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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

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 ...

Comments (Page 7,195)

Showing posts 143,881 - 143,900 of174,457
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163600
Jul 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163602
Jul 13, 2013
 
Corr : True, and controlled. Some kind of corrector I think.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163615
Jul 13, 2013
 
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163616
Jul 13, 2013
 
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
More comic book BS from Chester Cheetah.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163617
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???
Hopefully Rouge now understands what 'probable cause' means. He might also take a closer look at 776.032 and notice where it says that a court finds if a defendant is immune from prosecution under "SYG". The arrest and filing of charges conform to the probable cause standard. Immunity per 776.012, 776.013, and 776.031 is decided according to the preponderance of evidence in a hearing before a court of law.

It is not decided by the arresting officer or a prosecutor.

Zimmerman was properly arrested and charged under the applicable standard.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#163618
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???
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And you have a read comprehension problem. They can not arrest him without probable cause that he was not acting in self defense. Soooo, what was their probable cause? Following Trayvon while talking to a police dispatcher? That is not a crime. Looking like a "creepy cracker"? That is not a crime on the part of GZ but it is a motive for Trayvon to assault him! There is ZERO evidence that GZ committed any crime!!!
And Angela Corey filed a false affidavit with the judge to get the arrest warrant which makes the arrest warrant invalid. Both Angela Corey and the judge that signed it should be charged, impeached and disbarred!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 143,881 - 143,900 of174,457
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

35 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 25 min shinningelectr0n 1,078,384
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 25 min FACT 67,856
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 37 min andet1987 4,543
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 40 min andet1987 455
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr JOEL COOL DUDE 68,357
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr Mister Tonka 97,511
Anti-Jewish leaflets: Anti-Semitic hate message... 4 hr Guess what 6
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 22 at 8:55PM CDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••