BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 241670 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163529 Jul 13, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Remember the kid who wore the NRA t-shirt to school and was taken away by the police? Well, check out USA Today's main page. Why is it ok for this kid to wear a t-shirt that has a picture of Zimmerman with cross-hairs on him?
......
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The guy wearing the Zimmerman T-shirt was a kid wearing it in public school? In July?
Classic Libtardian Logic. The weather dictates what Free Speech is permissible?!? What a flaming bigot you are.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163530 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
Darn those liberal cops and liberal courts in that LIBTARD state of TEXAS
I am not sure exactly what you are commenting on but Texas has it's Liberal areas. Conservatives never would have elected some one like Sheila Jackson Lee to Congress!

Ah, if Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is a TEXAS Congresswoman, why was she in FLORIDA??? Because she is a race baiter!!!
wojar

United States

#163531 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Justice LRS wrote:
Remember the kid who wore the NRA t-shirt to school and was taken away by the police? Well, check out USA Today's main page. Why is it ok for this kid to wear a t-shirt that has a picture of Zimmerman with cross-hairs on him?
......
<quoted text>
Classic Libtardian Logic. The weather dictates what Free Speech is permissible?!? What a flaming bigot you are.
The weather? RU nuts? Schools are in session in July? Your boyfriend was mixing apples and oranges. My comment had not a thing to do with weather. Grow a brain.

[QUOTE who="wojar]
<quoted text>
The guy wearing the Zimmerman T-shirt was a kid wearing it in public school? In July?[/QUOTE]
wojar

United States

#163532 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure exactly what you are commenting on but Texas has it's Liberal areas. Conservatives never would have elected some one like Sheila Jackson Lee to Congress!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =oScEJOL9Q5UXX
Ah, if Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is a TEXAS Congresswoman, why was she in FLORIDA??? Because she is a race baiter!!!
Shiela Jackson Lee arrested the kid?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163533 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
There are specific criteria which must be met to permit instruction of the jury on lesser included charges. For example in Connecticut the Whistman test is used. It's not "up to the judge" to make an arbitrary decision or to make a decision based on Play Justice LRS's approval or disapproval. Sorry, but not liking the fact that the jury was instructed on the lesser included charge does not provide a rational basis to claim impropriety.
<quoted text>
Ah, you do know that Florida is NOT in Connecticut, don't you?
In most states a defendant must prove he was acting in self defense but in Florida it is the other way around. To arrest anyone who claims self defense they must have probable cause that he was NOT acting in self defense. Sooo, what evidence did they have it was not self defence? NOTHING!!!
Next, to CHARGE someone, in a self defence case, they most prove that the preponderance of the evidence is that he was NOT acting in self defense. And again, what was their evidence? NOTHING!!!
Then, to convict anyone, in a self defense case, they must FIRST prove he was NOT acting in self defense base on, not reasonable suspicion nor a preponderance of the evidence, but beyond any reasonable doubt!!!
Again I will bring to your attention something my father said to me some 45 years ago, "It is best to set a thousand guilty men go free than to falsely imprison one innocent man"!
But that does not matter to you bigoted Libtards!!! The letter of the law means nothing to you, it is you agenda that matters most to you!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163535 Jul 13, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Again Rouge... Stats that are very misleading.
3.13 MILLIONTHS of 1%.... of the actual population.
This is textbook sharpshooter/no base rate fallacy.
They could just as easily have said...
"We ran into Ted at the gas station and here is his opinion."
Look at the words man....
"ALL Americans consider...."
"Liberals consider...."
"Conservatives think...."
These are vast numbers.
Not that we aren't at all shocked when BET attempts to get all sciency and fails.
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
To Rogue, if it is a sample 1000 people out of 310 million population, it's a valid sample if it feeds his twisted racial views. Like the poll he referred to. But if a majority, a healthy majority, elects Obama, it's fraud. If 209 courts, 535 congressmen, 9 supremes, 50 governors say Obama's BC is a valid one and he was born in Honolulu, it's simply not true and, he's said it often, Obama is a liar. As I said before, with Rogue it's winner-winner for him and loser-loser for you.
Typical Libtardian Logic. Scientifically balanced polling is good .... so long as I agree with it?
Do you recall Nate Silver. Why do you think his polls are okay yet one's done by Rasmussen are not?!? BIGOTRY!!!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163536 Jul 13, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Remember the kid who wore the NRA t-shirt to school and was taken away by the police? Well, check out USA Today's main page. Why is it ok for this kid to wear a t-shirt that has a picture of Zimmerman with cross-hairs on him?
I saw another story on here about a teen who was jailed for 5 months for putting a sarcastic remark on his facebook page. He was bailed out $500K! WTF??????
You're an idiot, as usual. Minor unimportant miscellaneous stuff. And, why don't you just state that both t-shirts are NOT okay. Why? Because they are not.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163537 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>That 19 y/o kid in the liberal state of TEXAS?
How much difference is there between a 19 year old "Kid" and a 19 year old "Man"? They try 17 years old people as ADULTS all the time.
But you Libtradian Logic dictates that because Texas' governor is a Republican, the whole state is NOT liberal!
Take your kaleidoscope glasses off. They are soooo sixties!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163538 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure exactly what you are commenting on but Texas has it's Liberal areas. Conservatives never would have elected some one like Sheila Jackson Lee to Congress!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =oScEJOL9Q5UXX
Ah, if Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is a TEXAS Congresswoman, why was she in FLORIDA??? Because she is a race baiter!!!
This " Because she is a race baiter!!!" coming from someone who lauds blacks because "oh, they were so clean and polite" etc

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163539 Jul 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot, as usual. Minor unimportant miscellaneous stuff. And, why don't you just state that both t-shirts are NOT okay. Why? Because they are not.
Why are the "NOT okay"? Ah, there is that pesky First Amendment thingy again!
My maternal grandfather was an immigration officer on the Maine-New Brunswick border between 1924 and 1958 and when someone would claim to be an American he was ask they to recite the alphabet. How do you pronounce the last letter of the alphabet? If it is as "Zed", you were not brought up in the U.S.!
The Great Canadian Alphabet Song.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163540 Jul 13, 2013
Jacqueau is a Canadian Zed-Head!
Sunlight Foundation com

Oakdale, NY

#163541 Jul 13, 2013
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
My point in posting the relevant portion of Obama’s Rev Wright speech was to show that Obama did not in fact throw Wright under the bus even though he was under a lot of pressure to do exactly that. The speech had obviously been accepted favorably and most had moved on to more important issues.
For whatever reason Wright decided to keep the issue alive with his unexpected national appearances. I remember vividly my impression at the time is that Wright should go somewhere and STFU so I imagine he would disagree with me.
I’m just as certain Obama had stronger impressions than me of Wright’s motives especially after he had given such a fine speech detailing the good services Wright had rendered to his community and beyond.
Then again I saw nothing in Wright’s sermon that should have been denounced in the first place. However the populace did and as I said before winning is the name of the game.
I do enjoy your posts though and greatly respect your opinion, but I doubt the Wright/Obama relationship is as black and white as either of our perceptions.
I agree with every word in your post.

I did not vote for Obama but when I saw the Wright controversy I was afraid Obama was finished.

Corporate Democrats are still the lesser of two evils with corporate Republicans.

I will never vote for another corporate political hack who continuously vote in the interest of Wall Street and against Main Street.

My preference is people like Ralph Nader and Cornel West who hold views opposite of what corporate Democrats implement like Obama/Clinton and corporate Republicans like Reagan/Bush's.

Americans are desperately in need of a people's party and not these two corrupt corporate parties who divide and conquer so to benefit their friends.

Naturally our friends on the other side will accuse me of Communism/Socialism. LOL

A Quick Aside:

Get back to your original religion!

http://tinyurl.com/agasx29

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#163542 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure exactly what you are commenting on but Texas has it's Liberal areas. Conservatives never would have elected some one like Sheila Jackson Lee to Congress!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =oScEJOL9Q5UXX
Ah, if Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is a TEXAS Congresswoman, why was she in FLORIDA??? Because she is a race baiter!!!
That's right Rouge does not have a clue what he is commenting on. Clue, the incident was no where near Houston.

But not having a clue has never been sufficient reason for Rouge to refrain from opening his BIG FAT MOUTH and blabbering incoherently.
wojar wrote:
Darn those liberal cops and liberal courts in that LIBTARD state of TEXAS

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#163543 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure exactly what you are commenting on but Texas has it's Liberal areas. Conservatives never would have elected some one like Sheila Jackson Lee to Congress!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =oScEJOL9Q5UXX
Ah, if Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is a TEXAS Congresswoman, why was she in FLORIDA??? Because she is a race baiter!!!
Sheila Jackson Lee is a United States Congresswoman. She was elected to the UNITED STATES CONGRESS, which deals with NATIONAL matters and enacts NATIONAL LEGISLATION. The state house in Austin looks like a miniature US capitol building; is that why Rouge is confused?
Sunlight Foundation com

Oakdale, NY

#163544 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know what is funny is that every time I see, "The Sunlight Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit founded...", I know they are loony-lefty and very partisan. ALWAYS!!!
Oh they may try and convince you that they are middle or f the row on all of the issues, but they are not.
That is like people who claim they are "Pro-Choice" but are actually "Pro-Abortion" or that the "Affordable Health Care Act" is .... affordable!
To you its funny?

How is it funny to tell the truth about corrupt corporations?

Tell me, what is so funny about getting ripped off by prostitutes in Congress who work in the interest of Wall Street?

How is that FUNNY?

BTW: You are correct about Obamacare not being affordable just like Bush/Cheney Senior Citizen Prescription Drugs bills were supposed to lower Medication costs.

Big Pharma wrote the Bush bill and Obama bill.

P.S. THAT IS NOT FUNNY IN MY BOOK!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#163545 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, you do know that Florida is NOT in Connecticut, don't you?
In most states a defendant must prove he was acting in self defense but in Florida it is the other way around. To arrest anyone who claims self defense they must have probable cause that he was NOT acting in self defense. Sooo, what evidence did they have it was not self defence? NOTHING!!!
Next, to CHARGE someone, in a self defence case, they most prove that the preponderance of the evidence is that he was NOT acting in self defense. And again, what was their evidence? NOTHING!!!
Then, to convict anyone, in a self defense case, they must FIRST prove he was NOT acting in self defense base on, not reasonable suspicion nor a preponderance of the evidence, but beyond any reasonable doubt!!!
Again I will bring to your attention something my father said to me some 45 years ago, "It is best to set a thousand guilty men go free than to falsely imprison one innocent man"!
But that does not matter to you bigoted Libtards!!! The letter of the law means nothing to you, it is you agenda that matters most to you!
Mr. Scatterbrain is at it again. It is his mission in life to ramble off-point. The example of Connecticut law is perfectly on-point as it illustrates how states apply the doctrine of lesser included offenses, insofar as state courts apply the doctrine according to judicial standards. That is true for CT and FL and just about every other state in this country.

Capisce?

The rest of Mr. Scatterbrain's comment, "to CHARGE someone, in a self defence [sic] case, they most prove that the preponderance ...", has nothing to do with the doctrine of lesser included offenses.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
There are specific criteria which must be met to permit instruction of the jury on lesser included charges. For example in Connecticut the Whistman test is used. It's not "up to the judge" to make an arbitrary decision or to make a decision based on Play Justice LRS's approval or disapproval. Sorry, but not liking the fact that the jury was instructed on the lesser included charge does not provide a rational basis to claim impropriety.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#163546 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
How much difference is there between a 19 year old "Kid" and a 19 year old "Man"? They try 17 years old people as ADULTS all the time.
But you Libtradian Logic dictates that because Texas' governor is a Republican, the whole state is NOT liberal!
Take your kaleidoscope glasses off. They are soooo sixties!
Huh?

It was your boyfriend KRS who referred to him as a "teen". Call him a boy, a kid, or a man. I don't care. It is your ignorant claim that he was arrested because of LIBTARDS. Far more likely he was jailed because of overzealous LAW-AND-ORDER conservatives.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>That 19 y/o kid in the liberal state of TEXAS?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163547 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are the "NOT okay"? Ah, there is that pesky First Amendment thingy again!
My maternal grandfather was an immigration officer on the Maine-New Brunswick border between 1924 and 1958 and when someone would claim to be an American he was ask they to recite the alphabet. How do you pronounce the last letter of the alphabet? If it is as "Zed", you were not brought up in the U.S.!
The Great Canadian Alphabet Song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =S6ObBvc7Zz8XX
Does the first amendment give you the right to wear Hitler t-shirts emblazoned with swastikas? NO. Why? Because the represent HATE and violence. Same for machine guns and Zimmerman-targeted t-shirts. First amendment rights to wear those? I think not. To go even farther to make a point, as you do not seem to understand, how about the first amendment protecting a person wearing a t-shirt that depicts a fornicating couple, and to make it even more horrible for you, two men fornicating? Would the first amendment allow that?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163548 Jul 13, 2013
Sunlight Foundation com wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with every word in your post.
I did not vote for Obama but when I saw the Wright controversy I was afraid Obama was finished.
Corporate Democrats are still the lesser of two evils with corporate Republicans.
I will never vote for another corporate political hack who continuously vote in the interest of Wall Street and against Main Street.
My preference is people like Ralph Nader and Cornel West who hold views opposite of what corporate Democrats implement like Obama/Clinton and corporate Republicans like Reagan/Bush's.
Americans are desperately in need of a people's party and not these two corrupt corporate parties who divide and conquer so to benefit their friends.
Naturally our friends on the other side will accuse me of Communism/Socialism. LOL
A Quick Aside:
Get back to your original religion!
http://tinyurl.com/agasx29
If Obama is to conservative for you, you are a kommie!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#163549 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
In most states a defendant must prove he was acting in self defense but in Florida it is the other way around. To arrest anyone who claims self defense they must have probable cause that he was NOT acting in self defense. Sooo, what evidence did they have it was not self defence? NOTHING!!!
Next, to CHARGE someone, in a self defence case, they most prove that the preponderance of the evidence is that he was NOT acting in self defense. And again, what was their evidence? NOTHING!!!
In Florida, during preliminary hearing, in order to obtain immunity from prosecution per self defense, the DEFENDANT must establish the affirmative defense by preponderance of evidence. If you claim that the standard for charging a defendant is other than probable cause, please cite proper authority or you're wasting my time.

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) 1 hr VetnorsGate 1,549,439
Spanx-they're for me. 1 hr Spanx ME 2
Black Humor. NO not that black. 2 hr GenePoolDead 5
America should let all immigrants in, why not? 2 hr Rooster panties 2
last post wins! (Apr '13) 6 hr honeymylove 2,549
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 hr They cannot kill ... 10,854
Why are White men obsessed with Latina women? (Feb '10) 9 hr LuvHardCock 209

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages