Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?

reply to post by indigothefish


You're gonna need to be more explict than that.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


ok i will be pretty clear. it's 2012, he was elected in 2008. you've had about four years of birther movement study time.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You're again acting like a nut.

Again...as I said to someone else here. I don't do personal attack and I don't do name calling. Either giving or being given. I don't respect those who do and I generally consider a debate over and won...or lost..depending on what side you're standing on...as soon as name calling and personal attacks enter into it. Now I'd hate to see you watch me walk away from you and mutter anything more about how I can't know what I'm talking about. On this, there is no debate. Let's look, shall we?

This from your OP, describing the only categories of people you consider to be on the side of asking questions here:

1. Political opponents
2. Foreign operatives
3. Crazy people
4. Business interests
5. Some combination of the above and I guess, though I doubt it, I should add
6. Hardcore racists

Well now..that almost sounds like Bush and Cheney with their "With us or against us" nonsense. We aren't permitted to question anything anymore? Interesting..oh but you get far more vicious with the attacks. A sampling:

So basically Obama not only wasn't REALLY the defendant, but no one, and I mean no one with any sense, thought a sitting President was gonna go represent himself on behalf of the party. That's crazy talk.

[I'll leave that as the sole 'Crazy' example...and that was to me in a reply. The ways you call those who disagree crazy is amusing by it's variety, I will grant that.]

Right, so you tell me then, why are the birthers lying so much?
Why would you trust a bunch of liars?
No mistakes, but lies.
[Those lines, all from one reply to someone else on this thread]

You need to learn to separate fiction from reality
Show me or stop making silly claims.

I mean, when you see things like that photoshopped Columbia ID, it means people are NOT loking for truth, but generating lies... why...?

Right, so you side with the people generating the lies then. That's down to your intellectual capacity I guess.
I think it's funny that birthers completely ignore all questions about the evidence they believe. I guess it's all just faith on their part.

I guess crazy is really he only explanation for her... [a comment about the Plantiff's Lawyer]

You're again acting like a nut.

(Areas in bold and in brackets are my comments]

Now there was more and some was to me...some wasn't. I'm not commenting every insult you've thrown or who it was specifically thrown AT because that detracts from my point here. People are not always going to agree....and in this case, the disagreement is so epic, it's risen to the level of cultural issue and has been the center of a number of COURT, not tabloid, matters. The point here is though.....the fact people disagree with you doesn't make them crazy, ignorant, stupid or just plain malicious in intent. They aren't liars and they aren't fools. They just disagree. I believe you HAVE lost all credibility because you couldn't keep this at a professional level...and just had to devolve into personal attack.

You'll note...there are more than just you here that disagree with me..and no surprise. It's ATS. However, I backed off with one, because I'm just not in the mood to fight today..even friendly. Nothing personal and I hope he didn't take it that way. On another thread, we may agree on something else. A couple others, I've said nothing to. They make points I think are misguided, but such is life..and again, we don't always agree. What makes this special is that not everyone becomes downright hateful and vicious to fellow members. When they day is over, we're all still here together....and MOST OF US aren't looking to take disagreement in debate and carry it into direct hard feelings far beyond the thread. You, as I see it, have done exactly that.

Anyway... Take care there...and I'm off the thread entirely. Enough is Enough and if we can't have a conversation or debate, I won't be here for the grudge match and insult competition. It just isn't my way...and it's low class in general. Good luck though and have a good day.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I would note that I think you're leaving this thread because your BS has been called out.

I have shown you rock solid examples of Taitz lying, you've heard them come out of her mouth now. And yet.

Your tact is to try and claim that "questioning" is right. Well, sure... but where are the people questioning every form Bush's family ever filled out? Why aren't you questioning every Mitt Romney tax record? OR his eligibility to be MA governor?

In fact you're only really "questioning" when it suits your agenda.

Which is NOT clever. It's actually pretty weak.

reply to post by indigothefish


That's not clear at all.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
I don't know about the motivation of "birthers" because the very word means nothing. It is a derogatory term meant to disparage the motivations of anyone that raises questions. It makes it easier to label the whole group with adjectives meant to define a person not a group, like "racist" for example.
Further, when members play this game, it tells me a lot about them. It tells me they are not interested in truth, because one that is interested in truth does not play these sorts of games.
This thread is below the intellect of anyone that is interested in truth. Truth stands on its own, and like any idea that the masses cannot yet handle, exists only in the hearts and minds of people that respect it. On either side, if truth is not the objective, it becomes clear to an unbiased party.
OP is not interested in truth.

But don't you see that it's much more than just raising questions? It's outright accusations - accusations that are not based on any truths. I can somewhat understand someone asking to see a birth certificate. But when that birth certificate is provided - why do the birthers scream "FAKE"? And, when the state of Hawaii has publicly stated that the birth certificate is authentic, why continue to scream "FAKE"? And when the phony birth certificate from Kenya is shown (which was never authenticated by the country of Kenya), why is there now all of a sudden no need for the birthers to scream "FAKE"? Why did the birthers not raise any questions about the validity of the Kenyan birth certificate? Do you see that this is more than just raising questions? This is obviously a determined effort to undermine Obama.

For those who say they are only interested in the truth - what would actually make you satisfied that Obama was born in America? Ask yourself what is it that would convince you beyond the shadow of a doubt? If the judge in Georgia throws this case out, would that convince you once and for all? What about all those other cases in other states that were dismissed before it ever got to a hearing? Didn't that convince you? A birth certificate from the state of Hawaii doesn't convince you? The state of Hawaii's official confirmation that the certificate is valid doesn't convince you? What exactly is the answer that would convince you?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


it's pretty clear.

actually i ended up doing something i don't normally do and don't really agree with doing. and that is i was sort of antagonistic with you. thank you for your patience i didn't mean to come accross as mean towards you and your search.

i will offer to you my thoughts on the subject. the usa is currently in a reformation. we see this in the new internet laws and changing social structure, the planned economic crisis that will lead to a new form of economy, the wars to reform the middle east to the west's benefit. there is definitely a goal to be reached with all this, it's not random and it's not just being implemented by people who don't think further than a couple years with each action they take.

part of implementing this 'new' order is the introduction of certain institutions and ideologies that are contradictory to the previous order. an example would be in the previous order american's had a very free and open law for speech and press. in the new order free speech could be limited to what is not against the system, and press will be openly regulated by the system it watches.

such changes wil occur but will be hard to make without actual friction from 'the people'. in order to organize this anti-new order group obama was situated as president. he was glorified on tv as being popular, loved and extremely smooth and hard to successfully attack in any political way. president obama would be used to implement these changes to the system that would be so controversial that normally they could never pass as law. and to organize those that would oppose this new order the birther movement was created.

firstly, i don't know where he was born. the only people who know for sure are the people who were there when it happened. it doesn't even matter where he was born. the birther movement is a distraction to gather and utilize the efforts and energy of the new order opposition and direct them to a dead end. this is the goal of the birther movement. this is why there are alot of things happening that are similiar.

I have watched as this issue has been cussed and discussed for the past three years or so.

I have ask before, and never got an answer, so I will ask again !

How many of our past Presidents have been "required" to present a birth certificate ?

Who was the last president to present their birth certificate ?

I would also like to see the birth certificate of Orly Taitz.

Come to think of it, I think she once ask for what she termed "an American birth certificate".

I would like to see her's !!

reply to post by indigothefish


Ahhhh... OK,

Well, first, no problems with me not being rude

Second, I pretty much disagree with your analysis and conclusions completely

I have to comments to make: obama by law, as it is written, can not be pres, for here is the one law that says he, obama is well... read it if you so dare www.law.cornell.edu... back in a sec with the second part, lawful reason here is the second, www.abovetopsecret.com... Now prove to me that his dad did have a visa at the time of Obama's birth and second prove that Obama's dad was in the US for the time required by law.

reply to post by bekod


None of that relates to Obama who was born in the US.

Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:
(1) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession; NOPE
(2) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person; NOPE
(3) A person of unknown parentage found in an outlying possession of the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in such outlying possession; and NOPE
(4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not a citizen, of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than seven years in any continuous period of ten years— NOPE
(A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and NOPE
(B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
The proviso of section 1401 (g) of this title shall apply to the national parent under this paragraph in the same manner as it applies to the citizen parent under that section. NOPE

reply to post by bekod


To quote 1401.

Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

So thanks for proving that, yet again.

Originally posted by bekod
I have to comments to make: obama by law, as it is written, can not be pres, for here is the one law that says he, obama is well... read it if you so dare www.law.cornell.edu... back in a sec with the second part, lawful reason here is the second, www.abovetopsecret.com... Now prove to me that his dad did have a visa at the time of Obama's birth and second prove that Obama's dad was in the US for the time required by law.

edit on 1-2-2012 by bekod because: editting

Please show me where it states in the U. S. Constitution that a "Natural Born" citizen born in the U.S. must have two U. S. citizen parents at the time of birth.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
not good enough for it is written www.usconstitution.net...

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

so again prove his, Obama's dad, is a citizen of the US.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


how come you disagree?

reply to post by bekod

That says NOTHING about anyone's parents. Obama's dad isn't the president and his citizenship is irrelevant. Obama was born in the US of a natural born citizen parent. There is no doubt that he is a natural-born citizen (except in the minds of birthers)

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Its called poisoning the punch bowl, peeing in the punch, an intentional lie to discrediy a movement, kind of like every time sorcha faal says something. The weak minded think the issue is tainted because of the actions of a few operatives working for the criminal party. Agent provacateurs in a sense.

reply to post by bekod


Like you're gonna be told repeatedly, the onlt people that think it matters are birthers who can't find another angle of attack. There is no legal basis for the birther argument that your parents have o be US citizens. Like the law you linked to states, all you need it to be born in the US.

That's it.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

not good enough for it is written www.usconstitution.net...

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

so again prove his, Obama's dad, is a citizen of the US.

edit on 1-2-2012 by bekod because: editting

LOL - your own link proves you wrong.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" Anyone born inside the United States.* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U *.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. * There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision. Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

ok form doing what few seem to do, there is nothing saying that Obama can not be the President of the USofA, I as one of many seem to have fallen for the old, see it says here , when you do not how to read what you reading at first glance then yes, you say yes it is so. When in fact a few clicks of the mouse and some reading you find the truth and the truth says not so, so with this I might make a run for the Pres in 2016, it says nothing that both parents must be US citizen or be born in the US. here i thought i could not run for only my mom is a citizen, got no clue on my dad, died in one month before I was born, no family history, for I can truly say I am the Only one. no other last name is like mine, one of kind and this is no joke.