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

There are 189893 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.

Noway Duh

Clearlake, CA

#124376 Nov 8, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The Dems worked hard to get their supporters out to the polls.
Karl Rove spent millions of billionaires' money on TV commercials.
Sorry, they couldn't buy the election. We the People have spoken.
Some think that is unfair.
Tough.
Your a brain dead dip shite obot! Oshite spent plenty to buy off the the alphabet networks and News anchors to nun and blabber on about Oshite for the past five years! He has spent billions to to buy votes! How stupid can you be? You the brain dead stupid have just fudged America! Hope you are the first to choke on it! Now that you entitled the bustard to scraw America another four years worst than anything Bush ever did America is in the toilet! Can't wait to see all you libtards get flushed down it!
Fox News Makes You Stupid

Islip, NY

#124377 Nov 8, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you question our Founding Father's wisdom?
The Constitution 101:

In the Federalist Papers it said: We were not going to have a monarchy, and we were not going to have a democracy.$$$$$$$

And to this day we have neither. For two hundred years we have had an oligarchical system in which men of property can do well (Dumbya Bush), and others are on their own.$$$$$$$

American politics is essentially a family affair, as are most oligarchies. When the father of the Constitution, James Madison, was asked how on earth any business could get done in Congress when the country contained 100 million people whose representatives would number half a thousand, Madison took the line that oligarchy's iron law always obtains: A few people invariably run the show; and keep it, if they can, in the family.$$$$$$$

Our founding fathers had such a fear and loathing of democracy that they invented the Electoral College so that the popular voice of the people could be throttled, much as the Supreme Court throttled the Floridians on December 12, 2000.$$$$$$$

We were to be neither a democracy, subject to majoritarian tyranny, nor a dictatorship, subject to Caesarean folly.$$$$$$$

As American media is controlled by that corporate America which provides us with political candidates a well-informed electorate is not possible.$$$$$$$
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#124378 Nov 8, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
We must create districts within a State that can award a States current electoral votes to the person that wins that district.
.
The States have that option (see Nevraska). Perhaps you can persuade KY to follow suit
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#124379 Nov 8, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>How about each state gets one vote regardless of size or population?
Does DC also get one?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#124380 Nov 8, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only true in your convoluted fantasy, MORON!
I know how the system is set up now and it is unfair.
Obama micro-targeted the populated area's alone in state's like Ohio and won the State.
A candidate should not be able to neglect the rural areas within a State and win the State.
This is not fair, as the population centers contain most all of the Blacks, Hispanics, and illegal aliens who are mostly all DemocRATS allowed to vote by crooked DemocRATS.
Ohio is almost all red, save for the population centers that were blue.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/P...
Ohio's electoral votes should have been split between the candidates.
If a State is mostly red, it should be giving most of electoral votes to the Republicans.
We need a new Electoral system.
We must create districts within a State that can award a States current electoral votes to the person that wins that district.
All States need to be of equal importance.
Each state decides for itself how electors are chosen. Ever hear of states' rights?
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#124381 Nov 8, 2012
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>The election on Tuesday proved that there are over 50 million idiots in the United States willing to vote for an idiot. Election day polling concluded that priorities were: 1.Economy/employment 2.Honesty/integrity. 3.Change in government. 4.Bipartisanship. 5. Cut debt/spending. Romney should have won by a landslide. 1.Obama'a economy is worst than terrible/unemployment is much higher than predicted and three percent higher than Obama promised in 2008. 2.Obama can;s open his mounth with out telling a lie.-- Monday's papers should have had the head line "Obama Lies". 3.If our country needs change,why are people voting for more of the same garbage we had for the last four years,'double down'. 4.Obama has proven for four years that he will not work with Congress and has ignored the values,principles and beliefs of over half the country. 5.Obama increased the debt by over 6 trillion dollars his first four years and intends to increase the debt more than and additional 6 trillion dollars during his next four years. Our country deserves better.
And Romney never lies because you can find a clip of him saying anything you want him to say. ROFLMAO! Too bad for you, Romney and all of his supporters there aren't enough idiots in this country to believe Republican lies. The smart people know who created the problems in the economy and they know who will fix it. A Democrat, just like the last time! The only thing Republicans are good for is creating large debt and destroying the economy, and then whining that the Democrats aren't fixing it fast enough.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#124382 Nov 8, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
That is reason for creating districts, DUMB-ASS!
I know how the system is set up now and it is unfair.
Obama micro-targeted the populated area's alone in state's like California and Ohio and won the States.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/P...
This is the problem and the solution to having fair elections.
A candidate should not be able to neglect the rural areas within a State and win the State.
This is not fair, as the population centers contain most all of the Blacks, Hispanics.
Illegal aliens who are mostly all DemocRATS are allowed to vote by crooked DemocRATS.
This must be stopped.
Ohio is almost all red, save for the population centers that were blue.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/P...
Ohio's electoral votes should have been split between the candidates.
If a State is mostly red, it should be giving most of electoral votes to the Republicans.
We need a new Electoral system.
We must create districts within a State that can award a States current electoral votes to the person that wins that district.
All States need to be of equal importance.
It has been tried before but the United States Supreme Court has held it be unconstitutional in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) in which Chief Justice Warren wrote:

Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Id. at 562

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#124384 Nov 8, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Amazing how when the Birfoons thought Mitt might win the popular vote they were yammering for that as the standard. Now they want to county the number of squares on a map of each color ... Why not the number of registered vehicles (with more weight given to "American" cars)
It has been tried before but the United States Supreme Court has held it be unconstitutional in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) in which Chief Justice Warren wrote:

"Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Id. at 562
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#124385 Nov 8, 2012
Birther is Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
There was more red than blue in California.
There always is.
I expect that to be the case in both 2014 and 2016.
California will vote for a Republican President after 4 more years of Obama.
You are high or stupid.

President Barack Hussein Obama won the popular vote by a huge margin. Democrats were voted in at all levels.

Go play in the sandbox with the other children, Tacky.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#124386 Nov 8, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I said no such thing RETARD!
I have NEVER said that legal Blacks and Hispanics, or Gays and Women's vote should not be counted.
I know how the system is set up now and it is unfair.
Obama micro-targeted the populated area's alone in state's like Ohio and won the State.
A candidate should not be able to neglect the rural areas within a State and win the State.
This is not fair, as the population centers contain most all of the Blacks, Hispanics, and illegal aliens who are mostly all DemocRATS allowed to vote by crooked DemocRATS.
Ohio is almost all red, save for the population centers that were blue.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/P...
Ohio's electoral votes should have been split between the candidates.
If a State is mostly red, it should be giving most of electoral votes to the Republicans.
We need a new Electoral system.
We must create districts within a State that can award a States current electoral votes to the person that wins that district.
All States need to be of equal importance.
It has been tried before but the United States Supreme Court has held it be unconstitutional in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) in which Chief Justice Warren wrote:

Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Id. at 562
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#124387 Nov 8, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you question our Founding Father's wisdom?
Rogue the Barely Literate misunderstands what he reads.

Sad.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#124388 Nov 8, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
How about each state gets one vote regardless of size or population?
Well, Tootsie, that wouldn't be representative democracy. Why do you hate the republican for of government now that birfoons and cons have been soundly rebuked?

You're not learning a lesson from Tuesdays lost, and the GOP will be doomed to fail miserably -- again -- if you don't catch on fast.

Time to leave politics to the people who understand it, Tootsie.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#124389 Nov 8, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
These are the kind of people that DemocRATS elect.
REPORT: Jesse Jackson Jr. in plea deal talks with feds...
Yep, he may have to serve his term from prison if that is allowed.
If you are trying to claim no Republican has done anything illegal, you are proving that YOU are stupid. Fortunately, America is not as stupid as you.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#124390 Nov 8, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I know how the system is set up now and it is unfair.
Obama micro-targeted the populated area's alone in state's like California and Ohio and won the States.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/P...
This is the problem and the solution to having fair elections.
A candidate should not be able to neglect the rural areas within a State and win the State.
This is not fair, as the population centers contain most all of the Blacks, Hispanics.
Illegal aliens who are mostly all DemocRATS are allowed to vote by crooked DemocRATS.
This must be stopped.
Ohio is almost all red, save for the population centers that were blue.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/P...
Ohio's electoral votes should have been split between the candidates.
If a State is mostly red, it should be giving most of electoral votes to the Republicans.
We need a new Electoral system.
We must create districts within a State that can award a States current electoral votes to the person that wins that district.
All States need to be of equal importance.
What??? No response to my comments???

You just want to copy-n-past your cry baby crap.

Waaaaa...'my rich white man didn't win because there are more blacks and hispanics in the city'.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#124391 Nov 8, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
How about each state gets one vote regardless of size or population?
How about each person gets one vote regardless of race, ethnic background, religion,.....etc?

We should change to a system based on only the popular vote.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#124392 Nov 8, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
How did poor Kentucky get it in its head that EVs based on population was unfair?
How is it fair to count North Dakota's population as equal to California's?
DUH
I have an even better idea. Each county should get one vote!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Genera...
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#124393 Nov 8, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>It has been tried before but the United States Supreme Court has held it be unconstitutional in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) in which Chief Justice Warren wrote:

"Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Id. at 562
There you go again with that pesky Constitution and that gang of henchmen you call the Supreme Court. You and your book learnin aren't giving us the answer that we want, that's how we know you are either wrong or lying

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#124394 Nov 8, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't think the mid term elections count or what?
Now who said that?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Two rich white boys from the north got their butts kicked.
One goofball at redstate.com seems to think that if Republicans had won 40% of the Hispanic vote it wouldn't have mattered.
http://www.redstate.com/keven/2012/11/07/if-r ...
If Republicans had won 40% of the vote?
If that had happened, it would have been an entirely different Republican Party and all other things would not be equal. The map of swing states might have been very different than it was in the past two presidential elections. It would have been a Republican party that reached out to minorities and moderate independents. That would have had much greater effect than a mere 1% in swing states. Keep looking through your tunnel vision glasses and 2016 will be another blue victory.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#124395 Nov 8, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
How about each person gets one vote regardless of race, ethnic background, religion,.....etc?
We should change to a system based on only the popular vote.
That would be great. Al Gore AND Barack Obama would have been elected under that system! If Bush hadn't been elected the country would not be recovering from a near depression.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#124396 Nov 8, 2012
GURU PREDICTION wrote:
On Election Day...
the democrats will take an early lead...
...until the Republicans get off work.
Herewith Guru prediction Nov 4. LoL. Guru, eh? Some guru. And, the "unguruiest" prediction of all as it's Romny who took the early lead, 33 electoral vote to 3. Thereafter, poor man never knew what hit him. Lost his own state in a Dem lanslide. Explanation for that : My wife had it. She said that the Mass population knew him best of all, is why. Ha ha. Then "Moe" Ryan also lost his own state. What a cheeze head.

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) 7 min Grey Ghost 1,232,952
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 53,523
legit pain P.I.L.L.S n m/ar.iju/an.a 7 hr Local Chicago 1
Affidavit: White House birth certificate is a F... 7 hr JustTheFACTS 1
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 8 hr Lexus1985 425
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 8 hr Lexus1985 407
News 1 dead, 4 wounded in Chicago shootings 11 hr reality is a crutch 1
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]