Prediction: Obama will not run in Arizona over birth certificate

[bigrebnc1775]

There is nothing unconstitutional about Obama going in and kicking some Arizona ass. It is within his powers as commander in chief.

He might even find some Weapons of Mass Destruction

If "We the People" are unhappy that he invaded Arizona, we can vote him out of office. But I doubt that would happen

Fine all I will say is obama please do it.

Reb....

The way I see it he can invade Arizona on the grounds he is rounding up illegal aliens. Even the Conservatives would support that. Once you round everyone up in Arizona, you check for long form birth certificates. Anyone who does not have one gets sent to Mexico

Sounds like a win-win doesn't it?

That action would violate due process. sorry doesn't work and be Constitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

Fine all I will say is obama please do it.

Reb....

The way I see it he can invade Arizona on the grounds he is rounding up illegal aliens. Even the Conservatives would support that. Once you round everyone up in Arizona, you check for long form birth certificates. Anyone who does not have one gets sent to Mexico

Sounds like a win-win doesn't it?

That action would violate due process. sorry doesn't work and be Constitutional.

Perfectly legal Reb....

Even the Conservatives like the idea of rounding up illegals. We can round up everyone in Arizona just so we are not singling anyone out (makes it Constitutional). Put them all into one of Sheriff Joe Arpao's (Righties know Sheriff Joe can do no wrong) tent prisons and once everyone in Arizona shows their long form birth certificate...we can let them out

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reb....

The way I see it he can invade Arizona on the grounds he is rounding up illegal aliens. Even the Conservatives would support that. Once you round everyone up in Arizona, you check for long form birth certificates. Anyone who does not have one gets sent to Mexico

Sounds like a win-win doesn't it?

That action would violate due process. sorry doesn't work and be Constitutional.

Perfectly legal Reb....

Even the Conservatives like the idea of rounding up illegals. We can round up everyone in Arizona just so we are not singling anyone out (makes it Constitutional). Put them all into one of Sheriff Joe Arpao's (Righties know Sheriff Joe can do no wrong) tent prisons and once everyone in Arizona shows their long form birth certificate...we can let them out

You are taking it way out of context. to do a traffic stop when someone has violated a traffic law and ask for ID and verifing it is not rounding people up.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Different paper, different lighting, different camera, no shadow.

Doesn't prove anything about the photo in question.

They had better lighting than I did. It proves that if that was a certified copy it would show a stamped inage of the notary seal.

"Better lighting" is a realative term not a quantitative term. It appear the lighting was more intense, it also appeared to be at a higher angle of incidence, and there was a large shadow directly between the light source and the area of the paper where the embossing may have occurred.

You proved nothing about the photo in question, all you proved was that with YOUR paper, under YOUR lighting, with no shadow in YOUR photograph, that the embossing is visible.

It shows that an embossed seal **CAN** be shown, never said it couldn't. It does not change the conditions of another photo, nor prove anything about another photo.


>>>>

 

[The T]

There is nothing unconstitutional about Obama going in and kicking some Arizona ass. It is within his powers as commander in chief.

He might even find some Weapons of Mass Destruction

If "We the People" are unhappy that he invaded Arizona, we can vote him out of office. But I doubt that would happen

Fine all I will say is obama please do it.

Reb....

The way I see it he can invade Arizona on the grounds he is rounding up illegal aliens. Even the Conservatives would support that. Once you round everyone up in Arizona, you check for long form birth certificates. Anyone who does not have one gets sent to Mexico

Sounds like a win-win doesn't it?

Uhmm...NO we wouldn't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Different paper, different lighting, different camera, no shadow.

Doesn't prove anything about the photo in question.

They had better lighting than I did. It proves that if that was a certified copy it would show a stamped inage of the notary seal.

"Better lighting" is a realative term not a quantitative term. It appear the lighting was more intense, it also appeared to be at a higher angle of incidence, and there was a large shadow directly between the light source and the area of the paper where the embossing may have occurred.

You proved nothing about the photo in question, all you proved was that with YOUR paper, under YOUR lighting, with no shadow in YOUR photograph, that the embossing is visible.

It shows that an embossed seal **CAN** be shown, never said it couldn't. It does not change the conditions of another photo, nor prove anything about another photo.


>>>>

All I have done is proved that you can see a notary seal if it is there. one image had it and the other image of the supposed document did not show a notary seal

 

[rightwinger]

Fine all I will say is obama please do it.

Reb....

The way I see it he can invade Arizona on the grounds he is rounding up illegal aliens. Even the Conservatives would support that. Once you round everyone up in Arizona, you check for long form birth certificates. Anyone who does not have one gets sent to Mexico

Sounds like a win-win doesn't it?

Uhmm...NO we wouldn't.

What? Hae you gone soft on illegal immigration?

Got a problem with Arizonans showing their long form birth certificates? Only way you can be sure who was born in this country....Dont want to see none of this Certificate of Lie Birth Bull Shit

Anyone from Arizona with a COLB gets deported...they must be illegal

 

[WorldWatcher]

All I have done is proved that you can see a notary seal if it is there.

I never said that a embossed seal (notary seal) couldn't be seen under the right conditions. I simply pointed out (based on paper, seal, light, and shadow) that a seal could be present but not visible.

one image had it and the other image of the supposed document did not show a notary seal

Correct.

1. The lighting in the second photograph was severly changed from high angle of incidence to very low angle. Highlighting the ridges of the raise paper.

2. The second photograph also did not have a large shadow between the light source and the document.



>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All I have done is proved that you can see a notary seal if it is there.

I never said that a embossed seal (notary seal) couldn't be seen under the right conditions. I simply pointed out (based on paper, seal, light, and shadow) that a seal could be present but not visible.

one image had it and the other image of the supposed document did not show a notary seal

Correct.

1. The lighting in the second photograph was severly changed from high angle of incidence to very low angle. Highlighting the ridges of the raise paper.

2. The second photograph also did not have a large shadow between the light source and the document.



>>>>

If it was on the full view image you would see something no matter how minor it would be you would see the inprint.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, and you know you are wrong, bigreb. The certificate is genuine, and you and four other dissenters can meow all you want.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If it was on the full view image you would see something no matter how minor it would be you would see the inprint.

Not necessarily, especially if there is a large shadow caused by an arm between the light source and the paper.


>>>>

 

[Provocateur]

Reb....

The way I see it he can invade Arizona on the grounds he is rounding up illegal aliens. Even the Conservatives would support that. Once you round everyone up in Arizona, you check for long form birth certificates. Anyone who does not have one gets sent to Mexico

Sounds like a win-win doesn't it?

That action would violate due process. sorry doesn't work and be Constitutional.

Perfectly legal Reb....

Even the Conservatives like the idea of rounding up illegals. We can round up everyone in Arizona just so we are not singling anyone out (makes it Constitutional). Put them all into one of Sheriff Joe Arpao's (Righties know Sheriff Joe can do no wrong) tent prisons and once everyone in Arizona shows their long form birth certificate...we can let them out

Why did you choose the name "rightwinger"? Was it simply to be disingenuous out the gate? Any regrets about being deceitful by choice?


And here are your facts:

dis·in·gen·u·ous (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Provocateur is deceitful, I guess, because the poster of that name is anything but . . . provocative.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope, and you know you are wrong, bigreb. The certificate is genuine, and you and four other dissenters can meow all you want.

Jake do not start reading at the end of a thread and make a comment. Go back and read a few post. I am not wrong about the document that was used in this thread. at least two or three different documents were used.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have read the OP from first to last.

You are wrong, you know you are wrong, and you are engaged in immoral stubbornness, certainly not the characteristic I would want in LEO.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have read the OP from first to last.

You are wrong, you know you are wrong, and you are engaged in immoral stubbornness, certainly not the characteristic I would want in LEO.

Exactly what has obama done that is moral?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deflection won't help. But are you implying that if you believe Obama to be immoral that you can be immoral? Now if that is true, may I ask gently if you are a Christian?

 

[Provocateur]

Provocateur is deceitful, I guess, because the poster of that name is anything but . . . provocative.

You must be a lib protecting your liberal brethren. Shocking, I tell ya.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Provocateur is deceitful, I guess, because the poster of that name is anything but . . . provocative.

You must be a lib protecting your liberal brethren. Shocking, I tell ya.

You could yourself "The Mistaken One", and you would fit your post above.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope, and you know you are wrong, bigreb. The certificate is genuine, and you and four other dissenters can meow all you want.

Jake do not start reading at the end of a thread and make a comment. Go back and read a few post. I am not wrong about the document that was used in this thread. at least two or three different documents were used.

bigrebnc1775

You realize you just posted a link to the same document, but a different picture (with different lighting), with no shadow across the area of the embossed/notary seal it is clearly visible.


Thank you.



>>>>