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.

 

BIG NEWS- Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

page: 56
120
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


There's no contradiction there.

The court didn't demand it, and they have no right to demand it.

Those aren't contrary statements.


But it was most certainly requested, which want to say is a lie.

And I have shown you that it is not a lie.


Show us the quote.




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Ahh the BS and the paranoia runs deep.

Show us the quotes to back up the claims that:

The court demanded Obamas BC
Obama got away with not showing his BC on a technicality.

Go on...

The entire transcript is online.

If it's true, you can do it.

Chances of you coming back with those quotes: 0%
Chances of you freaking out and calling people you disagree with shills: 100%
Evidence we are shills: None.


I have never said that the court demanded it.

I have said that the court was asked to demand it, but they refused on a technicality.

You have agreed with this.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


There's no contradiction there.

The court didn't demand it, and they have no right to demand it.

Those aren't contrary statements.


But it was most certainly requested, which want to say is a lie.

And I have shown you that it is not a lie.


Show us the quote.


Do you even read your own posts?


As for lawyers asking for it in a court of law... that's not true. And the thing about them being denied it on a technicality, also not true.


Watch the video that I have posted.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Personal attacks, either insinuated or direct, will result in time-outs henceforth.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


hahahahah...

Imagine if I walked into a court and demanded the court fetch me someone's birth certificate.

What a joke.

The technicality is that the court has no right to do what random lawyers demand, if it's not legal.

The little BS more Appuzio tried is called a fishing expedition. Judges don't think it's clever.

So yeah, the technicality was Obama's right to privacy. You might think it's a small nothing, but millions of Americans cherish their right to not have random assholes demanding, and receiving, their private records.

By all means though, please please post all of your records, birth cert, bank statements, photo ID, national ID numbers, address, etc., online.

I mean, you don't care about privacy and it'd be fun to look at all your private details.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
You have just told me that I do not understand English, but what you state happened is exactly what I stated happened.


No it is not, as I said you do not understand English, get someone to explain it to you.


You will never win this argument with me.


We have already won it, but you do not realise that!



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by longlostbrother
 




The court has no right to demand Obama show a birth cert. The court justifiably slapped the birther lawyer down for demanding that the court rule on whether a document was real, based on an image of the document.


You are finally agreeing with me.

The court was asked to force Obama to provide this and HIS OWN LAWYER argued that he did not have to provide it.
But this does not settle his status as a natural born citizen.

You are talking in circles.

This is what people do when they are either desperate or a government shill.

I vote for both.


The great thing is that this does not need to be the point where he is verified as a natural born citizen, because that has already been done. When Hawaii verified that he was born there and that his BC was on hand and valid, that argument lost any sort of validity that it may have had. A handful of people filing lawsuits to see his BC does not change the fact that it has already been verified by the people that need to verify it.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



The great thing is that this does not need to be the point where he is verified as a natural born citizen, because that has already been done. When Hawaii verified that he was born there and that his BC was on hand and valid, that argument lost any sort of validity that it may have had. A handful of people filing lawsuits to see his BC does not change the fact that it has already been verified by the people that need to verify it.


And yet this supposed evidence that Hawaii has supposedly validated has never been used as prima facie evidence.

This would be, by far, the most effective way to handle this.

Instead of simply providing a cerified copy in court, which apparently you believe Hawaii has already validated, nothing was provided.

This supposedly validated BC has never been shown to the public.

Why keep it in hiding?

Why do you keep this argument going in circles.

Why does Barry keep this argument going in circles.
(Question marks did not end those statements for a reason)

If this long form BC exists then show it and be done with it.

If I have been so thoroughly disproven then why does each of my responses garner attention from 5 different posters at different times?

You would think that if my arguments were so pointless as you seem to think, then there would be no need to refute them.
But yet every time I post a barrage of deathers post until my comment is buried.

Why do you do this?

Why not let it stand?

Do you fear people embracing this argument?
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyswatter
 



The great thing is that this does not need to be the point where he is verified as a natural born citizen, because that has already been done. When Hawaii verified that he was born there and that his BC was on hand and valid, that argument lost any sort of validity that it may have had. A handful of people filing lawsuits to see his BC does not change the fact that it has already been verified by the people that need to verify it.


And yet this supposed evidence that Hawaii has supposedly validated has never been used as prima facie evidence.

This would be, by far, the most effective way to handle this.

Instead of simply providing a cerified copy in court, which apparently you believe Hawaii has already validated, nothing was provided.

This supposedly validated BC has never been shown to the public.

Why keep it in hiding?

Why do you keep this argument going in circles.

Why does Barry keep this argument going in circles.
(Question marks did not end those statements for a reason)

If this long form BC exists then show it and be done with it.

If I have been so thoroughly disproven then why does each of my responses garner attention from 5 different posters at different times?

You would think that if my arguments were so pointless as you seem to thing, then there would be no need to refute them.
But yet every time I post a barrage of deathers post until my comment is buried.

Why do you do this?

Why not let it stand?

Do you fear people embracing this argument?
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)


Why not let it stand? Because I keep trying to deny the ignorance that seems to cloud the side of the argument that I am arguing against.

Courts to this point have had no valid reason to demand his BC for the cases that have been brought to them. In theory, there could be something that could give them enough of a reason to order it to court, but exactly what constitutes enough reason is unknown to us at this point. If the courts had that reasoning and demanded that a certified copy of the BC be provided, stamped and on paper, Hawaii has said that they would comply with the order.

Now, you may ask, how are you going to get a court to demand his BC be shown in that courtroom? Easy. Find a court willing to listen to the argument in a state that has some more lenient (or at least complimentary) laws that deal with this whole issue.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyswatter
 



The great thing is that this does not need to be the point where he is verified as a natural born citizen, because that has already been done. When Hawaii verified that he was born there and that his BC was on hand and valid, that argument lost any sort of validity that it may have had. A handful of people filing lawsuits to see his BC does not change the fact that it has already been verified by the people that need to verify it.


And yet this supposed evidence that Hawaii has supposedly validated has never been used as prima facie evidence.

This would be, by far, the most effective way to handle this.

Instead of simply providing a cerified copy in court, which apparently you believe Hawaii has already validated, nothing was provided.

This supposedly validated BC has never been shown to the public.

Why keep it in hiding?

Why do you keep this argument going in circles.

Why does Barry keep this argument going in circles.
(Question marks did not end those statements for a reason)

If this long form BC exists then show it and be done with it.

If I have been so thoroughly disproven then why does each of my responses garner attention from 5 different posters at different times?

You would think that if my arguments were so pointless as you seem to think, then there would be no need to refute them.
But yet every time I post a barrage of deathers post until my comment is buried.

Why do you do this?

Why not let it stand?

Do you fear people embracing this argument?
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)


Why oh why would they ever show his BC to a court? You birthers wouldn't believe it, and the court doesn't need it.

All it would do is feed into the propaganda machine.

Hawaii hasn't "supposedly" verified it, they have verified it. It's on their website.

You suffer under a barrage of rebuttals because you keep posting tired debunked nonsense.

Sometimes it really is you. This is one of those times.

There's NO evidence at all for birthers.

You certainly haven't posted any.

What lies there are have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked.

The only people that touch this # are a Russian dentist and America's least competent sheriff, who is himself facing federal charges.

But sure, trust the Russian dentist, not the State of Hawaii, or the multiple courts that slap the birthers down... remember when the birthers lost to their court challenge to an empty table? That's your team. Stick with them.

Ooh ooh ooh or better yet, fight Obama on his policies. How's that for an exciting idea?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Instead of simply providing a cerified copy in court, which apparently you believe Hawaii has already validated, nothing was provided.

This supposedly validated BC has never been shown to the public.

Why keep it in hiding?


Essentially, the main point being established here is that some people do not trust their government officials to tell the truth. It is really a statement about the state of things in America today.The belief is, everybody lies, therefore I need "more" proof. The problem though, is, who can we trust? Why would we trust those officials, but not the officials that have already spoken? The BC was not hidden from the Hawaiian Officials. So, obviously, Obama didn't "keep it hiding". If the Hawaiian Officials had said Obama didn't give them permission to look at his private information, so they were unable to say whether his BC was genuine, then that phrase "keep it in hiding" would make sense.

There is just a practical "physical limitation" in sending every person in America a certified copy of Obama's BC. Even if we overlooked the fact that this is private information, that every American is entitled to keep private, and only legally required to show to certain government bodies at certain well defined pre-established times, we still would have the problem of justifying the cost of printing, certifying, and mailing this paper to every American.

And even then, the state of technology today is such, that any document can be forged, and it still wouldn't satisfy the appetite of some in America who would will still need "more" proof.

Even if we had invented a "time machine", and we could send every interested person back in time, to see the birth for himself/herself, while it was happening, that still would not be proof. Since the doubters would easily claim that there are parallel universes, and, in their opinion, they were sent back in time to the "wrong" parallel universe, not the one in which Obama was being then born in Kenya.

So, you see the problem? Once the belief has been formed in the mind of the subject, and he is addicted to a particular viewpoint, nothing on this earth, or in this universe, can convert him to the alternate reality.

His truth will always remain being "kept in hiding" from him.



edit on 23-7-2012 by NAMTERCES because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


No we are not. We are stating that the spelling of a name in all capital letters denotes the status of capitis deminutio maxima. This is entirely different than you insinuating we are saying capitis means capital.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


You show me a Birth Certificate from 1882 after I explicitly asked for one after 1933. Go look at yours and see if it is in all capital letters. I bet it is.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
So you're here now. Check your own thread. Plenty of bc's there. Also where's that law about caps?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NAMTERCES
 



So, you see the problem? Once the belief has been formed in the mind of the subject, and he is addicted to a particular viewpoint, nothing on this earth, or in this universe, can convert him to the alternate reality.


Where do I start explaining exactly how wrong this line of reasoning is?

Yes... No one trusts officials.
They lie.
We have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The Israelis have no nuclear weapons.
Sadam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
12 arabs hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC towers on 9/11.
A lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.
I didn't have sex with that woman.
Barry Obama intends on closing guantanamo in his first day in office.

Maybe these lies convinced you to trust public officials, but not me.

When hired for a job, we have to show a birth certificate and a social security card.

Why not Barry?

If the public were to be given a certified copy of his long form birth certificate and it was provided to a variety of people for inspection, and they all agreed that it was legit, then we could resume.
Heck, if Barry just proved it in a court of law, or would not fight the request for his BC in a court of law and allow it to be entered into evidence in a court of law, then I would believe him.

No time machine needed.
No assumption on the use of modern forgery techniques is needed.

You are using kettle logic by trying to employ multiple arguments to defend your premise but these arguments are completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
Honestly, I don't even know why I point out logical flaws to people.
No one understands logic and when it is explained to them, they deny it like it's yet another mythological birther fantasy.

Them birthers are using logic again to defend their position!



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
www.davidicke.com...



My 'name' on my birth certificate is spelled with the first letters as upper case and the others as lower case. My first Medical Card and National Insurance card, however, both of which I received over thirty years ago at the age of 16...have the names (first, middle and last) in upper case letters...all of them. I've posted this info. before, but I'll do it again as it's pertinent: My wife was, until recently, a Chinese national. She attended a ceremony during which she formally became British and has the 'Certificate' to prove it. Her name appears in three forms on the certificate; each of them relating to a different status of immigration. Hong Xia Wong (Chinese National, single, temporary resident). Hong Xia SMITH (married to me, but not yet a citizen of the UK). HONG XIA SMITH (citizen of the UK). This is all UK terminology...the Chinese (even in speech), address each other with their family name, followed by their given name(s). Don't tell me it doesn't have meaning... tian an.


Funny how all three of those names follow Capitis deminutio minima, capitis deminutio media, and capitis deminutio maxima; apparently there are some COPIES that aren't written in All Caps, but the ones in the Department of Commerce are. However tell me next time you get a check stub piece of mail addressed in all capital letters.
edit on 23-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


You have requested several times, and I have answered sufficiently each time. I have quoted the law to you. Common law and civil law share the same laws in regard to property, contract, and tort. A slave is considered property, and if capitis deminutio maxima denotes a slave, then it would be classed in both civil and common law. WHY are you having such a difficult time getting this through your head?
edit on 23-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 



There's NO evidence at all for birthers.


PRECISELY!!!!!

There is NO EVIDENCE.

I am glad that you see and understand this now.

Those claims by Hawaiian officials that you speak of are not evidence.

The internet copy of BOTH BC's are NOT valid evidence.

Sometimes it really is you who falls prey to logical in-congruence.

I know this is hard to handle.
But it will be okay.
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


You say it is a law. Then quote the exact law. Why is it so difficult to quote it? Perhaps it doesn't excist?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


So what exactly will you accept as evidence?

And why do you guys get to determine what is and isn't evidence? And absolutely nobody else does?

Why are you guys the authority on this and absolutely nobody else is?

Are you trying to say that the only evidence you'll accept is something you can hold in your hands? That Obama has to subpoena Hawaii, get his bc released, take it your house and let you hold it in your hands?

And if he, by some miracle, actually does that and it states that he was born in Hawaii, will you let it go and finally put an end to the issue?

These are serious questions.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join