Arizona Secretary of State Threatens To Remove Obama From Ballot - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36015362]You do know that the first seven presidents of the USA were never born in the country, right?[/QUOTE] You don't need to be born in the U.S. to be president. You need to be born with U.S. citizenship. Since they were born as British citizens of the Thirteen Colonies, and the U.S. was the successor state to the Thirteen Colonies (recognized by all major powers of the world), their born citizenship transferred to the U.S.

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;36014996]It's also a very dumb law.[/QUOTE] How? Yeah, I don't even live in the U.S, I'm not a citizen, but, I'm a loyal Chinese citizen, I guess I can run for American presidency, makes sense right? Yeah, well FlubberNugget seems to think so.

The law is there to "Keep Them Damn Commies Out Of The White House"

[QUOTE=gus_incontext;36033924] Correct. McCain was born on a military base to two American born parents. Born abroad doesn't matter in this case as long as you satisfy the rest of the requirements like returning to the US within a certain time, applying for a S.S. # within a certain time and living in the US for 15 years before running for president.[/QUOTE] I guess having one american born parent doesn't count for anything?

[QUOTE=draugur;36034956]How? Yeah, I don't even live in the U.S, I'm not a citizen, but, I'm a loyal Chinese citizen, I guess I can run for American presidency, makes sense right? Yeah, well FlubberNugget seems to think so.[/QUOTE] Good luck getting elected, though. :v:

[QUOTE=gus_incontext;36033924]What didn't I explain of my workflow in my post? I'm replying to someone who didn't understand, or didn't read what I wrote. Please read my original article and should you need a further explanation I'll provide it. But I think I gave a pretty thorough explanation of what I did in my step by step breakdown of the birth certificate file.[/QUOTE] No, why wasn't your workflow documented to the point where any further "explanation of the workflow" could only have been restating what you've already said? You said "I can offer complete proof and transparency of my workflow should you require it." and I'm merely stating that accusing the POTUS of fraud and forgery without completely and thoroughly detailing every single step in the examination you took, to the point of obsessive and perhaps excessive detailing, is sloppy. Nobody should have to request a more in-depth explanation on how you determined that a state issued birth certificate is fraudulent because the information should be in the post with as much gory technical detail as possible. You should actually be physically incapable of elaborating further on your analysis without being completely redundant. [quote]The NSA, CIA, FBI and the media didn't investigate the birth certificate. You assume that just because they didn't make a stink to accuse their own commander in chief of fraud that there isn't any. It is almost always the responsibility of the citizenry to press their government for honesty. If it weren't for Mark Klein, the whistleblower who gave us the photo of the NSA's wiretapping room at AT&T in California, we wouldn't have ever known about George Bush's illegal warrentless wiretap program.[/quote] I'm pretty sure the NSA and the FBI would run thorough background checks on all presidential candidates (before the actual CIC business comes into play), to, you know, make sure they aren't actually operating under forged credentials. I mean, this might sound like a stretch, but making sure a presidential candidate isn't actually a spy seems to be the sort of thing a national security agency or a federal bureau of investigation or a central intelligence agency are designed to do.

[QUOTE=RichardCQ;36039471]No, why wasn't your workflow documented to the point where any further "explanation of the workflow" could only have been restating what you've already said? You said "I can offer complete proof and transparency of my workflow should you require it." and I'm merely stating that accusing the POTUS of fraud and forgery without completely and thoroughly detailing every single step in the examination you took, to the point of obsessive and perhaps excessive detailing, is sloppy. Nobody should have to request a more in-depth explanation on how you determined that a state issued birth certificate is fraudulent because the information should be in the post with as much gory technical detail as possible. You should actually be physically incapable of elaborating further on your analysis without being completely redundant. I'm pretty sure the NSA and the FBI would run thorough background checks on all presidential candidates (before the actual CIC business comes into play), to, you know, make sure they aren't actually operating under forged credentials. I mean, this might sound like a stretch, but making sure a presidential candidate isn't actually a spy seems to be the sort of thing a national security agency or a federal bureau of investigation or a central intelligence agency are designed to do.[/QUOTE] My offer for an explanation is actually me just trying to be nice. My blog post had complete explanations of my workflow complete with screen shots of the step by step process, with side by side comparisons of my own handwriting sample scanned in to reproduce the fraud AND an explanation of how I would have done it better should I have been consulted to commit forgery. I am repeating myself here because forum users tend not to actually read anything. I suspect this to be true because people are making accusations of perpetrating a hoax when I already provided screen shots of my workflow. The internet is full of people who just skim and poke holes. If nobody has any actual questions about the technical process I'll be excusing myself. And if you READ my blog, you'd read about Wayne Madsen's in depth report about Obama's deep ties to the CIA, like George Bush (former CIA director) and Bush Jr. Obama's mother worked for the CIA, Obama's grandmother worked in a bank laundering money for the CIA, Dunham's father owned a front company for the CIA, Soetoro was a CIA asset working for revolution in Indonesia AND Obama himself worked for a known CIA front after getting out of college, in addition to teaching at Harvard which is the place to go for connected intelligence operatives. So.. if you think the CIA would have a problem with Obama's birth certificate, think again.

[QUOTE=kaine123;36030542]Government being dumb=/=citizens being dumb.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? This is Facepunch. Where every Republican is a gun toting idiot, America is 100% redneck, and it's your fault if there's an idiot in office.

Government being wrong means the citizens elected the wrong people. Means you were wrong.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36041780]Government being wrong means the citizens elected the wrong people. Means you were wrong.[/QUOTE] Guess that mean's you're wrong too.

[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;36041841]Guess that mean's you're wrong too.[/QUOTE] I don't live in Arizona so no.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36041862]I don't live in Arizona so no.[/QUOTE] I'll still blame you regardlessly.

[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;36041956]I'll still blame you regardlessly.[/QUOTE] Is this before or after you ask to see my citizenship papers?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36041969]Is this before or after you ask to see my citizenship papers?[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter ether way. If you are here legally, I'll just say they are fake and it's some NWO Illuminati conspiracy to turn the US into a Muslim state. If it is fake, I'll dance and be happy I'm right even though I was talking out my ass the whole time, and couldn't think of anything to debate.

fyi i am referring to arizona giving its police the authority to demand citizenship papers from any passersby who look mexican.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36042048]fyi i am referring to arizona giving its police the authority to demand citizenship papers from any passersby who look mexican.[/QUOTE] Oh. I was confused, because that law doesn't exist.

[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;36042083]Oh. I was confused, because that law doesn't exist.[/QUOTE] SB 1070. Empowers police to stop anyone with "reasonable suspicion" that they are an illegal immigrant (with reasonable suspicion = if they are brown). They can be detained if they cannot produce citizenship documentation (which extends further than a driver's license.) It was overruled by the federal courts and Arizona officials are currently attempting to re-enact its powers.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36042176]SB 1070. Empowers police to stop anyone with "reasonable suspicion" that they are an illegal immigrant (with reasonable suspicion = if they are brown). They can be detained if they cannot produce citizenship documentation (which extends further than a driver's license.)[/QUOTE] Actually, that part of SB 1070 was brought before the Supreme Court, and still has not gone into effect. The Supreme Court however, does seem sympathetic towards that part of the law. So I suppose if it does pass, it would be your fault.

So you're just going to dodge the fact that you were wrong. "No such law exists."

[QUOTE=Lankist;36042442]So you're just going to dodge the fact that you were wrong. "No such law exists."[/QUOTE] It still hasn't been put into full effect as a law yet, and is still technically a bill. I was fully aware of SB 1070 as you mentioned (Who the hell in Arizona hasn't?) if that's what you meant.

No it got passed and it's law, it's merely being challenged on a federal level. It's also a racist law enacted by the legislators and governor that the citizens of Arizona elected. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] Then again judging by your previous posts I would suppose you're in the group that thinks it's a great idea.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36042537]No it got passed and it's law, it's merely being challenged on a federal level. It's also a racist law enacted by the legislators and governor that the citizens of Arizona elected. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] Then again judging by your previous posts I would suppose you're in the group that thinks it's a great idea.[/QUOTE] Actually, you are right. Parts of the bill (Less controversial parts at least) have been to my knowledge, put into effect. So I guess technically it would be a law. But the part of the [I]law[/I] you are mentioning is still being challenged at the Supreme Court level, and has [B]not[/B] been implemented as of yet. But technically the bill more or less is law, so you are correct. Yes, totally part of that group.