BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 207552 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.

Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#160991 Jun 24, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
What about your Pravda and communist buddies?
I don't think she's a big fan of yours, jackie.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#160992 Jun 24, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think she's a big fan of yours, jackie.
Of course not, as I am not a fellow communist.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#160993 Jun 24, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry. None of the above. Now, who is clueless?
"Sorry. None of the above", says Larry to Moe. Boink!

Since: Aug 10

Buffalo, NY

#160995 Jun 24, 2013
LOL, Birthers!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#160996 Jun 24, 2013
FFS- wrote:
LOL, Birthers!
LOL, FFS.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#160997 Jun 24, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Because VoteVets implies they represent military vets when they do not! Only about 5% of their members are military vets! Do you want to guess what percentage of TEA Partiers are military vets yet they do not claim to represent military vets!!!
My post had nothing to do with VoteVets.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#160998 Jun 24, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But that is not what the United Nation says. And the UN says nothing about "economic" asylum. Only political asylum.
Just like the Geneva Accords only covers LAWFUL combatants and not illegal ones like the Taliban and al Qaeda who can be tortured and summarily executed!
Read more at http://www.topix.com/forum/who/barack-obama/T... text>
Nonsense, and you can not prove me wrong either?
And you can not prove that the Geneva Accords protect ILLEGAL combatants either! All the Geneva Accords is establish who is, and who is not, a legal combatant and how you will treat legal combatants!
Sorry Rouge, you said ":“International law that refugees mus stop at the first country to pass through but it seldom works out that way.”

You made the claim and cannot back it up. Nowhere in the UNHCR convention and protocol is first country of asylum defined as "first country to pass through". I cannot point to a section with a non-definition. It ain't there. Duh!

According to the Refugee Convention "there are three situations in which a state may decline to protect a person because he or she can obtain protection elsewhere: where a person has more than one nationality, he will not satisfy the definition of refugee if “he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national”(Article 1A(2)); where a person has de facto nationality in another country the Convention “shall not apply”(Article 1E); and where a refugee acquires a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of new nationality the Convention “shall cease to apply”(Article 1C)." Michelle Foster, Responsibility Sharing or Shifting?“Safe” Third Countries and International Law. 25 Refuge 64 (2008). Citing James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refuges under International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

Sorry Rouge, you're FOS.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Nonsense. UNHCR does not define first country of asylum as first foreign country a refugee sets foot on. If Rouge disagrees he is welcome to cite relevant article of the convention.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#160999 Jun 24, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Because VoteVets implies they represent military vets when they do not! Only about 5% of their members are military vets! Do you want to guess what percentage of TEA Partiers are military vets yet they do not claim to represent military vets!!!
Read more at http://www.topix.com/forum/who/barack-obama/T... text>
I admit that I am computer challenged but if I can do it, you can two. Ever hear of Wikipedia?
"In February 2007, a VoteVets.org spokesman told the The Washington Post that the group had 20,000 members, including 1,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan'."
Okay, let's do the math. If you have 20,000 of anything but only 1,000 of them are purple while the rest are pink, what percentage is purple?
Yes, the founder is a veteran of the war in Iraq but their major goal has nothing to do with veterans but by pushing the progressive agenda!
The rest are - what? Got a clue how many veterans there are who are not Iraq and Afghanistan vets? Hey Rouge, are you an Iraq or Afghanistan vet? So if you were a member you wouldn't count as a vet? Really?

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#161000 Jun 24, 2013
American Lady wrote:
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2)
All that cutting and pasting...so little information.

Of coarse an APOLOGETICS website will try to claim Einstein.

Your god and the god Einstein spoke of are two very different things. Einsteins god was the elegant simplicity of the cosmos. You don't talk to him, there is no such thing as sin, and the thought of a personal relationship is laughable. To him god lived in mathematics and conceptual physics.

"God does not play dice" was a figure of speech.(He turned out to be wrong)

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

Einstein actually made it very clear once and for all that any association between him and a religious god is simply...a lie.

Einstein continuously was quoted without source to be a "man of god" he did his best to put a stop to this.

"It was, of course, a LIE what you read about my religious convictions, a LIE which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein,(1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side
You Cut and paste lies according to the man himself.

Einsteins problem with the word atheist is the same one most atheist have. We don't have a word to describe our non-belief in Santa, or the Easter bunny...or the boogeyman.

Anti-theist better describes the state of mind.

Newton was a believer outwardly...he knew what happened to scientist that tore down the model that mythology laid out. He also invoked a "god of the gaps" filler for incomplete theories. What it boils down to is that Newton knew how close he would be to getting burned at the stake.

Once his real beliefs surfaced he was labeled a heretic.

http://www.isaac-newton.org/heretic.pdf

This is going to be difficult to describe to someone who doesn't have referance to hi-caliber mathematics.

Newton had created a mathematics that could explain how the solar system worked. Gravity...inertia...velocity for each object in the solar system.

It was not complete...for example... it didn't take into account the planets pulling on each other. And his answer was "God fixes it every once in a while."

What this meant was that Newton had reached as far as he could stretch. And in essence...gave up.(Enter God)

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#161001 Jun 24, 2013
Sir Isaac Newton's work represents some of the greatest contributions to science ever made by an individual. Most notably, Newton derived the Law of Universal Gravitation, invented the branch of mathematics called Calculus, and performed experiments investigating the nature of light and color. He also was scholar of the Bible and devoted much time to its study.

Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton's home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

A scientist friend of Newton's came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship.

"Oh My! What an exquisite thing this is!" Newton's friend exclaimed. "Who made it?"

Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said, "Oh? Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?"

Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone, "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I am a fool!" the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is."

Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#161002 Jun 24, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Blondie, I just pointed out where you were incorrect. You used the word requirment, not I. The rest of your post is gibberish.
She was not incorrect. LRS is clueless. If it is necessary to show a BC that was sent to momma in order to prove facts of birth to a paranoid schizophrenic, then it is a requirement imposed by the nutball. However, schizophrenics typically cannot draw rational inferences. This is a case in point.
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rational readers will notice that although LRS has CLAIMED "it is much more than speculation," LRS has not cited a single fact.
"Yep, blonde."
Not that my hair color matters, but the willingness to call a brunette a blonde is typical of birther LIARS.
It is like them saying "the Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya" (she didn't, she said repeatedly that he was born in HAWAII, and she is not a blonde either) or them saying "Obama's lawyer admitted that the birth certificate was forged" (she didn't, and I admit I do not know her hair color). The governor of Hawaii (who is bald, but his beard is gray) did not say that he could not find the birth certificate either.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#161003 Jun 24, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. It is 5%. Kudos.
But, the fact remains that its founder is a veteran of Iraq, as is the actual president. It is a fact that this grouping is pro-military. One does not have to be anti-military to object to the Afghan and Iraqi wars, quite the opposite. The other 19,000 members can surely not be anti-military either and don't forget, if the Dems had started those wars, VoteVets would still have objected to them, and they'd be branded Republican sympathisers. In Vietnam, you will recall, the 1st war veterazn protesters were against LBJ and his democrats and thereafter against Nixon and his republicans (though Nixon had more, which is normal, the war was dragging on). Try to put a party badge on those vets
Overwhelmingly anti-war protesters are Liberals. In 1968 who protested at the Democrat National Convention in Shitcago?

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#161004 Jun 24, 2013
VoteVets org wrote:
<quoted text>
Richard Dawkins is an imbecile.
He thinks the Orangutan was not in Africa.
He doesn't realize that millions and millions of years ago all the continents were grouped together.
It is just speculation on Dawkins part.
Gods word makes just as much sense, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
P.S. I am ready for the return fire for calling your hero an imbecile. LOL
Dawkins certainly is not an imbecile. That seems apparent enough.

Nor, is he my hero.

I am into astrophysics...biology isn't really an interest of mine at all.

I do find it hard to believe that Dawkins could make such assertions with zero evidence and none of the scientific community took the opportunity to prove him wrong.(That is what we do)

No return fire.

I do know that Dawkins believes that humans have been around 250,000 years. Millions and millions of years ago when the land masses were more grouped is completely out of context.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#161005 Jun 24, 2013
VoteVets org wrote:
<quoted text>
The Tigris–Euphrates rivers are not in Missouri.
Those are facts VV...
They have no biz being anywhere near religion.

I mean...come on.
They have a book.
They claim it is the inspired word of god.
It is the handbook of how to live morally in God's eyes.
If you refuse this information, you spend eternity in hell.
Lots of Morons agree with them...errr, Mormons.
The book says Missouri.

Maybe those rivers were in Missouri at one time? But the continental shift....oh nvm.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

So..VV?

What is your problem with the Mormons?

They have everything you guys have.

Please explain why the Mormons are nuts.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#161006 Jun 24, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are facts VV...
They have no biz being anywhere near religion.
I mean...come on.
They have a book.
They claim it is the inspired word of god.
It is the handbook of how to live morally in God's eyes.
If you refuse this information, you spend eternity in hell.
Lots of Morons agree with them...errr, Mormons.
The book says Missouri.
Maybe those rivers were in Missouri at one time? But the continental shift....oh nvm.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
So..VV?
What is your problem with the Mormons?
They have everything you guys have.
Please explain why the Mormons are nuts.
While you give it a think...know that the Mormons consider you guys to be large caliber idiots.

Christianity is an abomination.(according to the mormons)

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#161007 Jun 24, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
But you know better than I, right? LMAO! sillyfart
Obviously

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#161008 Jun 24, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Overwhelmingly anti-war protesters are Liberals. In 1968 who protested at the Democrat National Convention in Shitcago?
Were There were riots at the convention, guess you missed that. What about the "National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam " that was seriously roughed up by police? And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Gordon Lightfoot wrote and sang a song about the Dem party 1968 convention riots.

Chicago's the third or fourth biggest city in the United States, a main cog as one could call it, and you call it "Shitcago?" (Rogue tm reg'd). Over 3 million fellow American "Sh*ts?"

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#161009 Jun 24, 2013
Who cares if vote vets has one single member who had ever fired a shot in combat?

They all signed the same papers you did...right?

They were all shipped to where they were needed...right?

My father was stationed in Germany during Vietnam ...does it make him less of a veteran in your eyes?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#161010 Jun 24, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
From Wiki: In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."
Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, describing it as "not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one". He has been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler", a reference to English biologist T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of Charles Darwin's evolutionary ideas. He has been a strong critic of the British organisation Truth in Science, which promotes the teaching of creationism in state schools, and he plans through the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science to subsidise schools with the delivery of books, DVDs, and pamphlets that counteract their (Truth in Science's) work, which Dawkins has described as an "educational scandal".
"When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory ...."

Yeah right, and the kinetic theory of gasses is "just a theory."

And the Krebs' Cycle is "just a theory".

And the Embden-Meyerhoff pathway is just a theory.

Beta-oxidation is just a theory.

Chemiosmotic generation of ATP is just a theory.

Atomic theory is "just a theory."

Quantum mechanics is "just a theory".

Electromagnetic theory is but mere theory.

Molecular orbital theory is "just a theroy".

HOMO-LUMO theory in stereoelectronic effects is "just a theory".

Evolution is "just a theory".

IGNORANCE IS PATHETIC.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#161011 Jun 24, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
She was not incorrect. LRS is clueless. If it is necessary to show a BC that was sent to momma in order to prove facts of birth to a paranoid schizophrenic, then it is a requirement imposed by the nutball. However, schizophrenics typically cannot draw rational inferences. This is a case in point.
<quoted text>
Are you an idiot? I never said it was a requirement! DAB

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) 27 min Grey Ghost 1,346,871
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Fair Game 57,277
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 hr They cannot kill ... 7,299
last post wins! (Apr '13) 8 hr They cannot kill ... 609
last post wins! (Dec '10) 8 hr They cannot kill ... 1,582
Word (Dec '08) 15 hr Red_Forman 5,642
NO corkscrew, open win bottle. 16 hr POS Gone 9
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages