Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Impeach Obama?! New vid lays out a pretty good case.

page: 20
23
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by survivalstation
 


Can you explain to me the reason my ministry of truth ordered me to comment in that thread about "Transformers?" You must have been digging through my records when I made it. I am interested in what your theory is on why I would be doing that for my government overlords. Michael Bay is in on this too isn't he?

Were you at a party last night by any chance talking to another ATS member?




posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Youmakemewonder
 


Sorry pal, don't flatter yourself, that only took a few minutes to look at your profile and do some quick calculations. Unlike some, I have real life. Oh, Happy Independence Day BTW.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by Youmakemewonder
 


Sorry pal, don't flatter yourself, that only took a few minutes to look at your profile and do some quick calculations. Unlike some, I have real life. Oh, Happy Independence Day BTW.


So this is how you weasel out of backing up your claim?
Enjoy.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by aptness
 



It’s hard to believe but you birthers give conspiracy theorists a bad reputation.


You call yourself a conspiracy theorist? You should be ashamed at yourself for degrading that title by refusing to challenge Obama's legality. Do you also accept the official story for 9/11? I guess you think Kennedy was shot by Oswald too?

Why not just come out and say we should believe what we are told? What? Too blatant for you?


Strange, I thought we were here to deny ignorance. What are you here for?
edit on 4-7-2011 by userid1 because: spelling



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


Well basically, I like to laugh a lot at the newbies...



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by userid1
 


Well basically, I like to laugh a lot at the newbies...


Pssssst.


Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by survivalstation
 


What exactly has Obama hidden and what was the price tag.
Break it down with numbers and sources or you are full of sh!t.


Originally posted by Youmakemewonder
You prove to me that Obama spent millions hiding anything and I will concede. Articles without proof will not count.


Any day now. Or is asking you to back up the crap you say a newbie move?



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Youmakemewonder
 


My claim? What claim was that?

Pardon me but obviously you've mistaken me for someone who owes you something, unfortunately, I owe you nothing. I've seen your type come and go around here, many, many times. Enjoy your stay while it lasts.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by survivalstation
 


Hey, either put up or move along.


Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by survivalstation
 


What exactly has Obama hidden and what was the price tag.
Break it down with numbers and sources or you are full of sh!t.


When you need to be asked to back up what you say more than once it is obvious you are lying.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
You call yourself a conspiracy theorist?
No, I don’t.


You should be ashamed at yourself for degrading that title by refusing to challenge Obama's legality. Do you also accept the official story for 9/11? I guess you think Kennedy was shot by Oswald too?
Can you make your argument without resorting to a straw man?

Regardless of the topic, I listen and read what people have to say and evaluate the evidence they provide in support. But birthers have provided absolutely nothing credible to back up any of their allegations and accusations.

I got interested in the birthers because of the legal claims they were making. I looked at those and they all turned out to be unpersuasive, unsupported by precedent and history, or outright wrong. The other birther claims, concerning name changes, hospital names, zip codes, social security numbers, or what constitutes an “actual birth certificate,” also turned out to be misinformed, incorrect or lies.

How am I supposed to ignore common sense, official US documents, and take your claims seriously if their premise rests on allegations for which no one has provided a shred of evidence they even happened?

Where is the Kenyan birth certificate? Where’s the evidence that Obama’s mother was even in Kenya? Do you have anything? Plane tickets, flight manifests? Department of State records showing Obama’s mother leaving the country or returning from Kenya in 1961? Anything?


Why not just come out and say we should believe what we are told? What? Too blatant for you?
My general rule is this: no matter how ludicrous and crazy it sounds, if there is credible evidence to support it, then I have to take it seriously and strongly consider my previously held beliefs to the contrary are probably wrong. Birther conspiracy theories are indeed ludicrous and crazy, but lack any supporting evidence.

I am waiting for that evidence. All I’ve heard and read so far are rumors, conjecture and ignorance of birth certificates, the law and Supreme Court decisions.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by spoor
 


Bovine excrement! If you think all those briefs filed in court are free. you've got another thing coming. How many times has the Obama admin had to respond just to Orly Taitz? What? You think Obama's lawyers are working pro bono?


Actually, yes, if your case gets thrown out for lack of standing or for being frivolous, your oponent doesn't have to pay their lawyers. Or do you want to put Orlys fines on Obamas "hiding the info"-tab?
Who were the opposing lawyers in Orlys cases? Should be easy to find out.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
You think Obama's lawyers are working pro bono?


Yes they are actually...

dyn.politico.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by survivalstation
You think Obama's lawyers are working pro bono?


Yes they are actually...

dyn.politico.com...


Oh that's nice of him!
Nothing against tax the rich here, but what Orly is doing to her husband is a bit much already ...



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Scoriada
Fact #1 To be POTUS you have to be a "Natural Born" citizen (both parents having sworn allegiance to U.S.A.)


No, that is lie 1, why make up lies like that? that is NOT the definition of natural born, that is the birther version.

Fact #3 Obama is not a "Natural Born" citizen, he is a "native" born citizen


Lie 2, he is natural born. That is why he remains the President.

You left these out from your Wiki link....


James Madison

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789, James Madison said:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States

and

Edward Bates

In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ... .[12][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,

... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.[13][italics in original]

and

Black's Law Dictionary
Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government".

and

Congressional Research Service

A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service, states:

Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth".[14]

and

Academic and legal publications

In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."[15] During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying

...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[16]

and

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had "a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China" was a U.S. citizen.

The Court stated that:

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'[24]





edit on 2-7-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)


How DARE you post real information and truth..the birthers will be flabbergasted(assuming they can read).



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
You guys should know by now. One can never ever correct a birther on Obama having not spent gazzilions covering up his Kenyan academics. This lie is the backbone of their entire argument. The goalposts do get moved a lot, but the one single thing they all have in common is the false claim about Obama spending loads of cabbage to hide or seal his "records".

Seems to me that they need that one. I have yet to see one bit of evidence that either Obama or his admin. did such a thing.
- The "Obama spent millions to conceal records" lie is like a bad rash or something. Whenever you think it's gone, a few weeks pass and it rears its ugly head again.

What is it with this perpetual lie? Do you birthers even believe it, or do you willingly lie to everyone?



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


sometimes, because people are stupid, they will deny obvious reality to support their theory. small story. I'm an actor who was in(and clearly in) an academy-award winning film. I'm on screen speaking. my name is in the credits. I get residuals. I got an effing SAG award for this(best ensemble cast). but, some ex-friends of mine, out of sheer meanness, spread the story that I wasn't in this film, that I was making it up. there were some people who believed this. you can see me in the damn thing and I was called a liar for saying I was in the damn thing.
some people will believe ANYTHING. birthers are like those people.
edit on 4-7-2011 by dragonseeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonseeker
 


Here are the facts about you clowns in Hollywood that have an opinion because you've been in a movie.

Hollywood Political Activists

A vast majority of the celebrities have little if any education and if having earned a degree it is seldom other than arts studies for their craft. As a result it is doubtful whether any of them have much of a background in history and certainly less in critical thinking. These parts of a normal education are not required in their chosen field. The lack of education makes it easy for others to influence their opinions. As a result it is easy to dupe them into positions that they are not intellectually capable of understanding or defending.

In addition, one must realize that these individuals have accumulated extraordinary wealth by emoting other people’s words. There has been little if any independent thought in their careers. In fact, it is more likely that any effort on their part to inject an independent random thought into their endeavors has been shut off by directors, writers and other handlers. In order to perform effectively they have been trained to feel not to think. They have spent an entire lifetime being told where to go, how to dress, what to say and what to feel. As a result one can easily see why the positions they espouse are not the result of a critical thinking of their own but at best the result of a highly emotional response to an issue or likely the direct result of a “script” by a third party.

Of course, questioning of any position that is in the script they are provided will seldom occur. In the insulated society in which the celebrity lives, he/she is surrounded by the identical ilk of uneducated, emotional, pliable individuals with the identical lack of education and critical thinking skills. There will seldom be anyone to take an opposing position. Even if the celebrity activist takes a different view he lives in a world of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”, where an opposing viewpoint is met with scorn much as the little boy who rightly observed the king’s nakedness. In addition, if one takes another position outside of the accepted view he/she is often ostracized. Those who have opposed the status quo often result in reduced work and income. Any public questioning by the media follows the accepted script and any adverse position discussion is carefully avoided or the public could be informed as to the lack of knowledge of the celebrity activist.

Ultimately we should not be asking the opinion of the celebrity activists, but who gave him/her the script to read. The classic example of this mindless prattle activism was the testimony before congress by Sissy Spacek and Jessica Lange about the farm crisis, because they had starred in movies about a farm. Here were two actresses in essence testifying about the movies they were in, trying to affect farm policies as if the movies were real. This is stark reality about celebrities reading scripts instead of thinking, but one must not miss the point that in reality that is what all celebrity activists are doing although less obvious than this example. With Sissy and Jessica we can at least look up
the writer and director and read the rolling credits, with most celebrities we don’t know who is supplying the script.

The reason for concern is that the American public has also deteriorated in its ability to discern truth from agenda. Most Americans primary news sources are visual. As a result celebrities’ opinions may have more and more influence on the public. If these opinions are acknowledged as being directly from the US government, a particular political party, or activist group, I am sure at least some Americans would question the position. In short, I think we need at least rolling credits at the conclusion of every public appearance of Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Janeane Garafalo, Tom Hanks, George Clooney ad nauseum revealing who wrote the script and funded their presentation.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by billyjack
 

billyjack, the only clown here is you. I have an opinion because I'm well-informed and well-read. I have the ability to discern truth from lies; I know red herrings when I see them, mostly. I don't believe every BS story that comes down the pike because it fits what I want to believe. you guys hate Obama SO BAD, if someone posted that he was from alpha centauri, and was secretly commanding a fleet of spaceships to attack earth, you'd believe that too. you guys are beyond clown, you're pathologically stupid.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
If you are calling for President Obama to be impeached and tried for treason then I assume you also want President George W. Bush to be put on trial too for taking USA to war on a lie. That lie is that there were WMD's in Iraq, from everything that has come out since it is clear the administration knew it was a lie and used it to start a war that has killed 100's of thousands of people. When that is compared to a forged birth certificate it really makes Obama look like small cheese... Unless this is not about justice and just about partisan politics huh?



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BungleX
If you are calling for President Obama to be impeached and tried for treason then I assume you also want President George W. Bush to be put on trial too for taking USA to war on a lie. That lie is that there were WMD's in Iraq, from everything that has come out since it is clear the administration knew it was a lie and used it to start a war that has killed 100's of thousands of people. When that is compared to a forged birth certificate it really makes Obama look like small cheese... Unless this is not about justice and just about partisan politics huh?


Uh, I am pretty sure that is a STUPID STUPID assumption. I and many others hate both of them (Bush & Obama) and wish them nothing, but bad things. There are the special breed of stupids that will defend both of them to the grave though. I.e. Obama supporters: "AW, MAN HE IS TOTALLY CREATING JOBS MAN.. SERIOUSLY LIKE YEAH.. OUR ECONOMY IS WAY BETTER NOW THAN BEFORE." Truth be told it has just gotten consistently worse and unless we do things like become self sufficient, manufacture things in the US of A AND... put ultra high tariffs on imports we're screwed.

Our government (does not matter which side is in power) and companies expect endless profit and it is just not possible (look what it has done to our economy).





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join