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.

 

Why Obama Does Not Have A Birth Certificate

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


Apparently to guys like him; Only corrupted government officials can be responsible for telling us the truth.


Exactly.

For some odd reason, Wayne Madson is not trustworthy to these guys, but yet they have no problem trusting Barry, who has done nothing but lie since illegally usurping the office of POTUS.

And Madson has no reason to lie.
What does it benefit him to lie.
However Barry stands to benefit greatly from all the lies that he tells.
I don't like to totally make this into a political discussion, but no one in America trusts Obama.

He is a snake in the grass and a liar and it is obvious.
Again, TPTB have this thing so rigged that we are beyond screwed.

Romney is no different than Obama
Obama got the framework for his health care law from the one Romney passed as governor of Mass.
The whole she-bang is a gigantic joke.
I am honestly surprised at the number of fools that still support Obama even after he has run the country into the ground and spent 4 years weaving lies.
edit on 24/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


They can deny the corruption all they want. If they'd really like me to, I could prove that the Government lies. While I have a great interest in Law; Medicine is my forte. That is NOT a situation they want to put me in. They will lose, and they will lose badly.
edit on 24-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


And yet you haven't diagnosed whatever it is that makes you endlessly talk to yourself???



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


I wasn't aware I was talking to myself? Actually my response was to Kyvie. Unless, you are trying to insinuate we are the same person, in which case I'll ask you to go confirm with the Mods on that one.

After all, Fluoride builds strong bones and teeth doesn't it?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


And yet you haven't diagnosed whatever it is that makes you endlessly talk to yourself???


You stay classy longlostbrother.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


As much as they want to debunk us, they still can't provide a legitimate explanation for the difference of all caps mail and regular. They don't know so they just attribute it to whatever.
edit on 24-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Well if there were a law someone could quote that would explain the caps stuff. Just to put this topic to rest...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well if there were a law someone could quote that would explain the caps stuff. Just to put this topic to rest...

I think you are being intentionally obstinate - aka - BULLHEADED

Your demand for a law has NO validity in this discussion - its non-sensical.

I told you before that your demand for "a law" is a 'non sequitur' on your part. But you refuse to see it! In this case your 'non sequitur' can be defined as somthing that “does not follow” with respect to the inappropriate request FOR A LAW that you keep making.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: spelling edit



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well if there were a law someone could quote that would explain the caps stuff. Just to put this topic to rest...

I think you are being intentionally obstinate - aka - BULLHEADED

Your demand for a law has NO validity in this discussion - its non-sensical.

I told you before that your demand for "a law" is a 'non sequitur' on your part. But you refuse to see it! In this case your 'non sequitur' can be defined as somthing that “does not follow” with respect to the inappropriate request FOR A LAW that you keep making.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: spelling edit


He's looking for proof that this sort of thing applies in today's society, in a way that it makes a difference.

Does it apply these days? No proof of this that I have seen. Did it at one time? I'm certainly not all-knowing, so I cant answer that one.

I see the argument being made, I understand what the argument is. Just dont agree with it.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvian
 

Oh dear goodness save me from the mighty latin babble of awesome powers!

If only there wouldn't have been a claim for the law to excist. Wouldn't need to ask someone to quote it.
edit on 24/7/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Vitruvian
 

Oh dear goodness save me from the mighty latin babble of awesome powers!

If only there wouldn't have been a claim for the law to excist. Wouldn't need to ask someone to quote it.
edit on 24/7/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



Please tell me (us) who among us made the claim that such a law exists?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Well it was Mr. Veritas. The threads author who keeps repeating the CAPS argument.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well it was Mr. Veritas. The threads author who keeps repeating the CAPS argument.


Thanks.............I think though that there might be a misunderstanding on that having come from VeritasAequitas
Let’s wait to see how he responds, because I hadn't noticed him make such a point as that. It seems to me much more likely that the "powers that be" had surreptitiously “slipped in” the ALL CAPS issue gradually overtime so as to make it an unnoticeably accepted policy without the bother of legislative (thus judicial) approval and that this happened throughout all government agencies, banks and all other institutions that have a direct effect on the regulation of the population at large. All things illegal and/or unconstitutional have been done in this same manner such as the secret promulgation of a central bank in America with its subsequent machinery of the Federal Reserve with its enforcement arm - the IRS - and the list goes on.

edit on 24-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: spelling error



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Vitruvian
 

Oh dear goodness save me from the mighty latin babble of awesome powers!

If only there wouldn't have been a claim for the law to excist. Wouldn't need to ask someone to quote it.
edit on 24/7/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)


One single law, single, ready to understand law does not exist.

The creation of the artificial person with whom we are identified due to our 14th Amendment citizenship was long time coming.
It did not happen overnight.
The lawmakers didn't just wake up one day and write a law explaining this.
This is why people who need things simplified to the lowest common denominator are unable to understand this reality.
It is hidden.
Some might say that it is purposefully hidden.
I don't know about that.
I tend to see it as a convenience afforded by the tides of history.

But this doesn't change the fact that it exists.

I started explaining this to you are your buddies last night.
And not a single person refuted the material that I presented.
I will try to get it all reposted along with some new material, because it actually belonged in this thread in the first place, but I am a bit pressed for time today and the rest of the week.
As much as I would love to sit on ATS all day and prove you and your ilk wrong continuously, I don't have the time.
I will try to get more posted in the next 2 to 3 hours.

Until then, why don't you try offering some constructive arguments psyko.
People actually learn when constructive arguments are offered instead of the thread becoming a mudslinging fest.

Step back, take a breath, relax, and conduct a mature exercise in mutual interaction.
edit on 24/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
It is hidden.
Some might say that it is purposefully hidden.


Are you finally admitting that it doesn't excist?



But this doesn't change the fact that it exists.


Oh... I guess not. So it is in fact reality but nowhere written down? It only excists in peoples imagination then? Not much of a law if you ask me.



And not a single person refuted the material that I presented.


Well if there would be something to refute, I don't know like a law written in plain english I might give it a try.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


But I already have..It's not my fault you all are under the impression that lawyers would make the law easy for you. They haven't or else A) Nobody would have to pay for one to go to court, and B) Any old person could be a lawyer.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


Except it isn't because those guys are claiming their argument is based on laws on the books yet when challenged they refuse to link to the law or show us the law in any way.

You just don't want them challenged.

If an argument is true it must be based on facts that can be verified. They are claiming their argument is true and backed up by law.

The onus is on the person to prove their claims are true. If you aren't out to make a true argument but just want to explore a possibility, then you should state so in your first post.

Otherwise, you're going to get challenged.

That's the way a debate works.

You can't have a debate if one side is allowed to make all kinds of absurd claims without backing them up while telling the opposing team to stfu.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


I quoted the all caps in respect to common law SEVERAL times, after the last time I refused to do so again. Don't be so naive to think they'd write down things in such outright circumstances. They don't. They write the law exactly how it is to discourage people from actually attempting to learn it or use it.
edit on 24-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Excellent post, excellent work in distilling a HUGE subject. Most of the responses will be attacks, as most people do not want to be free, but enslaved with all the comforts they've been told, told, they have - think crabs pulling the fleeing crab back into the barrel.

The BC scam is even more diabolical. The whole system was set up to defend the planetary controllers from the human population executing their divine right of freewill. The banking folks simply created this deal with the devil in which the human populace ignorantly gave up their freewill for Federal Reserve Debt Notes - perpetual debt and the safety of it. It was known that in this "age" that humans would begin to wake up, they'd quickly realize there divine right to freewill - it is who they are, so the system was created to simply enslave through the endless process of paying back the "debt."

Quietly the system took hold and each and ever person went from being a divine part of the whole to a "name." They went from connecting with others via their divine self to connecting via name first 'What's your name?" Ask yourself, who are you without the name on your BC? Why is it impossible to live without a name, when the name is completely arbitrary?

Now, what is interesting about the Pres is the fact that he seems to be the only one with the BC issue. We know there are no mistakes made at this level, the Pres is chosen and then folks are talked into voting for the chosen one, so why no BC? Could he be seen as the divine leader, the one who was not a slave? Could the subtle play on both color and BC be picked up by the collective unconscious and all folks see him as their Ceaser from Planet Of the Apes? He seemed to enjoy that kind of status, while being the conduit to deliver more draconian measures against the slaves who worship him.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join