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

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 ... Full Story

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#130997 Dec 1, 2012
LIFESTYLE | 9/22/2011
Why Warren Buffett owns a private jet

Since the financial crisis and when the leaders of the Big Three automakers showed up in Washington DC in private jets in order to ask for bailout money from Congress, general aviation and private jets, especially those owned or used by corporate leaders, have received considerable flak from politicians and other critics.

Nevertheless Warren Buffett explains why he owns and uses a private jet. In short, Buffet says that having a private jet makes his life better and easier as he needs to do a considerable amount of traveling as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.

Its also worth noting that when Buffett bought a Bombardier Challenger 600 over 20ago, he named it the “The Indefensible” due to his past criticisms of such purchases that were made by other corporate CEOs. However and after he started using a private jet for awhile, he realized its value as a business tool. Hence, he renamed his aircraft:“The Indispensable.”(For more on the positive case for business aviation, see No Plane, No Gain.)

In fact, to coin a phrase, he liked it so much he bought the company. Sort of. In fact, Berkshire Hathaway owns NetJets.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/201...

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#130998 Dec 1, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Acerbic! Have you been watching Bill O'Riley! I haven't heard that word in years.
Veritas confundit stultitia.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130999 Dec 1, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
While here, aliens must obey our laws, that's it. They owe no permanent allegiance to the U.S. Very simply Mobarf. I'm really surprised that a Biologist, Chemist and Patent Pusher (LMAO) can't understand such a simple law. Better back off on the juicing. LMAO!!!
According to the 14th amendment, a person born in the US who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen of the United States. Such a person is born with permanent allegiance to the United States.

Insofar as aliens are concerned, while here, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and they owe local allegiance in reciprocity to protection of the host country. Permanent allegiance to a foreign country does not negate the sovereign right of the United States to exercise its exclusive power within its borders. That's a simple fact of life. Get used to it.

The 14th Amendment does not say that only children born of parents with permanent allegiance to the United States can be born citizens. In fact the 14th does not even mention parents or their permanent allegiance. In other words, permanent allegiance is an inept red herring.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, if Germany had jurisdiction, the bank robber would be tried in Germany by a German court. His citizenship has no bearing on the matter. The German bank robber who robs a bank in Kansas is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If there is a treaty in which each country recognizes each other's natural right to exercise its sovereign power within its borders, that does not change the FACT that each country exercises dominion over aliens within its jurisdiction and that the aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the respective host countries. You cannot change that FACT by rewording "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof [of the US]" to "subject to jurisdiction of the constitution".
FACT, ordinary aliens within US borders are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Even if you fantasize that this natural authority of every independent and sovereign nation is derived purely via treaty, it would not change that FACT. UR in denial.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131000 Dec 1, 2012
Why does Obama want another $150 BILLION for stimulus? Isn't the recession OVER?!?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131001 Dec 1, 2012
Or does he know we will be back into another recession within a few months?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131002 Dec 1, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the 14th amendment, a person born in the US who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen of the United States. Such a person is born with permanent allegiance to the United States.
Insofar as aliens are concerned, while here, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and they owe local allegiance in reciprocity to protection of the host country. Permanent allegiance to a foreign country does not negate the sovereign right of the United States to exercise its exclusive power within its borders. That's a simple fact of life. Get used to it.
The 14th Amendment does not say that only children born of parents with permanent allegiance to the United States can be born citizens. In fact the 14th does not even mention parents or their permanent allegiance. In other words, permanent allegiance is an inept red herring.
<quoted text>
The U.S. has the right to exercise its power within in its own borders?!? Duh. All I will say is this, if this is truly how you interpret the 14th, then you're a complete dumbazz without a clue. LMAO! squid

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#131003 Dec 1, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The U.S. has the right to exercise its power within in its own borders?!? Duh. All I will say is this, if this is truly how you interpret the 14th, then you're a complete dumbazz without a clue. LMAO! squid
You call that a rebuttal?
Sorry loser, ordinary aliens in the US are under US jurisdiction. Their children born in the US are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are natural born citizens.

The parents' "permanent allegiance" does not negate US sovereignty or jurisdiction - the authority to exercise its power within its borders.

wojar wrote:
According to the 14th amendment, a person born in the US who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen of the United States. Such a person is born with permanent allegiance to the United States.
Insofar as aliens are concerned, while here, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and they owe local allegiance in reciprocity to protection of the host country. Permanent allegiance to a foreign country does not negate the sovereign right of the United States to exercise its exclusive power within its borders. That's a simple fact of life. Get used to it.
The 14th Amendment does not say that only children born of parents with permanent allegiance to the United States can be born citizens. In fact the 14th does not even mention parents or their permanent allegiance. In other words, permanent allegiance is an inept red herring.
<quoted text>

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131004 Dec 1, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Veritas confundit stultitia.
I didn't know you were Italian!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131005 Dec 1, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>You call that a rebuttal?
Sorry loser, ordinary aliens in the US are under US jurisdiction. Their children born in the US are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are natural born citizens.
The parents' "permanent allegiance" does not negate US sovereignty or jurisdiction - the authority to exercise its power within its borders.
<quoted text>
Mobarf, don't you remember? I said I was done with your stupid little game of twisting words. You have to twist things because you know you're wrong. Poor Mobarf just doesn't have a clue about much of anything. And do not forget, you remain unAmerican, Insignificant and Irrelevant. LMAO
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131006 Dec 1, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>You are still a PUSS! LMAO!!!
Better a winning PUSS than a losing birther birfoon.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#131007 Dec 1, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Mobarf, don't you remember? I said I was done with your stupid little game of twisting words. You have to twist things because you know you're wrong. Poor Mobarf just doesn't have a clue about much of anything. And do not forget, you remain unAmerican, Insignificant and Irrelevant. LMAO
Every time the irrational birfoon is stymied he whines and calls names.

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>You call that a rebuttal?
Sorry loser, ordinary aliens in the US are under US jurisdiction. Their children born in the US are born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. They are natural born citizens.
The parents' "permanent allegiance" does not negate US sovereignty or jurisdiction - the authority to exercise its power within its borders./
<quoted text>
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131008 Dec 1, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Celebrated historian Bertram Oxley has uncovered a memorandum from former Japanese Emperor Hirohito to Admiral Yamamoto dated December 6, 1941, showing that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was motivated by an offensive film made by Charlie Chaplin ridiculing Japanese cuisine.
"Contrary to historical accounts over the last seventy years," Professor Oxley said in an interview today with the BBC, "What appeared to be a meticulously planned surprise attack was actually a spontaneous demonstration by moderate sushi connoisseurs in the Imperial Navy in response to a hateful and offensive movie. Thereafter, extremist elements within the Japanese military co-opted the spontaneous attack, transforming it into the overseas contingency operation sometimes referred to as 'World War II.'"
The discovery has created a sensation in scholarly circles. "This is a remarkable find," declared Reginald Smythe, chairman of the Progressive Historians Association and former Obama State Department official. "Had President Roosevelt condemned this movie­ instead of uttering that infernal 'Day of Infamy' provocation ­ the war could have been avoided and millions of lives would have been saved."
Reached at his home in Houston, former President George H. W. Bush, an aviator in the Pacific during the war, expressed skepticism. "It's simply inconceivable that the Japanese First Air Fleet, with six aircraft carriers, could have staged a spur of the moment attack on an island thousands of nautical miles from the Japanese homeland with such stealth and precision." Most experts dismissed Mr. Bush's remarks, however, since it's widely understood that World War II was primarily his son's fault.
White House spokesman Jay Carney, asked this afternoon about the memo's discovery stated, "Of course, hindsight's 20-20. But one can only wonder how much pain and suffering could have been averted had FDR simply apologized to Hirohito at the outset."
"Fortunately," Carney continued, waving off questions from White House reporters anxious to return to questions about Mitt Romney's grooming habits, "We've evolved to a more sophisticated strategy of leading from behind, so we're unlikely to repeat the disastrous mistakes of the past."
If Hilary had been running the State Department then, we’d all be living on EASY STREET today.
In case, just in case, one never knows --- this is a tongue-on-cheek thing, Rogue. A joke.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131009 Dec 1, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
"direst"? The word does not seem to fit. Anyway, the union bosses are just a crocked now as they were then. The only difference now is that they fly by private jet these days.
Yep, it is bad for CEO's to fly by private jets but the LSM will not even talk about the Union Bosses who do!
Obama's Union Buddies Have Their Own Private Jets to Fly to Las Vegas (and Ireland), 02/11/2009
for instance, this private LearJet, shown below taking off in Las Vegas. Machinists union bosses spent $1.8 million (from forced dues) for hangars, jet fuel, jet maintenance, mechanics, pilots, and associated loan repayments in 2006 alone.
http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/machinsts-private...
Salaries for the 10 largest unions’ bosses range from $173,000 for the United Auto Workers’ Bob King to $618,000 for Terence O’Sullivan, the president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka makes about $283,000 per year. Gerald McEntee, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), makes $480,000. The AFSCME stands to lose the most from any of the governors’ budget victories, as it’s currently the nation’s powerhouse public sector union, with around 1.5 million members nationwide.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/union-bosse...
You, correcting a typo ("direst"). You don't usually do that, I'm surprised.

And you know, retribution comes quickly, ironically by you own keyboard, as witness : "crocked" in the same paragraph.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131010 Dec 1, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
LIFESTYLE | 9/22/2011
Why Warren Buffett owns a private jet
Since the financial crisis and when the leaders of the Big Three automakers showed up in Washington DC in private jets in order to ask for bailout money from Congress, general aviation and private jets, especially those owned or used by corporate leaders, have received considerable flak from politicians and other critics.
Nevertheless Warren Buffett explains why he owns and uses a private jet. In short, Buffet says that having a private jet makes his life better and easier as he needs to do a considerable amount of traveling as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.
Its also worth noting that when Buffett bought a Bombardier Challenger 600 over 20ago, he named it the “The Indefensible” due to his past criticisms of such purchases that were made by other corporate CEOs. However and after he started using a private jet for awhile, he realized its value as a business tool. Hence, he renamed his aircraft:“The Indispensable.”(For more on the positive case for business aviation, see No Plane, No Gain.)
In fact, to coin a phrase, he liked it so much he bought the company. Sort of. In fact, Berkshire Hathaway owns NetJets.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewstibbe/201...
1.Buffett owns NetJets, yes, over 300 mostly biz jets that form a "pool", available to stakeholders, as per time shares;

2. Buffet never used one of them until about two years ago, he always flew commercial coach, though god knows why. Now, at 73 I believe, he has smartened up, and is using one of his own. Just as an aside, he and his wife still live in the same modest bungalow that he bought 25 years ago. He's nuts, and so unlike his buddy Bill Gates who lives in some sort of TajMahal in Washington state.;

3. Buffet is worth a cool $50 billion. Unlike the Big Two automakers with their leveraged biz jets, he has never asked for a cent from the govt, and as a matter of fact, even has gone on record wanting to pay more taxes.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131011 Dec 1, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Acerbic! Have you been watching Bill O'Riley! I haven't heard that word in years
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Veritas confundit stultitia.
Ad litteram
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131012 Dec 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Better a winning PUSS than a losing birther birfoon.
Better an American than a Canadian! LMAO
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131013 Dec 1, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Better an American than a Canadian! LMAO
Of course.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131014 Dec 1, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.
Actually I meant; Better an American than an unAmerican, insignificant and irrelevant Canadian! LMAO!!!

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#131015 Dec 1, 2012
Jacques,
Warren Buffet is the epitome of greed and self-interest.
There are far many more unsung men of greater moral stature than the Oracle of Omaha.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131016 Dec 1, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I meant; Better an American than an unAmerican, insignificant and irrelevant Canadian! LMAO!!!
You're right of course. I confess that never thought that being a Canadian was such a big deal, though it never occurred to me that insignificance and irrelevance were uniquely Canadian traits. Your very existence is surely proof supreme that they are well-shared. Why, you even give thema new meaning.

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 11 min Mandela 70,075
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 33 min Tony Rome 1,126,143
durban women lets explore your fantasies bbm pins 1 hr slum ou 3
ISIS Plans to Blow Up an Entire American City a... 1 hr obomba 102
'We Charge Genocide' Presents Report on Chicago... 2 hr hands on AR 2
GOP Votes go 2 dem. votes. 2 hr hands on AR 2
A young black kid asks his mother, "Mama what's... 7 hr Funny But True 10
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]