BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 240868 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Rush

United States

#120814 Oct 26, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Tea bagger is a filthy deorgatory term? It's obscene? I read it in all newspapers all the time, it's what they call themselves, like birthers do. Best come up with something less lame. Your words are there for everyone to see, and I notice you've spurted the last 15 minutes, more than ever.
You are uncouth and filthy-mouthed. If the pope heard you, he'd excommunicate your azz. There, I said it. Count ONE for me.
Good thing I am not catholic...

I would think the "educated " queer such as yourself would know it has always meant:
Dipping your testicles into the open mouth of another person. Kind of like dipping a tea bag in and out of a cup of water.

Guess not huh LOL
Learn to Read

United States

#120815 Oct 26, 2012
Rush wrote:
<quoted text>Temp agency send you home early again Techno Perez?
Hey Skid. Still fantasizing that fellow blowhard Dick Mourdock isn't in real danger of costing your party control of the Senate?

Poor Skidmark - watching another pathetic angry loser in epic fail must hit close to home
Rush

United States

#120816 Oct 26, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Skid. Still fantasizing that fellow blowhard Dick Mourdock isn't in real danger of costing your party control of the Senate?
Poor Skidmark - watching another pathetic angry loser in epic fail must hit close to home
Hey dicksnot still cruising around in your 72 dodge scrounging for pop cans and piggybacking off if unsecured wireless routers?

Of course you are..... LOL
Learn to Read

United States

#120817 Oct 26, 2012
Rush wrote:
<quoted text>Hey dicksnot still cruising around in your 72 dodge scrounging for pop cans and piggybacking off if unsecured wireless routers?

Of course you are..... LOL
Well at least your black knee socks are appropriate attire for mourning the collapse of Mourdock's campaign .... Maybe he can join you on the metal detector circuit
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#120818 Oct 26, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
It lasted about ..... SEVEN hours. Do you really think is was wise not only to leave our folks in Benghazi after the Red Cross and British pulled out but to also reduce security? Do you really???
Most of the mistakes were made by ....politicians! At the highest levels!!!
I heard anywhere from 2 to 8 hours. Won't argue with you on that, 7 hrs it is. Take my word for it, Rogue, politicians don't decide that kind of thing, security, it's done by faceless military and civilians at the Embassy, the Pentagon and the State dept with input from the CIA. Progress reports do go the White House, but they are just a fraction of the worldwide reporting that the W.H. receives daily. The C in C is tasked to look at a wider spectrum, the whole if you want to call it that. Officials decided to relax security in Benghazi, yes, and it was careless. But surely you don't think that the president of the United States decides how many marines will be guarding each of the 180 odd U.S. missions abroad?
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#120819 Oct 26, 2012
Rush wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow Jackie you are either completely uninformed, incredibly na´ve or willfully ignorantů
First off let's look at the facts the entire attack lasted over seven hours spanning two different compounds a little over a mile apart. Secondly, the two ex-Navy SEALs were at the CIA safe house when the attack on embassy compound commenced, the embassy staff started asking for help, the two ex-Navy SEALs sent the message they would go and were told to stand down. So there listening to the embassy staff being slaughtered so they ask again to go and help and they're told to stand down once again.
They violated the second order and went anyway saving a couple and recovering some bodies. They made it back to the CIA safe house and came under attack once again. They radioed that they had the mortar crew that was targeting them targeted with laser and were waiting for air support that never came.
After it was over hours later both were found dead manning their weapons.
Now let's see, anniversary of 9/11, Libya, previous attack on embassy, attempted assassination of the British ambassador, British Embassy and Red Cross had already bugged out, and you're sending your openly gay ambassador with light security to Benghazi. Wouldn't a semi-competent administration have assets on the ready?
Predators in the air? We already know there were two special operations groups as well as AC-130 gunships a little over an hour away. With all the things leading up to that wouldn't a semi-competent administration had taken precautions?
So which is it Jackie, are you uninformed, na´ve or ignorant or all three?
You like that word "queer" don't you? How it rolls in your mouth, how you must drool just thinking of it as you open your closet door just a wee bit to see if there are any takers. NOT.

Anyhow, yes, 7 hours, no problem. Naive, uninformed, ignorant are all terms, as is proven by your post, that stick to you.

Briefly. So, help was denied? I don't dispute that. But by who? By Hillary Clinton? By Barack Obama? By Joe Biden? By the Def secretary Panata? What're you trying to prove? And it's PROVEN that even when they did help, thanks to their initiative and bravery, the marines still lost their lives, and their intervention, even with permission, probably would have been for naught, they were grossly outnumbered.

This should never have happened, of course, cripes, they were in Libya, of all places, not exactly a safe and peaceful haven, and that day was the 9/11 anniversary. As I said to Rogue, poor planning, but not by the president or sec of state or sec of defence.

Are you able to discuss something, anything, without constantly reverting to profanity and queer-calling?

“Time to change the Boss”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#120823 Oct 26, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I heard anywhere from 2 to 8 hours. Won't argue with you on that, 7 hrs it is. Take my word for it, Rogue, politicians don't decide that kind of thing, security, it's done by faceless military and civilians at the Embassy, the Pentagon and the State dept with input from the CIA. Progress reports do go the White House, but they are just a fraction of the worldwide reporting that the W.H. receives daily. The C in C is tasked to look at a wider spectrum, the whole if you want to call it that. Officials decided to relax security in Benghazi, yes, and it was careless. But surely you don't think that the president of the United States decides how many marines will be guarding each of the 180 odd U.S. missions abroad?
Hey Canadian, why are you still on a forum concerning " AMERICAN" issues? I asked you before and got nothing but rhetoric. why are you still here? YOU ARE CANADIAN!!!!!! Stay out of our issues and go fix your country.... lol

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#120834 Oct 26, 2012
Reformed Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Canadian, why are you still on a forum concerning " AMERICAN" issues? I asked you before and got nothing but rhetoric. why are you still here? YOU ARE CANADIAN!!!!!! Stay out of our issues and go fix your country.... lol
It's a public forum. He has just as much right here as you.

Meanwhile birfoons quote Pravda's comments on "American" issues.
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I heard anywhere from 2 to 8 hours. Won't argue with you on that, 7 hrs it is. Take my word for it, Rogue, politicians don't decide that kind of thing, security, it's done by faceless military and civilians at the Embassy, the Pentagon and the State dept with input from the CIA. Progress reports do go the White House, but they are just a fraction of the worldwide reporting that the W.H. receives daily. The C in C is tasked to look at a wider spectrum, the whole if you want to call it that. Officials decided to relax security in Benghazi, yes, and it was careless. But surely you don't think that the president of the United States decides how many marines will be guarding each of the 180 odd U.S. missions abroad?
Justice Dale

United States

#120836 Oct 26, 2012
Guru wrote:
EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say
By Jennifer Griffin
Published October 26, 2012
FoxNews.com
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to "stand down."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/ci...
what was really loitering over Benghazi, a drone or a Spectre AC-130 Gunship?
Rush

United States

#120837 Oct 26, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You like that word "queer" don't you? How it rolls in your mouth, how you must drool just thinking of it as you open your closet door just a wee bit to see if there are any takers. NOT.
Anyhow, yes, 7 hours, no problem. Naive, uninformed, ignorant are all terms, as is proven by your post, that stick to you.
Briefly. So, help was denied? I don't dispute that. But by who? By Hillary Clinton? By Barack Obama? By Joe Biden? By the Def secretary Panata? What're you trying to prove? And it's PROVEN that even when they did help, thanks to their initiative and bravery, the marines still lost their lives, and their intervention, even with permission, probably would have been for naught, they were grossly outnumbered.
This should never have happened, of course, cripes, they were in Libya, of all places, not exactly a safe and peaceful haven, and that day was the 9/11 anniversary. As I said to Rogue, poor planning, but not by the president or sec of state or sec of defence.
Are you able to discuss something, anything, without constantly reverting to profanity and queer-calling?
Well Jackie there is proof that the cries for assistance went all the way to the White House Situation room....

So was Obama there or was he in Las Vegas havin a party?

When the 3 am phone call came who answered or did they get voice mail as Hillary predected in 2008?

You seem to believe that they would have died either way but if they had the mortar position targeted with a laser there were a host of weapons systems that could have responded. F-18's out of Italy could have been there in an hour but yet none were launched. AC 130's out of Italy were 2 hours out but none were launched. A competent administration would have seen the warning signs and had drones loitering that could have responded sooner.

But hey the buck stops with the president in this country anyway. He is responsible for those under him...

But when the phone rang they got his voicemail......
Justice Dale

United States

#120839 Oct 26, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice Dolt, what you're saying is that your fantasy words aren't in the Constitution, AND you're unable to support your fantasy interpretation with case law?
That's par for the course with birfoons such as yourself, Justice Dolt.
Why use case law, the Fuller court didn't. Yes all of my words are in compliance with the Constitution.
Would you please tell us what you think the jurisdiction of the US is. Oh, don't ask what "is" is.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#120840 Oct 26, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The above does not even mention what was being discussed. The issue that was being discussed was whether if Barack Obama should show school and college records and passport records shouldn't Mitt Romney do so too? The answer to that question is that there is just as much reason for Mitt Romney to show his records as Obama.
Why so? Well all the claims of there being issues about Obama's place of birth or whether he was registered for college as a foreign student or whether he had bad grades were all made up by Obama's enemies. Romney's enemies can make the same claims about him. Neither has to show his transcripts or records. The fact that Obama does not show them is no more significant than Mitt Romney not showing them.
NO amount of swearing and name-calling can change these facts.
Shat for Brains runs off at the mouth again! LMAO
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#120841 Oct 26, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh joy, an off-topic, rambling birfoon reply.
Again, par for the course with birfoons such as LRS
Hey "shat for brains" you're the one who said I was angry. Doesn't matter because your head is full of shat.
Justice Dale

United States

#120842 Oct 26, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing that play law can ever do to change the fact that he is a natural born citizen duly elected as President per the constitution.
Play law simply doesn't count.
<quoted text>
Puss, a natural born citizen can't have two citizenships, you know, no foreign influence as described by John Jay. Hell, for that matter, a citizen can have only one, checkout the Oath of Citizenship.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#120843 Oct 26, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I heard anywhere from 2 to 8 hours. Won't argue with you on that, 7 hrs it is. Take my word for it, Rogue, politicians don't decide that kind of thing, security, it's done by faceless military and civilians at the Embassy, the Pentagon and the State dept with input from the CIA. Progress reports do go the White House, but they are just a fraction of the worldwide reporting that the W.H. receives daily. The C in C is tasked to look at a wider spectrum, the whole if you want to call it that. Officials decided to relax security in Benghazi, yes, and it was careless. But surely you don't think that the president of the United States decides how many marines will be guarding each of the 180 odd U.S. missions abroad?
ANYTHING to do with any embassy goes through the Sec. of State who is ....Hillary Clinton. But even she can be overruled by ..... the president.
In any event, the two bombings at the embassy, the attempted assassination of the British ambassador and the Red Cross and British pulling out Benghazi would all being on the CIA's morning intelligence briefing that the PRESIDENT would attend. But Obama missed 40% of his briefings!!!
Obama has only lead from behind!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#120844 Oct 26, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Got it. Er, care to give some examples? Wait. Not some. ONE. Just one.
I'll take some video for you. Will that work? LMAO
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#120845 Oct 26, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
LRS, I've collected a few samples of your profanity and obscene vocabulary the last 20 hours or so. Oh, I know, you'll say I have a lot of time to waste, but what the hell, was worth it just to show what a boorish filthy-mouthed swine you are. Mitt Romney must be so proud to have you on his team, not to mention your parish priest as you claim to be one of god's children through your christianity. Yup, here goes :
POS
shorts full of maggots
eat shat
moronic tard
pollock
stupid pollock
dipshat
pollock pollock azz (you like that racist one, don't you?)
tard's azz
dumbazz pollock
shatt on my head (isn't that what you use to replace Brylcreem?)
turd
azzholes
dycks
POS
azzcclown
scumbag
buttflap
POS
dumbazzbitch
I took out the marginal ones, otherwise, I'd need two posts
Guru's few profanities and filthy vocabulary while we're at it :
dumbshit
dkhead
Jock itch
Skank
Sheeple Buster :
fuck
lip lock on a loser's asshole (Can't invent THAT one. Has to be drawn from personal experience
shit-sucking varmint. Same as above
skank
shit
GFY
shit
shit (very anal retentive our friend, no?)
Not to worry, LRS, Sheeple buster, Guru,I checked so-called Sheeple and liberal and leftist posts. Apart from the odd venial sin like arse and dumbass, NOTHING.
Proof hereby submitted that birthers and tea baggers are coarse uneducated filthy-mouthed lowest common denominators.
Well versed. Thank you.
Justice Dale

United States

#120846 Oct 26, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, the USSC in construing the constitution established the rule that persons born citizens in the US are natural born citizens.
Wow-Wee! He forgot about play law. So what? Play Law doesn't count.
<quoted text>
not true, to be "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", one can not be subject to any foreign power. Ark changed nothing, the USSC can not amend the Constitution, nor alter the meaning of any part thereof.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#120847 Oct 26, 2012
Hmmm, okay, but has the current governor of Mass., Deval Patrick (D) changed it? And if 'no', why not? After all, he has been governor since .... 2007!!!

Boston Globe: Romney rejected birth certificate changes for gay parents
By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News

Mitt Romney rejected a plan while governor of Massachusetts that would have allowed same-sex married couples to both be listed as the parents of children born to them, the Boston Globe reports from state records it obtained this month.
After the state's highest court legalized gay marriage in 2003, the Registry of Vital Records presented a plan to change the "father" box on Massachusetts birth certificates to say "father or second parent." Romney rejected the plan, the paper writes, and said same-sex parents would have to personally request that the governor's office change their children's birth certificates. Parents and clerks complained the special procedure caused delays.
Romney explained his opposition to the change to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004, according to the Globe. "The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother,'' Romney said. "What should be the ideal for raising a child? Not a village, not 'parent A' and 'parent B,' but a mother and a father.''
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/boston-glo...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#120848 Oct 26, 2012
Some fine folks these flappers are. They support a liar, a fraud, a dumbazz, a racist and anything anti-America! Excellent qualities you azzclowns have chosen. Way to go! Put the whole lot of you together and there's an outside possibility that a single brain cell might be found. These are seriously stupid people y'all. I can't think of one of them that equates to anything above a wet human fart.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min RoxLo 1,534,957
News The Downtowners (Aug '08) 8 min Deep 2
whats going on in washington 1 hr Rep Denny Hasturd 8
Congressional FIX and REPAIR------NOW. 2 hr Needed Desperately 1
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr RACE 10,698
Trumps Orange Aid Benefits Rich 3 hr Ingemar Scarlet J... 3
Dexcom transmitter G5 for sale 18 hr Yalie70 1

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages