and about 5 other people. Other than posting it here, most will never see it.


Kinda goes against your OP in which you boast of "Prime Time" coverage.

Now suddenly, no big thang. Odd.


Funny I was kind of thinking the same thing. From what I see the title says "Prime Time SPOTLIGHT!"

I guess that spotlight needs a new bulb?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


As much as it hurts to do so, our friend K J Gunderson had persuaded me to take you off of ignore, if only for a few moments in which you prove your place. However, that seems to happen quickly as the moment I appear - you quickly try to find something to attack my character rather than my arguments.

Rather then defend myself, I will instead send you a U2U since you seem to be worried about my whereabouts and the meaning of my "going underground." However, I will not bring go off topic any longer and any further inquiries to other posts of mine or other subjects, I asked be directed to my inbox.

K. Thanks.




reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



I said you did it right after I filled a thread with facts so you know damn well I have them and have posted them.


*sigh* This is getting tedious. Need I say one more time - LINK PLEASE!




If you are really curious, go back the the last Obama is a Kenyan thread you were in, it is all right there.


I've been to that thread, and I don't see these "facts" and this "proof" you posted. Like I said, a link would be nice to exactly what you are referring to, because it is quite clear that "fact" in your eyes pertains to anything that might come out of your mouth.




Nope, I responded to another poster's statement. I do not see MOD anywhere on your avatar.


Then you know now why I feel you have no right to criticize me when I WAS on topic. Hilarious how when the table turns you are allowed to be a mod crusader in order to try to defend yourself, but when I turn it back on you all of a sudden, it isn't my duty.

Cute.





NOPE! You are wrong everytime you write something.


And you are ignorant in the same manner.





How does that feel? I was not complaining that she was off topic.


Oh NO! You weren't complaining. You were just begging to know why I would come after you for failing to be off topic and not here.

Answer: Because she wasn't off topic. As I explained above, her posts answers a question posed in the OP.

Care to have another swing, sir?





I am complaining that you are a hypocrite because if you were upset about people going off topic you would have addressed us both but you did not so your concern is BS.


Once again - YOU = Off topic. HER = Responding to OP.

Tell me again, K J, where you have commented on the Anderson Cooper interview that this thread is about?





OK, how about you tell me what thread or post made you foe me and why then.


No single thread made the decision. As I said, general ignorance makes that decision. One or two topics I usually stand for - but when I come on again today and see more of the same in this topic, I decided to hit the little foe button. That way, in the future if we don't meet for awhile - I know you to be someone ignorant who I have argued with in the past.





The only other place I have interacted with you was yesterday in another thread about this topic.


I'm afraid we've had interaction on other topics as well, outside of the birther subject. However, don't fret yourself with the specifics, just know that you were just as ignorant in those discussions as you are in these.





Well then start a new thread because what you are asking me to do is go more off topic while trying to besmirch me for going off topic.


OK then, HOW ABOUT YOU SEND ME A U2U then, with the link. And I will happily respond in THAT topic about your post.




Am I off topic or not?


In this topic, yes, and you remain to be. I'm not going to judge all of someones posts over a group in a single thread. You mistake my reasoning.










Well this makes two threads in which I have asked libertygirl for sources and have simply been ignored. I have to guess she has me on ignore AND has no sources. She likes including sources for all kinds of stuff but not the key details and I guess anyone that questions that should be ignored. Way to deny ignorance.


Did you NOT see my above post? I offered the source FOR HER because I happened to have it handy. Perhaps A. she hasn't been on and perhaps B. you just blatantly ignore what I posted. Here, allow me to do it AGAIN for you.

Source:
Hawaii Laws Scan - ACT 96


[edit on 8-5-2010 by gwydionblack]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by K J Gunderson


*sigh* This is getting tedious. Need I say one more time - LINK PLEASE!



Sure is because I provided your link and told you to take the rest of this conversation there. Scroll up a post or two. I know you can do it!



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Embedded for your viewing pleasure. In spirit of OP, "Who won?"

The Col. was provided an open international platform to state his case, Hs silence is deafening.



BTW for those sympathetic to the cause, if you'd like to put your money where your mouth is, you can donate here.

The good Col. was provided SEVERAL opportunities to speak but in most cases remained silent. Pity as I commend his prior service to our country.

(Mr. Cooper made numerous overtures towards his patriotism and the "interview" was respectful, notwithstanding the sleazeball lawyer.)

Enjoy and please vote, who won?


[edit on 8-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Personally, no one won. The entire segment was an attack.

The lawyer first brings up the case that the Certificate of Live Birth is a computer generated abstract and Cooper ignored it completely. He doesn't want to hear anything about it.

Prior to this and following - it is just a constant attack on the man for not speaking for himself. It is a lawyers responsibility to speak for a client in order to prevent them from wrongfully incriminating themselves of something. It's clear to me that Mr. Lakin isn't that great of a speaker and he is being taken advantage of because of that.

When brought to the subject of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN versus CITIZEN, apparently Mr. Cooper feels that they are the same thing and would rather hear nothing to the contrary.

When the issue of the statute is brought up, you know - the LAW, Mr. Cooper avoids the situation entirely and moves on. He completely ignored the issue of a "long form" original birth certificate as well.



The simple fact is, nobody won in this issue. In my honest opinion Cooper only made himself out to be more of a dirt bag and more like Bill O'Reilly than I could remember. There were no facts refuted and the only factual evidence provided came from the lawyer in the form of ACTUAL WRITTEN LAW.



new topics




 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join