BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 189921 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.

Guru

Canyon Country, CA

#125748 Nov 11, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
This proclamation from Ragu who regularly acts as if the Constitution were nothing more than generic single-ply?
...your cowardly leader called on our Military to get Osama, and they responded.

When our guys were begging for support and help at Benghazi obama said "let them die" and did nothing. He went to Vegas to campaign while refusing to do one damn thing. Then he and his corrupt fools threw this election by getting 147% of the votes in the swing states, which is impossible.

And you support him.

obama is a liar and a coward, and so are you.

Too bad you never served or even tried. Anything you post in here is as hollow as you are. Unfortunately we have to protect azzholes and POS like you. Don't worry. Change is coming soon. We'll see what you think and say then.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#125749 Nov 11, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is a majority conservative supreme court, no? Can't trust your own people anymore?
The Supreme Court's War on God
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#125750 Nov 11, 2012
Christie-Palin2012 wrote:
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know that ALL SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS in both House and Senate voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
And did you know that a larger percentage of NORTHERN REPUBLICANS (16%) in the House voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than NORTHERN DEMORACTS (2%)?
<quoted text>
According to Mr. Finch, there are 11 Southern States and 39 Northern States. Ah, Mr Finch, California is NOT a Southern State. Nor is Arizona, New Mexico, etc., etc., etc.!
Rogue tends to get mixed up with his cardinal points. One wonders how he never got lost piloting that helicopter of his. Oh, even if all those southern states were, as he says, southern states, which most are not, the house and senate votes that he quoted would still come out 3-1 in favour of democrats. Poor rogue, must be barred again, is using his pink thigh leopard skin panther moniker, whoooo whoooo whoooo, check it out guys. Watch out for patriot warrior LRS, Rogue, ha ha.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#125751 Nov 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20.
It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104566.html
copy/paste: Look who the dumb one is now!
Thank you for proving that NAFTA is a U.S. Republican and Canadian conservative intiative all the way. At last, your cut-and-paste has had some use. Not what you intended, thank god you can't understand the written word else you would've held off.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#125752 Nov 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm cracking up...seriously!!! Oh you poor delusional fool, I'm not WP. LMAO!!!!! How many users have you accused me of being now? Hell, it would easier to count the ones you haven't accused me of being. What a squid!
You are? On the same matter we were discussing (well, I was discussing, you were hurling profanities, all you know), both you and , ha ha,(sorry) patriot warrior used "I call a spade a spade". Not HE called a spade a spade, but I called a spade a spade.

You are vermin, hypocrite, liar, dirty, profane. How does your family put up with you? Oh, that's right , you don't have one. What a surprise. Poor mother died of shame. Beautiful nurse girl friends, ha ha. Feel that needle, loser, feel the relieving liquid fill your veins, ahhhh, how soothing. Now get the hell out.

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#125753 Nov 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush has not been the President for four years now. But how did Bill Clinton stimulate jobs? Signed four of Newt Gingrich's balance budgets into law? Signed seven of the points of Newt's Contract with America into law? Sign Newt's Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 into law?
Is Newt still claiming those two budgets that were balanced after he was run out of Dodge Rogue? The four in a row were fiscal years 98, 99, 2000 and 01. I thought Newt left in Jan, 99.

And of course much like you birfoons Romney’s just wrong about everything.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/factual-flub...
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#125754 Nov 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.
As Pat Caddell noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:
It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/10/29/bey...
You and your dumb birther friends have spilled more ink on Benghazi than you have on Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Let's say Obama didn't exactly adroitly handle Benghazi, how does that compare with the awful Afghan mess and the ten times more horrible Iraq quagmire which, incidentally, Obama wound up, no thanks to the "no-exit" plan formulated by GWB. Let's compare those 4 unfortunate deaths with the 6,500 unfortunate and needless deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Grand Birther

United States

#125755 Nov 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
God’s Law Comes First
I believe that's already been used as a defense in court and it didn't go over so well.

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#125756 Nov 11, 2012
The Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Are all people from Kentucky as uneducated as you?
I drove there, and most of the people seemed relatively normal.
As long as you don’t ask for directions.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#125757 Nov 11, 2012
Christie-Palin2012 wrote:
Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =KiIP_KDQmXsXX
Bill Clinton admits to having inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Well, when will Obama has his epiphany?
Mrs Gingrich in hospital bed : "Newt, I have cancer".
Newt Gingrich : "Darling, I've met someone else. I want a divorce".
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#125758 Nov 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
God’s Law Comes First
To you, maybe. Why don't you ask our father for a brain that actually works? Her seems to have missed a few bolts and screws here.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#125759 Nov 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court's War on God
So the supreme court, with its conservative majority, is waging war on god? Makes you feel good, American er hmm communist Lady?
Grand Birther

United States

#125760 Nov 11, 2012
FYI, John Kerry received more of the popular vote than Mitt Romney.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#125761 Nov 11, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for proving that NAFTA is a U.S. Republican and Canadian conservative intiative all the way. At last, your cut-and-paste has had some use. Not what you intended, thank god you can't understand the written word else you would've held off.
To make matters worse, in 1992, Bill Clinton and a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats gave us NAFTA, which turned a trickle of industries leaving our country into a giant sucking sound, as the unfairly ridiculed H. Ross Perot correctly predicted.

Today, corporations’ freedom to abandon American communities and workers and outsource to those countries with the lowest wages and worst working conditions has given them total control over how new advancements in technology and productivity are shared.

As a result of globalization, workers are virtually powerless to negotiate for higher wages or decent working conditions, even during a time of exploding productivity. In addition, corporate executives and their investors want all the benefits of scientific advancements and new technology for themselves. They feel no obligation to share with workers, even those who, over many years of service, were responsible for their previous successes in this country.
Today, if technology doubles the productivity of workers, they don’t see their pay increase or their working conditions improve—half of them get fired. They then enter the labor market and exert further downward pressures on general wage levels.

http://democraticcapitalism.net/brief-2/

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#125762 Nov 11, 2012
America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks to Obama, forever we will remain divided.
It is just a matter of time until it becomes official.
Popular vote 2000.

Bush (50,456,002) 47.9 percent, Gore (50,999,897) 48.4 percent.

Had you heard of Obama in 2000 GB? Who divided the country then?

You’re a funny man GB!
American Lady

Danville, KY

#125763 Nov 11, 2012
NAFTA and free trade agreements
Guess what. This very same coalition that Truman defeated, Republicans and conservative Democrats, is doing it to the country again. NAFTA and subsequent trade agreements are today’s equivalent to the Taft-Hartley Bill of 1947. Except now, the strategy of pitting workers from different states against each other has been extended to the world “free market.”
Today’s voters have been conned into believing that it is a good idea to pit workers of the world against American workers, and someone needs to educate the public about what’s going on.(Guess what, most of the public knows it anyway—they’re just in denial—so it’ll be easy.)
Of course, if you supported NAFTA and other free trade agreements, you’ve already made a serious mistake. I hope you at least supported strong regulations to protect the environment and workers’ rights. If, like the Republicans, you didn’t, you’ve lost one of the most powerful voter appeals you could have had.
Of course, as everyone now knows, trade agreements that protect workers’ rights aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Countries in the developing world know full well that their power to attract American corporations is totally dependent upon the extent to which they can offer impoverished workers with no real protections. No matter what they agree to, their enforcement of worker protection agreements are cosmetic at best.

http://democraticcapitalism.net/democrat-cand...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#125764 Nov 11, 2012
LABOR'S BALL AND CHAIN

Taft-Hartley has been labor's ball and chain ever since. Early on, labor made a bid at resisting the law. UE, the Steelworkers, and other CIO unions pledged not to cooperate with the new Taft-Hartley Labor Board. CIO president Philip Murray and Mineworkers president John L. Lewis vowed they would not sign the measure's red-scare affidavit. But within a few years, unions were forced to submit.

In 1953, U.S. News and World Report could ask, "Are Unions Slipping? No Growth in Six Years." In 1946, the CIO's membership had been 6.3 million; by 1954, it was 4.6 million. Overall, union membership fell from 33.7 percent of the labor force in 1947 to 31.5 percent in 1950. Although union membership began rising slowly to reach a post-war high of 34.7 percent in 1954, that was followed by a steady decline, aided heavily by the employer tools supplied by Taft-Hartley. Under the legislation, employers can get in the way of almost every union activity -- from organizing the shop to going on strike to mobilizing community support for a campaign.

http://lpa.igc.org/lpv26/lp05.htm

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#125765 Nov 11, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Petition for Recount on the 2012 Presidential Election
22,458 Letters and Emails Sent So Far
http://www.petition2congress.com/8222/petitio...
It’s over AL! There will be no recount.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#125766 Nov 11, 2012
Incest Mom wrote:
<quoted text>
To make matters worse, in 1992, Bill Clinton and a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats gave us NAFTA, which turned a trickle of industries leaving our country into a giant sucking sound, as the unfairly ridiculed H. Ross Perot correctly predicted.
Today, corporations’ freedom to abandon American communities and workers and outsource to those countries with the lowest wages and worst working conditions has given them total control over how new advancements in technology and productivity are shared.
As a result of globalization, workers are virtually powerless to negotiate for higher wages or decent working conditions, even during a time of exploding productivity. In addition, corporate executives and their investors want all the benefits of scientific advancements and new technology for themselves. They feel no obligation to share with workers, even those who, over many years of service, were responsible for their previous successes in this country.
Today, if technology doubles the productivity of workers, they don’t see their pay increase or their working conditions improve—half of them get fired. They then enter the labor market and exert further downward pressures on general wage levels.
http://democraticcapitalism.net/brief-2/
You obviously do not read what you copy-n-paste.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#125767 Nov 11, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
The cost of labor is only one factor when companies consider moving offshore.
History has shown us that union brought many needed changes to the workplace. Some union workers are paid far more than their job is worth....but then again, the same thing can be said of many corporate execs.
Unions were fine years ago. It wasn't until they were forcing companies into pension plans, etc. that they simply could not afford that brought about the major problems.

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) 3 min Dagne Nabbit 1,236,686
dearabby 6-3-15 6 min blunt advice 4
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 25 min Mark 51,767
Saw a Muslim tribute band. 35 min TONTO 1
amy 6-2 2 hr Sublime1 31
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 3 hr RACE 900
Word (Dec '08) 3 hr RACE 5,256
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]