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.

 

Game Changer - Obama will have to produce birth certificate to run again in Arizona!

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
and the truth is, no matter what proof he provides, it won't be good enough, because birthers aren't interested in the truth.


What completely bizarre logic.

I want the info. released so that everyone can see the truth, Obama doesn't want it released.

If you really wanted to KNOW the truth, you would also want the info. released.

"No, no... those people who want to see the proof aren't interested in the truth... only those of us who DON'T want to see the proof are interested in the truth!"
edit on 27-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


But he already released the short form birth certificate.

What is the long form gonna do? Except be completely rejected the second it's released.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
What is the long form gonna do? Except be completely rejected the second it's released.


Many skeptics would be satisfied with that.

Why spend millions of dollars preventing it's release?

"OH NO I don't want any of those skeptics not to be skeptics anymore and what if some of them STILL don't believe me, THROW ALL THE MONEY WE'VE GOT AT THIS!"

Quite silly don't you think?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


But he didn't, there's no actual proof that Obama spent any money hiding his birth certificate, he doesn't have to, no one but him and immediate family is allowed to get it from Hawaii.

He wouldn't have to spend a dime.

That WND lie was a list of expenses given to the Elections Commission, the specific line item that birthers reference is a law firm, but it doesn't specify what was done by that law firm, and guess what? Attorney Client privilege prevents that law firm from talking about anything they worked on with candidate Obama.

You can probably guess what they worked on, seeing as how he was running a national campaign.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


But he didn't, there's no actual proof that Obama spent any money hiding his birth certificate, he doesn't have to, no one but him and immediate family is allowed to get it from Hawaii.

He wouldn't have to spend a dime.

That WND lie was a list of expenses given to the Elections Commission, the specific line item that birthers reference is a law firm, but it doesn't specify what was done by that law firm, and guess what? Attorney Client privilege prevents that law firm from talking about anything they worked on with candidate Obama.

You can probably guess what they worked on, seeing as how he was running a national campaign.


Maybe you're right I honestly don't know.

In any case... If you just want to take his word for it that's fine with me, but mocking people who would prefer to see the long form before making their minds up is silly and comes off as insecure.

I still think anyone who isn't skeptical at all needs their head examined.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


But the long form won't satisfy anyone. It's a pointless exercise, and a waste of people's time.

Even if he did come out on camera with the long form birth certificate it won't stop the birthers.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
It was easier for Obama to become President than it would have been had he landed a normal job like everyone else because we are all required to provide proof of citizenship.
ex: one from column A or two from colmn B.

What did Obama show?

Yes we can,... fool the American people.

The truth will all be revealed soon.
He will be outed by a fellow Dem named Hillary.
That is the agreement.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
But the long form won't satisfy anyone. It's a pointless exercise, and a waste of people's time.


Why do you keep saying that?

I would be satisfied and it takes practically no time at all.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by whatukno
But the long form won't satisfy anyone. It's a pointless exercise, and a waste of people's time.
Why do you keep saying that?

I would be satisfied and it takes practically no time at all.
Yes I'll be satisfied too. The reason they do it is a form of false logic called Straw Man.

By saying it won't satisfy anyone they are presuming to know what will satisfy anyone else and obviously they don't know that but it's a common argument regarding the birth certificate, since there aren't a whole lot of other good excuses to use except "he doesn't feel like it" or " he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to and you can't make him".

My guess is there's a small percentage of the population that will never be convinced of anything no matter how good the proof, but usually this is a fringe minority, so the argument may actually apply to 10% of the population, or insert your own guess for the 10%. But as of the CNN poll in 2010, the majority of people polled at least have some doubts (56%) so I think releasing it would drastically reduce that 56% to some smaller number, but it wouldn't make it go to zero, I'll concede that.

And at the very least, it would force them to change their billboards:






posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



My guess is there's a small percentage of the population that will never be convinced of anything no matter how good the proof, but usually this is a fringe minority, so the argument may actually apply to 10% of the population, or insert your own guess for the 10%. But as of the CNN poll in 2010, the majority of people polled at least have some doubts (56%) so I think releasing it would drastically reduce that 56% to some smaller number, but it wouldn't make it go to zero, I'll concede that.


Don't over inflate your numbers here, the real estimate of the number of birthers out there is around 400,000 people. That's according to the birther queen Orly Taitz.


And at the very least, it would force them to change their billboards:


What are they going to change them to?

This?



or this?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Don't over inflate your numbers here, the real estimate of the number of birthers out there is around 400,000 people. That's according to the birther queen Orly Taitz.


Am I a "birther?"

Can you define the term for me or is it just a meaningless, made up term used to mock people who are skeptical (IE. rational people).

His numbers were apparently from a CNN poll, so who inflated them?

Are you saying he got the poll results wrong or what?
edit on 27-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


these are examples of birthers:




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Don't over inflate your numbers here, the real estimate of the number of birthers out there is around 400,000 people. That's according to the birther queen Orly Taitz.
Funny signs!

But they are CNN poll numbers, not "my numbers".

CNN poll results (July 16-21,2010):

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

Definitely born in U.S. 42%
Probably born in the U.S. 29%
Probably born in another country 16%
Definitely born in another country 11%
No opinion 2%

If you have no doubts, that puts you in the 42% category, meaning you're in the minority. The other 56% of the population that has an opinion has at least some doubt. I'd say the 29%, (of which I'm one) that say "probably born in the US" are the people that don't call themselves birthers but have doubts.

The birthers would probably be the 16% plus the 11% for a total of 27% of the population.

The poll claims an accuracy rate of plus or minus 3%.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Fun thing about polls, polls are complete and total BS.



Interviews with 1,018 adult Americans,including 335 Democrats, 398
Independents, and 285 Republicans, nducted by telephone by Opinion
Research Corporation 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


See, you are taking the people that say he was probably born in the us and automatically making them birthers. Which I don't think is quite a fair assessment of those people.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
See, you are taking the people that say he was probably born in the us and automatically making them birthers. Which I don't think is quite a fair assessment of those people.
I think you have reading comprehension difficulties. I said the 27% I think would probably be called birthers and the 29% who have doubts like me probably wouldn't be called birthers.

But if you add those two categories up you get 56% of the population that has doubts.

Please re-read my post.

And sorry to burst your bubble of trying to paint people with doubts as a fringe minority, but denial is a natural human response when confronted with information you don't want to believe, so of course it's understandable why you'd want to think the poll is wrong even though you have no evidence for that claim.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


See, there you go again artificially inflating the birthers numbers. First you said you aren't putting them in with the birthers, then you put them in with the birthers, I am not the one with a reading comprehension problem here.


edit on 1/27/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by whatukno
and the truth is, no matter what proof he provides, it won't be good enough, because birthers aren't interested in the truth.


What completely bizarre logic.

I want the info. released so that everyone can see the truth, Obama doesn't want it released.

If you really wanted to KNOW the truth, you would also want the info. released.

"No, no... those people who want to see the proof aren't interested in the truth... only those of us who DON'T want to see the proof are interested in the truth!"
edit on 27-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)


Dude that was great, you totally nailed the ridicules lack of logic in that post. LMAO



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
It doesn't really matter how much the true believers get their panties in a bunch over this, the bottom line is that Obama will be forced to show his birth certificate and prove his citizenship. That was probably the real agenda behind the 'Dream Act' anyway - to grandfather in Obama.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
If you really wanted to KNOW the truth, you would also want the info. released.

"No, no... those people who want to see the proof aren't interested in the truth... only those of us who DON'T want to see the proof are interested in the truth!"
edit on 27-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)
Indeed it is pretty bizarre logic to NOT want to see the proof.

Why people are so adamant they DON'T want to see it completely escapes me.

This fact was mentioned in the OP article, that when legislators vote on the proposed legislation, the legislators that don't want to see proof of claims are going to be pressured about their logic about why they are so against seeing proof. It really doesn't seem logical.
edit on 27-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Why people are so adamant they DON'T want to see it completely escapes me.


Because I have already seen adequate proof.



The Constitution does not specify exactly what piece of paper is required as proof of natural born citizenship status. This piece of paper says that he was born in Hawaii, if it's good enough for the Constitution, it's good enough for me.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join