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

#157172 May 27, 2013
I will repeat myself as Libtards do not seem to "get it'. ALL flag officers are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. So Democrats tend to appoint left-leaning generals and Republicans right-leaning generals. But there are few radical lefty or righty generals.
FDR was president from 1933 until early 1945 and then Truman took over until 1953 so for twenty years Lefty Generals were pretty much in control but a Righty Generals advance as war progressed even Lefty Generals can recognize military talent and Right-of-Center generals were promoted.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157173 May 27, 2013
Japanese Nikkei dropped another 3.22% today and their market reopens in a little over an hour from now and if it does not go up even slightly, expect our DOW to begin DOWN tomorrow too.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157174 May 27, 2013
Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why
Sunday, 26 May 2013 06:50 PM

Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks ... and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires...
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#157175 May 27, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone knows Ike was a closet Democrat. Truman offered to step aside if Ike ran as a Democrat, but he declined.
<quoted text>
So, Eisenhower was a closet democrat who refused to run as a democrat even after, so you state, Truman offered to step aside. Do you know this makes no sense?

That Ike could not stand Truman is well-known, No news there. It's not so much either that he doubted JFK's competence, it's more like he didn't like his youth.

From much reading I've done on both McArthur and Eisenhower, I would think, though both were great generals, that McArthur was the best of the two. But hey, that's me.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157176 May 27, 2013
nebka wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think my adding something to my name makes you smart???
It just shows that you are a bottom feeder
But you might try and change your name if you want to be taken seriously or not.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157177 May 27, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Eisenhower was a closet democrat who refused to run as a democrat even after, so you state, Truman offered to step aside. Do you know this makes no sense?
That Ike could not stand Truman is well-known, No news there. It's not so much either that he doubted JFK's competence, it's more like he didn't like his youth.
From much reading I've done on both McArthur and Eisenhower, I would think, though both were great generals, that McArthur was the best of the two. But hey, that's me.
What rank was Ike in 1933 when FDR became president? He was a major and in 1936 was promoted to Ltc and was promoted to BG in 1941.
October 3, 1941. Although his administrative abilities had been noticed, on the eve of the U.S. entry into World War II he had never held an active command above a battalion and was far from being considered by many as a potential commander of major operations.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#157178 May 27, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What rank was Ike in 1933 when FDR became president? He was a major and in 1936 was promoted to Ltc and was promoted to BG in 1941.
<quoted text>
Again, you post gibberish which has nothing to do with the subject.

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#157179 May 27, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But you might try and change your name if you want to be taken seriously or not.
Do you know what Nebka or shal i say who?

Nebka is the birth name of an Ancient Egyptian king (pharaoh) who ruled during the 3rd dynasty of the Old Kingdom. He is thought to be identical with the Hellenized name form Necherophes (by Manetho). Nebka is one of the most disputed kings of the Old Kingdom, since his name is handed down as cartouche name only, but is preserved always in the same typographical way. And because the sources for the name “Nebka” are that numerous, this ruler is seen as a historically important figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebka

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157181 May 28, 2013
nebka wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what Nebka or shal i say who?
Nebka is the birth name of an Ancient Egyptian king (pharaoh) who ruled during the 3rd dynasty of the Old Kingdom. He is thought to be identical with the Hellenized name form Necherophes (by Manetho). Nebka is one of the most disputed kings of the Old Kingdom, since his name is handed down as cartouche name only, but is preserved always in the same typographical way. And because the sources for the name “Nebka” are that numerous, this ruler is seen as a historically important figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebka
No I didn't know and I will probably forget all about him soon. Wow, Wiki devoted a whole half page to him.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157182 May 28, 2013
Adrian Peterson not a believer in same-sex marriage
Posted by Mike Florio on May 27, 2013, 9:31 PM EDT

When we first saw the comments of Vikings running back Adrian Peterson on the issue of same-sex marriage, the decision was made to mention the situation in the one-liners, with no full-blown post.

Since then, however, the issue has popped up in plenty of places, and it makes sense on the day that honors those who fought for our freedoms to point to an issue the demonstrates in many ways the things we can do as Americans.

When Peterson says in a radio interview that he’s “not with” same-sex marriage, he exercises his right to say whatever he wants. And those who choose to disagree with Peterson are exercising the same rights. Meanwhile, those who are fighting for and against the legalization of same-sex marriage are exercise their rights to participate in the political process.

These rights all flow from the documents that gave rise to our nation, rights secured and then preserved by the men and women who fought and died to allow us to disagree on the issue of same-sex marriage and any other issue, from important to trivial and all points in between.

So feel free to call me an idiot in the comments if you disagree with this or anything else I’ve said today. You have the right to do it. And, of course, I have the right to delete the comment if it goes too far.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/...
truman

Boise, ID

#157183 May 28, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but all budgets are passed by CONGRESS and the only thing any president can do is sign them into law.
Fact, Newt Gingrich rewrote Bill Clinton's budgets and BALANCED them and Bill Clintom signed them into law.
Bill Clinton also signed into law seven of the points of the Contract with America, to include Welfare Reform, into law and also signed the taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 into law.
But you, as a Libtard will only give Bill Clinton credit when it was Newt Gingrich who honchoed those bills through Congress!!!
In the through the looking glass world of a true Tea Bagger you retreat into Denial for any responsbiilty when it comes to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Economic Meltown we were left with after George W.
Yet the Surplus Clinton left us with you try and claim credit for Republicans...in spite of the sheer volume of useless verbiage you load onto this thread Rogue you have no credibilty because frankly your Mindless Partisanship has made you intellectualy dishonest.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157184 May 28, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but all budgets are passed by CONGRESS and the only thing any president can do is sign them into law.
Fact, Newt Gingrich rewrote Bill Clinton's budgets and BALANCED them and Bill Clintom signed them into law.
Bill Clinton also signed into law seven of the points of the Contract with America, to include Welfare Reform, into law and also signed the taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 into law.
But you, as a Libtard will only give Bill Clinton credit when it was Newt Gingrich who honchoed those bills through Congress!!!
truman wrote:
<quoted text>
In the through the looking glass world of a true Tea Bagger you retreat into Denial for any responsbiilty when it comes to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Economic Meltown we were left with after George W.
Yet the Surplus Clinton left us with you try and claim credit for Republicans...in spite of the sheer volume of useless verbiage you load onto this thread Rogue you have no credibilty because frankly your Mindless Partisanship has made you intellectualy dishonest.
And you can not even rebut one of my points. How sad a troll you are.
Oh, did not Obama say he would get us out of Afghanistan within ONE year? I would have just as soon as UBL was killed or captured! And I have never agree with Bush on rebuilding their economies or reforming their government. Muslims will never think like we do!
And as far as GITMO, all the detainees should be tried according to the Geneva Accords as Illegal Combatants and then executed!!! If we had, we would have closed GITMO six years ago.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157185 May 28, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What rank was Ike in 1933 when FDR became president? He was a major and in 1936 was promoted to Ltc and was promoted to BG in 1941.
<quoted text>
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you post gibberish which has nothing to do with the subject.
My point being that Ike advanced from Captain to a four-star general without commanding a brigade (colonel) or division (two-star gen.) or a corps (three-star gen.) and he did this all under FDR!!!
Again, ALL generals are appointed by the PRESIDENT (FDR)!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157186 May 28, 2013
One of the smartest move Bush-41 did was making Gen. Colon Powell the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which is nothing more than an advisory job. And he chose Gen. Schwarzkopf as his combat field commander. If Powell had been the field commander I seriously doubt the Persian Gulf War would have turned out as well as it did.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157187 May 28, 2013
The Gordian Knot is a legend of Phrygian Gordium associated with Alexander the Great. It is often used as a metaphor for an intractable problem (disentangling an "impossible" knot) solved easily by cheating or "thinking outside the box" ("cutting the Gordian knot"):

"Turn him to any cause of policy,
The Gordian Knot of it he will unloose,
Familiar as his garter" (Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 1 Scene 1. 45–47)

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#157188 May 28, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What rank was Ike in 1933 when FDR became president? He was a major and in 1936 was promoted to Ltc and was promoted to BG in 1941.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
My point being that Ike advanced from Captain to a four-star general without commanding a brigade (colonel) or division (two-star gen.) or a corps (three-star gen.) and he did this all under FDR!!!
Again, ALL generals are appointed by the PRESIDENT (FDR)!
Thereby proving that you need not go to war to exercise the duties of a 4-star general, as proven by Eisenhower. Good if you have, like McArthur, but not essential.

And, I repeat, your reply was not relevant. At all.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#157189 May 28, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
One of the smartest move Bush-41 did was making Gen. Colon Powell the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which is nothing more than an advisory job. And he chose Gen. Schwarzkopf as his combat field commander. If Powell had been the field commander I seriously doubt the Persian Gulf War would have turned out as well as it did.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you know that? Did you even read Gen. Schwarzkopf's book on the Gulf war? How Powell's support in so many areas crucial to the operation, including working with the Saudis' seemingly unreasonable conditions placed on American and allied troops?

And what is this remark?..."One of the smartest move Bush-41 did was making Gen. Colon Powell the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which is nothing more than an advisory job". One would think you were intimately linked to the Pentagon and White House chain of command. Can you give a few examples...no, never mind, just ONE example to confirm what you wrote about "advisory". Remember, Rogue, the Joint chief of staff and the president do not decide if a patrol should go out to scout the enemy. That's decided by a sergeant or lieutenant, as it should be.
VoteVets org

Sayville, NY

#157190 May 28, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
One of the smartest move Bush-41 did was making Gen. Colon Powell the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which is nothing more than an advisory job. And he chose Gen. Schwarzkopf as his combat field commander. If Powell had been the field commander I seriously doubt the Persian Gulf War would have turned out as well as it did.
General Norman Schwartzkopf : Iraq Quagmire For USA
Iraq Quagmire: That, George Bush, knew!
http://tinyurl.com/2q9ex6


Cheney 1994: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN
http://tinyurl.com/3d6x5b
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#157191 May 28, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Funny, prior to 1866 the various states made the citizens of the USA, no one lost their citizenship with the change of power from the various states to the US Government, it was just streamlined by the 14th amendment.
Insane. No one could have lost their citizenship due to passage of the 14th Amendment prior to the 14th Amendment?

Nonsense: "prior to 1866 ... no one lost their citizenship with the change of power ..."

Dufus Dale does not understand that the 14th Amendment SUPERSEDED previous law and if a person had been born in the US but beyond the jurisdiction of the US that person would not be a citizen, even if that person would have been considered a US citizen by a state prior to passage of the 14th Amendment"

"[F]or, if the contention of counsel for the government be correct, it will inevitably result that thousands of persons of both sexes who have been heretofore considered as citizens of the United States, and have always been treated as such, will be, to all intents and purposes, denationalized and remanded to a state of alienage.
In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. Rep. 382 (N.D. Cal. 1896).

"To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."

Sorry Dufus Dale, Play Law does not count.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how no one ever noticed the new Play Law rules that made thousands of people, previously thought to be citizens in 1865, aliens.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#157193 May 28, 2013
Sorry I forgot to include the citation.

"To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States." US v Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 694 (1898).

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Realtime 1,189,608
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 min truth to power 51,371
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 12 min Brian_G 51,327
Atheists can't prove there is no God. (Mar '11) 20 min Sumpins Up 219
Dear Abby 2-26-15 39 min curiousity 6
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 hr TRD 69,089
Amy 2-26-15 3 hr Kuuipo 8
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr RACE 99,157
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:59 am PST

Bleacher Report 3:59AM
Fleener Needs to Improve to Warrant a Top Contract
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
6 Best Options to Replace T-Rich This Offseason
Bleacher Report 7:18 AM
Best Options to Replace Briggs This Offseason
Bleacher Report 8:12 AM
Buzz: Colts Eyeing Trades for Veteran WRs Including Marshall
Bleacher Report 1:14 PM
Could Bears Ever Get Fair Trade Value for Forte?