Confirmed: Obama's Birth Certificate Not Authentic 2012

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Why cant you respond without jumping to silly little condescending tones and remarks? Oh...that's right, you're a birther. Nevermind.

oh the irony, "birther"

You say what you assume is irrelevant, yet you assume his bc is fake, assume he hasnt showed it, and assume that he has an obligation to show you. You're certainly right about one thing-what you assume is truly irrelevant.

No, my "assumptions" are not important, QUESTIONING THE FELLA IN CHARGE OF THE LARGEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD IS IMPORTANT- if this involves constant probing into his background, THIS IS A GOOD THING, people go through this thing all the time in employment, yet serfs like you get all antsy when the demi god gets a grilling.

Whatever the ordinary dude on minimum wage goes through, the fella at the tops needs to be grilled to the most extreme levels- he serves the people, not the other way around

Again, tell me what makes you assume that he didnt show them to the people that he needed to show them to? When you prove your identity to get a job at safeway, do you go ahead and prove it to all the customers too?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Again, tell me what makes you assume that he didnt show them to the people that he needed to show them to? When you prove your identity to get a job at safeway, do you go ahead and prove it to all the customers too?

We can only assume that we don't know, and if demands for clarity for leaders annoys you then good luck to you.

I've stated that anything the "little man" goes through needs to be increased to the maxium level with the leaders, so the Sainsburys analogy doesn't work- he should have no issues in being as clear and open as possible as there is clearly a sizeable constituency that want it clarified.

You can speculate "oh it is because they all be racists" or whatever little group dividing slogan you prefer to use, but it doesn't wash with me- I'd apply that rule to any leader

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Again, tell me what makes you assume that he didnt show them to the people that he needed to show them to? When you prove your identity to get a job at safeway, do you go ahead and prove it to all the customers too?

We can only assume that we don't know, and if demands for clarity for leaders annoys you then good luck to you.

I've stated that anything the "little man" goes through needs to be increased to the maxium level with the leaders, so the Sainsburys analogy doesn't work- he should have no issues in being as clear and open as possible as there is clearly a sizeable constituency that want it clarified.

You can speculate "oh it is because they all be racists" or whatever little group dividing slogan you prefer to use, but it doesn't wash with me- I'd apply that rule to any leader

Again, why can you not converse on the subject? Why's it gotta be a "then good lick to you" thing? I asked a legit question.

Why do you think I'd say "oh its because they all be racists"? Why do you immediately jump to trying to paint me in a negative light, instead of simply answering?

Is it that hard to have a REAL conversation?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Again, tell me what makes you assume that he didnt show them to the people that he needed to show them to? When you prove your identity to get a job at safeway, do you go ahead and prove it to all the customers too?

We can only assume that we don't know, and if demands for clarity for leaders annoys you then good luck to you.

I've stated that anything the "little man" goes through needs to be increased to the maxium level with the leaders, so the Sainsburys analogy doesn't work- he should have no issues in being as clear and open as possible as there is clearly a sizeable constituency that want it clarified.

You can speculate "oh it is because they all be racists" or whatever little group dividing slogan you prefer to use, but it doesn't wash with me- I'd apply that rule to any leader

Again, why can you not converse on the subject? Why's it gotta be a "then good lick to you" thing? I asked a legit question.

Why do you think I'd say "oh its because they all be racists"? Why do you immediately jump to trying to paint me in a negative light, instead of simply answering?

Is it that hard to have a REAL conversation?

I'm giving you one- such demands for leaders are reasonable, our leaders should be put through as much of a filtration process as possible, not simply protected with "oh they don't need to show you"

Originally posted by blueorder
he should have no issues in being as clear and open as possible

he has shown his certified copies of his birth certificate - something no previous president ever did whilst in office, yet you still demand more....

That is because it is not about any piece of paper Obama shows, just that he is the legal POTUS, which you hate!

I'd apply that rule to any leader

Except Obama is the first one that you applied it to, why is that....

Originally posted by spoor

he has shown his certified copies of his birth certificate - something no previous president ever did whilst in office, yet you still demand more....

That is because it is not about any piece of paper Obama shows, just that he is the legal POTUS, which you hate!

don't speak for me you prejudiced fool

Now, for example, there was not the same grey area over Clinton or Bush and their birth/childhood- that is not my fault, anymore than it is my fault than Obama happens to be half white/black.

If there is such an issue with a fella/women who had a daddy from Ireland I APPLY THE SAME CRITERIA, so don't judge me

Except Obama is the first one that you applied it to, why is that....

edit on 13-4-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)

no it isn't I apply that to ANY leader, ANY OF THEM

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Again, tell me what makes you assume that he didnt show them to the people that he needed to show them to? When you prove your identity to get a job at safeway, do you go ahead and prove it to all the customers too?

We can only assume that we don't know, and if demands for clarity for leaders annoys you then good luck to you.

I've stated that anything the "little man" goes through needs to be increased to the maxium level with the leaders, so the Sainsburys analogy doesn't work- he should have no issues in being as clear and open as possible as there is clearly a sizeable constituency that want it clarified.

You can speculate "oh it is because they all be racists" or whatever little group dividing slogan you prefer to use, but it doesn't wash with me- I'd apply that rule to any leader

Again, why can you not converse on the subject? Why's it gotta be a "then good lick to you" thing? I asked a legit question.

Why do you think I'd say "oh its because they all be racists"? Why do you immediately jump to trying to paint me in a negative light, instead of simply answering?

Is it that hard to have a REAL conversation?

I'm giving you one- such demands for leaders are reasonable, our leaders should be put through as much of a filtration process as possible, not simply protected with "oh they don't need to show you"

no, you arent, you are stopping to ad homs and backhanded insults, none of which fit me.

Is it reasonable? You think it is reasonable that the president must cowtow to the demands of a partisan few? That fact of the matter is, THEY DONT NEED TO SHOW YOU. Just like a new employee, there are those that must be shown. The average person is not one of them.

Ill go to your tactic here: If you cant understand that it is not up to the president to prove it to you, then good luck to you.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
no, you arent, you are stopping to ad homs and backhanded insults, none of which fit me.

you have some front on you to take that sort of moral high ground when you resort to "you're a birther" comments, seriously, walk on, too much hypocrisy there........

Is it reasonable?

Yes

You think it is reasonable that the president must cowtow to the demands of a partisan few?

"cowtow", hardly cowtowing, but yes, I think it is reasonable, and you are clearly "partisan" does that mean any demands you have are dismissed?

That fact of the matter is, THEY DONT NEED TO SHOW YOU. Just like a new employee, there are those that must be shown. The average person is not one of them.

WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T IS NOT MY ARGUMENT- I'm saying they should, the Sainsburys employee has to jump through a few hoops- those hoops should be magnified to the zenith for somebody in charge of nukes

Ill go to your tactic here: If you cant understand that it is not up to the president to prove it to you, then good luck to you.

You get what you deserve, lickspittles and their masters

Originally posted by Genxbeyond
Wai,t wait, wait, wait,

There is like 20 different documents that are BLOCKED, by Obama..

1) health records
2) College Records
3) Thesis papers
4) Oxcidental Records
5) Passport records

I just checked, and YOU have the same and similiar records blocked, so exactly what are you hiding and why did you spend millions blocking your records....

Why wont you answer this simple question?

Where as every president in HISTORY HAS SHOWN THERES, YOU THINK OBAMAS COOL FOR NOT SHOWING HIS?????

So why not show us those records from past Presidents, or admit it is just a lie you made up!

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
no, you arent, you are stopping to ad homs and backhanded insults, none of which fit me.

you have some front on you to take that sort of moral high ground when you resort to "you're a birther" comments, seriously, walk on, too much hypocrisy there........

Is it reasonable?

Yes

You think it is reasonable that the president must cowtow to the demands of a partisan few?

"cowtow", hardly cowtowing, but yes, I think it is reasonable, and you are clearly "partisan" does that mean any demands you have are dismissed?

That fact of the matter is, THEY DONT NEED TO SHOW YOU. Just like a new employee, there are those that must be shown. The average person is not one of them.

WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T IS NOT MY ARGUMENT- I'm saying they should, the Sainsburys employee has to jump through a few hoops- those hoops should be magnified to the zenith for somebody in charge of nukes

Ill go to your tactic here: If you cant understand that it is not up to the president to prove it to you, then good luck to you.

You get what you deserve, lickspittles and their masters

1)Are you not pushing for more BC proof? Are you not a birther?

2)If it is, please explain. Yes is not an answer.

3)If i am partisan, who do I affiliate with? Please, please tell me. This should be good.

4)So in the end, your complaint is "he SHOULD have to"...in other words, absolutely baseless and empty.

Hello, members.

Let's get back on track, folks.

Please do not attack fellow members and remember our guidelines for civil political debate.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Are you not pushing for more BC proof? Are you not a birther?

2 separate points, your point was about the quality of debate and attacks etc, whilst using the term "birther", which is used as a demonising tool, you see your hypocrisy yet.........

So no, I am not a birther, I am a "SHINE THE LIGHT ON ANY LEADER OF SUCH A POWERFUL COUNTRY AND MAKE THEM BE AS TRANSPARENT AS IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE" ER (if you need to stick an "er" to make it work for ya

2)If it is, please explain. Yes is not an answer.

yes is an answer, you are incorrect, see the point above

3)If i am partisan, who do I affiliate with? Please, please tell me. This should be good.

"an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. "

so if you tell me, with a "straight face" so to speak, that you have no bias or allegiance to any person, group party or cause then you will excuse me if I do not believe this

4)So in the end, your complaint is "he SHOULD have to"...in other words, absolutely baseless and empty.

Nothing empty about it, empty are those who bend the knee to their masters

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Are you not pushing for more BC proof? Are you not a birther?

2 separate points, your point was about the quality of debate and attacks etc, whilst using the term "birther", which is used as a demonising tool, you see your hypocrisy yet.........

So no, I am not a birther, I am a "SHINE THE LIGHT ON ANY LEADER OF SUCH A POWERFUL COUNTRY AND MAKE THEM BE AS TRANSPARENT AS IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE" ER (if you need to stick an "er" to make it work for ya

2)If it is, please explain. Yes is not an answer.

yes is an answer, you are incorrect, see the point above

3)If i am partisan, who do I affiliate with? Please, please tell me. This should be good.

"an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. "

so if you tell me, with a "straight face" so to speak, that you have no bias or allegiance to any person, group party or cause then you will excuse me if I do not believe this

4)So in the end, your complaint is "he SHOULD have to"...in other words, absolutely baseless and empty.

Nothing empty about it, empty are those who bend the knee to their masters

1)Birther is a term for people that want more proof of the BC. No more, no less. If you read into it, that is your doing, not mine.

2)No, it isnt, it is a response with no actual weight.

3)Again, you made the claim. So who am I partisan to? Come on, back up your words....

4)I take it that you are insinuating that I "bend the knee to my master"? Thank you so much for proving the point I have been making since we started this: You cant argue the topic, so you resort to "if you dont agree with me, you are brainwashed and bow to your masters". Perfect, classic, and couldnt have been proven any better.

deluded beyond belief, thankfully my bed is calling, but yes, you have NO bias, or allegiance and "birther" is not thrown about as term of abuse/demonisation


You go give yourself that high 5

Originally posted by blueorder
deluded beyond belief, thankfully my bed is calling, but yes, you have NO bias, or allegiance and "birther" is not thrown about as term of abuse/demonisation


You go give yourself that high 5

Thanks for admitting you cant back up your statements and accusations. Rest well.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by blueorder
deluded beyond belief, thankfully my bed is calling, but yes, you have NO bias, or allegiance and "birther" is not thrown about as term of abuse/demonisation


You go give yourself that high 5

Thanks for admitting you cant back up your statements and accusations. Rest well.

*cringe*

reply to post by captaintyinknots


FACT---- it took over 2 years for Obama to release his long form.. after the short form which even the ignorant masses asking themselves how much of a utter piece of tripe it looked like..

FACT--- When finally the long (WHITE HOUSE VERSION WAS RELEASED). It was easliy debunked even by basic knowledge of how Adobe works by TEEAGERS IN BASIC computeing 101..

FACT--- A real piece of paper thats scanned into a computer , does not break apart into layers -nor does it have differing changes in FONTS, or color background, or individuals letter aspect ratio changes...

FACT--- Obamas Full lenght is NOTHING MORE THAN A LAYERED PDF FILE, IT IS A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE...

FACT--- ITS NOT OR NEVER HAS BEEN A REAL PIECE OF PAPER.