E-Verify 'flags' Obama's Social Security Number

Indeed Wong and, as usual, another set of 'splanations, hair splitting, weaseling, searching for obscure meaning of the words... good for you, hope Obama makes it worth it

 

Nonsense.

Just more idiotic Birther demands for "explanations" in the face of the obvious and the ordinary.

That is among the many reasons it sucks to be you.

 

If the SS number associated with Obama by the birthers was in fact correct, he'd have to be pretty dumb NOT to have changed it by now.

And before the dumbass birthers start chiming in, YES you can in fact request a new Social Security number.

 

I think you've nailed it - Obama cannot possibly be pretty dumb, what's with him visiting 57 US States and all... but if I could keep a straight face with the likes of you toddwv, I'd say yes - "the SS number associated with Obama by the birthers is in fact correct". Join the pretty exclusive club of Obamatrons like rahl and bullslawdan, who claims that if the document was on the government site before and now is not there, it never existed. You guys are so boring...

 

So what address did they input for President Obama?

What legal address did they input- since the system will not allow them to input Illinois?

Seriously ridiculous.

 

So in other words...once again Birthers long on talk, but unwilling to actually walk into an FBI office or report anything to the SSA.

 

And how is that "impersonation"? What benefit did I receive from that? Other than making you and the rest of the birthers look like what they are, I mean.

By the way, still waiting for a cogent response to this:

Anything?

But according to birthers like Dutch, that couldn't POSSIBLY be the source of the "discrepancy", the fact that it was impossible for them to put in the correct address and verifying information for him...

No no, the "discrepancy" absolutely positively means without a doubt that his SSN is a fake and he's an illegal alien usurper lizard person from the planet Kingda-Ka here to rape our daughters and give the Washington Monument to China...

 

Forgive me, Sir - you're not a lawyer. I refuse to believe that even American liberal skruls would put out a product of such a low quality

 

I draw your attention to the fact that the "other" category is pretty specific -discrepancy in records. Now, unless you're privy to what that discrepancy is, you're drawing your conclusions from the thin air. Or, from the Center's talking points. We simply don't know what these discrepancies are.

 

I love it when birthers make this particularly idiotic claim.

 

i love it "the center" like control from get smart.. gafaw..

the bar is getting lower as obama shrinks in size and stature..

as long as wasserman is the starry eyed schoolgirl, but the dnc may find a way to distance themselves from the soiled messiah.

 

Now that's just stupid. There is exactly nothing specific about "other." Nothing specific about "discrepancy in records" either. If there was any specificity to it, you wouldn't be asking the questions you've been asking. You would have your specific answer.

Sure we know.

Birther flying monkeys have been abusing a host of government systems, making the same pointless database queries for the President's information over and over and over again.

As a direct result, his records have been flagged to stop it.

It's not rocket science, Dutch.

 

LOL... Like the typical birther, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. It would be funny if it wasn't sad.

Criminal impersonation requires that the perpetrator gain or attempt to gain some pecuniary benefit, or with intent to injure or defraud someone else. Therefore, I did not commit any such crime as you accuse me of, since obviously I could not receive any pecuniary gain, and I did it with the intent of testing the E-verify system and the veracity of your now-debunked claims, not with the intent to take anything from anyone or cause any injury.

Here are some sample criminal impersonation statutes from different states, including the state in which I reside, NY:
Connecticut Arizona Washington Nebraska New York

Since I know you won't actually go to any of those links, I'll helpfully post the NY statute here, in pertinent part:

A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree when he:
1. Impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another;
​

Now, if you were a decent person, or even if you were simply aware of the implications of falsely accusing someone of a crime (doubtful, since the above proves you know little about the law), this is where you recognize your gross error and apologize, or at least skulk away and refrain from posting again in this thread.

However, given your past track record of failing to ever own up to a mistake, even when confronted with ridiculously obvious proof that you are wrong, I'm not holding my breath.

Furthermore, I'm not holding my breath you'll ever give a straight answer to this query, as ever since I've made it, you've done nothing but deflect and attack others:

 

LoL, a few posts back you've made an excellent analysis of the reasons SSA marked this particular category and not the others to "flag" Obama's Self-Check record - let me again point out what it is - "SSA found a discrepancy in the record"! For crying out-loud Wong, this cannot be spinned too many ways, and yet you keep finding them - for that I applaud you

Again, your post is nothing but the way not to admit what is obvious - Obama's self-check record has been flagged because it's flawed - there's a discrepancy in it.

 

It's merely a clerical error.
Like the clerical error that gave obama a Connecticut social security number in the first place.
Or the clerical error that gave obama a higher birth registration number than the Nordyke twins in spite of being born before them.
Or, the clerical error that made the page in the Hawaii birth registry that records his birth the only one without a date rage at the top of the page.
Just another in a long list of clerical errors that is obama's life.

 

The only person spinning is you, and you are contradicting yourself each rotation.

If you consider it to be unambiguous, why do you keep asking "What does it mean?"

It must be very hard to be you.

It has been flagged because Birthers are pains-in-the-ass. At least one state legislature has even had to pass a "vexatious requestor" law to deal with your annoying idiocy.

One more time with feeling: The "self Check" verifies that the SSN is valid, that it belongs to Obama, and that Obama is a citizen.

Thanks for playing.

 

No. It's not.

It's a deliberate response to the abuse of the system by Birther flying monkeys.

That is the only clerical error in your list that is actually true. Blind squirrels. Nuts. You know the saying.

Oh... you must not have heard. WND posted (and then scrubbed) a birth certificate from three weeks after the Nordykes that showed a registration number almost 700 before theirs. This is just another of the many ignorant Birther "anomalies" that is not anomalous after all.

Again, not a clerical error at all. Just an ordinary report header.

You give 4 examples, and three of them were bull sh*t. How much does it suck to have 75% of your head in rectal defilade?

 

Rush said it the best - read my signature

 

Yes it is. A whole bunch of clerical errors that make up the whole of obama's life.
I'll bet his school records are rife with clerical errors. That's why he's embarrassed to show them.

 

So...I notice no response here.

Birthers have yet to explain how it was possible to correctly input President Obama's information into Self verify since it would not be possible to input his legal residence. Dutch has avoided the subject completely- because he doesn't know or care whether the Everify claim is correct or not.

Really it comes down to one of two possibilities:
a) Birthers entered some other (invalid) address for Barack Obama, which by itself could have lead to any of the discrepancies.
or
b) This claim is completely false- a fraud, forgery, etc. Given Birther history, this would not be exactly a shocking discovery.

Until Dutch and the other Birthers can explain how Barack Obama's information could have possibly been entered correctly into Everify, this whole discussion is a waste of time, because based simply upon what facts we do know:
a) Barack Obama's residence is in the State of Illinois
b) Self Everify says Illinois is not covered by Everify

There is no way for Everify to have been used to verify whether or not Barack Obama's supposed social security number is valid.

 

No. It's not.

You must not know what a "clerical error" is. A deliberate flag is not a clerical error.

A "whole bunch?"

You've identified exactly one.

Whatever.

 

But, it has to be. It's the only logical explanation.
Obama is a victim of a series of incompetent secretaries.

 

Logical explanation for what? Your astounding error rate of 75%?

I assure you, the only logical explanation for that requires no clerical error whatsoever.

 

That almost every document relating to obama's past has some form of clerical error attached to it. They can't all be forged. can they?
Maybe they need optical coverage in government health plans.

 

And of course, we've demonstrated again and again that this is a lie.

You have identified a single "clerical error" related to a single document.

No. They can't.