BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 194598 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

#163665 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a rebuttal?
<quoted text>
No, your description.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163666 Jul 13, 2013
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>
You be a racist cracker head.
And why dat be? Splain "cracka" fors me.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163667 Jul 13, 2013
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
You can ask the question a thousand times but there will never be any evidence to support your double back theory save Z’s word. Nor is there any forensic evidence to support the notion that TM ever punched Z save Z’s word.
Gawd damn, Ground Hog Day for the seventh time in one day.
But that is not the F*CKING question. What proof do you have that Zimmerman did anything illegal to Trayvon?!?
Now, just like Wotard, either prove Zimmerman committed some sort of crime (before he used his gun), or shut the F-UP!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163668 Jul 13, 2013
Ya know, if Zimmerman is acquitted, Wotard and Pooptard will probably blame ... BUSH!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163669 Jul 13, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your description.
The Play Justice believes scatological name calling is a good substitute for a reasoned rebuttal. This is because he cannot reason.

Wimp.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a rebuttal?
Grand Birther

Brooklyn, NY

#163670 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, what exactly is the probable cause. Either spell it out or shut the f-up.


Poor Rogue Moron is not literate enough to figure it out himself.
Grand Birther

Brooklyn, NY

#163671 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But it has not established that Zimmerman attacked, or provoked, Martin in which case they can not prove he was NOT acting in self defence.
I know you do not understand that simple concept but it is the prosecutor's burden to prove GZ was NOT acting in self defense.
AGAIN, what in the F*CK did Zimmerman illegally do to cause Traytvon to attack him??? You have you azz on the wrong side of the argument!!!
Put up or shut the f-up!!!
Since when does Martin have to provoke Cowboy Zimmerman?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163672 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Ya know, if Zimmerman is acquitted, Wotard and Pooptard will probably blame ... BUSH!!!
I would blame the prosecutors for overreaching. Manslaughter/negligent homicide would have been appropriate charges.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163673 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gawd damn, Ground Hog Day for the seventh time in one day.
But that is not the F*CKING question. What proof do you have that Zimmerman did anything illegal to Trayvon?!?
Now, just like Wotard, either prove Zimmerman committed some sort of crime (before he used his gun), or shut the F-UP!!!
Probable cause does not require proof.

"A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime."

I don't see "proof" in the definition of probable cause.

Proof is what the jury will decide.

If proof were required to charge a suspect there would be little need for a trial.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163674 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
I would blame the prosecutors for overreaching. Manslaughter/negligent homicide would have been appropriate charges.
Nope, unless they can prove he was not acting in self defense, they can not convict him of jay walking!
And you still have no even tried to explain what crime GZ committed before he shot Trayvon. Zimmerman did not break his own nose, knock himself to the ground and bash his head on the side walk and Trayvon was not standing over him to help him up either!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163675 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The Play Justice believes scatological name calling is a good substitute for a reasoned rebuttal. This is because he cannot reason.
Wimp.
<quoted text>
A wimp is someone who cannot admit they're wrong. And when one feels the need to always be right, that is an indication of a vile mind. This is also a description of you. You want fries with that? NEXT!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163676 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Probable cause does not require proof.
"A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime."
I don't see "proof" in the definition of probable cause.
Proof is what the jury will decide.
If proof were required to charge a suspect there would be little need for a trial.
Ground Hog Day #8
You need "probably cause" that he was not acting in self defense to arrest him.
You need a "preponderance of the evidence" to try him.
To convict him you need "beyond any reasonable doubt".
Are you really that stupid?!?

So what proof do you have that GZ was not acting in self defence ... or that he committed another crime that start the assault!!!
Crickets playing twilight zone music!!!
Arguing with idiotards is like eating your table for diner!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163677 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But it has not established that Zimmerman attacked, or provoked, Martin in which case they can not prove he was NOT acting in self defence.
I know you do not understand that simple concept but it is the prosecutor's burden to prove GZ was NOT acting in self defense.
AGAIN, what in the F*CK did Zimmerman illegally do to cause Traytvon to attack him??? You have you azz on the wrong side of the argument!!!
Put up or shut the f-up!!!
Rougie is all over the map again. His contention has been that Zimmerman was improperly charged for lack of probable cause. I don't see proof that crime did not occur as any part of the definition of probable cause that a crime may have been committed.

As far as proving Zimmerman guilty, the prosecutor must convince the jury Zimmerman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one of the crimes he is charged with. He doesn't have to convince Rogue. If the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman's self-serving story that he was attacked by the much smaller and younger Martin, he doesn't have to prove Zimmerman did anything to cause Martin to attack him. That's really not a hard concept to comprehend. What is Rougie's problem?

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It was not established that Martin attacked Zimmerman or that Zimmerman did not physically provoke Martin. If the facts clearly supported Zimmerman the case would never have gotten to trial.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163678 Jul 13, 2013
In 2010 I went fishing off of the Flagler Beach pier and I parked my pickup truck next to where some surfers were parked. When I loaded my fishing gear I did it through my right door, I then unloaded it to go fishing and about four hours later I returned to reload it and there was a key scratch four feet long on the right side on my pickup.
The only thing I could think of was the Bush/Cheney sticker on my rear bumper. You see, if a Libtard thinks they have been insulted, they have the right to damage your car.
Trayvon did not like a creepy cracker following him so he assaulted him. And all the evidence and witnesses back up GZ's story!!!
Trayvon's racial hatred against crackers is what got Trayvon shot and killed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163679 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Rougie is all over the map again. His contention has been that Zimmerman was improperly charged for lack of probable cause. I don't see proof that crime did not occur as any part of the definition of probable cause that a crime may have been committed.
As far as proving Zimmerman guilty, the prosecutor must convince the jury Zimmerman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one of the crimes he is charged with. He doesn't have to convince Rogue. If the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman's self-serving story that he was attacked by the much smaller and younger Martin, he doesn't have to prove Zimmerman did anything to cause Martin to attack him. That's really not a hard concept to comprehend. What is Rougie's problem?
<quoted text>
The question is, what is YOUR problem?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163680 Jul 13, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
A wimp is someone who cannot admit they're wrong. And when one feels the need to always be right, that is an indication of a vile mind. This is also a description of you. You want fries with that? NEXT!
A wimp is someone whose only rebuttal is juvenile ad hominem scatological insults.

Especially coming from a "Justice" wannabe. Enjoy your fantasy world, Loser.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The Play Justice believes scatological name calling is a good substitute for a reasoned rebuttal. This is because he cannot reason.
Wimp.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#163681 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is, what is YOUR problem?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =-b5aW08ivHUXX
Now if the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman's 'victim of an attack' story why does the prosecutor have to show Zimmerman acted illegally in provoking an attack that did not occur?

I'm really curious.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Rougie is all over the map again. His contention has been that Zimmerman was improperly charged for lack of probable cause. I don't see proof that crime did not occur as any part of the definition of probable cause that a crime may have been committed.
As far as proving Zimmerman guilty, the prosecutor must convince the jury Zimmerman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one of the crimes he is charged with. He doesn't have to convince Rogue. If the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman's self-serving story that he was attacked by the much smaller and younger Martin, he doesn't have to prove Zimmerman did anything to cause Martin to attack him. That's really not a hard concept to comprehend. What is Rougie's problem?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#163682 Jul 13, 2013
Wojar,
There really is no treatment for nasal bone fractures and radiographs do nothing more than document for medical-legal purposes that there is a fracture and/or soft tissue swelling present.

But yeah, I think the GZ/TM case raises some very thorny legal issues that the judiciary needs to sift through.

And I never said GZ should get the electric chair, aka 'Old Smokey', if convicted. Which reminds me, I have a story about the electric chair and Ted Bundy if you would like to hear it. I'll post it later on maybe.
loose

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#163683 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
Of course you’ll be called a Commie and a Socialist for associating with any organization that is of the people, by the people and for the people. Ironic isn’t it?

30 min after taking a couple of Motrin I can dance all the way through that song. LOL

One of my Beatle favorites.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163684 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
A wimp is someone whose only rebuttal is juvenile ad hominem scatological insults.
Especially coming from a "Justice" wannabe. Enjoy your fantasy world, Loser.
<quoted text>
I'll make this more definitive for you. A wimp is a wojar. This makes three laws that toesap is incapable of understanding. Even when it is written in black and white right before his eyes. Maybe he can't read? He certainly can't comprehend what he reads nor does he seem to have any common sense. I'll ask again, you want fries with that? NEXT!

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 Quirky 1,263,787
Chicago One Direction concert on the 23rd! 1 hr Tristascottcom 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Earthling-1 54,323
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Mister Tonka 100,283
Sasitorn boonsin 3 hr donna 1
News Hogar Crea, regional drug rehab group, ripping ... (Apr '08) 11 hr Sergant of order 161
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 12 hr Gas Woman 70,145
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages