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

#163595 Jul 13, 2013
Sunlight Foundation com wrote:
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/...
Well dah, You Democrats had a super majority in the Senate and all it took was two Independents to get to a filibuster proof 60 vote to pass. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN voted for it in either the Senate or the House.
And get over it, Obama is NOT black. He is a half-black! You do know his mother was 100% white, don't you?!? well, I guess you are to stupid to know that.
Isn't it funny that you denounce Obama as being too conservative and then praise him for Obamacare.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163596 Jul 13, 2013
Sunlight Foundation com wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And you can't even explain that one. Do you even know what "Nazi" stands for? Translated into English it means " National Socialist German Workers' Party" (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)
Now, do you know what "Fascism" is and how it differs from Soviet-style Communism? Under Fascism the state runs all businesses but does not own them whereas under Communism the state owns and runs everything.
And you probably believe that Lincoln was a Democrat too!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163597 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>I am sorry but the prosecution need not prove anything to Rougie's satisfaction. He's not on the jury.
But we should find out soon whether or not he convinced the jury, won't we!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163598 Jul 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But you have claimed that George Zimmerman provoked him but have yet explain just what he did, that was a crime, that did provoke him.
Fact, Zimmerman was FOLLOWING him so as to keep him in sight until the police arrived. If he planned on shooting Trayvon, why was he calling the police? If he wanted to kill him, why did he wait until after Trayvon had been beating on him for 40-45 seconds? If he wanted to kill Trayvon, why did he shoot him just ONCE?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163599 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
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 ...
<quoted text>
What are you smokin'? Really, what are you smokin'? Have you ever heard of Hillary Care?
<quoted text>
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?!?
Er, hmm, Rogue, about those Republican presidents who were supposedly country club liberals...may I ask the question an eight time...? Since 1900, which Republican President was NOT a progressive country-clubber. Name one. If you can't, I can indeed picture your distress, your frustration that would account for your occasional but more and more frequent "f...ing" etc. Not ONE conservative republican president in more that 108 years (end of GWB's tenure). C'mon, be a sport, reply please.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163600 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The "SYG law" is silent on the matter of probable cause. Rougie Scatterbrain is on the WRONG PAGE again.
Nothing in the "SYG law" alters the probable cause standard, except that the defendant MAY raise the affirmative SYG defense in a preliminary hearing thereby seeking immunity from prosecution.
Did Rougie Scatterbrain read the Affidavit of Probable Cause? Of course he didn't.
Rouge is BIG TIME IGNORANT.
For a person who claims to have graduated from elementary school, you sure are stupid. READ THE LAW AGAIN!!!

776.032&#8195;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)&#8195;
(2)&#8195;A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Ya know, BIGOTS will never see the light as their bigotry blinds them. I wonder if Wojo understands what "may not arrest" means???

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163601 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can't even explain that one. Do you even know what "Nazi" stands for? Translated into English it means " National Socialist German Workers' Party" (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)
Now, do you know what "Fascism" is and how it differs from Soviet-style Communism? Under Fascism the state runs all businesses but does not own them whereas under Communism the state owns and runs everything.
And you probably believe that Lincoln was a Democrat too!
You wrote : "Under Fascism the state runs all businesses but does not own them ". &#358;rue, just like the USA from Dec 1941 to the end of WW 2. All production was controlle, with carmakers and generally big industry working almost exclusively for the war effort. And not unlike the big German companies, they made a killing. Germans stashed profits in neutral Switzerland and Sweden while American industrialists used the excessive profits to buy out Europe after the war.

You also wrote : "And you probably believe that Lincoln was a Democrat too "

He was a Republican. However, do you seriously think that a man of Lincoln's calibre would be a Republican in 2013? Do you really think that the great Lincoln would associate with the likes of Gingrich, Limbaugh, Romney, Ryan, GWB, Cheney, OMG Palin? Seriously now?

Lincoln would be a democrat. For sure.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163602 Jul 13, 2013
Corr : True, and controlled. Some kind of corrector I think.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163603 Jul 13, 2013
I've decided to change your name to Wotard as I no longer want to insult my dog, Little Wojo!

[QUOTE}wotard wrote:
<quoted text>
The "SYG law" is silent on the matter of probable cause. Rougie Scatterbrain is on the WRONG PAGE again.
Nothing in the "SYG law" alters the probable cause standard, except that the defendant MAY raise the affirmative SYG defense in a preliminary hearing thereby seeking immunity from prosecution.
Did Rougie Scatterbrain read the Affidavit of Probable Cause? Of course he didn't.
Rouge is BIG TIME IGNORANT.
For a person who claims to have graduated from elementary school, you sure are stupid. READ THE LAW AGAIN!!![/QUOTE]

776.032;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)
(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Ya know, BIGOTS will never see the light as their bigotry blinds them. I wonder if Wojo understands what "may not arrest" means???

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163604 Jul 13, 2013
But what is sad is that I have posted this link a half dozen times over the past 16 months and Wotard still does not "get it".
I have only an associates degree in Aeronautics but I get it!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163605 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But you have claimed that George Zimmerman provoked him but have yet explain just what he did, that was a crime, that did provoke him.
Fact, Zimmerman was FOLLOWING him so as to keep him in sight until the police arrived. If he planned on shooting Trayvon, why was he calling the police? If he wanted to kill him, why did he wait until after Trayvon had been beating on him for 40-45 seconds? If he wanted to kill Trayvon, why did he shoot him just ONCE?
I never ever claimed that Z provoked M. You have the wrong guy. I don't know who provoked who, I was not there, told you a hundred times. Stop making up BS. I said, clearly that M being on top of Z did not signify that M attacked Z, just that he thereafter MAY have gained the upper hand. I even gave an example, in a parable matter, but you appear as dense as the apostles who never "got it" until the 12 tongues of the Holy Spirit descended on them, OMG, yes, I had said "you may attack me and I somehow get lucky and wrestle you to the ground, on top of you. Just because I got the upper hand, does that mean you attacked me?" Again, and before the jury decides, I WILL NOT DECLARE GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, I'm not part of the jury. I never said if Z was guilty or not guilty. YOU declared him innocent because you seem to have been there with Justice ha ha LRS when confrontation took place.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#163606 Jul 13, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The "question" was rhetorical and quite lame.

Mr. Play Justice had essentially stated that the practice of permitting juries to reach a verdict on lesser included charges is not "right".

Faced with the reality of the doctrine of lesser included offenses, which is nearly universally applied in this country, he whined, "But lesser charges are not always allowed to be added, are they?"

Sorry Mr. Play Justice, the straw you were grasping has broken. The doctrine that a jury should be given the proper range of possible verdicts is settled law. Get over it.

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.)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163607 Jul 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, hmm, Rogue, about those Republican presidents who were supposedly country club liberals...may I ask the question an eight time...? Since 1900, which Republican President was NOT a progressive country-clubber. Name one. If you can't, I can indeed picture your distress, your frustration that would account for your occasional but more and more frequent "f...ing" etc. Not ONE conservative republican president in more that 108 years (end of GWB's tenure). C'mon, be a sport, reply please.
Hummm, only TWO were Progressives. They were Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. And the only Conservative was Ronald Reagan. The rest, IMHO, were Country Club RINOs.
By the way, I have said this more than several times on this forum.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#163608 Jul 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I never ever claimed that Z provoked M. You have the wrong guy. I don't know who provoked who, I was not there, told you a hundred times. Stop making up BS. I said, clearly that M being on top of Z did not signify that M attacked Z, just that he thereafter MAY have gained the upper hand. I even gave an example, in a parable matter, but you appear as dense as the apostles who never "got it" until the 12 tongues of the Holy Spirit descended on them, OMG, yes, I had said "you may attack me and I somehow get lucky and wrestle you to the ground, on top of you. Just because I got the upper hand, does that mean you attacked me?" Again, and before the jury decides, I WILL NOT DECLARE GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, I'm not part of the jury. I never said if Z was guilty or not guilty. YOU declared him innocent because you seem to have been there with Justice ha ha LRS when confrontation took place.
What proof do you have that GZ was ever on top of Trayvon? What evidence do you have that GZ ever struck Trayvon with either of his fists?
Who has the broken nose? Who had the cuts on the back of his head? Who had a wet back with grass clippings? Now, who had unjuries to his fists?
They have recodings that someone was yelling for help before Trayvon was shot for 40-45 seconds and the witness, John, said he saw Trayvon on top of GZ and it was GZ that was yelling. Sure he saw only about ten seconds but the voice on the 40-45 seconds did not change. Using simple logic, who's voice was that?
Again, we do know that for at least ten of those 40-45 seconds it was GZ's voice that was yelling as we have the one and only eye witness to confirm that. So, who was yelling the other 30-35 seconds???

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#163609 Jul 13, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.


How sad. Mr. Play Justice clings to a straw despite the fact that he never heard of the doctrine of lesser included offenses until he got his panties in a wad over the Zimmerman case.

Typical birfoon. Had Hilary won the nomination in '08 and had she been running against a conservative white republican—born in the US of only one US citizen parent—the birfoons would never even dreamed of their imaginary two-citizen-parent rule.

Birfoons recklessly believe law should be construed so as to satisfy their immediate wishes in relation to whatever current cases they are following without regard to well reasoned doctrines to the contrary. Childish.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#163610 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
I've decided to change your name to Wotard as I no longer want to insult my dog, Little Wojo!
<quoted text>
776.032;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)
(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Ya know, BIGOTS will never see the light as their bigotry blinds them. I wonder if Wojo understands what "may not arrest" means???
Huh? That was exactly my point.

I wonder if Rougie understands that probable cause means PROBABLE CAUSE.

The standard is PROBABLE CAUSE, for the fourth time.

Again:

Nothing in the "SYG law" alters the probable cause standard, except that the defendant MAY raise the affirmative SYG defense in a preliminary hearing thereby seeking immunity from prosecution.

Did Rougie Scatterbrain read the Affidavit of Probable Cause? Of course he didn't.

Rouge is BIG TIME IGNORANT.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163611 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The "question" was rhetorical and quite lame.
Mr. Play Justice had essentially stated that the practice of permitting juries to reach a verdict on lesser included charges is not "right".
Faced with the reality of the doctrine of lesser included offenses, which is nearly universally applied in this country, he whined, "But lesser charges are not always allowed to be added, are they?"
Sorry Mr. Play Justice, the straw you were grasping has broken. The doctrine that a jury should be given the proper range of possible verdicts is settled law. Get over it.
<quoted text>
Does the truth ever come out of your mouth? I said, it just doesn't seem right and then asked for comments. I also said that allowing lesser charges could be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the particular case. I whined? LMAO! Since toesap is unable to answer my question, I'll ask someone else. WHO DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT LESSER CHARGES ARE ALLOWED? Go back to playing Igor in your Granny's basement, toesap. You are the armpit of North America!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#163612 Jul 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
How sad. Mr. Play Justice clings to a straw despite the fact that he never heard of the doctrine of lesser included offenses until he got his panties in a wad over the Zimmerman case.
Typical birfoon. Had Hilary won the nomination in '08 and had she been running against a conservative white republican—born in the US of only one US citizen parent—the birfoons would never even dreamed of their imaginary two-citizen-parent rule.
Birfoons recklessly believe law should be construed so as to satisfy their immediate wishes in relation to whatever current cases they are following without regard to well reasoned doctrines to the contrary. Childish.
Do you get this childish shyt from a comic book? Boy, do I feel for the people who have to be around you!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#163613 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
I've decided to change your name to Wotard as I no longer want to insult my dog, Little Wojo!
<quoted text>
776.032;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)
(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Ya know, BIGOTS will never see the light as their bigotry blinds them. I wonder if Wojo understands what "may not arrest" means???
What a scatterbrain.
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
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!!!
Now please, Rouge, read 776.032 again and point to the "preponderance of evidence" standard. 776.032 specifically states the standard as PROBABLE CAUSE.

Angela Corey properly submitted an Affidavit of Probable Cause per the standard.

In criminal law, probable cause requires "A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime."[1]

Reasonable ground is NOT preponderance of evidence.

Face it Rouge, you are FLAT OUT WRONG.

__________
[1] Black's Law Dictionary,(9th ed. 2009).

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#163614 Jul 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What proof do you have that GZ was ever on top of Trayvon? What evidence do you have that GZ ever struck Trayvon with either of his fists?
Who has the broken nose? Who had the cuts on the back of his head? Who had a wet back with grass clippings? Now, who had unjuries to his fists?
They have recodings that someone was yelling for help before Trayvon was shot for 40-45 seconds and the witness, John, said he saw Trayvon on top of GZ and it was GZ that was yelling. Sure he saw only about ten seconds but the voice on the 40-45 seconds did not change. Using simple logic, who's voice was that?
Again, we do know that for at least ten of those 40-45 seconds it was GZ's voice that was yelling as we have the one and only eye witness to confirm that. So, who was yelling the other 30-35 seconds???
Look into a mirror? Are you foaming at the mouth? It was said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Was said, I repeat, not by me. I never mentioned fists, or cuts or bruises either way. What is this messianic fervour of yours, taking sides? I'm totally indifferent to the verdict, guilty or not guilty, let justice run its course. Why do you have to make up what went on?

Zimmerman is obviously not Einstein material, to say the least. My only guess, and it's just that, a guess, is that he may be a gun nut who had always always looked for an excuse to use it, a boy-man who never got over his cowboy-Indian play days, a bit like you, and loved to pack a gun but got frustrated never having an occasion to use it. All that is a guess, not a statement like the ones you make incessantly.

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) 21 min the firm 1,143,961
last post wins! (Apr '13) 39 min Hatti_Hollerand 392
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 54 min Hatti_Hollerand 4,871
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr SpaceBlues 48,574
World's Best Photo Art 1 hr WOW 1
amerikkkan gov bans bakesales 1 hr hands on AR 2
Black car driver shot thru window overnight 4 hr hands on AR 3
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 8 hr primetime justice 98,694
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 2:01 pm PST

NFL 2:01PM
Shaun Phillips claimed by Indianapolis Colts
NBC Sports 2:31 PM
Kyle Fuller, Riley Reiff and Reggie Bush all questionable for Turkey Day
ESPN 2:35 PM
Cardinals' Bush: No 'fair shake' with Bears
NBC Sports 3:55 PM
Will Lions bad offense or Bears bad defense step up?
NBC Sports 4:15 PM
Washington benches RGIII, Colt McCoy to start