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: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:13 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.


Holy crap did you just owned. Dude, not one of those bills says anything about both parents. None of them attempt to change anything about it. They do not even address it.




posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senteri

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.


Holy crap did you just owned. Dude, not one of those bills says anything about both parents. None of them attempt to change anything about it. They do not even address it.


Please explain how your confusion leads to my being owned? You are as confused as Kitilani (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here). See my reply to Kitilani:



Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

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)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
NOTHING IN THE BILLS ABOUT REQUIRING TWO PARENTS TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS.


Right, I think I just said that a couple times now.


You yourself quoted the summaries. They are constitutional amendments (God, I hope you agree with that!).

No, they were failed bills. Do you understand the difference?
Fail again.

They are ATTEMPTING TO AMMEND the constitution. What are they ammending? The natural-born status.


Nothing about any two parents requirement that you made up and that was your claim. Your claim turned out not to be true. It is not complicated.


They did not pass, they have NOT ammended the constitution.


Which is why they are not actually amendments like you just begged me to agree they were.
Do you know anything about any of this?


Therefore, the natural-born status remains as is.


Which is what regarding both parents and please supply a source. I swear I already asked for this.


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)


To attempt to change the requirement to be president so that someone who immigrated here but has been here a certain period of time could be president. None of them attempted to change the "requirement" that both parents must be US citizens. In fact, it would mean that you could be president with no US born parents but does nothing to address what you claim it did.

The reason being, you were wrong or made it up. If you were not, you could have just sourced that single claim by now.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Please explain how your confusion leads to my being owned? You are as confused as Kitilani (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here). See my reply to Kitilani:


Easy.

You claim both parents must be U.S. citizens for you to be able to be president. You were asked several times to source that. You could not.

You supplied some bill numbers that you claimed prove the earlier claim because you said there were attempts to change that requirement. Not one of those bills even addresses that requirement. Not one of those bills confirms there is any such requirement.

That is how you were owned. Get that?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Ahem.. Looks around... Don't look at me I didn't vote for him. What upsets me is why would anyone fall for that Hope and change nonsense.

Phil Berg was working on a case regarding Obama's BC but I have no idea what is happening now when they were trying to take it to the Supreme Court. Hate to say it since Obama has his foot through the door now, no one is gonna try to impeach him.


www.businessinsider.com...

obamacrimes.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Ok, I'll play with your intentionally obtuse questions... From Dreams from my father: a story of race and inheritance written by Barak Obama, pages 5, 34, 59, 65, 68, 69, 71, 88, 92, 101, 104, 114, 118, 220, 315, 324, 325, 328, 334, 335, 342, 348, 359, 363, 378, 379, 422.


Read that. Not once does he claim he ever legally used the name Barry Soetoro.


Is that enough for you or you want more?


How about just one?


If you need sources from other people and are too lazy to even look for yourself then you are obviously not after the truth.


How about looking for sources turns up nothing but rightwing blogs and WND. Not good enough for me. I want actual sources with the facts. I could care less who the president is. Claims need to be backed up with facts. This has nothing to do with being lazy. It has everything to do with birthers relying on lies they cannot even source.


Don't you know that when you rely on others to do your work for you, then you allow yourself to be lead astray?


Like you are trying to do? Too bad I am too smart for that. Your links, again, defy the claim you made.


That is, of course, if you're not intentionally trying to derail the thread, which I highly suspect you are and is also why I won't respond to your questions any more.


Asking people to back up their claims is derailing?

So much for deny ignorance.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Senteri
 


Birthers get mad and defensive, resort to calling people shills, trolls, etc. whenever they are asked to just back up the things they say. That is a true sign that they have the truth and know it.


It really should not matter the subject or political line you take. Facts are facts and if any of this is based on facts, those facts have sources. It works fine in threads about any other topic.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by Senteri
 


Birthers get mad and defensive, resort to calling people shills, trolls, etc. whenever they are asked to just back up the things they say. That is a true sign that they have the truth and know it.


It really should not matter the subject or political line you take. Facts are facts and if any of this is based on facts, those facts have sources. It works fine in threads about any other topic.


And anti-birthers use generalizations, such as racist, etc., to make themselves feel superior. I don't remember calling anyone a shill or troll. Please don't make generalizations that include me without merit.

Ok, to answer your previous question about the 2 parent clause. Do you remember the resolution that John McCain was deemed a "natural born citizen"? It's one of the resolutions you so graciously provided the summary of so I'm assuming you remember. This is a summary of it in the Michigan Law Review:


The U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, provides: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." The enigmatic phrase "natural born citizen" poses a series of problems for contemporary originalism. New Originalists, like [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Scalia, focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. The notion of a "natural born citizen" was likely a term of art derived from the idea of a "natural born subject" in English law-a category that most likely did not extend to persons, like Senator McCain, who were born outside sovereign territory. But the Constitution speaks of "citizens" and not "subjects," introducing uncertainties and ambiguities that might (or might not) make McCain eligible for the presidency.

What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen. John McCain, born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, had citizenship conferred by statute in 1937, but there is dispute as to whether the statute granted retroactive naturalization or whether it merely confirmed preexisting law under which McCain was an American citizen at birth. That leaves John McCain in a twilight zone-neither clearly naturalized nor natural born.


ParentS... plural... with a S... meaning MORE THAN ONE PARENT.
edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by Kitilani
reply to post by Senteri
 


Birthers get mad and defensive, resort to calling people shills, trolls, etc. whenever they are asked to just back up the things they say. That is a true sign that they have the truth and know it.


It really should not matter the subject or political line you take. Facts are facts and if any of this is based on facts, those facts have sources. It works fine in threads about any other topic.


And anti-birthers use generalizations, such as racist, etc., to make themselves feel superior. I don't remember calling anyone a shill or troll. Please don't make generalizations that include me without merit.

Ok, to answer your previous question about the 2 parent clause. Do you remember the resolution that John McCain was deemed a "natural born citizen"? It's one of the resolutions you so graciously provided the summary of so I'm assuming you remember. This is a summary of it in the Michigan Law Review:


The U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, provides: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." The enigmatic phrase "natural born citizen" poses a series of problems for contemporary originalism. New Originalists, like [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice Scalia, focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. The notion of a "natural born citizen" was likely a term of art derived from the idea of a "natural born subject" in English law-a category that most likely did not extend to persons, like Senator McCain, who were born outside sovereign territory. But the Constitution speaks of "citizens" and not "subjects," introducing uncertainties and ambiguities that might (or might not) make McCain eligible for the presidency.

What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen. John McCain, born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, had citizenship conferred by statute in 1937, but there is dispute as to whether the statute granted retroactive naturalization or whether it merely confirmed preexisting law under which McCain was an American citizen at birth. That leaves John McCain in a twilight zone-neither clearly naturalized nor natural born.


ParentS... plural... with a S... meaning MORE THAN ONE PARENT.
edit on 2/7/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)


there is no general agreement that both parents must be born on us soil. it's just an opinion.

if someone was born just inches outside of the border, would you consider him non-american even though both his parents are american?

silly argument. we draw our lines and then choose to hate. congrats.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senteri

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Ok, I'll play with your intentionally obtuse questions... From Dreams from my father: a story of race and inheritance written by Barak Obama, pages 5, 34, 59, 65, 68, 69, 71, 88, 92, 101, 104, 114, 118, 220, 315, 324, 325, 328, 334, 335, 342, 348, 359, 363, 378, 379, 422.


Read that. Not once does he claim he ever legally used the name Barry Soetoro.


This is one of the very few documents that no one, on either side has disputed:




posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
we draw our lines and then choose to hate. congrats.


Wow. Really? Hate? Maybe you are but please give proof that that's what I'm doing.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


why would you believe this document and not the official white house release?

you choose to.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
there is no general agreement that both parents must be born on us soil. it's just an opinion.


And THAT is why all the constitutional amendment failed ATTEMPTS by democratic congresspeople. Judge Scalia is a U.S. Supreme Court justice.... that's what he does, gives opinions. Just an opinion



if someone was born just inches outside of the border, would you consider him non-american even though both his parents are american?


No I would not consider him non-american. But, in the case of Obama, his father was NOT American. You yourself used the plural for parentS... as in TWO parents.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
This is one of the very few documents that no one, on either side has disputed:


One of the few?
Do you really believe this crap?

See how your claim that Obama went by that name as a youth in Hawaii turns out to be one time someone else used that name for him in Indonesia? Do you see that?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


why would you believe this document and not the official white house release?

you choose to.


Please provide a link to the official white house release that the Indonesian school document is a fake.



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

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by vjr1113
there is no general agreement that both parents must be born on us soil. it's just an opinion.


And THAT is why all the constitutional amendment failed ATTEMPTS by democratic congresspeople. Judge Scalia is a U.S. Supreme Court justice.... that's what he does, gives opinions. Just an opinion



That is why?
You have no clue what you are talking about at all.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


Are you birthers still at it ? Gosh I thought your group had disbanded or been cancelled due to lack of interest. I guess you didnt get the memo huh?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senteri
See how your claim that Obama went by that name as a youth in Hawaii turns out to be one time someone else used that name for him in Indonesia? Do you see that?


I never claimed that Obama went by that name as a youth in Hawaii. Please provide a link or quote to my saying that. This is the first time I've even considered it. You asked for proof the Obama ever used the name Soetoro and I gave it to you.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senteri

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by vjr1113
there is no general agreement that both parents must be born on us soil. it's just an opinion.


And THAT is why all the constitutional amendment failed ATTEMPTS by democratic congresspeople. Judge Scalia is a U.S. Supreme Court justice.... that's what he does, gives opinions. Just an opinion



That is why?
You have no clue what you are talking about at all.


If you say so



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


why would you believe this document and not the official white house release?

you choose to.


Please provide a link to the official white house release that the Indonesian school document is a fake.


oh please christians use this argument all the time. if you're gonna argue like a a christian, im wasting my time. you are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
good luck.







 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join