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

#163574 Jul 13, 2013
This is an example of how the Left race bait. Salon uses just TWO cases and comes to the assumption that Florida's SYG law is .... RACIST when it is Salon that is RACIST!!!
But you Libtards will gulp down their poison.

“Stand your ground” law helps white defendants a lot more than black ones, JUN 11, 2013

As George Zimmerman's trial begins, the stories of two very different shooters show the inequality behind the law
BY KATIE HALPER

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/stand_your_gr...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163575 Jul 13, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "Does the first amendment give you the right to wear Hitler t-shirts emblazoned with swastikas? NO."
I hate to disagree with someone with whom I agree so often, but the First Amendment does do precisely that. People can and do wear t-shirts emblazoned with Nazi swastikas (Buddhist ones go in the other direction), and these days people do not seem to take much notice of it.
Of course, the First Amendment grants only the legal right to wear those t-shirts. I still think wearing Nazi ones (not Buddhist ones) it is immoral, but that is my opinion.
In any case, the First Amendment is damn strong---allowing only such laws against total uncontrolled speech as preventing calling "Fire" in a crowded theater and libel laws.
Re: "two men fornicating? Would the first amendment allow that?"
Pornography is one of the exceptions, but it is in a gray area, and the definition of pornography changes---and changes rapidly. The novel Ulysses and Lady Chatterly's Lover were once considered pornographic. The actual depiction of people having sex carried into a public place would still probably be considered pornographic---but perhaps in 20 years or 50 will no longer be.
(There are temples in India that show the act quite explicitly, and the images are outside the temple and facing the street.Of course, that is heterosexual sex--but homosexual might well come too, in time.)
You're right. In a certain manner, yes. But, as I pointed out to Rogue, does the first amendment allow one to wear a t-shirt showing two men, stark naked, frontal nudity, making love on a t-shirt? Your first amendment, like our Constitution that grants free expression, has limits and, as per the bible, as per the constitution, as per law, requires some form of interpretation. I still don't think that wearing a t shirt showing Hitler goose-stepping with a swastika in the background and a rejoicing scene of Jews being marched to the gas chamber would be allowed in public, and much less in school, in the workplace or in church.

It's nice that you and I can disagree civilly. So rare here.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163576 Jul 13, 2013
Yep, another Libtard gets pranked. It is sad that a news reporter read this without thinking about it. It is sooooo obviously a prank, she had to be stupid to read it.
And on a Fox affiliated station to boot.

KTVU "Ho Lee Fuk" Prank!(Original)
&fe ature=player_embedded

Published on Jul 12, 2013
KTVU Pranked With Fake Asiana Flight 214 Pilot Names | "Ho Lee Fuk" Prank!-'Ho Lee Fuk': Someone Pranked San Francisco TV Station Into Reporting Fabricated Names Of Asiana Pilots - A local Fox affiliate, the San Francisco powerhouse station KTVU, is dealing with the fallout of a major error on Friday. During their noon broadcast, a report on the deadly Asiana Airlines crash took a turn for the unintentionally offensive when they broadcast the names of pilots in charge of that flight. The mangled Asian-sounding names were, in fact, thinly-disguised expletives mocking the sentiments expressed by the crash victims and their families.

The supposed names of the crash victims broadcast on KTVU included "Sum Ting Wong," "Ho Lee Fuk," and "Bang Ding Ow."

A KTVU anchor later apologized for the error. She said that the names were inaccurate in spite of the fact that a National Transpiration Safety Board spokesperson confirming them.

Watch the original clip below (with apology clip added at the end), via KTVU:

"Tori Campbell"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163577 Jul 13, 2013
But is was just not the TV station that got pranked, it was the NTSB that also got pranked!
But is was probably an "inside" joke in the NTSB which means they are not racial sensitive. Do they need more "education"?

The NTSB also issued its apology late Friday afternoon for "inaccurate and offensive names that were mistakenly confirmed as those of the pilots."

"A summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft," its statement said. "The NTSB does not release or confirm the names of crewmembers or people involved in transportation accidents to the media. We work hard to ensure that only appropriate factual information regarding an investigation is released and deeply regret today's incident. Appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that such a serious error is not repeated."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163578 Jul 13, 2013
When I was flying a Medevac mission in Hawaii we went to the scene of an industrial accident in which some heavy equipment over turned on a worker.
He had a broken left femur, a cut in his penis and his left testicle was hanging out of his scrotum. My medic commented, "Well I guess he won't be getting anything (sex) for a while!"
It is the way people relieve stress. It is not like a cop who shot someone eight times, reloaded and shot him another eight times when he did not have to.
Or some soldiers pissing on the corps of a dead enemy combatant!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163579 Jul 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. In a certain manner, yes. But, as I pointed out to Rogue, does the first amendment allow one to wear a t-shirt showing two men, stark naked, frontal nudity, making love on a t-shirt? Your first amendment, like our Constitution that grants free expression, has limits and, as per the bible, as per the constitution, as per law, requires some form of interpretation. I still don't think that wearing a t shirt showing Hitler goose-stepping with a swastika in the background and a rejoicing scene of Jews being marched to the gas chamber would be allowed in public, and much less in school, in the workplace or in church.
It's nice that you and I can disagree civilly. So rare here.
Our USSC has already ruled on the pornography issue!
And they have already ruled on issues like the Hitler tee shirt you described above. And they have also ruled on "NRA" window decals, guns on shirts, etc.
Yes, they had a police officer notice a vehicle with a "NRA" decal and used that as probable cause to do a no warrant search of the man's car. I don't think it ever got to the USSC as I think a lower court ruled the decal was not probable cause.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163580 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
If Obama is to conservative for you, you are a kommie!
Sunlight Foundation com wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth be told Obama is center/right closer to Reagan/Bush and Bill Clinton.
You really need to stop believing the corporate minions on TV and Radio.
I'm sure your looking forward to 2016, I am not.
Americans will be forced to choose between Jeb "Corporate" Bush VS Hillary "Corporate" Clinton.
Most Americans will be duped again believing one is conservative and the other is liberal.
THE GUNS? THE GAYS? THE ABORTION? ECT. ECT. ECT.
While the prostitutes in Congress with all the Radio/TV talking air heads laugh all the way to the bank.
Again you have just proven that you are a Karl Marx Kommie!
Obama is closer to a Hitler Fascist/Socialist than being any form of Conservative.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163581 Jul 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
We have the equivalent of the 1st amendment, and if you care to consult it, it is as strict if not more so than yours. Having said that, I did say Hitler Swastika, not Buddhist swastika. When did I say Castro and Che t-shirts were okay? You keep trying to lay things on me I never did or said. Nice try.
I have no problem with Castro or Che t-shirts or any form of Swastika. At least I know who and what they are.
And you claimed yesterday that I slammed Chelsea Clinton when I did not. Getting a little hypocritical, aren't you!

“Reduce immigration levels”

Since: Dec 06

Kings Mountain, NC

#163582 Jul 13, 2013
Sheriff Joe Obama ID Fraud Investigator In High-Level Meetings In
&fe ature=player_embedded

BREAKING! World Tribune Reports! Obama's BC is 100% FAKE!
http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/07/breakin...

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#163583 Jul 13, 2013
"Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear mongering, and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House - and from President Obama who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught"

New York Times

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163584 Jul 13, 2013
loose cannon wrote:
Jacques,
It boggles the mind to think that Obama could have kept his ballooning spy network under wraps forever.
It is a permanent stain on Lady Liberty, and he knows it and so does everyone else.
loose
But they don't care as Obama is the Prez. If it was Mitt, they would be yelling like scalded dogs.
But I am sure that both you and I were upset about Bush's programs which were not nearly as intrusive as Obama's is.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163585 Jul 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
He probably isn't. But then I'll leave his fate to the jury and the judge, I was not there when Martin was shot. Appears Rogue and Justice ha ha LRS were there, though. They saw it all.
I know the prosecution has not proven their case. The first thing they MUST prove is that he was NOT acting in self defense.
And you Libtards have repeatedly failed to prove it either. You have called George Zimmerman a racist when the facts prove he is not .....but Trayvon was which was probably his motive for assaulting him.
AGAIN, what crime did George Zimmerman commit before he used deadly force??? And none of you have answered that question and neither has the prosecutor. The judge should have dismissed the case when the prosecutor rested his case.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163586 Jul 13, 2013
loose cannon wrote:
"Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear mongering, and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House - and from President Obama who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught"
New York Times
That is how Libtards justify their misconduct. They claim the Republicans did it, so it is okay for them to do it. Like RomneyCare they claim was a Conservative issue but not one Republican in the Massachusetts legislature voted for it. And Romney could not veto it as the vote was a super majority vote.
Ya know, the Libtards would never have called it RomneyCare if it was something they did not like ..... but they did not want to take credit for!
And when you bring their lies forward, it is

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163587 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know the prosecution has not proven their case. The first thing they MUST prove is that he was NOT acting in self defense.
And you Libtards have repeatedly failed to prove it either. You have called George Zimmerman a racist when the facts prove he is not .....but Trayvon was which was probably his motive for assaulting him.
AGAIN, what crime did George Zimmerman commit before he used deadly force??? And none of you have answered that question and neither has the prosecutor. The judge should have dismissed the case when the prosecutor rested his case.
I never said any of the above, racist and all that...and unlike you, Rogue and Justice ha ha LRS, I WAS NOT THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED.
Sunlight Foundation com

West Sayville, NY

#163589 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is how Libtards justify their misconduct. They claim the Republicans did it, so it is okay for them to do it. Like RomneyCare they claim was a Conservative issue but not one Republican in the Massachusetts legislature voted for it. And Romney could not veto it as the vote was a super majority vote.
Ya know, the Libtards would never have called it RomneyCare if it was something they did not like ..... but they did not want to take credit for!
And when you bring their lies forward, it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =K8E_zMLCRNgXX
I have already proven to you that it was a republican health care plan passed by Obama and his corporate Democrats.

NOT ONE LIBERAL BACK IN 1993 ON THIS LIST.

NUMBER 1. Liberal/Progressives wanted Single Payer Medicare For All.

NUMBER 2. At least a Public Option.

NUMBER 3. LIBERALS LOST BIG TIME!

==========

Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan
Feb 23, 2010 / http://tinyurl.com/amcg2tz
In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."
Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/...

==========

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans
October 1, 1989 / http://tinyurl.com/8xb6rd9
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assu...

---------

Sen Bennett, Robert F.[UT]- 11/22/1993

Sen Bond, Christopher S.[MO]- 11/22/1993

Sen Boren, David L.[OK]- 5/17/1994

Sen Cohen, William S.[ME]- 11/22/1993

Sen Danforth, John C.[MO]- 11/22/1993

Sen Dole, Robert J.[KS]- 11/22/1993

Sen Domenici, Pete V.[NM]- 11/22/1993

Sen Durenberger, Dave [MN]- 11/22/1993

Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC]- 11/22/1993

Sen Gorton, Slade [WA]- 11/22/1993

Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA]- 11/22/1993

Sen Hatch, Orrin G.[UT]- 11/22/1993

Sen Hatfield, Mark O.[OR]- 11/22/1993

Sen Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [KS]- 11/22/1993

Sen Kerrey, J. Robert [NE]- 5/17/1994

Sen Lugar, Richard G.[IN]- 11/22/1993

Sen Simpson, Alan K.[WY]- 11/22/1993

Sen Specter, Arlen [PA]- 11/22/1993

Sen Stevens, Ted [AK]- 11/22/1993

Sen Warner, John [VA]- 11/22/1993

Sen Brown, Hank [CO]- 11/22/1993(withdrawn - 10/4/1994)
Sunlight Foundation com

West Sayville, NY

#163590 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
If Obama is to conservative for you, you are a kommie!
<quoted text>
Again you have just proven that you are a Karl Marx Kommie!
Obama is closer to a Hitler Fascist/Socialist than being any form of Conservative.
You continue to be brainwashed by Rightwing propaganda, speculation and conjecture.

BTW: Hitler and the NAZIS were much closer to the Rightwing Republican philosophy.

Today's Republicans are far, far, far, Right of Ronald Reagan, and today's Democrats are much more like Reagan and the Bush's.
Sunlight Foundation com

West Sayville, NY

#163591 Jul 13, 2013
Who's Blocking Health Care Reform Now? Blue Dogs? Senate Dems? House Progressives? Or the White House Itself?/ Obama is not liberal
09/02/2009 / http://tinyurl.com/ksxq3e
Anyone who can add knows Republicans are not blocking universal health care. The performances of Republican teabaggers at a few town halls notwithstanding, there are just not enough Republicans in the House and Senate to block anything. The president and his party can roll over Republican opposition any time they want to.
Blue dog Democrats aren't to blame for blocking the White House health care bills either. The political careers of many House blue dogs are the creation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dispensed them bags of corporate cash to win primary elections against left leaning Democrats. The interests that owned Rahm, and still do, own his successor at DCCC, so the blue dogs are White House puppies it can rein it any time it chooses.
If progressives like Donna Edwards can be blamed for blocking health care reform, it's only because they are choosing to follow the White House lead and settle for “health insurance reform” instead. The White House itself, and our First Black President are the biggest political obstacles to achieving health care for every American, along with the corporate media which controls the public debate.
http://blackagendareport.com/...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163592 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is how Libtards justify their misconduct. They claim the Republicans did it, so it is okay for them to do it. Like RomneyCare they claim was a Conservative issue but not one Republican in the Massachusetts legislature voted for it. And Romney could not veto it as the vote was a super majority vote.
Ya know, the Libtards would never have called it RomneyCare if it was something they did not like ..... but they did not want to take credit for!
And when you bring their lies forward, it is http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
Sunlight Foundation com wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already proven to you that it was a republican health care plan passed by Obama and his corporate Democrats.
NOT ONE LIBERAL BACK IN 1993 ON THIS LIST.
NUMBER 1. Liberal/Progressives wanted Single Payer Medicare For All.
NUMBER 2. At least a Public Option.
NUMBER 3. LIBERALS LOST BIG TIME!
What are you smokin'? Really, what are you smokin'? Have you ever heard of Hillary Care?
Clinton health care plan of 1993
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_c...
You Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress in 1993 and the Republicans proposed their vertion as a blocking move knowing full well it never would have passed.
Tell us Tootzie, did the Clinton health care plan passed either House? Remember both Houses where controlled by you Democrats and you could not get enough Democrat votes to pass either House.
What a ditz you are. You are such an idiot you have zero knowledge of how Congress works and seem to think Obama is some sort of conservative?!?
wojar

Bristol, CT

#163593 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know the prosecution has not proven their case. The first thing they MUST prove is that he was NOT acting in self defense.
And you Libtards have repeatedly failed to prove it either. You have called George Zimmerman a racist when the facts prove he is not .....but Trayvon was which was probably his motive for assaulting him.
AGAIN, what crime did George Zimmerman commit before he used deadly force??? And none of you have answered that question and neither has the prosecutor. The judge should have dismissed the case when the prosecutor rested his case.
I am sorry but the prosecution need not prove anything to Rougie's satisfaction. He's not on the jury.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163594 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
Prime example of "moving the goal posts".
<quoted text>
Mr. Play Justice has essentially stated that the practice of permitting juries to reach a verdict on lesser included charges is not "right".
Now he moves the goal post, and quite ineffectually.
<quoted text>
And because sometimes courts do not allow instruction of the jury on lesser included offenses **some of the time** that means the practice is improper **all of the time**?
What is the rational basis for that premise?
"[I]t is settled that a jury should be given the entire range of possible verdicts in a case in which the evidence warrants the giving of the lesser included offenses,[and] it follows that defenses that are supported by a reasonable construction of the evidence should be given along with those same lesser charges." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 588 (1990).
But the Play Justice disagrees (because of the Zimmerman case, which he will vehemently deny.)
You do know what a question mark is for, correct? That question mark means I was asking a question, nothing else. I should have known better than to ask you. My bad.

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) 3 min shinningelectr0n 1,143,580
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 13 min primetime justice 98,684
My true thoughts about this song. 17 min Roy Orbison 1
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 21 min JOEL 70,612
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 22 min Patriot AKA Bozo 48,513
Boy, 15, among four people wounded in shootings... 1 hr reality is a crutch 1
Barry knew Goober before he did'nt know Goober 2 hr KeepUpGoodWork 6
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:09 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:09AM
2014 Week 13 Fantasy Football Quarterback Rankings
NBC Sports 9:38 AM
Colts' practice squad adds Griff Whalen, sprinter Jeff Demps
Bleacher Report10:47 AM
Can Bears Emulate Pats' Successful Gameplan vs. Lions?
Bleacher Report12:46 PM
5 Bold Predictions for Washington Redskins' Week 13 Matchup
Bleacher Report 2:37 PM
Cards Sign Veteran RB Michael Bush