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.

 

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

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
The bills were very specifically stated and summarized in the OP's video but I will hand feed them to both of you.


Hey captain attitude. Is the information in the video important or not?
This is a simple yes or no.


Did you watch it? Yes or no?
edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Don't worry. I will just go ahead and find them myself. All I needed were the bills being referred to. Apparently those are special and just for people that can watch the video? Unless two people ask?

H.J.Res 59

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

Nothing about both parents.

Let me go look at the rest of them for you.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by vjr1113
this whole argument would make more sense if obama bashers talked about what a poor job he's doing.

instead they make arguments from ignorance and racism.



Do you not see how these are two totally different subjects? Have you checked out the bills discussed in the OP video? Thanks for calling me racist...
Do you even know what racism is? Are you saying there have been other cases like Obama's eligibility case that I have not chosen to discuss?


1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


Which part of the definition are you accusing me of?


i wasnt talking to you. get over yourself.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Did you watch it? Yes or no?
edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)


I have to answer your question before you can answer mine?
What are you, 12?
Seriously?
No I did not. I cannot. Seeing as how someone already said on the first page that they could not watch it and asked for the same info that I did I did not really think anyone needed to be asked twice if the information was important at all to begin with.

I guess your answer is "no." You do not think the information in the video is all that important.
edit on 2-7-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
No way he gets impeached no matter the offense, real or imagined. It'd start a race war the likes of which have never been seen. Not to mention damaging race relations further then electing him has already done. We're stuck with him no matter what, so just make the best of it and make plans for the future......not that'll be a nice one.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


You must have missed a step because there is no "bill text" button. There is just a list of over 500 occurrences of H.J.Res 59. Something tells me there is a reason you do not really care to help out.


There's a neat little "Help" button too...

Bill Text Help



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Don't worry. I will just go ahead and find them myself. All I needed were the bills being referred to. Apparently those are special and just for people that can watch the video? Unless two people ask?

H.J.Res 59

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

Nothing about both parents.

Let me go look at the rest of them for you.




OMG... you really ARE confused aren't you. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT...leading up to Obama's election (2004 - 2008) there were EIGHT different attempt by members of congress to CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT to NOT require two parents being American citizens because there WAS (AND STILL IS) a requirement that both parents be American citizens. Notice that bill DID NOT PASS. Therefore, Obama is ILLEGALLY our president.

Got it?

edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 



H.J.RES.67
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.


Nothing about both parents.


H.J.RES.104
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.


Nothing about both parents.


H.J.RES.2
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.


Still nothing about both parents in this bill.


H.J.RES.15
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.


These bills are all so different


Still nothing about both parents.



H. J. RES. 42
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.


And again, nothing about both parents.


S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act

Yeah, cuz that applies.
Still nothing about both parents.

That was one huge fail after another. I hope you get a lot of stars for that.

Need I ask one more time for the source on both parents? Seems that would have saved us both a lot of trouble since now it just looks like you do not know what you are talking about.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
i wasnt talking to you. get over yourself.


Who were you talking to? Your post did not have a reply to so I took it as a general statement. Please answer my questions.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Don't worry. I will just go ahead and find them myself. All I needed were the bills being referred to. Apparently those are special and just for people that can watch the video? Unless two people ask?

H.J.Res 59

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

Nothing about both parents.

Let me go look at the rest of them for you.




OMG... you really ARE confused aren't you. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT...leading up to Obama's election (2004 - 2008) there were EIGHT different attempt by members of congress to CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT to NOT require two parents being American citizens because there WAS (AND STILL IS) a requirement that both parents be American citizens. Notice that bill DID NOT PASS. Therefore, Obama is ILLEGALLY our president.

Got it?

edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

this time i am talking to you

im pretty sure there is currently no such requirement to be president. you just have to be born on american soil or in some military base in asia.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Read the post above yours. www.abovetopsecret.com...

You just made the case for the whole thread. Thank you.

Please note though that this is not my thread.
edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


You must have missed a step because there is no "bill text" button. There is just a list of over 500 occurrences of H.J.Res 59. Something tells me there is a reason you do not really care to help out.


There's a neat little "Help" button too...

Bill Text Help




Or I could do the much easier thing to begin with and just google the bill summaries as I did and get a link directly to .....



....the bill summary. Thanks for all your help though.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman


OMG... you really ARE confused aren't you. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT...leading up to Obama's election (2004 - 2008) there were EIGHT different attempt by members of congress to CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT to NOT require two parents being American citizens because there WAS (AND STILL IS) a requirement that both parents be American citizens. Notice that bill DID NOT PASS. Therefore, Obama is ILLEGALLY our president.

Got it?

edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)


Um...

actually you seem really confused. You say there was an attempt to change that and you gave me bill numbers. Not one of those bills has anything in it's text attempting to change it like you claimed they did.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Read the post above yours. www.abovetopsecret.com...

You just made the case for the whole thread. Thank you.

Please note though that this is not my thread.
edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)


Actually I just proved that you are either a liar or stupid.
You can pick which.

You said those bills were attempts to change the law so that both parents did not have to be citizens. None of those bills even address that

So what the hell are you talking about?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
actually you seem really confused. You say there was an attempt to change that and you gave me bill numbers. Not one of those bills has anything in it's text attempting to change it like you claimed they did.


When you change a bill with another bill you rewrite it the way you want it to be with the changes included in the proposed bill.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


Why cant someone just show me anything stating both parents must be US citizens. That would be a lot easier than you getting all confused when you get tripped up by your own BS.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Kitilani
actually you seem really confused. You say there was an attempt to change that and you gave me bill numbers. Not one of those bills has anything in it's text attempting to change it like you claimed they did.


When you change a bill with another bill you rewrite it the way you want it to be with the changes included in the proposed bill.


That is just super. Still none of those bills address what you claim they do.
You failed. Read the bills for yourself and prove me wrong with something from those bills or you are just doubling down on your own failure here.

I asked for proof that both parents need to be US citizens. You said those bills were attempts to change that law. None of those bills attempts to do that. So I am still asking where that law is.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
if a brit could bring america out of debt and create jobs, end poverty, reduce the size of gov't, and end our wars, I would gladly call him my president.

edit: just shows how americans are blinded by nationalism
edit on 2-7-2011 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
im pretty sure there is currently no such requirement to be president. you just have to be born on american soil or in some military base in asia.


Nah. There is just probably some really really super good awesome perfect reason he cannot seem to find anything stating anything like that. I am sure that is coming eventually.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Kitilani
actually you seem really confused. You say there was an attempt to change that and you gave me bill numbers. Not one of those bills has anything in it's text attempting to change it like you claimed they did.


When you change a bill with another bill you rewrite it the way you want it to be with the changes included in the proposed bill.


That is just super. Still none of those bills address what you claim they do.
You failed. Read the bills for yourself and prove me wrong with something from those bills or you are just doubling down on your own failure here.

I asked for proof that both parents need to be US citizens. You said those bills were attempts to change that law. None of those bills attempts to do that. So I am still asking where that law is.


To quote you:


Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 



H.J.RES.67
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.


Nothing about both parents.


H.J.RES.104
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.


Nothing about both parents.


H.J.RES.2
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.


Still nothing about both parents in this bill.


H.J.RES.15
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.


These bills are all so different


Still nothing about both parents.



H. J. RES. 42
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.


And again, nothing about both parents.


S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act

Still nothing about both parents.



NOTHING IN THE BILLS ABOUT REQUIRING TWO PARENTS TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS.

You yourself quoted the summaries. They are constitutional amendments (God, I hope you agree with that!). They are ATTEMPTING TO AMMEND the constitution. What are they ammending? The natural-born status.

They did not pass, they have NOT ammended the constitution. Therefore, the natural-born status remains as is. Why would they be trying to pass bills on the natural born definition if indeed they agreed with it as is? There were EIGHT of these in the FOUR years prior to OBAMA being elected. EIGHT!!!! Do you think they thought Obama met the constitutional requirement for eligibility? I don't.
edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)







 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join