SkyPiggie 0 #1 July 5, 2012 His social security number! http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-social-security-number-challenged/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 July 5, 2012 What's yours?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #3 July 5, 2012 QuoteWhat's yours? Pleasae let me beat the mad rush... 42.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyPiggie 0 #4 July 5, 2012 QuoteWhat's yours? Skypiggie's starts with 229 and matches her history of residency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #5 July 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhat's yours? Skypiggie's starts with 229 and matches her history of residency. What is the little piggie hiding under her foil hat? And does she really think of herself in the third person? Doh!! Debunked by Snopes!! Quotehttp://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp Likewise, the claim that Social Security numbers beginning with 042 are "reserved for Connecticut residents" is false. As explained by the Social Security Administration, the area number portion of a SSN does not (and never did) necessarily correspond to the state in which an applicant was born or resides; it simply reflects the mailing address which the applicant has requested his newly issued card be sent to. That mailing address does not have to be the same as the applicant's residence address: it can be the address of a friend, relative, employer, rented post office box, or anyone else authorized to receive mail on his behalf: The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.. Why Barack Obama's Social Security card application might have included a Connecticut mailing address is something of a curiosity, as he had no known connection to that state at the time, but by itself that quirk is no indicator of fraud. The most likely explanation for the discrepancy is a simple clerical or typographical error: the ZIP code in the area of Honolulu where Barack Obama lived is 96814, while the ZIP code for Danbury, Connecticut, is 06814. Since '0' and '9' are similarly shaped numbers and are adjacent on typewriter keyboards, it's not uncommon for handwritten examples to be mistaken for each other, or for one to be mistyped as the other (thereby potentially resulting in a Hawaiian resident's application mistakenly being routed as if it had originated from Connecticut). Did the plaintiff in that idiotic lawsuit really do her homework? And did a little piggie do hers? Stay tuned..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #6 July 6, 2012 She probably didn't do her home work, but 500 #'s would be more proper for a fellow who was born in Hawaii. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #7 July 6, 2012 QuoteShe probably didn't do her home work, but 500 #'s would be more proper for a fellow who was born in Hawaii. Except it has nothing to do with where a person is born. Additionally, SS numbers are not identification. I know, I know, companies ask for them and people believe they're for ID purposes, but SS law specifically forbids SS#s from being used as a national ID.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #8 July 6, 2012 Quote What is the little piggie hiding under her foil hat? And does she really think of herself in the third person? .. Perhaps she's Bob Dole.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #9 July 6, 2012 Quote She probably didn't do her home work, but 500 #'s would be more proper for a fellow who was born in Hawaii. Matt Mine starts 548- and I was born in London.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #10 July 6, 2012 Quote Quote She probably didn't do her home work, but 500 #'s would be more proper for a fellow who was born in Hawaii. Matt Mine starts 548- and I was born in London. 500-s are absolutely what were issued to those in HI. I have one kid who was born in Hawaii, and one who was born in Japan, but whose SS# was issued in Hawaii. Both start with 5. Just for curiousity's sake, what year was yours issued? Where did you physically apply for it?lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,130 #11 July 6, 2012 Mine starts with 220 and does not match where I have ever lived. But since I was overseas and using an APO address when I applied for it, it makes perfect sense. I was 17 when I got it, and don't remember any in-person interview. And I wasn't born in Kenya either. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #12 July 6, 2012 Odd that he waited so long to get one (assume it was his mother). I guess he didn't need it in Indonesia? But why was it sent to Connecticut? Odd.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #13 July 6, 2012 QuoteOdd that he waited so long to get one (assume it was his mother). I guess he didn't need it in Indonesia? But why was it sent to Connecticut? Odd. Not odd that it took so long to get a SSN, I didn't have one till I was 17 or so. My daughter, who was born in Japan, didn't have one till she was 6. We all have plenty of evidence of where we were when. What is odd is that where the SSN was issued from is not part of where he was when his SSN was supposedly issued, which does not line up with where he supposedly was when......lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 July 6, 2012 QuoteSS law specifically forbids SS#s from being used as a national ID. Doesn't stop them from doing it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 July 6, 2012 Quote Quote Quote She probably didn't do her home work, but 500 #'s would be more proper for a fellow who was born in Hawaii. Matt Mine starts 548- and I was born in London. 500-s are absolutely what were issued to those in HI. I have one kid who was born in Hawaii, and one who was born in Japan, but whose SS# was issued in Hawaii. Both start with 5. Just for curiousity's sake, what year was yours issued? Where did you physically apply for it? 545-573 are CA.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #16 July 6, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote She probably didn't do her home work, but 500 #'s would be more proper for a fellow who was born in Hawaii. Matt Mine starts 548- and I was born in London. 500-s are absolutely what were issued to those in HI. I have one kid who was born in Hawaii, and one who was born in Japan, but whose SS# was issued in Hawaii. Both start with 5. Just for curiousity's sake, what year was yours issued? Where did you physically apply for it? 545-573 are CA. Why, yes, and many other places WEST of the Mississippi! Myself, included, born in CA (smack dab in the middle of the SSN range given). I can prove, in plenty of ways, that I was born in the U.S. and where I was at any given time. The Big O has not proven that. Mine is public record. It wouldn't take too much to track me down. The most difficult part is that my name is super-common. B.O.'s isn't common at all.lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #17 July 6, 2012 Quote Quote SS law specifically forbids SS#s from being used as a national ID. Doesn't stop them from doing it. This was a form of ID when I got my passport. That my name on my SS card didn't match my name on the passport I was applying for evidently didn't matter. lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyPiggie 0 #18 July 6, 2012 QuoteExcept it has nothing to do with where a person is born Correct. They're issued based upon where you live at the time you apply for one. And that could be in your teen years when you need the SSN so you can get a job, file a W2, and start earning money. But Obama doesn't have any history of living in Connecticut... It's mighty odd how all these strange "mistakes" keep happening in his records. Maybe it's just a "composite" SSN, like the characters in his book which he invented, and put forth as being real. I wonder what we would see if he ever released his college transcripts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #19 July 6, 2012 QuoteI can prove, in plenty of ways, that I was born in the U.S. and where I was at any given time. The Big O has not proven that. Yes he has, you're lying.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #20 July 6, 2012 QuoteIt's mighty odd how all these strange "mistakes" keep happening in his records. Like what?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #21 July 6, 2012 QuoteThey're issued based upon where you live at the time you apply for one. And that could be in your teen years when you need the SSN so you can get a job, file a W2, and start earning money. But Obama doesn't have any history of living in Connecticut... It's mighty odd how all these strange "mistakes" keep happening in his records. Debunked. The more you thrash and flounder, the more you embarrass yourself. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dQfQAq5KVlM/TtDm_ja74OI/AAAAAAAAQ8M/x-dpymge3q0/s1600/tin%2Bfoil%2Bhats.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #22 July 6, 2012 QuoteThey're issued based upon where you live at the time you apply for one. No, they are not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #23 July 6, 2012 On what is the number based? I was born in Alabama and received my number in Alabama, so it didn't come up. My children were similar situations. Andy - you say it has been debunked. Can you provide a cite? I ran a google search and couldn't find it.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #24 July 6, 2012 QuoteAs explained by the Social Security Administration, the area number portion of a SSN does not (and never did) necessarily correspond to the state in which an applicant was born or resides; it simply reflects the mailing address which the applicant has requested his newly issued card be sent to. That mailing address does not have to be the same as the applicant's residence address: it can be the address of a friend, relative, employer, rented post office box, or anyone else authorized to receive mail on his behalf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #25 July 6, 2012 OK. I saw that the first time and missed the nuance. So, the question is obvious. Why was it sent to Connecticut? Kind of odd. Should have a simple explanation.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
