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.
Originally posted by Sinnthia
So far you have made assertions and failed to back them up.
lie
Now you are calling me stupid for questioning your claims?
irrelevant
So how stupid does that make people questioning Obama's claims?
what claims? i question and all questions are worthy an answer.
Or, are your claims worth more than anyone else's claims?
~ classic inferiority complex
I am not sure how your failure to back up anything or make a factual statement gives you the right to insult me on a personal basis but if that makes you feel good, then by all means. Insult some stranger on a forum. Whatever your friends think makes you look cool I guess.
no, i am not Obama
You do not believe the claim of the president's birth because you have not seen sufficient evidence.
You expect people to just believe any claim you make with no evidence.
jibberish
The idea that others need to show evidence above and beyond proof in order to back up a claim while your claims should be taken at face value is indeed a dichotomy of beliefs.
actually, Pelosi and company made the 'claim' minus adequate substantiation ... they need to provide the facts.
factless??? prove it.
Um...no. You made the claims, you need to provide the facts. That is how reality works.
New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court Attorney calls for recusal of Obama judicial appointees Read more: New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court www.wnd.com...
Originally posted by Sinnthia
I have a unicorn in my garage, next to my invisible dragon. Prove me wrong.
What would be wrong with agreeing? That would only mean that we came to a conclusion we both liked. That could entail me coming to your way of thinking you realize? You would not even want me to believe what you believe? Sounds like little interest in the truth and just political baiting to me.
Maybe I should stick with posters who are short on personal attacks and long on hoping we can find a solution. Good luck though.
If you ever find that evidence, it might help.
Originally posted by AquaImage13
So us "birthers" are "wacko" for wanting to know the truth about a man who is now our president?
Originally posted by blamethegreys
It never ceases to amaze me how pro-Obama folks are so willing to throw out the rule of law in support of this president.
Obamites put on blinders and want to believe birthers are just racist, Obama-hating right wingers.
I think alot of birthers might just be constitutionalists
Birthers have some very serious, legitimate constitutional concerns.
but on several points of complex citizenship law.
To which we have gone down numerous times. But please, list them for us again.
Originally posted by blamethegreys
I think alot of birthers might just be constitutionalists
Tim Adams, former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu, states that Barack Obama was “definitely” not born in Hawaii, and that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate even exists for the president in the Aloha State. “As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office,” said Adams, “we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. T… www.barackobamavideos.net...
Originally posted by Southern Guardian, in response to blamethegreys
BTG: It never ceases to amaze me how pro-Obama folks are so willing to throw out the rule of law in support of this president.
SG: Really? This amazes you? Do you respect our law and our constitution?
BTG: Obamites put on blinders and want to believe birthers are just racist, Obama-hating right wingers.
SG: Well most birthers are racist and/or partisan in nature. It's just a fact. The fact that there was this silence about long form birth certificates through so many presidents until this one came it? It's very evident.
BTG: I think alot of birthers might just be constitutionalists
SG: I disagree.
BTG: Birthers have some very serious, legitimate constitutional concerns.
SG: Well if they (you) have legitimate constitutional concerns it should not be so hard to back your arguments with actual constitutional references.
BTG: ...but on several points of complex citizenship law.
SG: To which we have gone down numerous times. But please, list them for us again.
Originally posted by blamethegreys
Point#1: I do respect our law and constitution, yes. And the unclear eligibility of a sitting president is probably something that said president should want to clear up.
Point#2: I think you are right about the political motives regarding the most vocal birthers. I still think that playing the racism card is the wrong move.
Point#4: Dear God there is no way in hell I am going to research and quote constitutional/Citizenship law this morning!
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by Southern Guardian
This is what I mean by 'phony arguments' - the American people do not need to 'prove' Obama is inelligible, especially since he has made that impossible, by hiddng and sealing every single document pertaining to his past, that might reveal what nationality or name he was using at the time.
It is up to Obama to prove to the Ameican people that he is in fact elligible!
especially when 60% doubt it!
And just because Nancy Pelosi signed a certificate of elligibilty - that she sent to Hawaii only,
NEW OPINION POLL SHOWS 60% DOUBT OBAMA BORN IN THE USA
Opinion Research Corporation PDF File Pollis based on interviews with 1,018 adult Americans, including 335 Democrats, 398 Independents, and 285 Republicans, connducted by telephone on July 16-21, 2010. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Results in this document labelled "All Americans" or "Total" are based on this sample of 1,018 adults. ... Bloggers: Permalink to this story is: www.marchreport.com...-08-05-P003
Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted 'There is no specific federal agency' to review candidates for federal office Posted: November 08, 2010 8:38 pm Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi © 2010 WorldNetDaily U.S. President Barack Obama (R) toasts alongside India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a state dinner at Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi November 8, 2010. REUTERS/Jason Reed (INDIA - Tags: POLITICS) A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day. It's because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a "natural born Citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document. The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so.
www.wnd.com...
Eye-popper: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up? Online images for certification of nomination raise questions Posted: September 11, 2009 8:01 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily A commentator at Canada Free Press says he has obtained copies of two documents apparently prepared by Democrats to certify Barack Obama as their nominee for president in 2008 that suggest House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew there was an unresolved issue with his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution. Writer JB Williams describes himself as a "no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy." And he say's he's gotten possession of copies of the documents in question. The first includes a verification that Obama and Joe Biden, then-candidate for vice president, "are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution." ........................The second form obtained by Williams appears identical, down to a typographical error in "through." But in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is gone.
Read more: Eye-popper: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up? www.wnd.com...