Right, I forgot about how reliable youtube was as a source. I think I'll use it on my next research paper.
Originally posted by OnTheFelt
reply to post by adeclerk
Regardless of the birth certificate conspiracy or say Comet Elenin or any other popular topic on ATS, I am so sick and tired of people bashing youtube as if it is an automatic spurious source. That is absolutely ridiculous and in my opinion intellectually dishonest.
The fact is that youtube is nothing more or less than a user to user file sharing medium where one can upload information either audio or visual.
The user content or validity of that information is relevant only to the user who uploads that content, not because it's on youtube.
STOP using strawman arguments in an attempt to discredit someone's thread just on the basis that they used a youtube video. IT'S STUPID!!!!
As another poster has already stated, we should be absolutely thankful that we are so fortunate to have such an ability to share information with anyone throughout the world.
BTW - As an artist and musician are my guitar riffs and digital art pieces fake because it's on youtube? Thanks for playing, idiot.
Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Granite
They gave up their licenses, because he was a senator and was running for president. She was working for the University of Chicago and University of Chicago Hospital. Neither were practicing law. Why would they continue to pay their dues to keep the licenses? Waste of money.
Originally posted by mthgs602
Oh and just to add,
If there is anyone that thinks the good ol US of A is a solid place to be, especially for the next five years.....slap yourself in the face.
Real birth certificate or not, all the branches, all the suits and ties, all the smiles....its all a load of BULL****
If you want to talk about sources then make a seperate thread. If you wanna troll, then seperate thread.
Originally posted by bg_socalif
I will just say this about SSN's. My two son's were born overseas. When i registered them with the US embassy they were both given SSN's. The first three numbers coincided with the number block assigned to California. At that time neither I nor my then wife had ever set foot in California before. We both had been residents of Washington state prior to going overseas.
Originally posted by mthgs602
Thank you ATSer's. Im watching you debunkers. Do it correctly
The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since. Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.
Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.