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.

 

Michelle Obama requires photo ID and SS number for book signing

page: 8
46
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 



Grow up. Turn 18. Go vote. See what happens in the real world. I do not show ID to vote. My vote has never been stolen from me. Why is that?


How old are you? Of course your vote has been stolen…happens every time an illegal immigrant or dead person votes!


Hint: I understand how voting actually works.


Apparently NOT!



How about you tell me what I am supposed to be so worried about?


Follow the discussion in this thread and educate yourself…this isn’t a one-on-one session.


edit on 17-6-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I'm
so hard at this thread.

Are people really trying to compare SS standard protocol of checking social security #'s and ID for presidential security reasons against the debate of requiring voter IDs??

edit on 17-6-2012 by xEphon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartbreakerb
I don't blame her. She probably had secret service cameras on her and they were checking to make sure there weren't any extremists trying to get in to shoot her or something. There are too many nut jobs out there and she's the First Lady of the US.
Laura Bush would probably have done the same thing. If she didn't, she would be very stupid.


Why would anyone try to shoot them, they are doing such good things with our country and they treat the people of America with such respect.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 



I'm so hard at this thread.

Are people really trying to compare SS standard protocol of checking social security #'s and ID for presidential security reasons against the debate of requiring voter IDs?


Yet you were drawn to this thread and felt compelled to attack the subject with absolutely no information!


I’ve learned SOOOO much from your contribution!


Read the thread! You can't possibly dismiss everyone’s contributions so easily…that makes you look more foolish than you think this thread is!



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


I know you're being sarcastic. No politician makes everybody happy and there are nut jobs on both sides of politics.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Will she accept any other forms of ID?

How about a SS# and an original state certified long form birth certificate?

I'm asking because i hate the photo on my DL....I look like a zombie stalker...they wouldn't let me smile



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


She accepts her husband and his credentials don't even compete with yours sooo…..

I’m going to guess…YES!!



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
How old are you? Of course your vote has been stolen…happens every time an illegal immigrant or dead person votes!


You are going to have to prove that to me. I have never been turned away because someone already voted in my name. I am old enough to have become eligible to vote more than once.



Apparently NOT!


Feel free to explain to me what I am missing.




Follow the discussion in this thread and educate yourself…this isn’t a one-on-one session.


edit on 17-6-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)


Oh, so you have no clue what you are talking about then? Thanks for giving me attention anyway.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by xEphon
 



I'm so hard at this thread.

Are people really trying to compare SS standard protocol of checking social security #'s and ID for presidential security reasons against the debate of requiring voter IDs?


Yet you were drawn to this thread and felt compelled to attack the subject with absolutely no information!


I’ve learned SOOOO much from your contribution!


Read the thread! You can't possibly dismiss everyone’s contributions so easily…that makes you look more foolish than you think this thread is!





I read the thread.

It's based on an apples versus oranges cry of hypocricy in regards to two wildly different scenarios.
Clearly, you have no understanding of the debate of requiring voter ID's as is made painfully obvious by the fact you're trying to equate it to the standard protocol of requiring ID's for the protection of the presidential family.

They both have the word "ID" in them so they must be related. Is that really your logic?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by xEphon
 



I'm so hard at this thread.

Are people really trying to compare SS standard protocol of checking social security #'s and ID for presidential security reasons against the debate of requiring voter IDs?


Yet you were drawn to this thread and felt compelled to attack the subject with absolutely no information!


I’ve learned SOOOO much from your contribution!


Read the thread! You can't possibly dismiss everyone’s contributions so easily…that makes you look more foolish than you think this thread is!





Naw, deflecting from facts and posting blatant propaganda makes you look foolish.

Laughing at the fools who do it is just a natural response.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartbreakerb
Then you live in a small town where they recognize you by sight, otherwise, they'd ask for your ID.


I live in a rather big city. I am asked to sign my name on the line that has my address on it. That is how I prove who I am.


That's part of the law. If one of the poll workers don't recognize you, you have to show proof of who you are.




What law is that?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I never attacked you or even mentioned you.

Yawn



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by seabag
 


I never attacked you or even mentioned you.

Yawn



Dont worry, thats just his standard deflection. That, and bringing up Eric Holder.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 



I read the thread.

It's based on an apples versus oranges cry of hypocricy in regards to two wildly different scenarios.
Clearly, you have no understanding of the debate of requiring voter ID's as is made painfully obvious by the fact you're trying to equate it to the standard protocol of requiring ID's for the protection of the presidential family.

They both have the word "ID" in them so they must be related. Is that really your logic?


Well, you’ve exposed yourself now because that question has been raised (and answered) 10 times already.

Nice try…I’m not going to waste my time answering again.

I don’t know who called you into this thread to ‘tow the line’ but it’s obvious….either that or you just didn’t read the thread.

It’s sad that people still help the elites rule the roost. I’d have figured you’d all be tired of the status quo by now.

What’s it going to be for you; 4 more years of Obama?


Sad!



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
As they say, the fool is not the one who asks, but the one who pays.

They have already got people to become such sheeple, that they have no problems in testing their levels of sheepdom this way. That they even HAVE something like 'ID' or 'driver's license' is already proof that people have fallen for their strawman deception completely, and pityfully identify themselves with their CAPITAL LETTER 'person' (with the SIN - Social Insurance Number, or SSN, Social Security Number), without realizing they have no obligation to do so. Without the slightest idea that that is not them, that is the 'strawman', used cleverly to impose duties and payments on people, who normally wouldn't have to pay or accept those duties. But they do it willingly and voluntarily!

Things like this are good tests for the sheeple - and why not? If they comply, it's their own fault - they voluntarily and willingly accept their shackles, and when proof of those shackles is required, they dutifully and proudly display it. If people are really that stupid, they really deserve such treatment.

So there's nothing wrong with any of it.

The one who asks is not the fool, but the one who pays.
edit on 17-6-2012 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
This is all over the clogosphere but no where in any actual even alternative news source?


How strange? I'd like to see a video of this. I'm sure if it actually happened someone would've whipped out a cellphone camera and caught it.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Who actually thinks the SS could not check out a person using their IDs in a few seconds from anywhere. Those billions of dollars in information infrastructure has at least allowed for that ability.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Well,look at it this way........

What REAL reason does she need all this information,when her OWN Husband,didn't need it,for his bid for Presidency?






posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
Well,look at it this way........

What REAL reason does she need all this information,when her OWN Husband,didn't need it,for his bid for Presidency?





Since nobody seems to get it, I'll say it again: SHE IS NOT ASKING FOR THIS INFO. THE SECRET SERVICE IS. The thread title is blatantly false and misleading.

This is just sad.
edit on 17-6-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   


I am old enough to have become eligible to vote more than once.


Really?

Someone is eligible to vote more than once?

Reminds me of vote early and vote often.




top topics



 
46
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join