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.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And I'll just repeat it for you - a copy of the birth certificate off the internet is not evidential because it is off the internet - why is that so hard for you to understand? IIRC to be evidential a document has to be an original or a certified copy - if evidence was required (which it was NOT), then a certified copy needs to be presented.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The only evidence released by Barry and his handlers was the supposed long form BC that is a digital copy and not even legitimately admissible as evidence in a court of law.
It is a copy that normally accepted as valid
it is an authorized copy when it is first released...
However when it comes time to scrutinize it in a court of law, HIS OWN ATTORNEY argues that it is NOT VALID.
It doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Emergingtruth
reply to post by TrueAmerican
I accept the findings of Sheriff Arpaio's investigation, and Barry Soetoro Obama knows that his BC posted on the White House website is a fraud, and he knows his social security number is tied to someone named Harrison J. Bounell. But the thing is he knows that if you bring up the issue of the BC then the government propaganda machine called the media will play the race card, in order to belittle the claims and evidence presented. This not only causes the American public to unwittingly dismiss Sheriff Arpaio's investigation but this also gives more support for Obama by his supporters.
In my opinion, Obama was chosen by the elite puppet masters, so that anything done by Obama will not be questioned as much as would prior Presidents concerning their actions while in Office. Congress impeached Bill Clinton because he lied under Oath to Congress for having a sexual relationship with another woman, but they won't impeach Barack Obama because they know if they do, then they will be labeled racists by all of Obama's supporters and it may cause mass riots and protests for all the wrong reasons.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by mortalengine
As has been discussed a million times by real experts, there's many many off the shelf applications that do this by default. Expecting that a conspiracy theorists would look at the PDF of a document from the Hawaiian government, and then verified as real by the Hawaiian government, would be called a fake (which is itself unconstitutional) - expecting that, and making sure OCR was turned off to pre-emptively prevent that, is insane.
But trying to predict what lie is gonna come out of a liars mouth next is tough work.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Arpaio, OTOH, is just repeating long debunked claims - possibly knowing they are false. He should be prosecuted for malfaesance or fraud I reckon.
Well then riddle me this batman...
Why did Barry's own attorney argue that his long form BC, which Arpaio claims is fraudulent, should not be admitted as evidence.
Barry's own attorney, Ms. Hill, argued that it is not valid in a court of law because it is a digital copy and quite possibly not accurate.
Of course we'll never know because the judge agreed with her and ruled that it was in fact NOT valid evidence.
If this is all true, then how can you know that it has been successfully debunked?
patiently waiting.edit on 18/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)
Cocaine In Fortunate Son, Bush biographer Hatfield quoted several anonymous sources regarding allegations of Bush's coc aine use. Hatfield reported that Bush had been arrested for coc aine possession in 1972 and that his father pulled strings to have records of the arrest expunged.[14] Bush campaign spokesperson Mindy Tucker called the allegation "absolutely untrue".[15] Bush repeatedly refused to state whether he had ever used coc aine.[16] Bush did say in 1999 that he could truthfully answer "no" to the then-standard FBI background check question of whether he had used any illegal drug in the last seven years. He later stated that he could have passed a background check under a policy that his father had instituted as President in 1989 that extended the background check to 15 years. This would have checked back to 1974, two years after the alleged 1972 arrest.[17]
en.wikipedia.org...
So what? What bearing does that have on his ability as a leader? This is not politics, it's propaganda. Clinton was one of the best Presidents we've had in years, but he was completely ruined because of something that he did in his personal life with Monika. Instead of remembering him as a great President, we will remember him as a dirty cheater. Sure, he did cheat, but that's his life. The Republicans attacked him as payback for the Nixon Watergate scandal and how the democrats let that drag on and pumped propaganda into that incident for years.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Wooster
Bush probably DID do Cocaine:
Cocaine In Fortunate Son, Bush biographer Hatfield quoted several anonymous sources regarding allegations of Bush's coc aine use. Hatfield reported that Bush had been arrested for coc aine possession in 1972 and that his father pulled strings to have records of the arrest expunged.[14] Bush campaign spokesperson Mindy Tucker called the allegation "absolutely untrue".[15] Bush repeatedly refused to state whether he had ever used coc aine.[16] Bush did say in 1999 that he could truthfully answer "no" to the then-standard FBI background check question of whether he had used any illegal drug in the last seven years. He later stated that he could have passed a background check under a policy that his father had instituted as President in 1989 that extended the background check to 15 years. This would have checked back to 1974, two years after the alleged 1972 arrest.[17]
en.wikipedia.org...
For someone starting multiple wars, his own military service was sketchy, at best:
en.wikipedia.org...