Usurper?

Help Support The Pipe:

known

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
1,489
Keep 'em coming.

Why?

Your answers are lame and opinion-based. I don't even get a chuckle out of your posts any longer. You are the most ignorant personality on this forum. I am afraid for people like you.... very afraid.
 

dynamiteone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
3,607
Why?

Your answers are lame and opinion-based. I don't even get a chuckle out of your posts any longer. You are the most ignorant personality on this forum. I am afraid for people like you.... very afraid.
You can't take the heat from the answers you get or the questions your ideologically bankrupt posts create. Your inane criticism of Bush and GM is revealing. So just where did the $19 friggin billion Obama gave away to GM to save GM that went bankrupt 3 months later? According to Obama it was a crisis we had to act on or they would fail. He played you for a fool you and they failed anyway.

Do you wonder why there is silence on what the employees gave up??

Are those questions to ignorant for you or do you just not have an answer?

If ignorance is bliss, you are one happy camper.
 

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
Just a thought.....

A Jew who lived 2000 years ago claims to be the son of God....and you believe him without proof.

Our president was born in Hawaii, has proof and the state backing him up....and you still don't believe.

Sounds a little crazy if you ask me.
 

V2+15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
9,998
Just a thought.....

A Jew who lived 2000 years ago claims to be the son of God....and you believe him without proof.

Our president was born in Hawaii, has proof and the state backing him up....and you still don't believe.

Sounds a little crazy if you ask me.
Jesus didn't have an ulterior motive.
 

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
Jesus didn't have an ulterior motive.
Really? He wasn't even real. Please feel free to show me the evidence that he existed, other than the bible. Surely if he was alive there'd be a record or something.

Now quit hijacking the thread.
 

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
Really? He wasn't even real. Please feel free to show me the evidence that he existed, other than the bible. Surely if he was alive there'd be a record or something.

Now quit hijacking the thread.
As a side note. Republican from Arizona, Trent Franks, told firedoglake.com that his office did extensive research into the subject. His office found official documents and was able to find birth announcements from the original newspapers. He called the movement compelling, but not true.
 

V2+15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
9,998
I guess I'll put this to bed in my mind. Besides, there's REALLY nothing any one of us can do about it IF he wasn't born in this country. If people want power that much, they will go to any length to obtain it despite what I may do or think. "He who has the gold rules...". I just hope for the sake of this country, this doesn't one day turn out to be false.

G'day all...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/28/hawaii-declares-obama-birth-certificate-real/
 

known

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
1,489
You can't take the heat from the answers you get or the questions your ideologically bankrupt posts create. Your inane criticism of Bush and GM is revealing. So just where did the $19 friggin billion Obama gave away to GM to save GM that went bankrupt 3 months later? According to Obama it was a crisis we had to act on or they would fail. He played you for a fool you and they failed anyway.

Do you wonder why there is silence on what the employees gave up??

Are those questions to ignorant for you or do you just not have an answer?
Many media outlets reported that GM was handed money by Bush. Just becuase it wasnt on Hannity's blog doesn't mean it didn't happen this way.

Here's BUSH saying that he won't bailout GM:
http://in.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idINN1529157320080715

Here's BUSH bailing out GM:

http://earth2tech.com/2008/12/19/bush-approves-174b-greenless-bailout-for-gm-chrysler/

You can't hide from the fact that this money was decidedly handed over in DEC 08, with guaranteed money into Obama's term... looooong before Obama was sworn in. But please, keep ignoring facts and claiming that Obama is my hero, too.

There was not silence on what the employees gave up, you bumbling idiot. It was widely reported in the papers, CNBC and most media outlets. I'm sorry Rush didn't speak to it from 9a-10:30a last Tuesday - THAT doesn't mean it wasn't reported.

No, YOU are too ignorant because you only ask questions that have already been answered... just not to your liking. You just wish that history had happened differently and you come on here to cry over spilled milk.

It's odd how people keep bringing facts to these posts but you only throw it back in their face with more, previously-answered questions. I hope people on here will take notice of your idiocy and unwillingness to seek fact over opinion.

I can't wait for your next quoted post with more previously-answered or unrelated questions.
 

known

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
1,489
deleted... I see Joel already posted the link above from FOX.
 
Last edited:

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
F'ing A! It must be bad if Fox News in running a story contrary to the birthers. Rupert likes Obama and I somehow think Rupert had some hand in running this story since most birthers would happen to be Fox viewers.
 

nixon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
4,680
Just a thought.....

A Jew who lived 2000 years ago claims to be the son of God....and you believe him without proof.

Our president was born in Hawaii, has proof and the state backing him up....and you still don't believe.

Sounds a little crazy if you ask me.
Fabulous! These believers - non-believers bashing you in.....
 

rvpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
410
Just a thought.....
Our president was born in Hawaii, has proof and the state backing him up....and you still don't believe.
Why do you and others like you get hung up on the b/c??? As I said earlier, it is just one small piece of the puzzle. The status of his father is more important.

I copied this from another site, since you seem to not read anything I/we post.


Obama Citizenship Facts and Obama Birth Certificate Facts

FACT: Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen nor was his father an immigrant to the USA nor was his father even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama's father was merely sojourning in the USA as a student for a few years and returned to Kenya. Thus, Obama is not and never can be an Article II "natural born" citizen of the USA.

When Obama was born he was not a "natural born citizen" since both parents of a child must be citizens at the time of birth of the child in order for the child to be a "natural born" citizen. In addition to the requirement as to the parents citizenship status, the child must also be born in the USA. Obama may be a "born citizen" depending on the evidence in Hawaii. But "born" is NOT synonymous with "natural born". And I am not talking about the difference between natural child birth and a "C" section. Natural in this sense refers to the "natural law" definition of citizenship. Obama can never be considered a "natural born citizen" no matter where he was born because his father was not a U.S. citizen. Both parents must be citizens at the time of birth of the child in the USA for the child to be a "natural born citizen" per our Constitution's framers intent and the "natural law", as codified by Vattel in 1758 in his legal reference treatise, "The Law of Nations". The "divided loyalties" concerns of the framers of a person who is selected to serve as our President and Commander-in-Chief of our military comes into play. Thus the framers required a "natural born" citizen only mandate in the U.S. Constitution for the Office of President and Commander-in-Chief of our military.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp2kKNTjH70

"Natural born citizenship" is defined in the 250 year old scholarly book, "Law of Nations", written in 1758, decades before our Constitution and was used as a scholarly reference by our U.S. Constitution's framers. Some excerpts, "... natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ... I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country". See more here: http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1169 Also see this chart which shows who is and who is not a "natural born citizen" depending on whom your parents are and where you are born: http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1467 An easily printable and down-loadable copy of this chart explaining the various types of citizenship mentioned in our Constitution is available at SCRIBD.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/

Please prove this wrong, if you can.
 

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
Why are you listing a lot of convoluted information about things prior to our constitution? The Constitution was pretty clear. When it wasn't, it was discussed in several court cases. Most notably Dred Scott in 1857.

You're really digging now if you have to include law and definitions from before our country was founded.

Obama is a "Natural Born Citizen" by any argument that has been published by a Supreme Court Justice.
 

Left Coast

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
2,229
RV,

I so wanted to not say anything on this thread because it is so ridiculous. It actually makes me leary to come to work knowing that some people here can actually believe this stuff. I urge you to look into Occam's Razor.
Occams razor is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It is apocryphally attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity."

When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

However, that being said. You bring up another twist in your above post that merits attention. You are being misled because you keep referencing from people who care more about their own bias than truth.

The constitution never defines natural born citizen. It never mentions that in order to be a natural born citizen, that BOTH parents be citizens also. There are some who believe this to be the definition and there are others who believe a person only needs ONE parent to be born here. Most people believe that a person only has to be born here in order to be a natural born citizen. There have been court cases that involved all these scenereos but there is precedence that would suggest all a person needs to do is be born here regardless of their heritage. There is also precedence that would rule that John McCain is a natural born citizen even though he was born in Panama. I believe his case actually went to court and that was the outcome.

You are only citing a few court cases. Here are some more. http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823

It's a long read and it references the same cases that your pasted blogger used but it also includes more info.

The birthers claim that Obama traveled to Indonesia without a U.S passport and because you need a passport to go there he must have had citezinship elswhere. What they leave out is that you didn't need a passport to go there back in 1981. That's how conspiracy theories work. They reach a conclusion and then only use the facts they want instead of all the facts in play.

These lawsuits aren't new. As mentioned this was already looked into. You can hold on to the leniage of Obama's Father but you are aligning yourself with people that Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly won't even agree with.
 
Last edited:

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
Let me use your biggest argument against the Hawaii certificate, it says "registration of birth" not birth certificate.

Are you going to admit you got duped again when it's proven false? Maybe we should look to make sure Dan Rather is nowhere to be found.
 

rvpilot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
410
Let me use your biggest argument against the Hawaii certificate, it says "registration of birth" not birth certificate.

Are you going to admit you got duped again when it's proven false? Maybe we should look to make sure Dan Rather is nowhere to be found.
McFly, what we call it and what another COUNTRY calls it could very well be different.

I asked the question first, and all you can do is answer with another question...typical!

I DID NOT say I believed it was authentic. I asked IF it is proven authentic, are you going to continue defending him?

Quit playing dodge-the-question!
 

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
McFly, what we call it and what another COUNTRY calls it could very well be different.

I asked the question first, and all you can do is answer with another question...typical!

I DID NOT say I believed it was authentic. I asked IF it is proven authentic, are you going to continue defending him?

Quit playing dodge-the-question!
Your first comment cracks me up since the crazies have claimed the Hawaii certificate is a "Certificate of live birth", not a "Birth Certificate".

I would acknowledge something if its true. Why would you believe something if its been proven false? Wait, bad question. You keep doing that with this issue. Even if its proven a fake you'll just find something else to latch on to.

I tell you what, why don't you get back to me on here when a mainstream news source gives credibility to this story. I'll even let Fox News be a source for you. If WND is all you can produce, that's a far cry from legitimate. Most people know that.
 

FlyXJTnow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,830
Yes, because we all saw how after we learned that the wmd story was bogus that the republicans came out and said it was fake. Once again, they make a claim and its proven false, but they still hang on to it.

The other funny thing, well sad actually, is that they are trying to discredit Obama who was duly elected. Meanwhile they forget that Bush was put into office by the Supreme Court. Remember what republicans said to democrats or anyone else who complained about it? Shut up and get over it!

Seems they aren't very good at taking their own medicine?

By the way, the try and discredit people arguing against the "Republic of Kenya" on his birth certificate saying that it could have been used on documents. If so, then why don't they post unrelated government documents to back up that claim?
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top