Kansas considers removing Obama from ballot

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by wascurious
 

besides, IF you are an American, look at your own ... why would you need to see mine or any others for that matter ??
it's not like the information varies from state to state, it's a standard form or did the standard part confuse you ??


Too bad you have no idea what you are talking about. I almost took you seriously. Ignorance explodes out of this line of posting.




posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by unknown1234
 


Minor v. Happersett did not define natural-born citizenship. In fact it says right in the decision that they are not defining the term. As it was a case on voting they first needed to determine whether or not Minor was a citizen. As she was born to two US citizens there was no question about her citizenship. That's as far as they went n this case and made sure to state that they weren't defining anything.

There are however a number of cases where the courts define natural-born citizenship as being someone born on US soil. The earliest of these was Lynch v. Clarke. The most recent I'm familiar with is Perkins v. Elg. In the decision it was stated that as the defendant was born on US soil she was not only a citizen she was eligible to run for President.


You and I both know you are intentionally misleading people with that statement. This was an expected reply although I am surprised it took this long for someone to post it.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by unknown1234
You and I both know you are intentionally misleading people with that statement. This was an expected reply although I am surprised it took this long for someone to post it.


How so?
What do you have to offer?
I cannot find any problems in that post with the truth. You seemed to have failed to point out what it was.
I think you are just calling them a liar for no reason.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 

i never said a word about their "appearance".
why are you ?

these are statements of a legal issue and while the wording may differ slightly, the intent of the statement remains the same (standard).

let's not nitpik words here or is that all you've got ?

why would i need to show anything ?
Obama does, not i.

look, i was asked for details of error about what was posted, i provided them.
if you don't agree, fine ... never said you had to.

point is, what was posted, is a fake.
always was, always will be and it doesn't matter how many people say it's authentic, {it's an authentic fake for sure} however, surprisingly, it doesn't say any such thing ... isn't that odd ?

If that's an H, it must be from a different language

curious - why are you avoiding the simple fact that such a statement was not stamped after the forms were re-formatted ??



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by Honor93
 


Have YOU seen it? Have YOU examined it up and close?

No answer for that?

Take the strawman and go home then.
why would i need to see it up close ?? i haven't filed any lawsuits.
like many Americans, i'd like to see it but, all in all, in my personal opinion, regardless where he was born, he'll never fit the common acceptance of a "natural born" citizen. {born of 2 citizens, not just 1} so the issue is really moot, except for the conspiracy aspect of it all.

i'm glad an effort was made, but, in light of the whole, the damage is already done.

as for seeing this particular piece, up close, what for ??
i can see how horribly wrong it is from right here, in the palm of my hand.

and another thing or two ... IF this is the "book/registry entry", as some have claimed, where is the rest of the information ?? ... IF this is a "certified copy", as we've been led to believe, the stamped anything is just plain bogus ... IF this is just an "abstract", then we've been lied to from the get go ... and ... a legal binding statement doesn't generally provide for multiple definitions of a form -- it is either a certified copy of an original OR it is an abstract, it cannot be both, ever.
soooo, since there are so many choices, which is it ??



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by unknown1234
 


This was an expected reply although I am surprised it took this long for someone to post it.
hmmm, it was expected yet you present no rebuttle

one does have to wonder why, especially one who agrees with the misrepresentation you claim it to be.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by flyswatter
 

i never said a word about their "appearance".
why are you ?

these are statements of a legal issue and while the wording may differ slightly, the intent of the statement remains the same (standard).

let's not nitpik words here or is that all you've got ?

why would i need to show anything ?
Obama does, not i.

look, i was asked for details of error about what was posted, i provided them.
if you don't agree, fine ... never said you had to.

point is, what was posted, is a fake.
always was, always will be and it doesn't matter how many people say it's authentic, {it's an authentic fake for sure} however, surprisingly, it doesn't say any such thing ... isn't that odd ?

If that's an H, it must be from a different language

curious - why are you avoiding the simple fact that such a statement was not stamped after the forms were re-formatted ??






So in other words, you cannot show that any of what you said is required?

Gotcha, just needed to confirm that. Have a nice day!



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
If Kansas does this then other states may follow suit. If enough states do this, they may have to find another opponent for Romney to run against...

Ron Paul 2012 !!!



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


You do know there is only one original of anything, don't you?
Can you write your post again, use logic and facts, and see if it makes any sense?

Not one thing you have posted here about birth certificates is even true. Who do you think you are fooling? Have you changed anyone's mind on this matter?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 

So in other words, you cannot show that any of what you said is required?

Gotcha, just needed to confirm that. Have a nice day!
sorry, not following you here.
what would need to be posted to show it's a requirement ??

isn't the statement/requirement appearing on several million already enough ??
wouldn't it be more remarkable that Obama's is the only one that the statement (or any form of it) doesn't appear at all ??



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious
reply to post by Honor93
 


You do know there is only one original of anything, don't you?
Can you write your post again, use logic and facts, and see if it makes any sense?

Not one thing you have posted here about birth certificates is even true. Who do you think you are fooling? Have you changed anyone's mind on this matter?
what does the original have to do with this conversation ?
are you suggesting what was posted IS an original ??
(sure hope not or you'd really be reaching for the stars with that one)

a certified copy of an original is what most receive and what we're being led to believe this is ... however, it isn't even that much and it cannot be both at the same time.
it is either a certified copy of the original ... or ... it is an abstract of the original ... never both.

i'm not fooling anyone, just sharing the facts as they appear on the papers in my hands.
don't suppose you have any source documents to draw factual information from, do you ??

don't know if i've changed anyone's mind or not. wasn't my intention.
however, if one person looks at their own and has similar questions, i guess i've done some good along the way



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
i'm not fooling anyone, just sharing the facts as they appear on the papers in my hands.
don't suppose you have any source documents to draw factual information from, do you ??


No you are not fooling anyone. I have my BC which looks just like Obama's does. For some reason the concept that they vary from state to state and time to time is really hard for you to grasp. His does not look like yours. Apparently neither does mine. So what?

The rest of your ignorance is scary.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
wouldn't it be more remarkable that Obama's is the only one that the statement (or any form of it) doesn't appear at all ??



Maybe if that were true.
Lots of things might be remarkable if they become true.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by Honor93
i'm not fooling anyone, just sharing the facts as they appear on the papers in my hands.
don't suppose you have any source documents to draw factual information from, do you ??


No you are not fooling anyone. I have my BC which looks just like Obama's does. For some reason the concept that they vary from state to state and time to time is really hard for you to grasp. His does not look like yours. Apparently neither does mine. So what?

The rest of your ignorance is scary.
glad you find my commentary worthy debating
... is there something to it that you find threatening ??

If yours looks like Obama's does, what exactly do you have ??
what does your form title say it is ??

and, since you claim yours is identical (looks just like his), please post it for the world to see and settle this once and for all


i am positive you are bluffing ... prove you are not.
the legalities placed on them don't change from state to state, they are standard.
nice try to deflect though.

so, what do the legal phrases on yours say, word for word ?
i posted two of my 6 cause they are the only two that read differently, aside from the issuing state and signature.
(they are also more than 20yrs apart in creation - you know, after the re-formatting process)

so, since yours looks like his, please, prove it.
{amazingly, his doesn't even look like the one posted for twins born in the same hospital, the same week}



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
what does the original have to do with this conversation ?


It has everything to do with the post by you that I responded to.


are you suggesting what was posted IS an original ??
(sure hope not or you'd really be reaching for the stars with that one)


No, I am suggesting you go back to the post I responded to and figure out what the hell you think you meant.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
i am positive you are bluffing ... prove you are not.
the legalities placed on them don't change from state to state, they are standard.
nice try to deflect though.




This is truly awesome.
So what is legally required to be on Obama's that is not there?
Pretty sure you have been asked this already and last time you backpedaled. If you have anything worth responding to, it would be the answer to that question.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
glad you find my commentary worthy debating
...


Debating? I am not debating you. I am correcting you.

is there something to it that you find threatening ??

Not that I can think of.


If yours looks like Obama's does, what exactly do you have ??
what does your form title say it is ??

Certification of live birth.


and, since you claim yours is identical (looks just like his), please post it for the world to see and settle this once and for all


Right after you post the ones you have been asked to post. Otherwise, my reason for not posting is the same as yours.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 

sorry for you cause i don't go fishing on demand.
and, since you don't seem capable of using the "Reply" feature provided to you, link the post you want me to review and i'd be happy to.
otherwise, find another bone to pick.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by wascurious
 

sorry for you cause i don't go fishing on demand.
and, since you don't seem capable of using the "Reply" feature provided to you, link the post you want me to review and i'd be happy to.
otherwise, find another bone to pick.


I used the reply button just fine and even quoted your post when I responded to it the first time. Then you asked me what my response had to do with anything. If counting back one post from there is too complicated for you I can only assume you have no idea how to clarify your own thoughts.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by wascurious
 
ummm, it's your turn.
you post the "identical" proof you claim to possess.
it's your claim, your duty to prove, not mine.

i've made no claim except that i believe you are bluffing.
the rest have been questions based on source materials.

got any answers for the questions posed ??
or even a posting of your own that proves your point ??

your question has been asked and answered and once i can access a scanner, i may even post what i have minus the personal details.
{however, that won't stop anyone from claiming it's a fake and when that happens, how does one prove it isn't ??}

you're correcting me ??? when or where ?
care to link some proof ?
it's not like this is the first time you've been asked.

Certification of Live Birth ?? and that's all ?? are you sure ??
this is your only chance to get it right ... especially since yours is identical

{tip --> perhaps you should look at Obama's again}

noooo, your reason for not posting is because you have nothing to post or you would have at least gotten the title correct

{and i gave you plenty of time to edit your answer}

ETA: for those who haven't seen the posting, even Obama's does NOT say what you typed.
so, when you have a valid argument, please present it, otherwise, it's a fake.


edit on 20-9-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join