Obama's Possible Social Security Fraud [Archive]

View Full Version : Obama's Possible Social Security Fraud

JenaS62

Apr 14th, 2011, 12:53 PM

Since this got buried in the "birther" thread, I decided it deserved it's own.

A suit has been filed alleging social security fraud by President Obama. There is much more than what I have pulled out of the document below in the attached link to the suit document.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51507398/T...lation-3-24-11

And this is the meat of it.

"3. Intervener received a report and an affidavit from a licensed investigator and former elite AntiCommunist Proliferation and Anti Organized Crime unit of the Scotland Yard officer NeilSankey. Mr. Sankey¶s report showed that Barack Hussein Obama (hereinafter ³Obama´) islinked in the national databases to some 39 different Social Security numbers and multipleaddresses. None of these numbers was issued in the state of Hawaii. The number that he usedmost often since around 1980 and still uses today, while residing in the White House, is aConnecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425. According to Lexis Nexis and Choice Pointthis number was originally issued to an elderly individual born in 1890, who resided inConnecticut, but this number was later assumed by Obama and used by him from around 1980-1981.

4. The first three digits of the Social Security number signify the state. 042 signifies the state of Connecticut.5. Obama was never a resident of Connecticut.6. In March-April of 1977 when this number was issued to another individual in Connecticut,Obama was a 16 year old student, residing with his grandparents in Hawaii.7. To confirm such findings Taitz obtained an opinion of yet another licensed investigator, Susan Daniels, who attested to the fact that the national databases show multiple social securitynumbers associated with the name Barack Obama, among them Connecticut Social Securitynumber 042-68-4425 used most often. She, also, found that this number was originally assignedto an individual born in 1890. Later, the same number was associated with birth dates04.08.1961 and 08.04.1961. Dates of 04.08.1961 and 08.04.1961 suggest existence of some documents, created using an European system of dating: Day, Month, Year, versus the Americansystem of Month, day, year. Exhibit 48.

Obama¶s selective service certificate verification, readily available on the world wide web,shows a complete match with the number 042-68-4425, therefore verification of Obama¶s use of this number since 1980. Selective service match provides proof and verification via an officialdocument issued by the U.S. government that Barack Obama is using the Social Securitynumber 042-68-4425 Exhibit 19. Further use of SSNVS (Social Security Number Verification System ) shows that combinationof Barack Obama¶s name and the same Social Security number shows as failed, meaning that thenumber that Barack Obama is using, was not issued to him, but rather to another individual. Thisprovides evidence of the Social Security Fraud and identity fraud by an individual, occupying theposition of the President of the United States of America and Commander-in-chief of the USmilitary.

In the other thread, someone suggested that there could be multiple Barrack Hussein Obamas and that could very well be, but that does not explain why the social security number used by President Obama on his selective service registration and is the number still used by President Obama today was not assigned to him and was in fact assigned to another person all together.

Blu-ray

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:01 PM

JenaS62

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:14 PM

More on the social security number debacle:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/

This is just a snipet:

Sankey found around 25 Social Security numbers connected with Obama’s name.

However, it may not be as many as 25, since Sankey also searched using closely related names such as: “Barak Obama,” “Batock Obama,” “Barok Obama,” and “Barrack Obama.” There may very well be some Kenyans living in America with the same last name and a similar first name. In any case, I will exclude these records for the purpose of this research and focus only on names spelled exactly like his name. Moreover, we can verify many of the Social Security numbers as valid since they’re connected to addresses at which we know Obama resided. Needless to say, there are also a slew of address and social security numbers connected to addresses in states that Obama has no known connection to.

In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one beginning with 042 and one starting 364.

In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with 999.

There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number beginning with 485."

Blu-ray

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:17 PM

Perhaps, but at least I'm smart enough to question why someone who was allegedly "born" in Hawaii and who allegedly never lived in Connecticut ended up with a Connecticut social security number.

I was born and raised in Florida but I have a NY SSN.

NING -- How do you know where his SSN is from? Have you seen it? Do you know it? Or are you just litening to BS again?

I seriously doubt that. All other candidates furnished photostatic copies of their original birth certificates, why couldn't Obama?

Read and weep:

Obama admits to attending a Muslim school.

So either you're wrong or Obama must be a liar.

Congratualtions, you just failed Political Science 101.

Any country with a majority Muslim population (and 86% is a majority) is a Muslim country.

I had a kid from Ghana educated outdoors without computers or even electricity and even he knew what a Muslim country was.

There are 33 Muslim countries.

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Syria are all secular republics or monarchies (and that would include the former Iraq), yet you all refer to them as Muslim countries. I guess it depends on whether or not its convenient for you to do so.

I guess it's a good thing Obama didn't go to school in Iran.

Ah, yes, secular, and how long exactly did school prayer last in US public schools?

Yeah, that's what I thought. And they still pledge allegiance to "one nation under god."

And the US has had exactly how many atheist presidents?

It was a big deal for the secular United States to have a catholic president.

I never heard of Orly Taitz and don't know anything about fake birth certificates. Hopefully he was prosecuted for forgery.

Your social security number depends on when and from where you applied.

It was something I read in the Christian Science Monitor...

That was in response to Act 100 which allows Hawaii to deny requests under FOIA for copies of Obama's birth certificate, and specifically targets those making repeat requests.

From another article:

All from this thread here:

http://forums.armageddononline.org/youtube-obama-video-p361068.html#post361068

JenaS62

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:18 PM

My SSN is a New York SSN yet I am from Florida.

http://www.newnownext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/rdr3_12_190_2.gif

Oh... and I'll never forget about a year after my mother's death, Social Security totally screwed up and listed me as deceased and my mother as alive. Took TWO years to straighten that crap out.

You are totally missing the point. If Obama's social security number that he has been using since 1980 was not assigned to another person and was assigned to him - I doubt that the state assignment would even be an issue. Not only is he using someone elses SS number - he has multiple ss numbers that tie back to addresses in places where he known to have lived as well as places where he is not know to have lived.

READ THE INFORMATION and stop being willfully ignorant.

Blu-ray

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:23 PM

You are totally missing the point. If Obama's social security number that he has been using since 1980 was not assigned to another person and was assigned to him - I doubt that the state assignment would even be an issue. Not only is he using someone elses SS number - he has multiple ss numbers that tie back to addresses in places where he known to have lived as well as places where he is not know to have lived.

I'm trying to point out the issue with the Social Security Administration making mistakes. I was considered Deceased from 1983 - 1985 ish.

Also, Were these others registered to Barack Hussein Obama II or just Barack Hussein Obama who would be his father or maybe someone else? Remember he is "II". So that may cause some confusion if people are just looking for Barack Hussein Obama and leaving off the "II".

READ THE INFORMATION and stop being willfully ignorant.

http://www.crystalscomments.com/6/4258.gif

JenaS62

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:30 PM

His father was never a US citizen and would not have gotten a social security number. But nice try.

Blu-ray

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:35 PM

His father was never a US citizen and would not have gotten a social security number. But nice try.

My previous partner was an Indian and came from Dubai. He got one.

JenaS62

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:37 PM

My previous partner was an Indian and came from Dubai. He got one.

I believe you have to have a work visa to get a temporary one.

Blu-ray

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:39 PM

I believe you have to have a work visa to get a temporary one.

How do you know Barack Hussein Obama Sr didn't have one?

Blu-ray

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:43 PM

To confirm such findings Taitz obtained an opinion of yet another licensed investigator, Susan Daniels, who attested to the fact that the national databases show multiple social securitynumbers associated with the name Barack Obama, among them Connecticut Social Securitynumber 042-68-4425 used most often. She, also, found that this number was originally assignedto an individual born in 1890. Later, the same number was associated with birth dates04.08.1961 and 08.04.1961. Dates of 04.08.1961 and 08.04.1961 suggest existence of some documents, created using an European system of dating: Day, Month, Year, versus the Americansystem of Month, day, year. Exhibit 48.
So they RE-USED a SSN number of a probably long deceased individual.

As for the date mix up. Could have been any number of reasons. Maybe the individual entering it in the system screwed up because they were originally taught the European format and were from there. There are SO MANY possibilities here as to why this date may be off some. Ever hear of FAT FINGERING? Some people can transpose numbers when they are keying in lots and lots of data. It HAPPENS.

I'm sure he's not the only one with some screw ups in his records. Sort of like me being resurrected from the dead after 2 years. OMG! I am the MESSIAH!

JenaS62

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:43 PM

Blu-ray

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:47 PM

I cannot say with 100% certainty that he did not but I cannot find any information to indicate that he was here on anything other than a student visa. And do you really believe that the investigators in this case did not already rule him out?

They state that several SSN's are related to many Barack Obama's. They didn't say Barack Hussein Obama did they? If you do a search for Barack Obama without the Hussein you'll get Barack Bob Obama, Barack Carl Obama, Barack Raul Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Bark Leroy Obama, etc etc.

Common sense if you ask me.

JenaS62

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:51 PM

So they RE-USED a SSN number of a probably long deceased individual.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

As you can see, SS does not re-use social security numbers. Of course I expect that Obama has such bad luck with his citizenship and such that he would be the one this would happen to as well as SS assigning him numerous different social security numbers throughout the years. The poor man.

Anarch

Apr 14th, 2011, 1:54 PM

Blu-ray

Apr 14th, 2011, 2:02 PM

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

As you can see, SS does not re-use social security numbers. Of course I expect that Obama has such bad luck with his citizenship and such that he would be the one this would happen to as well as SS assigning him numerous different social security numbers throughout the years. The poor man.

Could the individual making the claim telling the truth?

Does Social Security not make mistakes?

http://www.king5.com/news/consumer/The-22000-Socical-Security-Mistake-5PM-86281322.html

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-social-security-administration-is-investigating-how-a-32-3b-mistake-by-two-people-inflated-its-statistics-on-high-end-wage-growth/

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number)

Anarch

Apr 14th, 2011, 2:04 PM

And nixon was an innocent man.

JenaS62

Apr 14th, 2011, 2:11 PM

Traveler

Apr 16th, 2011, 2:32 AM

How do you know Barack Hussein Obama Sr didn't have one?

His Father did not have that name. Obama only adopted the name while he was in Indonesia, the fact is he dropped the name of his Father when he converted to Islam.

Ningishiddza

Apr 16th, 2011, 4:50 PM

According to Lexis Nexis and Choice Pointthis number was originally issued to an elderly individual born in 1890, who resided inConnecticut, but this number was later assumed by Obama and used by him from around 1980-1981.

For those who don't know, Lexis-Nexis and Choice-Point are Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies as defined by the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act). Pursuant to FACTA (the amendments to the FCRA), you may contact either or both once per year to obtain a free copy of your credit report.

Both Lexis-Nexis and Choice Point contain extensive personal information about you. When your employer runs a credit check, one of those two credit reporting agencies are the ones they are contacting, not Experian, Equifax or Trans Union (although it is possible your potential employer may contact one of them as well).

When I used those sources, they were known as Hogan, a company headquartered in Oklahoma (of all places). Lexis-Nexis purchased Hogan some years ago. I used to know people who worked for them. What a gravy job. Hang out at the court house all day and scan dockets and then e-mail them to Lexis/CP. They sell stuff like bankruptcy records, lien data etc to the other three major credit reporting agencies.

Those records contain listings of every job you've ever held, your addresses, names of friends, family members, co-workers, all civil and criminal court actions, whether you were the plaintiff, defendant, victim, witness or whatever, and a lot of other information about you, like the vehicles you own.

Anyway, if you are a subscriber to Lexis-Nexis, and the US government, numerous law enforcement agencies and private investigative and security agencies are, you can run someone's social security number and get their address and employment history.

My SSN is a New York SSN yet I am from Florida.

Then either you were living in New York at the time you or your parent applied for a social security number, or you are misinformed bout the number sequences.

In Obama’s home state, Illinois, Sankey tracked down 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama, of which all are addresses he was known to have lived at. Two Social Security numbers appear for these addresses, one beginning with 042 and one starting 364.

In California, where Obama attended Occidental College, there are six addresses listed for him, all within easy driving distance of the college. However, there are three Social Security numbers connected to these addresses, 537 and two others, each beginning with 999.

There are no addresses listed in New York where he attended Columbia University, but there is one listed for him in nearby Jackson, NJ, with a Social Security number beginning with 485."

One reason for blocking release of his educational records is that it might reveal that he was using multiple social security numbers, since education records are based on social security numbers.

His father was never a US citizen and would not have gotten a social security number. But nice try.

You have to look at the laws then and now. Now, certain students with certain visa classifications can get social security numbers, as can legal resident aliens, and people who are applying to become legal resident aliens.

Legal resident aliens are now issued a "temporary" social security number which is then converted to a permanent social security number. It is the same number, meaning a new number is not issued, but a new social security card is.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

As you can see, SS does not re-use social security numbers. Of course I expect that Obama has such bad luck with his citizenship and such that he would be the one this would happen to as well as SS assigning him numerous different social security numbers throughout the years. The poor man.

Could the individual making the claim telling the truth?

Does Social Security not make mistakes?

Not issuing a number.

Those mistakes have to do with payments, not the assignment of social security numbers.

At the time Obama allegedly applied for his number the operator would have entered his application data and the software would select a sequential number based on the State code and current series (the 2-digit number). It isn't possible to issue a number that has already been issued.

As I said - this poor man! He is continually plaqued by very strange and unusual circumstances. He is claimed by Kenya as being born there. He and his wife continually mistakenly claim that Kenya is his homeland. His school records and his mother's passport information is tragically lost. Just when he needs it most - Hawaii discontinues issuing long form birth certicates. He has been the unsuspecting victim of others applying for multiple SS numbers in his name and then the SS administration gives him a social security number belonging to someone else and he has the misfortune to get the one person in the SS administration who is British!! Amazing isn't it?

If it were anyone else besides Obama - think what would happen to them.

I used to say the Jewish realty group from Chicago that backed out of the WTC bid agreement was the story of the century (which the media ignored and pretended never happened), but this might turn out to be the story of the century (and the media is also ignoring it and pretending it never happened).

His bogus selective service registration form is one of the most damning pieces of evidence.

Bob

Apr 16th, 2011, 5:38 PM

Good Lord, this stuff is dumber than any post by LucySmith and dedone combined. You silly people will believe anything some nutbag waves in front of you. Obama, alien clone from Mars, or social security cheat...we report, you obey.

"If it were anyone else besides Obama - think what would happen to them".

Absolutely nothing would happen, it's because he IS Obama that any of this nonsense finds it's way into any conversation.

JenaS62

Apr 16th, 2011, 5:40 PM

I used to say the Jewish realty group from Chicago that backed out of the WTC bid agreement was the story of the century (which the media ignored and pretended never happened), but this might turn out to be the story of the century (and the media is also ignoring it and pretending it never happened).

His bogus selective service registration form is one of the most damning pieces of evidence.

And the Obama apologist and Obama defenders ignore this is well. If this were anyone else but Obama, the media and the apologist would be all over it. Obama is a fraud even if he is a really a natural born citizen, which I highly doubt.

:noevl:

Bob

Apr 16th, 2011, 5:46 PM

And the Obama apologist and Obama defenders ignore this is well. If this were anyone else but Obama, the media and the apologist would be all over it. Obama is a fraud even if he is a really a natural born citizen, which I highly doubt.

:noevl:

Do you really, honestly , think the bush version of the justice dept, the FBI, homeland security, and the elections commission would have let him set foot anywhere near the white house if ANY of this were real? Nononononono!

JenaS62

Apr 16th, 2011, 6:32 PM

Do you really, honestly , think the bush version of the justice dept, the FBI, homeland security, and the elections commission would have let him set foot anywhere near the white house if ANY of this were real? Nononononono!

Bob, I seriously do not believe that a presidential candidates social security number is checked in the vetting process. It appears that it's not. This issue was brought to light and investigated when things did not add up. You can find his selective service registration online. If you are going to flat out say it's not true - then at least provide some back up. You saying that it's not true does not make it not true.

Nu Kua

Apr 16th, 2011, 6:34 PM

Do you really, honestly , think the bush version of the justice dept, the FBI, homeland security, and the elections commission would have let him set foot anywhere near the white house if ANY of this were real? Nononononono!

It can be argued that there is no difference between the Justice Department, Homeland Security, and the Elections Commissions now- maybe a few faces have changed but that's it. The same commissions and agencies and everything that allowed Bushco to get away with one criminal act after another- are the same that are working with the Obama administration. That is one of the reasons why Bush era assaults on our liberties and various acts of crime have been carried on or strengthened- under the Obama administration.
There's much evidence of a vast power behind the revolving puppet show. :0.02:

FinalFour

Apr 16th, 2011, 6:35 PM

Barak Barry bob matters not...

What we have is an individual with multiple names and even more ss numbers then names.

If he were a used car salesmen you might consider that past shady.

If he were an Ice cream man you might consider that past suspect.

If he were president you'd accept his word on the matter without question?

That's exactly right Anarch-

In fact, he WAS an Ice Cream man. It was his very first job. In Hawaii. Back in 1975/76.

Did he not have a SSN for that first job? His current (Conneticut) number didn't seem to appear until around 1980.

Full list at link> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/15/joe-scarborough/heres-scoop-obama-has-worked-ice-cream-business-am/

Below, compiled from and cross-checked among a host of sources, is what we believe to be the most thorough account of the president's work history. (Several details from his early years are unknown, and will remain so for now; the White House did not respond to our request to verify the accuracy of our list and fill in the blanks.)

1975 or 1976 — ice cream scooper, Baskin-Robbins — Honolulu — Obama claims to have lost his taste for ice cream during this, his first job, the duration of which is not publicly known.

This link pinpoints the location and date as 1979.

http://www.bluemaumau.org/6621/presidentelect_barack_obamas_first_job

FinalFour

Apr 16th, 2011, 6:44 PM

As I said - this poor man! He is continually plaqued by very strange and unusual circumstances. He is claimed by Kenya as being born there. He and his wife continually mistakenly claim that Kenya is his homeland. His school records and his mother's passport information is tragically lost. Just when he needs it most - Hawaii discontinues issuing long form birth certicates. He has been the unsuspecting victim of others applying for multiple SS numbers in his name and then the SS administration gives him a social security number belonging to someone else and he has the misfortune to get the one person in the SS administration who is British!! Amazing isn't it?

If it were anyone else besides Obama - think what would happen to them.

That is the truth!

He's sooooo unlucky.

We should go back to Hawaii to his old neighborhood--- maybe talk to the grandparents who raised him for a time, while the wing-nut mom was wigging out with one foreign exchange student or another. Uh oh. Unlucky-- they're both dead.

Well, let's put his dad under the lights and get to the bottom of this. Determine his whereabouts and comings and goings back in those critical years. Uh oh. Unlucky... He's dead.

Surely the mom has some explaining to do. What? Unlucky. Dead at such an early age.

How about the doctor who signed his birth certificate? What? You don't say...

Nu Kua

Apr 16th, 2011, 7:08 PM

This was aired last night, sharing since it's on topic.

iWIN9tKqwDU

CNN tries hard to make it a race issue.

And here Taitz elaborates on her angle and focus, ect, for perusal, since there were question in another thread of her motive and abilities, trustworthiness, ect.

tTyyBGgVflE

FinalFour

Apr 16th, 2011, 7:31 PM

Isn't that what makes it all so tragic and sad, Nu Kua?

All this fuss and fixation, for what?

You tell me. --In the interest of "being the bigger man" --if the President could solve and stop all this, by releasing what amounts to a very simple information request to satisfy the (growing) concerns of the nation--- Why doesn't he.

Just look even here. Blu-ray is all upset. I blame the President for making me make Blu-ray upset.

Just give us some of that "transparency" you talk so much about.

3YmMNpbFjp0

Blu-ray

Apr 16th, 2011, 7:32 PM

Surely the mom has some explaining to do. What? Unlucky. Dead at such an early age.

Totally disrespectful. Did you know she died from uterine cancer that spread to her ovaries? She died at the age of 52.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

In late 1994, Dunham was living and working in Indonesia. One night, during dinner at a friend's house in Jakarta, she experienced stomach pain. A visit to a local physician led to an initial diagnosis of indigestion.[1] Dunham returned to the United States in early 1995 and was examined at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and diagnosed with uterine cancer. By this time, the cancer had spread to her ovaries.[16] She moved back to Hawaii to live near her widowed mother and died on November 7, 1995, at the age of 52.[31][50][51] Following a memorial service at the University of Hawaii, Obama and his sister spread their mother's ashes in the Pacific Ocean at Lanai Lookout on the south side of Oahu.[31] Obama scattered the ashes of his grandmother (Madelyn Dunham) in the same spot on December 23, 2008, weeks after his election to the presidency.[

MY MOTHER died from breast cancer that spread from the breast into her bone. My mother was 48 when she died and I was 10 years old.

You sir, are nothing but a FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT for saying what you did. How FUCKING DARE YOU? You're a cold heartless piece of crap for picking on a deceased person who did NOTHING TO YOU and died from a debilitating disease at a young age.

I hope that you suffer through what it like to see a loved one slowly wither away and die from cancer. I have many times. My Mom and all her sisters and brothers have died from cancer. Six siblings in total all durring the 80's. I watched so many people wither away from cancer before my eyes. From 1982 until 1990 I had my mom die first and then each of my aunts and uncles die one by one.

You've obviously NEVER experienced anyone slowly dying from a debilitating disease. IF YOU HAVE that makes you an even SICKER FUCK than you are.

FinalFour

Apr 16th, 2011, 7:42 PM

Totally disrespectful. Did you know she died from uterine cancer that spread to her ovaries? She died at the age of 52.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

MY MOTHER died from breast cancer that spread from the breast into her bone. My mother was 48 when she died and I was 10 years old.

You sir, are nothing but a FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT for saying what you did. How FUCKING DARE YOU? You're a cold heartless piece of crap for picking on a deceased person who did NOTHING TO YOU and died from a debilitating disease at a young age.

I hope that you suffer through what it like to see a loved one slowly wither away and die from cancer. I have many times. My Mom and all her sisters and brothers have died from cancer. Six siblings in total all durring the 80's. I watched so many people wither away from cancer before my eyes. From 1982 until 1990 I had my mom die first and then each of my aunts and uncles die one by one.

You've obviously NEVER experienced anyone slowly dying from a debilitating disease. IF YOU HAVE that makes you an even SICKER FUCK than you are.

Don't be so sensitive. And the name-calling is childish.

Are you saying that it was "lucky?" Because I said it was "unlucky."

It's germane to the whole conversation Blu-ray. When it comes to this whole birther thing.... Obama has suffered a whole series of unfortunate events.

Lemony Snickets. It's hard to be king. Let's hope it becomes a journey toward the truth.

XWB1HGnA3tA

Blu-ray

Apr 16th, 2011, 7:49 PM

Don't be so sensitive. And the name-calling is childish.

Are you saying that it was "lucky?" Because I said it was "unlucky."

It's germaine to the whole conversation Blu-ray. When it comes to this whole birther thing.... Obama has suffered a whole series of unfortunate events.

Lemony Snickets. It's hard to be king.

If it is so "germaine" to the whole conversation, WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BRING IT UP?

As for my "name calling"... FUCK YOU

GamerGal

Apr 16th, 2011, 8:03 PM

So FinalFour, she can't be his mom because she got cancer and died? How does this make any sense?

JenaS62

Apr 16th, 2011, 8:17 PM

So FinalFour, she can't be his mom because she got cancer and died? How does this make any sense?

Who the hell said that? The point was, which you obviously missed, is that she is dead and cannot provide any information on her son.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or not? A cartoon perhaps?

Blu-ray

Apr 16th, 2011, 8:28 PM

Who the hell said that? The point was, which you obviously missed, is that she is dead and cannot provide any information on her son.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or not? A cartoon perhaps?

No... the point FinalFour was making had nothing to do with to the conversation and threw it in for spitefulness and to be crude. He's nothing more than a COWARD for having used it in his conversation. Only a COWARD would say something like he did about a woman who did nothing to him and passed away from Cervical/Ovarian Cancer.

Nice how these birthers think.

Just like the idiots in the republican party that made fun of a candidates purple heart. But then if anyone on the opposing side does something not even close to that and questions a purple heart, they go APE SHIT. The hypocrisy is in abundance with some people.

JenaS62

Apr 16th, 2011, 8:32 PM

Sorry BR, but I must say that I think you are being over the top sensitive because you lost your mom so young. It was relevant to the conservation because we really do not know who Obama is and he has no living relatives - that was the point. No one was making fun of her death. It is a fact that she is dead.

Blu-ray

Apr 16th, 2011, 8:54 PM

Nu Kua

Apr 16th, 2011, 9:06 PM

It is just that, in any and all examples of ways this question can be settled once and for all- there is a roadblock. Every case against this being something reasonable to consider that I can find- and I've been looking for over a week now- I find holes in it.

Honestly guys, it is easy to call these people nuts and conspirators, but who can provide evidence to the contrary of what they claim?

And- in the birther thread, Jena mentioned some other issues in frustration, and was called out for mixing "legitimate complaints" in with conspiracy theories. Not to think Jena needs anyone to speak for her- but I will anyway- it is clear that her point was, there are tons of discrepancies in relationship to what Brand Obama promised. Tons. Absolute tons.

Yet, in general, not only do many here who instantly suggest we're all crazy rarely address those when they are brought up in other threads, with verification that cannot be denied, but you refuse to see the connection- that one reason we might be more apt to question this is because he has lied or misrepresented himself so many times before-- just like Bush.

For the "Obama opponents", such as myself, do you really think we need to find something bullshit to latch onto, in order to have criticisms be leveled, just to have another reason to discredit him? There is so much more, even without this.

Well maybe, you know- just like them all. Seems every administration the lies get deeper. I am not happy with what our country has become- even without this "birther thing" or this social security number discrepancy or the passports-of-his-parents discrepancies where information that is available on just about everyone else for the early 60's years- 1961-1965 I believe...
yet that of his parents just magically cannot be located...

Do you think we want this to be true? Because if there is something sinister going on, then think for a minute the levels it reaches, and how deep it would go. It would not begin and end with this one administration.
Does that make it harder to fathom, something to run from? Does the sense of how far this reach is... or to be fair, could be... make people shun it?

god, I don't even know what else to say. What else to do right now but get drunk.
Peace out.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 16th, 2011, 9:11 PM

Honestly guys, it is easy to call these people nuts and conspirators, but who can provide evidence to the contrary of what they claim?
Who? Nukua... provide evidence that there IS NOT a SHADOW government that runs the world and is located 10 miles under the antarctic... I hope my request shows the problem with yours.

Nu Kua

Apr 16th, 2011, 9:16 PM

Nukua... provide evidence that there IS NOT a SHADOW government that runs the world and is located 10 miles under the antarctic... I hope my request shows the problem with yours.

So it is like the teapot-around-the-sun thing.
I really don't know where to go anymore, DBA. It's all so tangled up- find a knot here and try to unravel it, only to find more knots to unravel, and beneath those, more. Where does it all end?

FinalFour

Apr 17th, 2011, 12:45 AM

It has ZERO to do with the conversation. He even said so HIMSELF!

No, Blu-ray. What I said was it is germane to the whole conversation.

Germane---- being at once relevant and appropriate : fitting.

Why take it so personally? Why make it personal? I guess it means that we can't be friends if we disagree. Kind of reminds me of another thread, where external opinions are not welcome and where discussion is difficult unless you are in absolute agreement. Is that what this is?

There's no way I would have known anything about your personal family situation, and if I did I certainly wouldn't have brought them into the conversation Blu-ray. And I didn't. --But you did.

Not only that- but you hope that (I) suffer through what it's like to see a loved one slowly wither away and die from cancer

Really? That's what you hope? And you're calling me names? What a kind and gentle soul you are.

I'm sorry that you took offense to what I said in the context of a back and forth debate. I hope you take the time to consider your own words and reconsider mine. I meant you no harm and I hold no ill will towards you.

JenaS62

Apr 17th, 2011, 6:58 AM

And- in the birther thread, Jena mentioned some other issues in frustration, and was called out for mixing "legitimate complaints" in with conspiracy theories. Not to think Jena needs anyone to speak for her- but I will anyway- it is clear that her point was, there are tons of discrepancies in relationship to what Brand Obama promised. Tons. Absolute tons.

Yet, in general, not only do many here who instantly suggest we're all crazy rarely address those when they are brought up in other threads, with verification that cannot be denied, but you refuse to see the connection- that one reason we might be more apt to question this is because he has lied or misrepresented himself so many times before-- just like Bush.

For the "Obama opponents", such as myself, do you really think we need to find something bullshit to latch onto, in order to have criticisms be leveled, just to have another reason to discredit him? There is so much more, even without this. .

Thank you. That was exactly my point. I was never a birther. I did not wish to be associated with birthers and quite frankly, I never even looked at Obama's online "birth certificate". I believed what I was told - that he born in Hawaii and here is his birth certificate to prove it. BUT - if you start opening the doors, the doors keep opening. I am amazed at how much there is out there. And I am amazed at the people who simply don't want to see it.

Well maybe, you know- just like them all. Seems every administration the lies get deeper. I am not happy with what our country has become- even without this "birther thing" or this social security number discrepancy or the passports-of-his-parents discrepancies where information that is available on just about everyone else for the early 60's years- 1961-1965 I believe...
yet that of his parents just magically cannot be located...

Do you think we want this to be true? Because if there is something sinister going on, then think for a minute the levels it reaches, and how deep it would go. It would not begin and end with this one administration.
Does that make it harder to fathom, something to run from? Does the sense of how far this reach is... or to be fair, could be... make people shun it?

god, I don't even know what else to say. What else to do right now but get drunk.
Peace out.

It scares the crap out of me that as a nation, we have allowed this to happen and continue to allow this to happen. 41% of the people in this country refuse to look at sketchy information about the president. If this is able to be pulled off with the support of the American people, then it is going to continue to happen and we are truly fucked. We can look forward to this same scenario over and over and over again. It pains me to say it but the enemy is inside of the gates.

Blu-ray

Apr 17th, 2011, 7:24 AM

No, Blu-ray. What I said was it is germane to the whole conversation.

Germane---- being at once relevant and appropriate : fitting.

Why take it so personally? Why make it personal? I guess it means that we can't be friends if we disagree. Kind of reminds me of another thread, where external opinions are not welcome and where discussion is difficult unless you are in absolute agreement. Is that what this is?

There's no way I would have known anything about your personal family situation, and if I did I certainly wouldn't have brought them into the conversation Blu-ray. And I didn't. --But you did.

Not only that- but you hope that (I) suffer through what it's like to see a loved one slowly wither away and die from cancer

Really? That's what you hope? And you're calling me names? What a kind and gentle soul you are.

I'm sorry that you took offense to what I said in the context of a back and forth debate. I hope you take the time to consider your own words and reconsider mine. I meant you no harm and I hold no ill will towards you.

Whoptie fucking shit dude. You know you're in the wrong. It's not so much what you say it's how you say it. Got it you piece of mother fucking trash?

Again... FUCK YOU.

Have a nice day.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 18th, 2011, 7:36 AM

Blu-ray

Apr 18th, 2011, 7:57 AM

*note: anyone else seeing the typical conspiracy theory pattern here?

NOOOOOOOOOOOO Not at ALL!

JenaS62

Apr 18th, 2011, 8:11 AM

Wait. How exactly do we know the alleged number is actually Obama's social security number? Last I saw on World Net Daily (the news source of choice for most posters in this subforum), a lawsuit was underway to force him to release it, based on claims made by a couple of wingnut "news" organizations.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261033

The number used by Obama on his selective service registration belongs to a dead person so obviously it's not Obama's SS number. Obviously this is why a lawsuit was filed to force him to provide his real one (if he even has one) When you ask how do we know if this is even Obama's social security number - you answered you own question. It's not! Yet he was using it. That is fraud.

This is not rocket science CT.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 18th, 2011, 8:21 AM

The number used by Obama on his selective service registration belongs to a dead person so obviously it's not Obama's SS number. Obviously this is why a lawsuit was filed to force him to provide his real one (if he even has one) When you ask how do we know if this is even Obama's social security number - you answered you own question. It's not! Yet he was using it. That is fraud.

This is not rocket science CT.

The purported number used on his purported selective service registration.

GamerGal

Apr 18th, 2011, 8:24 AM

The number GOPer's pulled out of their asses. The same people who made up multiple fake Birth Certs.

JenaS62

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:13 AM

The purported number used on his purported selective service registration.

CT, if you bothered to look at the original link, which I will provide once again, and move down to page 9 of 13 - you will find the selective service registration letter (not fake as I assume that you received one of these when you registered. My son received the same exact letter with his attached selective service registration card a few months ago) you will see the name Barrack Hussein Obama and social security number 042-68-4425. You will also find on page 11 - the social security number verification report that indicates that 042-68-4425 failed to match anyone with the name of Barrack Obama and is matched to a deceased person. Now if you would like to keep claiming that all of this is fake - go for it. The evidence proves otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51507398/Taitz-v-Social-Security-Administration-Obama-s-Social-Security-Number-s-Freedom-of-information-violation-3-24-11

GamerGal

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:16 AM

There is only one BHO in the world? And the GOP made MULTIPLE FAKES before why not another?

Cartesiantheater

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:19 AM

CT, if you bothered to look at the original link, which I will provide once again, and move down to page 9 of 13 - you will find the selective service registration letter (not fake as I assume that you received one of these when you registered. My son received the same exact letter with his attached selective service registration card a few months ago) you will see the name Barrack Hussein Obama and social security number 042-68-4425. You will also find on page 11 - the social security number verification report that indicates that 042-68-4425 failed to match anyone with the name of Barrack Obama and is matched to a deceased person. Now if you would like to keep claiming that all of this is fake - go for it. The evidence proves otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51507398/Taitz-v-Social-Security-Administration-Obama-s-Social-Security-Number-s-Freedom-of-information-violation-3-24-11

Why are you so sure this is actually his? Because Taitz says so?

My point was you simply believe the source, with no question whatsoever, merely because it agrees with your opinion. Such things are not enough for me. I need cooperating evidence from people who DON'T have an obvious bias.

JenaS62

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:22 AM

Why are you so sure this is actually his? Because Taitz says so?

My point was you simply believe the source, with no question whatsoever, merely because it agrees with your opinion. Such things are not enough for me. I need cooperating evidence from people who DON'T have an obvious bias.

So you're saying that the social security administration who provided the social security number verification report that FAILED is biased?

GamerGal

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:23 AM

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2009/09/07/another-fake-birth-certificate-courtesy-of-orly-taitz/

I love how a document certified by the government of Hawaii is a lie, but a low-res JPG is a “smoking gun”.

By the way, if you’re going to fake a BC, remember to format the date right. Kenya, being a British colony, would use the DD/MM/YYYY format, not the American MM/DD/YYYY:

Taitz has been caught multiple times producing FAKE FORMS. She almost went to jail over it for submitting knowingly fake documents to a court.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:32 AM

So you're saying that the social security administration who provided the social security number verification report that FAILED is biased?

How do you know it was them who provided it? How do you know the number that failed was his?

JenaS62

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:35 AM

Cartesiantheater

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:42 AM

JenaS62

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:47 AM

Jena, you're assuming that that is Obama's social security number/did you even read my post?

I am not assuming anything. That is apparently the ss number that Obama used when he registered for the selectve service. It's not his. That's the whole point.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:51 AM

I am not assuming anything. That is apparently the ss number that Obama used when he registered for the selectve service. It's not his. That's the whole point.

No, Jena, that is the SS that your source CLAIMS he used. There is no OBJECTIVE evidence that that is his SS, or rather, the one he used on the selective service registration (at least that I have seen in this forum or any of the other blogs/wnd I've looked at today on the matter).

GamerGal

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:52 AM

As Taitz claims. Jena, Taitz makes FAKE DOCUMENTS all the time. So much in fact she was threatened with felony charges for submitting FAKE DOCUMENTS to court.

JenaS62

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:54 AM

No, Jena, that is the SS that your source CLAIMS he used. There is no OBJECTIVE evidence that that is his SS, or rather, the one he used on the selective service registration.

No of course there is no evidence that this is HIS social security number because it is not HIS social security number. So apparently he used someone else's social security number when he registered for selective service. Now no matter how you spin this CT, it's fraud. Keep spinning.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:56 AM

No of course there is no evidence that this is HIS social security number because it is not HIS social security number. So apparently he used someone else's social security number when he registered for selective service. Now no matter how you spin this CT, it's fraud. Keep spinning.

Jena, if there is no objective evidence for what you claim to be true, how the hell is me being skeptical of it "spinning?"

*note: I said there is no objective, outside evidence that he ever USED the number your source claims he did.

Also:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/272/orlypp.jpg (http://img191.imageshack.us/i/orlypp.jpg/)

Taitz

Bob

Apr 18th, 2011, 12:04 PM

Who the hell said that? The point was, which you obviously missed, is that she is dead and cannot provide any information on her son.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or not? A cartoon perhaps?

Thank goodness he has shown his birth certificate. That should solve the problem.

Ps. I get a great laugh from this page...keep up the poor work.

Nu Kua

Apr 18th, 2011, 12:33 PM

You can verify the information online with selective service at this website:

https://www.sss.gov/RegVer/wfVerification.aspx

Enter Obama, 042684425 and 08041961

Now tell me how anyone faked that?

**edit - oh now this is interesting. I verified this information over the weekend but had not looked it up today. So today I try to do the verification and I get this message:

Error.
Sorry, your request cannot be processed at this time because you have exceeded the daily limit for the verification of these credentials.
(4/18/2011 10:38:30 AM)

However, I was able to check my sons over and over again - about 8 times this morning and I got his results.

No, no conspiracy there.

That is actually interesting. Seems like a pattern, yeah? Everything else is accessible but the one thing that relates directly to the question.

I am still on the fence- so for now, my "final position" is that, there might be something to it- lots of little discrepancies add up to a lot more questions for me.
I do not think Taitz is lying, but there does seem to be questions re other docs she has provided- I wonder if they were doctored and she believed it, or what.
The SS# thing has lots more holes in it than the birthplace, and several invesitagors- not just her- have found similar.

As for the birthplace, the chart I use for Obama being born in Hawaii does "fit" his candidacy, the glamor of his initial "Messiah"-like attributions, and even all the questions surrounding his identity. I have wondered if, the Hawaii birthplace is in fact a lie, that the chart for that is to be read like an enterprise, and maybe that is why. (You can cast and read charts for businesses and other non-human entities)

So- yes... I think something isn't right, but as of yet I've not been able to find enough proof to believe it all the way, but I remain open to possibilities.

JenaS62

Apr 18th, 2011, 12:44 PM

That is actually interesting. Seems like a pattern, yeah? Everything else is accessible but the one thing that relates directly to the question.

did you try it on the verfication site? Just curious if you get that message. I have again been able to check my sons this afternoon - so that makes like 12 or 13 attempts with results and no message saying that I have reached my daily limit.

**edit - I should add that I just put in any old last name with a any social security number and any birthdate (I did this several times) and I get this message:

Sorry.
Based on the information you submitted (information listed below), a registration record cannot be found for this individual.

If you made a mistake when entering data, please try a New Search . If you entered the data correctly, there are several reasons why the registration may not be verifiable at this time. Please dial 1-847-688-3117 for further information. (4/18/2011 1:49:35 PM)

So apparently the Obama record has been locked down. Why?

Blu-ray

Apr 18th, 2011, 1:20 PM

That is actually interesting. Seems like a pattern, yeah? Everything else is accessible but the one thing that relates directly to the question.

I am still on the fence- so for now, my "final position" is that, there might be something to it- lots of little discrepancies add up to a lot more questions for me.
I do not think Taitz is lying, but there does seem to be questions re other docs she has provided- I wonder if they were doctored and she believed it, or what.
The SS# thing has lots more holes in it than the birthplace, and several invesitagors- not just her- have found similar.

As for the birthplace, the chart I use for Obama being born in Hawaii does "fit" his candidacy, the glamor of his initial "Messiah"-like attributions, and even all the questions surrounding his identity. I have wondered if, the Hawaii birthplace is in fact a lie, that the chart for that is to be read like an enterprise, and maybe that is why. (You can cast and read charts for businesses and other non-human entities)

So- yes... I think something isn't right, but as of yet I've not been able to find enough proof to believe it all the way, but I remain open to possibilities.

did you try it on the verfication site? Just curious if you get that message. I have again been able to check my sons this afternoon - so that makes like 12 or 13 attempts with results and no message saying that I have reached my daily limit.

**edit - I should add that I just put in any old last name with a any social security number and any birthdate (I did this several times) and I get this message:

Sorry.
Based on the information you submitted (information listed below), a registration record cannot be found for this individual.

If you made a mistake when entering data, please try a New Search . If you entered the data correctly, there are several reasons why the registration may not be verifiable at this time. Please dial 1-847-688-3117 for further information. (4/18/2011 1:49:35 PM)

So apparently the Obama record has been locked down. Why?

I'm sure there are a whole hell of a lot more verifications being done on the supposed Obama information as opposed to the 8 - 13 times you all did searches for your childrens.

Blu-ray

Apr 18th, 2011, 1:23 PM

You all do realize you're in violation of the Forum Rules 10X over... right????

Q. Modding and Ban Infractions - Seven deadly sins

1. Hateful Comments. "Shut up ***," "Fuck you Newb," etc.,

2. Member Harassment (including pm's, threats).

3. Multiple User Accounts unless first approved. (IE beta testing, an account for blogging, etc...)

4. Orchestrating forum raids or repeatedly hammering a part of the site in the hopes to cause slow downs or interrupt other members.

5. Posting a private conversation or personal information without consent of parties involved.

6. Trolling (posting ridiculous/nonsensical/irrelevant/racial/disturbing comments, images or links), posting to stir shit/cause problems.

7. Porn. Posting or outwardly soliciting/providing pornographic images or links.

JenaS62

Apr 18th, 2011, 2:06 PM

So fine me.

That information is readily available all over the internet.

Nu Kua

Apr 18th, 2011, 2:44 PM

I actually haven't looked anything up, answered Jena's post and then left the house, but yeah, actually, if it 's in the news and easily accessible on an internet database, then it shouldn't be an "illegal" forum act.

(but I'll go try it now)
*edit

For me I got
"Sorry. Based on the information you submitted (information listed below), a registration record cannot be found for this individual."

For Obama I got
"Error. Sorry, your request cannot be processed at this time because you have exceeded the daily limit for the verification of these credentials."

but that could be because a lot of people are looking that up.

JenaS62

Apr 18th, 2011, 3:44 PM

So what this means is that the record exists with that last name (Obama), that SS # and that date of birth.

Blu-ray

Apr 18th, 2011, 4:06 PM

So fine me.

That information is readily available all over the internet.

I actually haven't looked anything up, answered Jena's post and then left the house, but yeah, actually, if it 's in the news and easily accessible on an internet database, then it shouldn't be an "illegal" forum act.

(but I'll go try it now)
*edit

For me I got
"Sorry. Based on the information you submitted (information listed below), a registration record cannot be found for this individual."

For Obama I got
"Error. Sorry, your request cannot be processed at this time because you have exceeded the daily limit for the verification of these credentials."

but that could be because a lot of people are looking that up.

It may be plastered all over the web, but do you have consent to posting said PERSONAL information??? HMMMMMMMM??????

:bondage:

Nu Kua

Apr 18th, 2011, 7:20 PM

It may be plastered all over the web, but do you have consent to posting said PERSONAL information??? HMMMMMMMM??????

Look at it this way. The Obama administration has worked very hard to ensure our own lack of privacy, internet or otherwise, as well as our right to carry on with our daily lives unmolested by Patriotic Wal-mart inspired tattletales who think we look suspicious, having to empty our purses and pockets for unwarranted "security checks" before we can enter a publicly owned building, as well as increasingly having to deal with the specter of TSA non-consensual heavy petting, coming to a crosswalk near you.

Why not tit for tat? :w00t:

Blu-ray

Apr 18th, 2011, 8:00 PM

Look at it this way. The Obama administration has worked very hard to ensure our own lack of privacy, internet or otherwise, as well as our right to carry on with our daily lives unmolested by Patriotic Wal-mart inspired tattletales who think we look suspicious, having to empty our purses and pockets for unwarranted "security checks" before we can enter a publicly owned building, as well as increasingly having to deal with the specter of TSA non-consensual heavy petting, coming to a crosswalk near you.

Why not tit for tat? :w00t:

Again, I post the question. Do you, or do you NOT have permission to post personal information?
:vbroll:

Nu Kua

Apr 18th, 2011, 8:17 PM

President Obama campaigned on the premise of a transparency and openness, and said he had nothing to hide. Doesn't Homeland Security they tell you that if you have nothing to hide, you should do your Patriotic Duty™ and submit to arbitrary intrusions into your privacy?
Is it wrong to follow the leader?

The posting of personal information cannot possibly include information that has already been on news sites world round, and repeated on national network TV news as well.

Does AO tend to limit free speech in general? No- even when we've begged them to in the past.

Those factors considered, my answer will be, yes, I certainly do have permission to post what precious little I've posted on the topic thus far.

:cool14:

DontBeAfraid

Apr 18th, 2011, 9:48 PM

So what this means is that the record exists with that last name (Obama), that SS # and that date of birth. Actually it means a search with those credentials has been done a million times over and has hit a limit...

And jena, sense you dont seem to understand what CT was telling you, there is no corroborating evidence that the letter showing a number that obama used for SS registration is indeed legitimate... and seriously, WND... STILL?Q!?Q?Q?!?!?!?

JenaS62

Apr 19th, 2011, 6:12 AM

Actually it means a search with those credentials has been done a million times over and has hit a limit...

And jena, sense you dont seem to understand what CT was telling you, there is no corroborating evidence that the letter showing a number that obama used for SS registration is indeed legitimate... and seriously, WND... STILL?Q!?Q?Q?!?!?!?

No douche bag - that is not all that it means. It means that a record DOES exists with those credentials (ie: the social security number that CT refuses to believed was used by Obama) and that it also has a ton of hits and was probably locked. If that record did not exist - it would give the same message that both NK and I got when we tried names, social security numbers and birthdates of someone who is not registered for with selective service. Willfull ignorance.

Bob

Apr 19th, 2011, 10:11 AM

Why is this an issue? The people who matter seem to be convinced that all the paperwork is up to snuff. The only people making a fuss about this...are people...who don't like Obama to begin with. It's a conspiracy alright!

How exactly is calling Dontbeafraid a douche bag helping?
Maybe, just maybe, his social security number is none of our business.

JenaS62

Apr 19th, 2011, 10:42 AM

How exactly is calling Dontbeafraid a douche bag helping?
.

Well Bob, I suppose I could have called DBA what he calls me all the time - a cunt. Would that have been better? :vbroll:

Blu-ray

Apr 19th, 2011, 10:59 AM

Well Bob, I suppose I could have called DBA what he calls me all the time - a cunt. Would that have been better? :vbroll:

Why can't we all just get along!!!!!

:cryrv:

DontBeAfraid

Apr 19th, 2011, 11:08 AM

It means that a record DOES exists with those credentials (ie: the social security number that CT refuses to believed was used by Obama) and that it also has a ton of hits and was probably locked.No it doesnt. You do know that not everyone gets a "thank you" letter when they register for the draft right... And you could very easily make a fake one with any name and number you want... You believe its true because you WANT to believe its true... and you ARE a cunt.

JenaS62

Apr 19th, 2011, 11:30 AM

No it doesnt. You do know that not everyone gets a "thank you" letter when they register for the draft right... And you could very easily make a fake one with any name and number you want... .

So you can also make a fake selective service online verification record? ? Is that what you are now claiming? Because even if the selective service letter could be a fake - the online record exists and cannot be faked. That's why it's been restricted.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 19th, 2011, 12:31 PM

So you can also make a fake selective service online verification record? ? Is that what you are now claiming?No. Can you read?

Because even if the selective service letter could be a fake - the online record exists and cannot be faked. That's why it's been restricted. No, the search for it exists, that is to say there is a record of it being SEARCHED for. That does not mean that there is an actual record. The search for it has been restricted because too many people were doing it and it was taking up precious bandwidth and cpu cycles Jena... If a billion people continually looked up MY name and ssn then searched for it would be restricted as well. Millions of searches for ANY single combination of name and ssn, whether they exist or not, would be restricted Jena... Do you not understand this?

JenaS62

Apr 19th, 2011, 1:23 PM

No. Can you read?

No, the search for it exists, that is to say there is a record of it being SEARCHED for. That does not mean that there is an actual record. The search for it has been restricted because too many people were doing it and it was taking up precious bandwidth and cpu cycles Jena... If a billion people continually looked up MY name and ssn then searched for it would be restricted as well. Millions of searches for ANY single combination of name and ssn, whether they exist or not, would be restricted Jena... Do you not understand this?

That is strictly a guess on your part. A guess. A theory. You do not know that for a fact.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 19th, 2011, 1:43 PM

That is strictly a guess on your part. A guess. A theory. You do not know that for a fact. I surely do. When you learn more about how database queries work you will understand as well.

My GUESS would be that the people who are pulling the wool over YOUR eyes are the same people who did that search too many times to begin with thus making it impossible for you, and others, to do it successfully. Kind of like a DOS attack.

JenaS62

Apr 19th, 2011, 1:47 PM

I surely do. When you learn more about how database queries work you will understand as well.

We shall see. Although I expect that eventually we will get the no record please try again message.

DontBeAfraid

Apr 19th, 2011, 1:48 PM

Although I expect that eventually we will get the no record please try again message. Yes, because the document linking the two was a fake.

Bob

Apr 20th, 2011, 9:26 AM

Well Bob, I suppose I could have called DBA what he calls me all the time - a cunt. Would that have been better? :vbroll:

Maybe he's one of those British guys who have trouble with their C's and B's?

Besides, you still haven't answered the question: Why is this any of our business? Why haven't government agencies raised the questions? Why, pray tell, are the only people who are interested in this issue anti-Obama to begin with?

Because....it's all made up.
Remember to turn the other cheek and you'll always have the high ground.

GamerGal

Apr 20th, 2011, 9:35 AM

Maybe he's one of those British guys who have trouble with their C's and B's?

Besides, you still haven't answered the question: Why is this any of our business? Why haven't government agencies raised the questions? Why, pray tell, are the only people who are interested in this issue anti-Obama to begin with?

Because....it's all made up.
Remember to turn the other cheek and you'll always have the high ground.

Exactly! Only the racists bring this up. Every one else? It is known he's American. But the racists? Nope, one drop of Negro blood means he can't be an American! Must be from Africa!

Nu Kua

Apr 20th, 2011, 9:35 AM

Why is this any of our business?

Because we are talking about the possibility of (even more) corruption at the highest levels of our government, Bob- these people are supposed to be representing us. That is why it is the business of the people.

Why haven't government agencies raised the questions?
You mean the government agencies who would be directly involved in a cover-up if indeed there has been one?

Why, pray tell, are the only people who are interested in this issue anti-Obama to begin with?

That is a ridiculous question. Why is it that most of the people who were questioning Bush, and ranting on his crimes, were anti-Bush?

When the next President who is a Republican comes into office and rumors of crimes and wrong-doing begin circulating on the news and the web, Bob, I'll refer you to your post above if you make a single comment against it- just so you'll maintain your higher ground.

Sorry to sound like a smart aleck, but the smug suggestion that it is wrong to question, investigate, or to even care really takes me aback.

Exactly! Only the racists bring this up. Every one else? It is known he's American. But the racists? Nope, one drop of Negro blood means he can't be an American! Must be from Africa!

You calling me a racist? That's rich. Don't reduce my questions or criticisms to the level of a racist rant. I am not afraid to question this or any President on any level, on any subject- the color of the skin is not an impediment to me. The color of his skin, though, sure seems to blind others.

Bob

Apr 20th, 2011, 9:52 AM

Because we are talking about the possibility of (even more) corruption at the highest levels of our government, Bob- these people are supposed to be representing us. That is why it is the business of the people.

You mean the government agencies who would be directly involved in a cover-up if indeed there has been one?

Yes, those guys. They would have much to gain by exposing this.

That is a ridiculous question. Why is it that most of the people who were questioning Bush, and ranting on his crimes, were anti-Bush?

At a certain point, everybody was anti bush.

When the next President who is a Republican comes into office and rumors of crimes and wrong-doing begin circulating on the news and the web, Bob, I'll refer you to your post above if you make a single comment against it- just so you'll maintain your higher ground.

Only if he starts a war in the wrong country.

Sorry to sound like a smart aleck, but the smug suggestion that it is wrong to question, investigate, or to even care really takes me aback.

The investigation is complete and has been for a while, Obama, Natural born citizen, non social security cheat.

You calling me a racist? That's rich. Don't reduce my questions or criticisms to the level of a racist rant. I am not afraid to question this or any President on any level, on any subject- the color of the skin is not an impediment to me. The color of his skin, though, sure seems to blind others.

I don't think you're a racist. But I do believe this issue is so fervently believed because of it.

Nu Kua

Apr 20th, 2011, 10:12 AM

I don't think you're a racist. But I do believe this issue is so fervently believed because of it.

I can agree that there is definitely a loud and vocal element of the "birther" movement which has latched onto this because of their own distrust of the man because he happened to be black- because the idea of a black man as President just blew their minds. I really do- and there is definitely an element of fraud involved, as in the people who make the fake videos and such. These people make me sick.

But not everybody who is looking into this is of that nature. There are sober-minded people who really do feel strongly that there are more questions than suitable answers- and it has nothing to do with color.
Are they right? Are they wrong? I don't know.

But I do remember when Bush was on Fire for the Lord, and the Lord was telling him to bomb the hell out of Iraq- and then of course the furor of the Patriot Acts... there was a concerted move to paint anyone who protested as a crazy left wing fringe element full of conspiracy theories. Remember that? And the crazier people who were (are) among some of the anti-war/anti-patriot act and such crowd were frequently highlighted in the news, and pointed to as examples of People Who Hate America. Thus, it was far easier to ridicule all the sensible people who were soberly pointing out Bush hypocrisy and crimes- to falsely associate the thinkers with the nuts. And it was done for a purpose.

JenaS62

Apr 20th, 2011, 10:22 AM

IBut I do remember when Bush was on Fire for the Lord, and the Lord was telling him to bomb the hell out of Iraq- and then of course the furor of the Patriot Acts... there was a concerted move to paint anyone who protested as a crazy left wing fringe element full of conspiracy theories. Remember that? And the crazier people who were (are) among some of the anti-war/anti-patriot act and such crowd were frequently highlighted in the news, and pointed to as examples of People Who Hate America. Thus, it was far easier to ridicule all the sensible people who were soberly pointing out Bush hypocrisy and crimes- to falsely associate the thinkers with the nuts. And it was done for a purpose.

That is EXACTLY what is happening. I rallied against Bush and no one from the left said a word - because apparently they felt the same way - but don't dare say something about one of their own because they turn around and call you crazy (or racist).

Maybe I am just anti-president - especially when I see abuse of power, broken promises and outright lies.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 20th, 2011, 11:59 AM

No douche bag - that is not all that it means. It means that a record DOES exists with those credentials (ie: the social security number that CT refuses to believed was used by Obama) and that it also has a ton of hits and was probably locked. If that record did not exist - it would give the same message that both NK and I got when we tried names, social security numbers and birthdates of someone who is not registered for with selective service. Willfull ignorance.

Jena, OF COURSE Obama has a social security number he used. In that sense, YES, the record exists. It does NOT then follow that the SPECIFIC NUMBER that wnd posted IS the one he used.

Now, you say above that the message you get is the same one for someone who has not registered, and claim that that means that the SS is really the one he used and the government is covering it up, yet you ignore the OTHER EQUALLY LOGICAL possibility that the number you found has NOTHING TO DO with the real Obama. Imagine that.

Also, DBA is absolutely right about the bandwidth thing. It is not a "theory" (used in this context as hypothesis). It's a fact of reality. The internet is not some infinite resource. That's why when you hotlink images you'll sometimes get, instead of your picture, some message about "please do not hotlink" etc etc.

Maybe I am just anti-president - especially when I see abuse of power, broken promises and outright lies.

My guess is that your constant attacks on Obama are (subconsciously) politically motivated. When Bush was in office, you still had not really formulated many of the political views you have now, based on some posts you've made the last couple of years.

Nu Kua

Apr 20th, 2011, 12:07 PM

Maybe I am just anti-president - especially when I see abuse of power, broken promises and outright lies.

In an episode of Family Guy not too long ago, Brian was ranting about the President and Louis pointed out to him that he had ranted as much about the previous President. She said (to the effect of- paraphrasing here) that Brian wasn't a Dem/Lib or a Rep/Con, that he didn't support one side over the other, that he instead was an oppositionist. (according to spell check, that is a new word.) Because he was an oppositionist, he'd oppose and argue with whoever was sitting in the Oval, would have issues with any admin, no matter what they did or did not do.

I think about that a lot. It's a fact, the real problem is not that this President committing fraudulent crimes is a Republican or that President complicit in fraudulent crimes is a Democrat- it is that the crimes and lies are being committed period. That is what we're opposed to- not the party politics even though we will by nature be more "aligned" by perspective, perhaps, to one party or another. We are opposed to the criminal nature of a system that purports itself to be the be-all and end-all of Fairness, Justice, and Liberty for All.

FinalFour

Apr 20th, 2011, 12:09 PM

Was it "racist" when people called John Kerry's past into question?

Was it because of his blue blood?

People just want those who call themselves "leaders" to lead by example. They want them to "own" their personal stories, not hide from them. They don't want to hire perpetual revisionists.

When you run for political public office, you are applying for a job. You are expected to submit "your resume" and then there are a series of "interviews" in which the people (who might hire you) delve into your past, your personality, your personal information-- some of which you may have offered in that resume.

There's a background check, where someone actually dives deeper, to confirm or contend the information you have provided.

There's a drug test... or there should have been. For him and the people who hired him.

It's NOT racist. It's late.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 20th, 2011, 12:18 PM

It's NOT racist. It's late.

For some it's racism, but for most of the people who aren't usually into conspiracy theories it's because Obama has a foreign sounding name and has lived in more than one country. For the rest it's nothing but dislike or willingness to believe the worst due to politics (hence the disproportionate correlation with birthers and Republican or conservative political views. That nearly half of all conservatives believe it is not a coincidence.).

JenaS62

Apr 20th, 2011, 12:26 PM

My guess is that your constant attacks on Obama are (subconsciously) politically motivated. When Bush was in office, you still had not really formulated many of the political views you have now, based on some posts you've made the last couple of years.

My constant attacks on Obama are because he is a fraud. He has done nothing that he said that he was going to do and in fact has made it worse or done the opposite. I will readily admit that I did not vote for Obama because I have had suspicions about him from the day I heard he was running. He was shady before he even ran for presidet. But I even let that go and waited to see. Even the things I had hoped he would do as a left leaning president - marijuana reform, end the wars, stop the Patriot Act, etc, etc... HE DID NOT DO. Now I know that you and your henchmen will run in to defend his honor but that is the way I see it and I am a voter. And I am starting to think that thats the way many Americans are now seeing it once they are willing to SEE. Obviously, you're not.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 20th, 2011, 12:47 PM

My constant attacks on Obama are because he is a fraud. He has done nothing that he said that he was going to do and in fact has made it worse or done the opposite. I will readily admit that I did not vote for Obama because I have had suspicions about him from the day I heard he was running. He was shady before he even ran for presidet. But I even let that go and waited to see. Even the things I had hoped he would do as a left leaning president - marijuana reform, end the wars, stop the Patriot Act, etc, etc... HE DID NOT DO. Now I know that you and your henchmen will run in to defend his honor but that is the way I see it and I am a voter. And I am starting to think that thats the way many Americans are now seeing it once they are willing to SEE. Obviously, you're not.

Because unlike you and them, I actually listened to what he said, and based my opinion on that (for example, many disillusioned Obama supporters are angry over Afghanistan, despite Obama stating point blank that he had every intention of staying there).

Now, he DID get a health care bill, just like he said he would- something that no Democrat president has ever done despite trying to for decades. Naturally you ignore this in your "didn't do anything he said he would" bullshit.

Now, as far as the economy, is improving it making it worse? If you haven't noticed, the economy is better than it was when he took office.

As far as Guantanamo bay, he TRIED to close it and was stopped by opposition in Congress (in the bill they passed for military funding). When your options are (a) close Guantanamo bay, but not fund the military and (b) Fund the military, but keep Guantanamo bay open, your options are fairly limited.

As for deficits, a large part of this is the recession he INHERITED, and, like it or not, the Bush tax cuts. Congressional opposition has kept the tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy, and this will add to it. In fact, more than half of the 9 trillion (about 5 trillion) are due to the Bush tax cuts. The rest from entitlements and the recession.

EDIT- note that Bush inherited a 4% unemployment rate and left with an 8.1%, meanwhile Obama, despite inheriting the largest recession in decades, had an 8.8% unemployment rate as of March. (and for the "that's not the real unemployment rate" retards, when comparing rates, all that matters is that the relative numbers that are compared represent the same set of data, fucking idiots...)

Now proceed to ignore all of that.

Blu-ray

Apr 20th, 2011, 12:55 PM

Because unlike you and them, I actually listened to what he said, and based my opinion on that (for example, many disillusioned Obama supporters are angry over Afghanistan, despite Obama stating point blank that he had every intention of staying there).

Now, he DID get a health care bill, just like he said he would- something that no Democrat president has ever done despite trying to for decades. Naturally you ignore this in your "didn't do anything he said he would" bullshit.

Now, as far as the economy, is improving it making it worse? If you haven't noticed, the economy is better than it was when he took office.

As far as Guantanamo bay, he TRIED to close it and was stopped by opposition in Congress (in the bill they passed for military funding). When your options are (a) close Guantanamo bay, but not fund the military and (b) Fund the military, but keep Guantanamo bay open, your options are fairly limited.

As for deficits, a large part of this is the recession he INHERITED, and, like it or not, the Bush tax cuts. Congressional opposition has kept the tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy, and this will add to it. In fact, more than half of the 9 trillion (about 5 trillion) are due to the Bush tax cuts. The rest from entitlements and the recession.

Now proceed to ignore all of that.

What's with going off topic so much? We're talking about his SSN issues and in another thread his birth certificate issues. Too many oddities here for there not to be something. You're just trying to distract from the discussion and debate on the subject.

GamerGal

Apr 20th, 2011, 12:59 PM

Yes, cause Jena openly states she hates Obama for being black, and being black means he can't be from America. She makes attack after attack after attack. But if you point it out she neg reps you.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 20th, 2011, 1:01 PM

What's with going off topic so much? We're talking about his SSN issues and in another thread his birth certificate issues. Too many oddities here for there not to be something. You're just trying to distract from the discussion and debate on the subject.

Yes. I'm in on the conspiracy.

Please explain the ridiculous correlation between birthers and conservatives.

JenaS62

Apr 20th, 2011, 1:02 PM

Because unlike you and them, I actually listened to what he said, and based my opinion on that (for example, many disillusioned Obama supporters are angry over Afghanistan, despite Obama stating point blank that he had every intention of staying there).

Now, he DID get a health care bill, just like he said he would- something that no Democrat president has ever done despite trying to for decades. Naturally you ignore this in your "didn't do anything he said he would" bullshit.

Now, as far as the economy, is improving it making it worse? If you haven't noticed, the economy is better than it was when he took office.

As far as Guantanamo bay, he TRIED to close it and was stopped by opposition in Congress (in the bill they passed for military funding). When your options are (a) close Guantanamo bay, but not fund the military and (b) Fund the military, but keep Guantanamo bay open, your options are fairly limited.

As for deficits, a large part of this is the recession he INHERITED, and, like it or not, the Bush tax cuts. Congressional opposition has kept the tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy, and this will add to it. In fact, more than half of the 9 trillion (about 5 trillion) are due to the Bush tax cuts. The rest from entitlements and the recession.

Now proceed to ignore all of that.

You only addressed one thing that I mentioned - war! And not only did we we keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq - we got involved in Libya! What about marijuana reform? What about the patriot act? What about refusing to address the debt seriously? What about GE paying no corporate taxes (you know those things the left wants increased) And why if Obama wants to elminate tax deductions for the rich, did he and Michelle have 400+ thousand dollars in charitable contributions? Why didn't they just not take the deduction? You don't have to take it but I guess they enjoy their money as much as the next rich person. All you do is make excuses.

Now proceed to ignore all of that.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 20th, 2011, 1:25 PM

You only addressed one thing that I mentioned - war!

I also pointed out that he did some things he said he'd do, which contradicted what you said. But, there are reasons I ignored most of it, which I shall explain.

And not only did we we keep troops in Afghanistan

He campaigned on this.

and Iraq

Plenty of troops have been removed, including the last combat troops which were removed last year.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/08/201081818840122963.html

also note:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/iraq/

The vast majority of Iraq promises are fulfilled. Far lefties are pissed off only because they were being naïve to an almost retarded degree, expecting Obama to be the motherfucking messiah and work miracles.

- we got involved in Libya!

And you would have been calling him evil for letting civilians die if we didn't. Of course, this is a U.N. thing, not a U.S. thing, but you don't care about that. Also, we have not invaded Libya. This is not like Iraq or Afghanistan.

What about marijuana reform?

I never noticed where Obama campaigned on marijuana reform.

What about the patriot act?

Obama said he would revisit the bill regarding increasing oversight of wiretapping, etc. Congress has yet to pass such a bill for him to sign, and as a reactionary measure extended the current form for a year, and then a 90 day extension. We'll see where this goes at the end of this year and the next.

What about refusing to address the debt seriously?

It's hard to address the debt when Congress rejects your desire to remove the Bush tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy.

What about GE paying no corporate taxes (you know those things the left wants increased)

See above. Your teabagger congressional leaders oppose removing tax cuts.

And why if Obama wants to elminate tax deductions for the rich, did he and Michelle have 400+ thousand dollars in charitable contributions? Why didn't they just not take the deduction? You don't have to take it but I guess they enjoy their money as much as the next rich person. All you do is make excuses.

A deduction for charity is not the same thing as a tax cut. Ironic in this particular part of your post is that Obama has been trying to raise taxes on his bracket and higher since he got into office.

Which brings me back to my central point in this thread: Why is it that almost 50% of conservatives are birthers? What an amazing coincidence...

Anarch

Apr 20th, 2011, 1:29 PM

Where's my transparent government? When Is Gitmo getting shut down? Why aren't the troops home yet?

GamerGal

Apr 20th, 2011, 1:34 PM

Obama campaigned on moving troops from Iraq to Afganistan, not home.

Obama tried closing Gitmo, but the GOP said they would execute soldiers if Obama did. So Obama can't because if he tries our troops don't get armor, bullets, or food.

Anarch

Apr 20th, 2011, 1:38 PM

Well At least he didn't get us into any new wars...oh wait...

Nu Kua

Apr 20th, 2011, 1:41 PM

The vast majority of Iraq promises are fulfilled. Far lefties are pissed off only because they were being naïve to an almost retarded degree, expecting Obama to be the motherfucking messiah and work miracles.

Yet again you reduce valid criticisms down to partisan rhetoric- "far lefties who expected a Messiah".

And, just who is being naive? (And how did you get those two little dots over the i on naive?) "Far lefties", for one thing, does not even begin to cover the wide range of groups and orgs- all the way up and down the scale of left and right- who are disagree with being in Iraq- who disagree with the U.S. World Imperialist stance. You'd probably be shocked at the right wingers who do not sup[port this at all- even as far right as the John Birch Society!
Yes for some it is a matter of money, perhaps, while for others it is a matter of compassion for human beings, and still others strictly on constitutional grounds- but trust me CT, the opposition to our meddling in other countries affairs for the sake of acquisition while they lie and say it is for the love of people is far more reaching than you can imagine, obviously.

But anyway, Iraq going nicely? Really? Guess that depends on who you ask.

Justin Elliot writes for Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/28/iraq_protests_us) (February 2011)

We saw it with Yemen, and now we're seeing it again with Iraq: the Obama administration is conspicuously quiet when friendly Middle East regimes use ugly tactics -- including violence and imprisoning peaceful demonstrators -- to quell growing protest movements in their countries.

That's in marked contrast to the administration's tough stand when similar tactics are employed by unfriendly governments like the one in Iran. In a statement yesterday, the White House "strongly condemn[ed] the Iranian government's organized intimidation campaign and arrests of political figures, human rights defenders, political activists, student leaders, journalists and bloggers."

But in one of the least-noticed stories of the week, the U.S.-backed government of Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq has resorted to imprisoning 300 journalists, intellectuals, and lawyers in order to stop ongoing protests, according to a well-reported Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/26/AR2011022603345_pf.html) dispatch from Baghdad.

The Post story reports that about 30 people have been killed -- at least some of them gunned down by government forces seeking to disperse protests. And the imprisoned dissidents are not being treated humanely, according to one journalist who was detained:

Just before they were freed, however, Hadi was held in a room where about 300 people sat on the floor. They had black hoods over their heads. Many were groaning, their shirts bloodied. Some wore suits and ties. An elderly man had passed out. Hadi recognized a friend, a TV broadcaster, among them.

As far as I can tell, there has been no public response from the administration to what's happening in Iraq. Yesterday I reached out to State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley to see if the administration has any comment. I will update this post if I hear back. It's also worth noting that the administration has a lot more real sway with Iraq -- where there are still tens of thousands of American troops posted -- than with many of the other countries in the region...

Excerpt from the Post article linked to above:

...The death toll rose to at least 29 Saturday, as officials reported that six more protesters, including a 14-year-old boy, died from bullet wounds. The deaths were recorded in at least eight places, including Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit.

Ssairi and his colleagues had joined the protests in Baghdad's Tahrir Square, some wrapping themselves in white sheets in a sign of peace. As the sun set, helicopters swooped down into the crowd, signaling the start of the crackdown.

Around 4 p.m., Aldiyar TV manager Fiysal Alyassiry, who had broadcast the demonstrations, reported that security forces had attacked the station, beat a worker, arrested seven people including a director and an anchorman, and closed the station.

About the same time, Ssairi and his colleages were sitting at an open-air restaurant two miles from the square. According to interviews with him and several others, two Humvees pulled up and about a dozen camoflauge-clad soldiers stormed inside. They paused for about five minutes, looking at the faces.

They descended upon the table where Hadi al-Mahdi, a journalist and theater director, was sitting with three friends and began beating them as others looked on.

"We said, 'What are you doing - we're journalists!' " Mahdi said. "And they said [expletive] journalism.' "

They loaded them into the Humvees, drove them to a side street, where they beat them again. Then, blindfolded, they were driven to a place Mahdi later recognized as the former Defense Ministry building, which houses an intelligence unit of the army's 11th Division.

Inside, they heard soldiers laughing and chanting "Maliki liar!" - mocking a slogan some protesters had shouted. Mahdi said he was taken to a room alone, and soon, he was being beaten with sticks, boots and fists. One soldier threatened to rape him, he said. They threatened to kill him. They took his shoes off, wet his feet and administered electric shocks to them...

An OXFAM (http://www.oxfam.org/en/search/apachesolr_search/Iraq%20women) report, 2008:
(the link takes to a search page with the terms entered Iraq Women- lots of stories there including a heart wrenching report from 2009, "In Her Own Word (http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/oxfam-in-her-own-words-iraqi-women-survey-08mar2009.pdf)s"

...Some of the survey results were:

- Nearly 60% of women said that safety and security continued to be their number one concern despite improvements in overall security in Iraq

- As compared with 2007 & 2006, more than 40% of respondents said their security situation worsened last year & slightly more than 22% said it had remained static compared to both years

- 55% had been a victim of violence since 2003; 22% of women had been victims of domestic violence; More than 30% had family members who died violently.

- Some 45% of women said their income was worse in 2008 compared with 2007 and 2006, while roughly 30% said it had not changed in that same time period

- 33% had received no humanitarian assistance since 2003

- 76% of widows said they did not receive a pension from the government

- Nearly 25% of women had no daily access to drinking water & half of those who did have daily access to water said it was not potable; 69% said access to water was worse or the same as it was in 2006 & 2007

- One-third of respondents had electricity 3 hours or less per day; two-thirds had 6 hours or less; 80% said access to electricity was more difficult or the same as in 2007, 82% said the same in comparison to 2006 and 84% compared to 2003

- Nearly half of women said access to quality healthcare was more difficult in 2008 compared with 2006 and 2007

- 40% of women with children reported that their sons and daughters were not attending school

After analyzing the survey results, it was also found that 35.5% of participants were acting as head of the household, primarily as a result of conflict. Nearly 25% of women had not been married. If this reflects Iraq as a whole, it is the highest rate in the larger region, a result of the loss of men of marrying age as a result of the conflict. 55% percent of women said they had been displaced or forced to abandon their homes at least once since 2003. Nearly half reported sharing their homes with other families.

In early 2009, reports of improved security in Iraq, and even a return to 'normality,' began appearing in the media. Similar reports of diminished suicide bombs and other violent indiscriminate attacks emerged at the time of the initial data collection last year. However insecurity remains in many provinces including Baghdad, Kirkuk and Nineveh where small-scale attacks, assassination and kidnappings continue. Women in particular are less safe now than at any other time during the conflict or in the years before.

Beyond security, the overwhelming concern women voiced was extreme difficulty accessing basic services such as clean water, electricity and adequate shelter despite billions of US dollars that have been spent in the effort to rehabilitate damaged or destroyed infrastructure. Availability of essentials such as water, sanitation and health care is far below national averages. Both the Iraqi organization and researcher that carried out the survey and analyzed its findings corroborated that the overall challenges facing women and the Iraqi population as a whole remained the same in early 2009 as they did in the second half of 2008 when the data presented in this paper was collected.

Women especially appear to have been hard hit by the crippled essential services sector because many have also been driven into debilitating poverty since 2003. The survey and more detailed interviews revealed that a large number of women have been left unable to earn an income because many of their husbands or sons – the family breadwinners – had been killed, disappeared, abducted or suffered from mental or physical illness. Although there are no precise figures, it is estimated that there are now some 740,000 widows in Iraq...

Those stupid naive lefty bitches, who are they to complain? Iraq is going so nicely (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html), after all...

re Libya

And you would have been calling him evil for letting civilians die if we didn't. Of course, this is a U.N. thing, not a U.S. thing, but you don't care about that. Also, we have not invaded Libya. This is not like Iraq or Afghanistan.

First of all, you do not know what she'd say because that never happened. And I thought she was supposed to be a cold hearted Republican who doesn't care about people, so why would she care if civilians die? That doesn't make sense.

Secondly- we've posted evidence after evidence that this is indeed a U.S. driven thing- the UN was brought into it for "permission" AND done so by ignoring Congress- we posted on that, too. AND, we have on record from Clinton, Gates, et al, that we have indeed invaded Libya via covert ops, not to mention supplying $$$ for weapons for use by the Jew-hating Mujahedin "rebels"- AND of course, we've been directly involved in bombing Libya as well. We've even posted how the Pentagon admitted they were using words in such a manner as to give the impression they were no longer involved- that whole "it's NATO, not U.S." thing- to fool people into believing the U.S. had less of a role than we do. From credible sources, one after the other.
And- the basic scenario for each of the "ops"- is the same. But I've gone over that 1,000 times.

I never noticed where Obama campaigned on marijuana reform.

Jena is actually mistaken on that- he did not campaign on marijuana reform, but was quoted as saying he supported it, early in his presidency. And truthfully, he has fulfilled that a little bit- he told the feds they should not intervene in state decisions to legalize it- though sometimes the feds do anyway, then lose in court.

Obama said he would revisit the bill regarding increasing oversight of wiretapping, etc. Congress has yet to pass such a bill for him to sign, and as a reactionary measure extended the current form for a year, and then a 90 day extension. We'll see where this goes at the end of this year and the next.

Maybe, but when faced with a looming vote on a planned one-year extension of special powers authorized in the Patriot Act, Obama did not object nor propose reforms, as he did vow to do as a candidate. Instead, the Obama administration asked Congress to grant those powers for an additional three years.

House Extends Key Patriot Act Provisions (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/)

The measure’s passage, by a 275-144 vote, was expected. The three provisions are expiring at month’s end. Rather than seriously debate or alter them, the House punted — the third failure by Congress (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/patriot-act-punt/) in more than a year to address the law’s controversial issues...

Oh, forgot to add the latest, re the signing statements- Obama said very clearly on the campaign trail that he'd never use them because he felt they were a way to skirt the constitution and allow the President to do an end-run around Congress- that is one of the reasons I finally decided to vote for him in spite of the reservations I was already having before he was even elected. Well, Obama has signed 16 as of February 2011, 17 would make it, re the signing statement where he said he would not let go of his czars- the same czars, which, by the way, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed concern about the use of because, these czars who advise him on various positions are not required to be vetted by Congress. Out of all the ones he has appointed, I think only 2 (maybe 3) were approved by Congress. So much for noble mission of restoring accountability back to the office!

You can read all about that here (http://forums.armageddononline.org/change-czars-signing-t29247.html?t=29247&highlight=signing+statements).

*edit
OK am done now- do not have a ready answer for what was left and now I have to go.

Cartesiantheater

Apr 20th, 2011, 1:49 PM

Who is being naive? (And how did you get those two little dots over the i on naive?)

Copy and pasted it.

"Far lefties", for one thing, does not even begin to cover the wide range of groups and orgs- all the way up and down the scale of left and right- who are disagree with being in Iraq- who disagree with the U.S. World Imperialist stance. You'd probably be shocked at the right wingers who do not sup[port this at all- even as far right as the John Birch Society!
Yes for some it is a matter of money, perhaps, while for others it is a matter of compassion for human beings- but trust me Young Squirrel, the opposition is more far reaching than you can imagine, obviously.

I was speaking about a particular group: disillusioned leftists.

But anyway, Iraq going nicely? Really? Guess that depends on who you ask.

Justin Elliot writes for Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/28/iraq_protests_us) (February 2011)

Some of this is addressed in an OXFAM (http://www.oxfam.org/en/search/apachesolr_search/Iraq%20women) report, 2008:
(the link takes to a search page with the terms entered Iraq Women- lots of stories there including a heart wrenching report from 2009, "In Her Own Word (http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/oxfam-in-her-own-words-iraqi-women-survey-08mar2009.pdf)s"

Those stupid naive lefty bitches, who are they to complain? Iraq is going so nicely, after all.

Is it really wise to use data from 2003 in appraisal of Obama's actions in Iraq? Also I find it odd that you offer not even a particle of praise for the removal of so many troops, and instead are acting as if NONE have ever been removed in the first place.

Interestingly enough, though, it's because there aren't MORE troops in Iraq that there are still occasional deaths. So which do you prefer? MORE troops in Iraq to help protect civilians (and adding U.S. troops to Yemen, perhaps?), or REMOVING more troops?

That's why I use the word naïve. One cannot have One's cake and eat it to, but the far lefties in particular do not seem to get that.

JenaS62

Apr 20th, 2011, 2:42 PM

Jena is actually mistaken on that- he did not campaign on marijuana reform, but was quoted as saying he supported it, early in his presidency. And truthfully, he has fulfilled that a little bit- he told the feds they should not intervene in state decisions to legalize it- though sometimes the feds do anyway, then lose in court.

Fair enough. Must have just been wishful thinking on my part.

I've been waiting for a young, hip, dude to come along and actually do something about it for a long time.

JenaS62

Apr 20th, 2011, 2:47 PM

Yes, cause Jena openly states she hates Obama for being black, and being black means he can't be from America. She makes attack after attack after attack. But if you point it out she neg reps you.

You got a neg rep for dragging my name into that stupid 57 state thread you started - what did Reef say? You went all Lyndsey Lohan on the republicans? You sure did.

Nu Kua

Apr 20th, 2011, 4:28 PM

Is it really wise to use data from 2003 in appraisal of Obama's actions in Iraq? Also I find it odd that you offer not even a particle of praise for the removal of so many troops, and instead are acting as if NONE have ever been removed in the first place.

Interestingly enough, though, it's because there aren't MORE troops in Iraq that there are still occasional deaths. So which do you prefer? MORE troops in Iraq to help protect civilians (and adding U.S. troops to Yemen, perhaps?), or REMOVING more troops?

That's why I use the word naïve. One cannot have One's cake and eat it to, but the far lefties in particular do not seem to get that.

Cart! I wasn't done with that post yet! I guess you didn't see my note. I've added more since then and am about to add something else, do check back to that post if you're of a mind to.

re 2003- no,
that is 2008, the first OXFAM report linked to, which I included for the backgrounder- the other one linked to, "In Her Own Words" is from 2009.

If you can find something reliable that says the conditions there have changed considerably for the better since 2009, then please enlighten me.

The reason I'm not praising the troop withdraw is because most of them were just shifted to another conflict, and I, not being naive, understand that the objective was never to protect the citizens anyway, it was to secure property for oil thieves, while the people are left more disenfranchised than what they were before. The media was on a frenzy about IRAQ TROOP WITHDRAW! as if, that meant less war somehow, when it didn't.

Interestingly enough, though, it's because there aren't MORE troops in Iraq that there are still occasional deaths.

Again- that depends on who you ask. Before the invasion, the Iraqi people had a much higher standard of living, and rogue religious fundamental extremists with flashy new weapons did not rule the streets, treating women like crap, abusing "non-believers" and the whole nine. Now they do, women have lost what they had gained, and the only areas in Iraq that are peaceful and relatively safe now are those that directly surround the "Green Zone"and the newly erected housing for the oil barons.
Oh, the oil fields- they are secure.
Besides, as troubling as that is, I am more troubled by the fact that it was the leaders of my country who led the charge to go in and destroy a sovereign nation under false pretenses, and they said they did it to save the people... again.

Sure, they were all "for the people" (even as so many civilians were murdered by our bombs) until the oil fields were secured- so now the U.S.-backed Maliki gov. allows abuse of the people, police brutality and the like- the most specific example given recently is the journalists- but our gov. turns a blind eye to it because they got what they wanted. Most of the remaining troops over there are too busy protecting the oilfields, than they are the people, anyway.

Same for Afghanistan, same for Libya, you will see... same for it all. You question how I can not praise news stories that paint a hunky-dory picture, I question how you can blithely ignore little facts like that.

I was speaking about a particular group: disillusioned leftists.

Well even then- speaking for this disillusioned "lefty", I didn't expect him to be a Messiah, nor to come in and wave a wand and fix everything, but I did trust the process that this time we had someone who'd be different, somehow.
I did think he was more honest.
Actually, to be honest, I see that maybe I was expecting a miracle. I allowed myself to slip briefly into believing a different President would mean a different America. So maybe you have me just a bit on that one.

Since then, Cart, I really have come to understand that the President is just a face, a talking head. If anybody else had of been elected, say, McCain, the U.S. would still be doing what it is doing, we'd still be in economic dire straights, ect.

BTW, I am not a "far lefty", especially in the sense you refer to it. :0.02: Please don't misrepresent my position as "wanting cake and eating it too" by alluding that- because it is nowhere near that simple for me.

(Speaking of that saying, what the hell else are you supposed to do with cake?)

Which brings me back to my central point in this thread: Why is it that almost 50% of conservatives are birthers?

Where did you get that percentage from?

And by "Conservative", are you referring to the Republican Party, or Conservatives across the board?

And why is it nearly 100% of remaining Bush supporters (towards the end, there) were Republican, but very few were actual Conservative, when it comes not to lifestyle or personality, but Conservative as a political position?

*edit
I am sorry to keep re-editing this post, but all day the conversation has stayed in my head.
I thought more about your question, CT- why so many Conservatives question the Birth and such. Could it be because as a rule, Conservatives are more strict about an exact following of the rule of law?

As an example, I present a conversation with my Daddy, when he was teaching me how to drive. I'd been driving enough to not be so afraid anymore, and in a 55 mph zone, I was going 60. He told me to slow down, because the speed limit sign said 55 and I was breaking the law. I told him the speed limit sign was more of a guideline, that everybody knew 55 meant you could really go up to 60 or even 64, but not 65 because then you'd be 10 mph over and that would make it actual speeding, (I was 17, ok?) and besides, if I drove 55 then other people would run right over me for going so slow.

Daddy turned all red in the face (a sure warning sign) and set me straight- the law was the law, the sign did not say "about 55" or "close to" 55, it said "55", period. Daddy, more conservative than me, saw the speed limit sign as a strict law to be followed no matter what everybody else was doing, whereas I was more willing to bend the rules.

So, maybe there is such a large percentage of Conservatives questioning this, because they tend to be very law-and-order. And, they tend to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, and are more vigilant about seeing that it is followed.
Liberals, on the other hand, might be more inclined to make exceptions, and/or more likely to make excuses.

You got a neg rep for dragging my name into that stupid 57 state thread you started - what did Reef say? You went all Lyndsey Lohan on the republicans? You sure did.

I cannot think of a single time you said you hated Obama because he is black, nor have I ever seen you say that black people cannot be from America.

Can somebody link me to a post where Jena said she hated Obama because he is black, or where she said that black people cannot be from America?

And, I've not known you to attack other board members, either.

JenaS62

Apr 21st, 2011, 5:31 AM

Can somebody link me to a post where Jena said she hated Obama because he is black, or where she said that black people cannot be from America?

And, I've not known you to attack other board members, either.

Crickets.....

DaKat

Apr 24th, 2011, 6:21 AM

Since this got buried in the "birther" thread, I decided it deserved it's own.

A suit has been filed alleging social security fraud by President Obama.

Have YOU seen Obama's SSCard? Have you HEARD, directly from Obama or anyone authorized to speak for Obama, his SSN??

No, you are taking the word of IGNORANT BIASED FOOLS that Obama has many different SSNs that he has used for various purposes, yet NONE of the people claiming that can OR WILL say where they got the info, OR if it was legally obtained!!!

You must be AS STUPID as they are to believe what they claim!!!