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

There are 20 comments on the Jan 8, 2009, Chicago Tribune story 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149676 Apr 5, 2013
Yep, unemployment rate is down to 7.6% and that is good. But the ONLY reason why it is that low is because SEVEN million Americans have given up looking for work.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149677 Apr 5, 2013
Oh, did you notice how the stock market has reacted to the "good" unemployment numbers?

Stocks plunge after jobs growth disappoints
Stocks open sharply lower on Wall Street after US jobs growth disappoints investors

By Steve Rothwell, AP Markets Writer | Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/stocks-plunge-jobs-grow...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#149678 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Yep, our Labor Participation Rate is the lowest since the Jimmy Carter Recession ....... but it not not Obama's fault?!? Yes sir-ree, you Libytards gulp the red kool aide!
Labor Participation Rate Keeps Falling While Millions of Jobs Go Unfilled Posted: 04/05/2013
The labor participation rate for March fell to 63.3 percent -- a new 34 year low, according to numbers released today by the U.S. Department of Labor. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also shows a very troubling picture for people aged 20 to 24 looking for work with unemployment at more than 13 percent for these young workers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heidi-golledge/...
Oh boy, Rogue, how you must be drooling. Salivting even. A great day fOr you AND all Obama haters. Bad job news and, icing on the cake, DJIA is down. Now, if only the US could default, you'd be, why, you'd be dancing in the streets, just like you did the morning of November 7. Hmmm, NOT.

Looks like you'll need more immigrants to fill those job vacancies, Rogue, seeing as you don't have the locals to fill them.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#149679 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Yep, there are 6.5 million FEWER Americans employed right now than when Obama entered the White House and is ia someone else's fault. You Libytards will never point your fingers at Obama!!!
All Hail Obama!!!
But you will, for every little conceivable petty ill.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149680 Apr 5, 2013
Oh goody, not only has Obama requested that the COLA be readjusted for military disability payments, he is now requesting it for social security payments!!!
Might I make a suggestion. Cap federal emlpoyee pay rates until such a time as the are the same as the private sector!!!
Or, if you post an federal position and you have 100 applicants, you cut the pay for that position. Likewise if you get only a few applications, you INCREASE pay. I know supply and demand is foreign to you Libytards, but it works every time it is tried.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#149681 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, did you notice how the stock market has reacted to the "good" unemployment numbers?
Stocks plunge after jobs growth disappoints
Stocks open sharply lower on Wall Street after US jobs growth disappoints investors
By Steve Rothwell, AP Markets Writer | Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/stocks-plunge-jobs-grow...
Can't contain yourself, can you, Rogue? I know, I know, must be hard. At last you can break those dancing shoes in now.

While we're at it, Rogue, would you mind comparing the DJIA average with where it stood spring of 2009 and now, and well, why not, where it stood Jan 01 2013 and now. Thank you.

PS : And unemployment figures, what they showed September 2009 and the present. Oh, I know, today's numbers are "cooked". Of course, GWB's and all other presidents' numbers were never "cooked". One can imagine if that GWB legacy 10.2% in Sept 2009 was cooked, what the real number was compared to Obama's 7.8% cooked number.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149682 Apr 5, 2013
Oh, just in case you don't know, in South Korea their surname is the first name, like "Kim". The majority surname in Korea is "Kim" with 18.9 million Kim's, the come "Lee" with 6.8 million and then "Park" with 3.9 million.
So, if you were in an officers club and you called "Miss Kim", half the women would look at you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Korean_f...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#149683 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, just in case you don't know, in South Korea their surname is the first name, like "Kim". The majority surname in Korea is "Kim" with 18.9 million Kim's, the come "Lee" with 6.8 million and then "Park" with 3.9 million.
So, if you were in an officers club and you called "Miss Kim", half the women would look at you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Korean_f...
Gee, thanks for the lesson. I bet everyone here is surprised that there are a lot of Kims in Korea, north and south. You come out with such interesting facts, Rogue. Hmmm, there goes Mohamad. Do you think that's a popular Muslim name? DOH! Wonder how many Joe Smiths in the US and Canada?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149685 Apr 5, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, thanks for the lesson. I bet everyone here is surprised that there are a lot of Kims in Korea, north and south. You come out with such interesting facts, Rogue. Hmmm, there goes Mohamad. Do you think that's a popular Muslim name? DOH! Wonder how many Joe Smiths in the US and Canada?
Well yes, there seems to be a lot of Mohammeds out there!
And in Latin countries there are a lot of Heyzooz's (Jesus) out there too!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149686 Apr 5, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't contain yourself, can you, Rogue? I know, I know, must be hard. At last you can break those dancing shoes in now.
While we're at it, Rogue, would you mind comparing the DJIA average with where it stood spring of 2009 and now, and well, why not, where it stood Jan 01 2013 and now. Thank you.
PS : And unemployment figures, what they showed September 2009 and the present. Oh, I know, today's numbers are "cooked". Of course, GWB's and all other presidents' numbers were never "cooked". One can imagine if that GWB legacy 10.2% in Sept 2009 was cooked, what the real number was compared to Obama's 7.8% cooked number.
Yes, Obama cooks his data. During the Bush administration about of a third of the unemployment numbers were revised UPWARDS, another third were revised DOWNWARDS and about a third remained unchanged.
But under Obama, about 90% have been revised UPWARDS!!!
Now this month they revised the unemployment rate for the previous month, Feb. 2013, down from 7.7% to 7.6%. This is a rare exception for Obama ...... but now that he can not be reelected again, it doesn't matter!!!

"On the other hand, though the unemployment rate dropped from 7.7% to 7.6%, this change looks to be almost entirely due to a decline in the labor participation rate, as nearly half a million people decided to drop out of the labor force altogether."

Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/04/05/u-s-econo...

Oh damn, it's that pesky Labor Participation Rate again. Just ignore it as it really doesn't mean anything. I mean, just because peogle are so depressed looking for work, they just stopped looking, it is really meaningless.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149687 Apr 5, 2013
Oh Jacques, do you remember the unemployment numbers for Sep. 2012? They knew California did not submit their numbers, they released the federal numbers anyway. I mean, California being such a small and insignificant state probably would not effect the numbers, would it? And just before an election, why that is not a motive to cook the unemployment data books, is it?
Yep, in Aug. 2012 the unemployment rate was 8.1% but in Sep. in had dropped to 7.8%. And then Oct. 2012 it had gone back up to 7.9%!!!
Oh, just when was the October numbers released? Hummmm, November 9th. And just when was the elections?!? November 5th? How convenient, AFTER the election!!! Naw, no cooking of the books here!!!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#149688 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Obama cooks his data. During the Bush administration about of a third of the unemployment numbers were revised UPWARDS, another third were revised DOWNWARDS and about a third remained unchanged.
But under Obama, about 90% have been revised UPWARDS!!!
Now this month they revised the unemployment rate for the previous month, Feb. 2013, down from 7.7% to 7.6%. This is a rare exception for Obama ...... but now that he can not be reelected again, it doesn't matter!!!
"On the other hand, though the unemployment rate dropped from 7.7% to 7.6%, this change looks to be almost entirely due to a decline in the labor participation rate, as nearly half a million people decided to drop out of the labor force altogether."
Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/04/05/u-s-econo...
Oh damn, it's that pesky Labor Participation Rate again. Just ignore it as it really doesn't mean anything. I mean, just because peogle are so depressed looking for work, they just stopped looking, it is really meaningless.
Okay, I think I got it, Rogue. All of Obama's predecessors used different sets of calculations to arrive at the unemployment rate. For sure, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHB, Clinton, they all used true numbers, but this bugger Obama, yessireee, he cooks the books, the only one to do it. Is there no limit to what this despotic dictator Obama can do? Is there no way to stop him? After all, he inherited a balanced budget from GWB, banks were thriving, the mortgage market was cruising along, brokerage houses were so prosperous, they were handing out bonuses like there was no tomorrow, the DJIA was hitting new highs, wars had been won (see : Mission accomplished) in Afghanistan and Iraq and occupation of those two countries was going splendidly, all terrorist attacks thwarted, peace for all Afghans and Iraqis. Yes, Rogue, how could Obama take over such a successful administration and screw it all up the way he did?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149689 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Yep, there are 6.5 million FEWER Americans employed right now than when Obama entered the White House and is ia someone else's fault. You Libytards will never point your fingers at Obama!!!
All Hail Obama!!!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
But you will, for every little conceivable petty ill.
Ah, 6.5 million people being unemployed is "petty"??? Petty you!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149690 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Yep, our Labor Participation Rate is the lowest since the Jimmy Carter Recession ....... but it not not Obama's fault?!? Yes sir-ree, you Libytards gulp the red kool aide!
Labor Participation Rate Keeps Falling While Millions of Jobs Go Unfilled Posted: 04/05/2013
The labor participation rate for March fell to 63.3 percent -- a new 34 year low, according to numbers released today by the U.S. Department of Labor. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also shows a very troubling picture for people aged 20 to 24 looking for work with unemployment at more than 13 percent for these young workers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heidi-golledge/ ...
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh boy, Rogue, how you must be drooling. Salivting even. A great day fOr you AND all Obama haters. Bad job news and, icing on the cake, DJIA is down. Now, if only the US could default, you'd be, why, you'd be dancing in the streets, just like you did the morning of November 7. Hmmm, NOT.
Looks like you'll need more immigrants to fill those job vacancies, Rogue, seeing as you don't have the locals to fill them.
Well, just what jobs are available? Spanish interpreters?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#149691 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh Jacques, do you remember the unemployment numbers for Sep. 2012? They knew California did not submit their numbers, they released the federal numbers anyway. I mean, California being such a small and insignificant state probably would not effect the numbers, would it? And just before an election, why that is not a motive to cook the unemployment data books, is it?
Yep, in Aug. 2012 the unemployment rate was 8.1% but in Sep. in had dropped to 7.8%. And then Oct. 2012 it had gone back up to 7.9%!!!
Oh, just when was the October numbers released? Hummmm, November 9th. And just when was the elections?!? November 5th? How convenient, AFTER the election!!! Naw, no cooking of the books here!!!
Hmmm, then between Sept and Nov, unemployment went down O.2% Okay, what is wrong with that? Was the election not Nov 6? Today's the 5th, Friday. If the figures had not been released today, Friday, when would it be done? Monday the 8th? Do you get it now? The election was Monday November 6. Figures canNOT be release at least 5 working days into the month, and proof of that, look when they ARE released every month. Again, election being Nov 6, how could figures come out Friday Nov 3? How?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#149692 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Yep, our Labor Participation Rate is the lowest since the Jimmy Carter Recession ....... but it not not Obama's fault?!? Yes sir-ree, you Libytards gulp the red kool aide!
Labor Participation Rate Keeps Falling While Millions of Jobs Go Unfilled Posted: 04/05/2013
The labor participation rate for March fell to 63.3 percent -- a new 34 year low, according to numbers released today by the U.S. Department of Labor. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also shows a very troubling picture for people aged 20 to 24 looking for work with unemployment at more than 13 percent for these young workers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heidi-golledge/ ...
<quoted text>

Well, just what jobs are available? Spanish interpreters?
I don't know, you tell me. Would that be beause there are plenty of Spanish-speaking folks capable of filling jobs that the local population cannot fill? Menial jobs that it WON'T fill and important high-paying jobs that it CAN'T fill? Muy bien, amigo, jo hablo castellano, y tu? Y tres otros gracias.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#149699 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
There has not been one reliable research paper released on the glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro since 2007. And the ones that do talk about the glacier before 2000. WHY???
There have been reports that the glacier has been growing in recent years but they are not scientific reports. Sooo, we are back to why there are no recent SCIENTIFIC reports?!? He thinks they are afraid to tell the truth!
http://www.wo rldcult2s-ice
You don't even have access to any scholarly databases and yet here you are flapping your gums.

How has this worked out for you in the past?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149700 Apr 5, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
There has not been one reliable research paper released on the glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro since 2007. And the ones that do talk about the glacier before 2000. WHY???
There have been reports that the glacier has been growing in recent years but they are not scientific reports. Sooo, we are back to why there are no recent SCIENTIFIC reports?!? He thinks they are afraid to tell the truth!
http://www.wo rldcult2s-ice
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even have access to any scholarly databases and yet here you are flapping your gums.
How has this worked out for you in the past?
Well Tootzie, My point being Nat Geo did two investigation on Mount Kilimanjaro. One in 2000 and the last on in 2007 and now nothing!!! This is not to say they have not been back to Mount Kilimanjaro but they have nothing to report. Well, what is it. Are the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro going to disappear by 2010 or not??? They said they were!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149701 Apr 5, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I think I got it, Rogue. All of Obama's predecessors used different sets of calculations to arrive at the unemployment rate. For sure, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHB, Clinton, they all used true numbers, but this bugger Obama, yessireee, he cooks the books, the only one to do it. Is there no limit to what this despotic dictator Obama can do? Is there no way to stop him? After all, he inherited a balanced budget from GWB, banks were thriving, the mortgage market was cruising along, brokerage houses were so prosperous, they were handing out bonuses like there was no tomorrow, the DJIA was hitting new highs, wars had been won (see : Mission accomplished) in Afghanistan and Iraq and occupation of those two countries was going splendidly, all terrorist attacks thwarted, peace for all Afghans and Iraqis. Yes, Rogue, how could Obama take over such a successful administration and screw it all up the way he did?
There you go again with you "mission accomplished" remark. Two points. One the ships crew put that sign up. Next, it was the carrier task forces who mission was accomplished. Also, Bush did not make any remark about "mission accomplished, did he?!?
George W. Bush - Speech Marking End of Major Combat Ops In Iraq

But what frosts your butt is that Bush arrived on deck with real class to a thunderous response from those sailors and Clinton and Obama will never get a response like that. Here is Obama address the troops. The military is always polite and there is never any boos but he did not get the hardy reception Bush did!!!
President Obama Addresses The Troops In Afghanistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#149702 Apr 5, 2013
Jacques and the other Libytards think we hate Obama but I don't. But I do have utter contempt for the man because he is a fraud.
But you Lyby tards hate Bush, and Bush, and Reagan. And if it was not for Newt Gingrich, Clinton's time in the White House would not have been very rosy.
Yep, all Clinton did was sign into law four of Newt balanced budgets seven of the points of the Contract with America and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997!

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 Laettner 1,221,049
time to " splain" 13 min reality is a crutch 1
Amy 4-28-15 22 min Blunt Advice 4
News New study details downside of CTA's newest rail... 37 min reality is a crutch 1
Abby 4-28-15 47 min Mister Tonka 9
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 55 min Ratloder 69,717
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Al the Bore Gore 52,903
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]