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 Nobama
reply to post by Helious
Am I implying something? I must have missed that in my posts. I'm stating something, and I had hoped I had done it clearly but that must not be the case.
oh man this is great
dictionary.reference.com...
Epic Fail.
a decent argument for the points I have owned you on.
I would advise you digress from one line catch phrases that only perpetuate your ignorance that may or may not involve links from Wikipedia. By all means, do what you do, that is only a suggestion to try and keep the thread on track.
that's why this ruling makes no sense
Originally posted by filosophia
But having a federal prosecutor going after Obama would be like the second coming of Christ, probably not going to happen.
Originally posted by pcrobotwolf
This isn't just some dude off the street it's an eligibility attorney as stated above
What do you think a "eligibility attorney" is?
Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by spoor
What do you think a "eligibility attorney" is?
That is a good and valid question. That is part of her problem. Did she advertise herself as such Before Obama came along?
Is/Was her legal practice and/or back ground in the field of law that she could claim herself as such? Many questions that took away from her crediability. Well, at least gave the media something to rip on her about. IMO.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by bigwig22
It seems that the POTUS really is above the law.
Exactly the opposite in fact!
Perhaps you should read the actual reasons for the dismisal of the case??
"The SSA explained that the Privacy Act of 1974 ... protects the personal information of social security number holders," he wrote. "The SSA determined ... the plaintiff had identified no public interest that would be served by disclosure.
"Plaintiff makes no secret of her intention to use the redacted Form SS-5 to identify the holder of social security number xxxx-xxx-4425 – or, as plaintiff puts it, to confirm her suspicion that the president is fraudulently using that number," the judge wrote.
So ther you go - a law from 1974 prohibits the use of SSN's for the purpose the plaintiff admitted he wanted it - in effect he said "Hey - give me the infoso I can break the law with it" - and the judge quite rightly told him to sod off.
it goes to show that even the POTUS is afforded the protection of the law!edit on 31-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Helious
It honestly is pointless to continue this. I myself do not believe that he meets eligibility requirements for POTUS. That being said, how much do I actually care?
Since not much can be done about it, I prefer to focus on the complete and total train-wreck he has turned the United States into. Actually, in my opinion the train was already speeding down the tracks at 80mph when Bush left office, he just jumped in and kept it on the rails.
America needs alot more than to prove Obama isn't eligible. We need a complete and total restructuring of government and we have to do it with looming global economic collapse.
Get your heads out of your asses and start focusing on real problems that we can actually solve.