It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 60
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
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.

Actually, they misdirect, rather than lie.

We have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This was not a lie. Iraq did have a weapon of mass destruction. It was called "oil". Saddam Husein announced that very year in 2001 that he would be exchanging oil for Euros. If he had set a trend, and other nations followed, the US Dollar would no longer be the reserve currency, and the United States would collapse. As soon as Saddam announced this to the world, the US Dollar started to collapse. Go back and look at the Foreign Exchange prices leading up to 9/11. You'll see that after Saddam's announcement the US Dollar began to fall precipitously, it was as if the US had been struck by an atomic bomb. The fall was so steep, that a few more days and the entire wealth of the US would have been wiped out. As soon as 9/11 occurred, miraculously, the US dollar recovered. The US hadn't even announced who they thought did 9/11, much less indicate they would use that as an excuse to invade Iraq. But, the investors knew immediately what 9/11 meant, so they bought dollars. They knew this was just a pretext to invade Iraq and remove the threat to the almighty dollar.

Libya tried a similar thing too, Muammar Gaddafi announced he was replacing the US Dollar with Special African Dinars made of Gold, immediately after he announced this at the African Conrference, Libya's troubles began, and Gaddafi too is now dead. No more threat to the almighty US Dollar.

So, the politicians aren't exactly lying. They are just misleading, and not telling the exact truth. They say WMD, but they don't specify which WMD they are refering to. They told no one that the real WMD was oil currency.

The Israelis have no nuclear weapons.

Where exactly would the Israelis "test fire" these nukes?

Sadam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

Indirectly, he was. He was the cause of 9/11. If he didn't suggest exchanging oil for euros, there would have been no need for a 9/11.

12 arabs hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC towers on 9/11.

Maybe they were programmed by mind control drugs etc.. just like the shooter James Holmes?

A lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.

Maybe that's exactly what happened?

I didn't have sex with that woman.

Technically, Bill Clinton was correct. He was being truthful. He did not have sex in the "biblical" meaning of the term.

Barry Obama intends on closing guantanamo in his first day in office.

He changed his mind after he entered office, because he realized that it would be the only solution available to him to control the "birther" movement that would arise later in his term.

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

The difference between us, is that I try to understand what the public official is really saying. I know that when they speak, they often do not actually lie, but speak in vague references that could misdirect those not listening carefully, and that they are, in their own clever way, always telling and revealing some other truth, for those that have ears to hear.

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

Sorry, he got the job already.

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

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Expanded: you will notice a difference in the type of mail you receive in all capital letters and the mail that isn't.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by NAMTERCES

This posts is the most disgusting thing I have ever read. You endorse 9/11 because of competition. You are despicable.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by longlostbrother

Actually this reminds me very much of you all.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by NAMTERCES

Yes he got the job without providing either. You people are disgraceful. Keep trusting your government and let's see where you end up in 3 years

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

The only way you can provide any evidence is to provide witness and video evidence that he was born in Kenya and can not be eligible to be president. Anything else will not work in a court of law. And then you have to have probable cause that he has committed a crime of fraud to take it to a court of law.

The only way to claim that Obama is not eligible is to claim that he was not born in America. That's it. Nothing else. Anything else is sophistry.

Which you have none.

When are you going to stop this nonsense argument?????

I have never once said that he was born in Kenya, neither has Veritas.
No one has stated this. You are making this up.

You are using a false syllogism to mischaracterize my argument, which is a logical fallacy.

You deathers seem especially adept at employing logical fallacies to suit your needs.

This is your whole argument-
Some 'Birthers' claim that he was born in Kenya.
I am claiming that he has not proven his natural born citizenship.
So therefore I am claiming that he was born in Kenya.

This is ridiculous.
This is absurd.
This is preposterous.

How many different words do I have to use until you realize that you are attributing an argument to me that I have not made by using a false syllogism.

A false syllogism draws the wrong conclusion from two premises in the form of (a->x & b -> x) ==> a-> b

link to source

Let me make this crystal clear for you.

I do not know where he was born. He has not proven anything.

I have explained 80 ways to Sunday how his so-called proof relies on nothing reasonably valid.
People can lie.
He has been questioned about his birthplace.
He could easily have taken care of this by simply admitting into evidence his long form birth certificate.
But he refuses to do so.
Instead of simply admitting into evidence this long form BC, he instructs his lawyers to tap dance around the law.


Why not just admit it into evidence?

To this, you answer "because he doesn't have to".

But yet he has still not proven his natural born citizenship.

The only argument you seem to have for this is to try and paint me as claiming he was born in Kenya by using a false syllogism.

Politicians lie.
All the time.
This is well known.
That is why we have a thing called testifying under oath.
This is why we have certified copies of a long form birth certificate.
Official statements from Hawaii are not admissible in a court of law.
They are as meaningless as your arguments when establishing validity.
A certified copy of his long form BC would solve all of these problems, but yet he refuses to supply this.

You cannot get out of this argument rationally.

The best that you can do is more tap dancing.
No different than his lawyers.

When this whole argument is distilled...
this question is still left unanswered.

edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:03 PM

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter

Yes constitution provides jurisdiction of equity, statutory and common law. Common law and civil law share the same provisions regarding property, contracts, and deeds. Slaves are property and would fall under Common law; not statutory. Therefore there would be no statues regarding such a thing.

The constitution is the supreme law. The problem with your argument is that this whole thing is not even recognized as a valid argument in a court of law, based (at least partially) on the fact that it is not even addressed in any laws within the US Code or in the Constitution. I would go outand find more links of the whole argument getting crushed in court, but that is proving a bit tricky on a Nook tablet. It will have to wait until I can be on my computer.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by kyviecaldges

I place no value in logic.

And you are using none.

You can deny that you aren't arguing for the Kenyan angle all you, but there's an old saying:

Never bullchit a bullchitter.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't full a bullchitter who fools a lot of people a lot of the time.

The truth is the truth, you are arguing for Obama to be born in Kenya.

Whine some more.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by NAMTERCES

Your answers were laughably ludicrous.

Silly, nutty, foolish, daffy, dippy, nutty, flaky...

I could list every single synonym for ludicrous found in a thesaurus and still not come close to accurately describing your answers.

Sadam Hussein had oil as a weapon of mass destruction?

Do you actually believe what you are typing or is this sarcasm intended to show how innane and empty these arguments actually are?

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

I place no value in logic.


Thank you for finally having the cojones to be honest.
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Next time I see this post, I will report you to the mods for harassment. Neither of us are arguing about Kenya, nor do we care about it. Our argument is for Obama to provide a certified Long-Form Birth Certificate, which he has not done; we are saying this is not because he was born in Kenya( Like the "Birthers" you are lumping us in with), but because of implications of the 14th Amendment, and so forth.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by flyswatter

Except the people being critical of the whole "freeman" movement don't even know the real reason it gets crushed in a court of law. It's not because it's true, it's because the people who are trying to act as if they know the law by spending 5 minutes reading an article on it, aren't aware of all the bases. They go into court and commit the mistakes that are what kills their trial. If they knew every single bit of evidence they needed, and took the necessary steps before hand, Reserving all rights under UCC 1-308 and other measures. If they had checked every possible step and were aware of the law like every citizen should be, they'd be able to get away with it. Which is why the percentage of successful cases is lower than the number of failed. However don't misconstrue this to believe that nobody has ever won.

There are quite a few law-aware citizens that have gotten themselves out of trouble by knowing the full extent of the law.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

In fairness, your complete unwillingness to engage with others all the while posting insults is much worse than anything others do to you on ATS.

In effect, you are a troll.

You refuse every effort to engage you on FACTS but instead you, and your one supporter, post what everyone else sees as meaningless nonsense, and you post it aggressively and endlessly.

I personally have debunked numerous claims youve made and you have not once engaged in a discussion of the facts.

So, as a troll, you're hardly in a position to claim people are mistreating you.

The only pity I feel are for unsuspecting posters who think you and your buddy are serious.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

And yet you cant show any examples, no matter how many dozens of times you're challenged too.

Go figure.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:52 PM

Here is a little quote.

Most men and women are so taken over by their belief systems that they are unable to listen to or read anything without placing the information of their belief systems over the information they are reading or hearing.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by longlostbrother

We have provided you with evidence, we have provided you with links. I do not have to prove anything to you. You are nobody. I am not going to waste my time further, by continuing to post the same things to your arguments; that you are refusing to see.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Then report me and stop whining.

My honest opinion of you is you are birthers and trolls. You can't fool me. You can deny it all you want to.

And he has released his bc twice. He doesn't have to release it any more, and you will not accept anything else he releases and will call it a fake.

That he hasn't released his bc is the same one birthers use.

A tennis shoe that has laces versus the tennis shoe that has Velcro are still tennis shoes. You just want to say a tennis shoe that uses Velcro is not a tennis shoe. Which is sheer utter nonsense. They are still tennis shoes.

All you're doing is trolling the thread.

And I haven't reported you for anything.

I see through you.

Whine some more.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by longlostbrother

Because I shouldn't have to? Hell Obama doesn't have to prove he is a natural born citizen other than the government investigating the government.

It's like Nutra-sweet funding the research companies who are looking into connection of MS.

It's like Monsanto buying the company that is researching the bee-colony collapse after they find out Monsanto's GMO's are involved.

It's like letting an officer convicted of murder investigating his own crime only to declare "All is well!"

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Wrong; He provided a COPY on his that Adobe experts have declared a forgery. For that I require more proof. Don't scream at me about OCR because the same people who proved it was a forgery also debunked the myth that layers were due to OCR. Try again.

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Wrong; He provided a COPY on his that Adobe experts have declared a forgery.

If it's not a REAL BC, but it's only a copy (a picture) how can any "expert" declare it's forgery? From a COPY?

The truth is, what you see on the Internet cannot be found valid NOR declared a "forgery". It's just ones and zeroes. It's a picture.

It's amazing how come of you think a picture of a birth certificate on the Internet can be claimed a forgery. But let someone say it's authentic and you go off the deep end.

How is it that your "Adobe experts" can verify this is a forgery, when it's just a COPY of the actual document?

top topics

<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in