Judge Rules Not to Dismiss FOIA Lawsuit Filed over Obama’s Social Security Number

[MachZer0]

The disclaimer means It reflects past procedures (think about what were talking about). Think about when the internet was invented.

Whoever wrote the Q&A made an incorrect generalization that you seem to think is valid, that people generally live where they mail in their SSN applications from, this is not always true.

The point being that no one need live in Conneticut to get a Conneticut ssn, so having one doesn’t prove or indicate anything nefarious is going on.

I don't believe you're qualified to make such an assertion

Or, you are wrong. I will amend to you have been misinformed if you like.

I wish I knew what that meant.

 

[variant]

I don't believe you're qualified to make such an assertion

Take it for what you like, I have quoted from multiple sorces and reasonable people without a chip on their sholder are likely to agree with me.

Here let me do it again:

http://www.ssa.gov/employer/stateweb.htm

Since 1973, social security numbers have been issued by our central office. The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP Code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number. Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by our field offices. The number merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State. See also High Group List of SSN's.

And again

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question719.htm

The first three numbers originally represented the state in which a person first applied for a social security card. Numbers started in the northeast and moved westward. This meant that people on the east coast had the lowest numbers and those on the west coast had the highest. Since 1972, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has assigned numbers and issued cards based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the original application form. Since the applicant's mailing address doesn't have to be the same as his residence, his area number doesn't necessarily represent the state in which he resides. For many of us who received our SSNs as infants, the area number indicates the state we were born in. You can find out which area numbers go with each state here.

I wish I knew what that meant.

That your wrong but we can call it whatever you like.

I would add stubborn too.

 

[MachZer0]

Take it for what you like, I have quoted from multiple sorces and reasonable people without a chip on their sholder are likely to agree with me.



That your wrong but we can call it whatever you like.

I would add stubborn too.

As I said, all I did is quote the SSA, so what you should say is that the SSA is wrong. The trouble is, which time were they wrong?

 

[Martingale]

As I said, all I did is quote the SSA, so what you should say is that the SSA is wrong. The trouble is, which time were they wrong?

hey pal, variant schooled you.

 

[variant]

As I said, all I did is quote the SSA, so what you should say is that the SSA is wrong. The trouble is, which time were they wrong?

The time you quoted them. It is apparently all over the right wing blogosphere so we know where you probably got that quote.

I find it hard to believe you went to the SSA and looked it up since it is much easier to find the multiple places where I sorced my quote from.

My quotes appear directly in the SSA allocations sections and are much more specific about how the SSA assigns numbers.

 

[MachZer0]

The time you quoted them. It is apparently all over the right wing blogosphere so we know where you probably got that quote.

Maybe you could link a couple of blogs where it is found. I haven't looked

I find it hard to believe you went to the SSA and looked it up since it is much easier to find the multiple places where I sorced my quote from.

Since I included the link tot he SSA, I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe

My quotes appear directly in the SSA allocations sections and are much more specific about how the SSA assigns numbers.

My quote came directly from the SSA, however, no disclaimer accompanied my quote

 

[MachZer0]

hey pal, variant schooled you.

How do you figure? What exactly did I say that he "schooled me", as you claim. And how have you determined which SSA quote is accurate since they appear to contradict, although one comes with a disclaimer

 

[variant]

Maybe you could link a couple of blogs where it is found. I haven't looked

Link it into google. Aside from links that go back to the SSA You get blogs and message boards.

They are rife with the type of half truths you are trying to spin here.

My quote came directly from the SSA, however, no disclaimer accompanied my quote

The disclaimer has nothing to do with the validity of the info it is about historical practices not still being used.

It probably has to do with the fact that on June 25 of this year they are going to change their procedure to a randomized method for privacy reasons.

You can believe that the SSA checks peoples home addresses (somehow) when they expressly say they go by zip codes of mailing addresses if you like.

I'm not going to try and stop you from believeing what you like further; there is no point in arguing over what we both know is true.

But if you really don't believe it maybe you should call them and ask them for clarification tomorrow.

I bid you good day. Onward right wing soldier onward!

 

[Martingale]

How do you figure? What exactly did I say that he "schooled me", as you claim. And how have you determined which SSA quote is accurate since they appear to contradict, although one comes with a disclaimer

sorry about this but .. big words coming up, adult concepts that I might or might not bother explaining later.

the SSA's records would be inadmissible hearsay to prove the dear leader's residence under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803(6) or (8), because the SSA itself says the records weren't being issued for the purposes of identifying the geographical location of the person to whom the number was issued and the system of number issuing isn't always accurate.

"One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that."

its the internet, and delusions are cheap, but in the real world, you lose flat out on that.

a data entry mistake is likely.

"So how did President Obama get a Social Security number with an Area Number reflecting residence (or mailing address) in Connecticut?

Most likely, this was due to a clerical error. At the time, President Obama was only 15 years old, and lived with his grandparents in an address on Beretania Street. The President’s house in Hawaii was in zip code 96814 and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814. Since the '0' and '9' on a typical typewriter are immediately adjacent (remember, the president's Social Security number was issued in 1977, before the age of computers), it would have been a common error to accidently type a '0' when the ZIP code really began with a '9'. Another possibility is that President Obama, a left-handed 15 year old boy at the time, may have written his own ZIP code in a less-than-fully-legible manner, making the '9' look somewhat like an '0'."

either way, you lose, but I like the Federal Rules of Evidence, because, unlike your pixel counting, this is the real stuff that grownups have to live with.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

hey pal, variant schooled you.

Is this what you consider schooled?

The point being that no one need live in Conneticut to get a Conneticut ssn, so having one doesn’t prove or indicate anything nefarious is going on.

The point being that there is no reason for Obama's Social Security number to come from Connecticut at all. It does not even penetrate the reasoning skills of the typical excuse makers for all these so many problems with the Obama nativity story and now we have people that are calling people schooled because a website says it could have been mailed from a Connecticut mailing address.

What?

Who lived in Connecticut? Why does a dead man have this same Social number when it is stated that Social Security numbers are not redistributed?

 

[Martingale]

Is this what you consider schooled?...:

look! there's a stray pixel in the last "e" of your name. is someone here editing your poasts without your permission?

 

[MachZer0]

Link it into google. Aside from links that go back to the SSA You get blogs and message boards.

Well, aside from the baseless allegation, I didn't do that before and I see no point of doing it now. Apparently you were making a wild guess, trawling, and came up without a catch

They are rife with the type of half truths you are trying to spin here.

I didn't spin any half truths. I merely quoted the SSA, sans disclaimer

The disclaimer has nothing to do with the validity of the info it is about historical practices not still being used.

Generally speaking, a disclaimer that states the info may not be valid does indeed have something to do with the validity of the info

It probably has to do with the fact that on June 25 of this year they are going to change their procedure to a randomized method for privacy reasons

Keyword emphasized because it indicates guess work

You can believe that the SSA checks peoples home addresses (somehow) when they expressly say they go by zip codes of mailing addresses if you like.

I'm not going to try and stop you from believeing what you like further; there is no point in arguing over what we both know is true.

But if you really don't believe it maybe you should call them and ask them for clarification tomorrow.

I bid you good day. Onward right wing soldier onward!

What we both know is true is that the SSA made contradictory statemets, albeit with a disclaimer on one

 

[Martingale]

herb, as long as I've got your attention...

... have you ever backed a winning horse/argument?

 

[variant]

I didn't spin any half truths. I merely quoted the SSA, sans disclaimerGenerally speaking, a disclaimer that states the info may not be valid does indeed have something to do with the validity of the info

Ironic considering your whole disclaimer line of argument is a half truth.

The disclaimer specifies where we should doubt validity and it is about current practices, not historical ones.

This is an archival or historical document and may not reflect current policies or procedures

Now, if I were to put the administrations policies in the 1970's in one of two categories.

A. Historical practices.

Or

B. Current practices.

Which one do you think it would fall under (it's not really that hard for most people to recognize that the 1970's are in the past),

Keyword emphasized because it indicates guess work

Well the disclaimer on THIS PAGE reads as follows:

Employer Filing Instructions & Information - Social Security Number Allocations

On June 25, 2011, SSA will change the SSN assignment process. Numbers issued after this date will not adhere to the rules outlined on this page. Please see SSN Randomization for more information on SSA's new assignment process and how it may affect you.

Over this:

Since 1973, social security numbers have been issued by our central office. The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP Code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number. Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by our field offices. The number merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State. See also High Group List of SSN's.

So, I guess I can see how I'm really stretching this thing after the SSA specifically says what it's practices are and when, and all you have is a vague statement about how the first numbers have significance as to the persons home address.

What we both know is true is that the SSA made contradictory statemets, albeit with a disclaimer on one

And we both know which one is correct, albeit you like to troll.

 

[variant]

Is this what you consider schooled?

You "schooled" him Herbie I used your source.

You guys should get on the same page.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

You "schooled" him Herbie I used your source.

You guys should get on the same page.

No, I quoted specifically for information and to get to the truth.

I noticed you have no answer for the address in Connecticut that requested Obama's Social Security number.

Word is that this is where all aliens submitted their forms back then, before the loser Baltimore, where everything is up and up.

 

[variant]

No, I quoted specifically for information and to get to the truth.

And nothing I quoted from that source you quoted was incorrect.

I noticed you have no answer for the address in Connecticut that requested Obama's Social Security number.

Word is that this is where all aliens submitted their forms back then, before the loser Baltimore, where everything is up and up.

Either it was mailed from Connecticut or the 9 on his application was mistaken for a zero.

The zip code for Hawaii is 96814 while Danbury CT is 06814.

So, grand conspiracy or someone in Baltimore typed a 0 instead of a 9 or (gasp) young Obama had bad handwriting.

 

[MachZer0]

Is this what you consider schooled?

You know what's really funny is that he claims I was schooled and I didn't even take a position. I was also accused of spinning the facts, while I never took a position. I merely posted a quote and a link from SSA. It's actually hilarious that at least two folks here imagined an argument that I never made and then boasted over defeating said argument

The point being that there is no reason for Obama's Social Security number to come from Connecticut at all. It does not even penetrate the reasoning skills of the typical excuse makers for all these so many problems with the Obama nativity story and now we have people that are calling people schooled because a website says it could have been mailed from a Connecticut mailing address.

What?

Who lived in Connecticut?

Those are interesting questions. I'm wondering, since he was a minor, if his mother may have applied for his SSN while she was in Indonesia and had someone in Connecticut mail in the application. That doesn't seem to make much sense though since she could have used the Hawaii address. Very interesting

Why does a dead man have this same Social number when it is stated that Social Security numbers are not redistributed?

Very good question, if true

 

[Martingale]

You know what's really funny is that he claims I was schooled and I didn't even take a position. ... true

is that ... another stray pixel?

 

[variant]

You know what's really funny is that he claims I was schooled and I didn't even take a position. I was also accused of spinning the facts, while I never took a position. I merely posted a quote and a link from SSA. It's actually hilarious that at least two folks here imagined an argument that I never made and then boasted over defeating said argument

Right you've advanced no positions here, just posted misleading information and defended it.

A distinction without a difference is just semantics.