BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 194316 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.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#164016 Jul 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
When Michelle Obama took her family, less Barack, to Spain for a vacation she swung by and visited the Spanish royal family for less than an hour so the WHOLE TRIP became an official trip!!!
I know a guy who flies from Jacksonville to LA about every three months and he takes his wife too. They fly out on a Friday to LAS VEAGAS and stay there until Monday morning. They then fly into LA, do 3-4 hours of business and then fly home. The entire trip to include the stop in Las Vegas is a TAX WRITE-OFF.
Ya know, when I was in the Army, if I did that, I would have to pay my wife's way and the extra days and nights and no tax write-offs either.
The wife of the president, ANY president, has a right to holidays and travel. And like it or not, when she visits another country, it is official. Now tell us, Rogue, frankly, should the spouse of a president, and I repeat, ANY president, travel for holiday purpose on COMMERCIAL flights? Should she wait in line at the ticket counter and go through security and ppt control? Really? And, should she get in the plane like any other passenger? Really? What about, well, never mind HER safety , what about the safety of all the other passengers, what with such a target for any tin pot terrorist. She and her children could be killed, but so could over 200 other passengers. And also, minor inconvenience, should she be allowed to be harassed by paparazzi and other freaks? Can you imagine the bedlam at the airport as her taxi, yes , her taxi, because I suppose you would not like it if she used a gov't limousine, arrived at the airport curb?

Yes, someone should raise the shrink alarm. You are one piece of material.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#164017 Jul 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Why is it that it is always the loony-left who burn American flags. Pick a better country and move there!!!
Zimmerman Protesters Burn American Flag! Oakland, Trayvon Martin Protests
Published on Jul 15, 2013
George Zimmerman Protesters in Oakland Burn American Flag!- About a hundred of the most determined demonstrators remained after Sunday's Zimmerman protests to block Broadway in front of Oakland City Hall, setting an American flag on fire in the intersection.- George Zimmerman Verdict Not Guilty in Murder of Trayvon Martin. Protests and Riots in Oakland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4u5lgGBJzuIXX
That's about right for Oakland.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#164018 Jul 15, 2013
Jacques,
The not guilty verdict reached by the jury is not only absolute and final, it strongly implies that Trayvon used force against GZ.
The case should have gone to a Grand Jury, where evidence says it would have stopped.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#164019 Jul 15, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to come back on this, but do tell us how you know he assaulted Zimmerman. He may or may have not, I have no idea, I WAS NOT THERE like YOU were. Did you tape it? Yes, do present the proof that M assaulted Z. And don't tell us, please, that because M was on top on the ground, he was the aggressor. That could mean Martin got the upper hand. Tell us exactly what happened, you are so sure.
But unlike you, and for me and most "libtards" (Rogue, tm reg'd), it's over, the jury has ruled, case closed.
Okay, there are THREE points.
One, witness John saw Trayvon on top of KZ and said it was KZ who was the one screaming.
Next, recorded over a phone to 911 the SAME scream continued for 40-45 seconds and did not change voice which means the ONLY voice was GZ's.
Next, GZ had the broken nose and cuts to his head and a wet back with grass clippings while Trayvon had no injuries except to his hands and the gun shot wound. Using normal logic, GZ did not hurt himself which means Trayvon must have.
To prove that GZ did not have the right to us self defence you have to prove that GZ started the assault and there is no evidence that he did. All the evidence and eyewitness says Trayvon did!!
And Trayvon's motive, well, he didn't like creepy azz crackers (which makes it a racial hate crime on the part of Tryvon).
Assault is a crime and Trayvon created the ONLY crime that night. The jury has ruled it was self defence and the jury would not have done that if they were convinced that GZ assaulted Trayvon, get over it!!!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#164020 Jul 15, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Still crying like a butt-sore loser, huh? Figures.
Please explain how I cry like a butt-sore loser. I said he'd probably walk (you did not acknowledge I wrote it, yet called me a liar - apologies coming?). I've said yesterday and today "case closed, carry on, etc a number of times)...strange sore loser. Am I as sore as you were Nov 7 following the presidential ballot? You called it FRAUD, even though Obama had a 6.5 million vote majority. SORE LOSER. LOSER. Did I criticize the prosecution, did I criticize the defence, did I criticize the jury, did I criticize the judge? Did I criticize the court clerk, the court stenographer, the court policemen? Did I call the whole thing a fraud?

What a sore loser you are. Never mind sore. What a loser you are.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#164021 Jul 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Here is a classic case of Libtardian rage. These three BLACK guys do not like this white guy's opinion, so they beat the shit out of him!!!
<quoted text>
Libtards are incapable of carrying on an intellectually honest discussion without assaulting the person they disagree with.
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe, as per your last posts, that f...king this and f...king that is what one would call an "intellectually-honest discussion?"

Rogue Scholar or wrote:
Do you think beating the crap out of someone is engaging in an "intellectually-honest discussion?"
And I am sick and tired of you claiming that following someone is in anyway unlawful. Conversing with you is like eating a table for breakfast!
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe, as per your last posts, that f...king this and f...king that is what one would call an "intellectually-honest discussion?"
<quoted text>
But Jacqueau still thinks, that following someone, or saying the f-word, is ground to assault them. Because that is what Libtards do.
But they expect the victim to just lie their and take the beating not knowing if the guy will stop before he is dead or seriously injured.
And you peoples still have not figured out why blacks make up only 13% of our population but create about half of all violent crimes. It is because of the NAACP and other black hate groups like the New Black Panthers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =DDb2byj74oYXX
And what is sad is that you Libtards do not see the racial hate in these people. They are just as bad as the KKK and the Adrian Brotherhood. Racism is racism no matter what the color of the racist.
To quote you, Rogue, answer the f...king question. Can you do that instead of rambling on incoherently?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#164022 Jul 15, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
The wife of the president, ANY president, has a right to holidays and travel. And like it or not, when she visits another country, it is official. Now tell us, Rogue, frankly, should the spouse of a president, and I repeat, ANY president, travel for holiday purpose on COMMERCIAL flights? Should she wait in line at the ticket counter and go through security and ppt control? Really? And, should she get in the plane like any other passenger? Really? What about, well, never mind HER safety , what about the safety of all the other passengers, what with such a target for any tin pot terrorist. She and her children could be killed, but so could over 200 other passengers. And also, minor inconvenience, should she be allowed to be harassed by paparazzi and other freaks? Can you imagine the bedlam at the airport as her taxi, yes , her taxi, because I suppose you would not like it if she used a gov't limousine, arrived at the airport curb?
Yes, someone should raise the shrink alarm. You are one piece of material.
No, it is not official unless they make it official. by stopping at the Spanish royal family for less than an hour accomplished that.
Just like my friend and his business trips. His wife acts as his secretary so it makes there whole trip to LA, to include the stop at Las Vegas, as business trip and it is a 100% tax write-off.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#164023 Jul 15, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
The wife of the president, ANY president, has a right to holidays and travel. And like it or not, when she visits another country, it is official. Now tell us, Rogue, frankly, should the spouse of a president, and I repeat, ANY president, travel for holiday purpose on COMMERCIAL flights? Should she wait in line at the ticket counter and go through security and ppt control? Really? And, should she get in the plane like any other passenger? Really? What about, well, never mind HER safety , what about the safety of all the other passengers, what with such a target for any tin pot terrorist. She and her children could be killed, but so could over 200 other passengers. And also, minor inconvenience, should she be allowed to be harassed by paparazzi and other freaks? Can you imagine the bedlam at the airport as her taxi, yes , her taxi, because I suppose you would not like it if she used a gov't limousine, arrived at the airport curb?
Yes, someone should raise the shrink alarm. You are one piece of material.
You can't help but make an even bigger twit of yourself, can you? BTW, have you ever made a sound and legitimate point? I haven't seen one from you. Just BS and twisted perversions!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#164024 Jul 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why was John F. Kerry released from his Navy Reserve commitment? He only served four and a half of his six year commitment, so why was he released early? Was it because he was COURT-MARTIALED and given a DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE???
Or was it because he had grown three legs (and Navy uniforms only allow for two). Or was it because the men on his ship could not stand his whistling? Or was it because the Navy let him go early to attend school or run for Congress?

The difference between the possibility of a court martial being the cause and whistling or three legs being the cause is that if you there is a court martial, there are RECORDS of their being a court martial. And if no one has found such records for Kerry, the chance of their being a secret court martial or all the records of one having been scrapped are slim to none.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#164025 Jul 15, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
The wife of the president, ANY president, has a right to holidays and travel. And like it or not, when she visits another country, it is official. Now tell us, Rogue, frankly, should the spouse of a president, and I repeat, ANY president, travel for holiday purpose on COMMERCIAL flights? Should she wait in line at the ticket counter and go through security and ppt control? Really? And, should she get in the plane like any other passenger? Really? What about, well, never mind HER safety , what about the safety of all the other passengers, what with such a target for any tin pot terrorist. She and her children could be killed, but so could over 200 other passengers. And also, minor inconvenience, should she be allowed to be harassed by paparazzi and other freaks? Can you imagine the bedlam at the airport as her taxi, yes , her taxi, because I suppose you would not like it if she used a gov't limousine, arrived at the airport curb?
Yes, someone should raise the shrink alarm. You are one piece of material.
But she was not on a commercial flight. She was on Air Force One Foxtrot. Do you know what USAF 1F is? The suffix "F" denotes "Family" and to ATC (Air Traffic Control, they are Air Force (or Marine) One Foxtrot!

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#164026 Jul 15, 2013
Jacques,
In a perfect world the First Lady would take the train.
loose

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#164027 Jul 15, 2013
Now, can any of you Libtards tell us what model of helicopter this is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sea_King_VH...

Army One
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Army One is the callsign of any United States Army aircraft carrying the President of the United States. From 1957 until 1976, this was usually an Army helicopter transporting the President. Prior to 1976, responsibility for helicopter transportation of the President was divided between the Army and the U.S. Marine Corps until the Marine Corps was given the sole responsibility of transporting the President by helicopter.

Wherever Army One flies, it is met on the ground by at least one soldier in full dress uniform.[citation needed] An Army aircraft carrying the Vice President is designated Army Two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_One

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#164028 Jul 15, 2013
It's a Carson S-61. I know, I know, it was a Sikorsky S-61 but they bought the aircraft "type" from Sikorsky so now it is a Carson S-61. If you need a part for your S-61, you have to buy it from Carson.
http://www.carsonhelicopters.com/

Sikorsky also sold the S-64 Skycrane to Erickson and it is now the Erickson Air-Crane.
http://www.ericksonaircrane.com/

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#164029 Jul 15, 2013
Remember the DC-9? The DC-9 was made by Douglas who merged with McDonald and the DC-9 became the MD80/88. And then McDonald-Douglas merged with Boeing and it became the Boeing B717.
The only thing, there was another B717 which is the C/KC-135s.
Yea, they had the Boeing 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 and the 787 but they also had the 717 which was a narrow-body 707 for the military.
So you have one B717 with four engines on the wing while another has two engines on the tail. Most confusing!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#164030 Jul 15, 2013
And they have three Chinooks. The Boeing-Vertol BV-114, the BV-234 and the BV-414. Only the BV-234 is approved by the FAA for commercial purposes.
The BV-114 = CH-47A
The BV-234 = CH-47 B/C and
The BV-414 = CH-47 D and subsequent models

I am FAA type rated in the BV-234.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#164031 Jul 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Why is it that it is always the loony-left who burn American flags. Pick a better country and move there!!!
Zimmerman Protesters Burn American Flag! Oakland, Trayvon Martin Protests
Published on Jul 15, 2013
George Zimmerman Protesters in Oakland Burn American Flag!- About a hundred of the most determined demonstrators remained after Sunday's Zimmerman protests to block Broadway in front of Oakland City Hall, setting an American flag on fire in the intersection.- George Zimmerman Verdict Not Guilty in Murder of Trayvon Martin. Protests and Riots in Oakland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4u5lgGBJzuIXX
What is worse, Rogue, burning the American flag or a brawny WWE wrassler wearing a brief star-spangled speedo, with one of the stars right on his crotch? Isn't burning the flag the only way to retire a worn one?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#164032 Jul 15, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how I cry like a butt-sore loser. I said he'd probably walk (you did not acknowledge I wrote it, yet called me a liar - apologies coming?). I've said yesterday and today "case closed, carry on, etc a number of times)...strange sore loser. Am I as sore as you were Nov 7 following the presidential ballot? You called it FRAUD, even though Obama had a 6.5 million vote majority. SORE LOSER. LOSER. Did I criticize the prosecution, did I criticize the defence, did I criticize the jury, did I criticize the judge? Did I criticize the court clerk, the court stenographer, the court policemen? Did I call the whole thing a fraud?
What a sore loser you are. Never mind sore. What a loser you are.
Dip, I asked for a post number. That's calling someone a liar? Maybe to you but not to the rest of world. The voter fraud convictions stand. Check Ohio if you're interested. In fact, just do a google search for "Obama voter fraud" and you'll find plenty. Hard for you to admit the truth? Must be a vile mind lurking in the darkness of the abyss inside your head. Who cares who you criticized? Means nothing. Hey, do you ever let out an internal scream and wait to hear the echos bouncing around in your head? Butt-sore loser. Run like a scalded-azz ape, spanky.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#164033 Jul 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, there are THREE points.
One, witness John saw Trayvon on top of KZ and said it was KZ who was the one screaming.
Next, recorded over a phone to 911 the SAME scream continued for 40-45 seconds and did not change voice which means the ONLY voice was GZ's.
Next, GZ had the broken nose and cuts to his head and a wet back with grass clippings while Trayvon had no injuries except to his hands and the gun shot wound. Using normal logic, GZ did not hurt himself which means Trayvon must have.
To prove that GZ did not have the right to us self defence you have to prove that GZ started the assault and there is no evidence that he did. All the evidence and eyewitness says Trayvon did!!
And Trayvon's motive, well, he didn't like creepy azz crackers (which makes it a racial hate crime on the part of Tryvon).
Assault is a crime and Trayvon created the ONLY crime that night. The jury has ruled it was self defence and the jury would not have done that if they were convinced that GZ assaulted Trayvon, get over it!!!
You are not solely pro-white, anti-black and racist to the hilt, you are dumb. Doesn't help make your point, does it? I told you a hundred times that because Z was on the bottom and M on top, THAT DOES NOT MEAN M INSTIGATED it. And sure Zimmerman was screaming his head off, 155-lbd Martin was beating the living sh*t out of 210-lb martial arts expert Zimmerman. Again, for the, hmm, 8th or 9th time, example only : I jump, attack you. You fight back, wrestle me to the ground, on top of me (ewwww). Does that mean you aggressed me? You just don't get it, do you?

I repeat, fact he was on top of Z DOES NOT MEAN HE ATTACKED. Not at all. And, again, I was not there, YOU were not there. Stop saying M attacked Z because M was on top and Z was screaming. What does that prove? I don't know who aggressed who, I was not present. News for you, YOU don't know who aggressed who, YOU WERE NOT THERE.

Case I closed. I predicted he'd probably walk. He did. Why keep talking about it?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#164034 Jul 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
But she was not on a commercial flight. She was on Air Force One Foxtrot. Do you know what USAF 1F is? The suffix "F" denotes "Family" and to ATC (Air Traffic Control, they are Air Force (or Marine) One Foxtrot!
In a foregoing post, I wrote you were dumb. Well, now your above reply makes you dumber. Re-read my post. It's not clear enough that I believe SHE SHOULD NOT FLY COMMERCIAL? How did the previous first ladies fly if not on gov't aircraft? Why should Ms Obama be different? Dumb, dumber and dumbest, the first lady should not, does not and will not fly commercial, no matter who is president.

Footnote : I seem to recall, though not sure, that when Ms Obama was vacationing in Spain, she received an invitation from the Queen. Do you think she should have turned it down? Would turning it down have helped relations with Spain?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#164035 Jul 15, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not solely pro-white, anti-black and racist to the hilt, you are dumb. Doesn't help make your point, does it? I told you a hundred times that because Z was on the bottom and M on top, THAT DOES NOT MEAN M INSTIGATED it. And sure Zimmerman was screaming his head off, 155-lbd Martin was beating the living sh*t out of 210-lb martial arts expert Zimmerman. Again, for the, hmm, 8th or 9th time, example only : I jump, attack you. You fight back, wrestle me to the ground, on top of me (ewwww). Does that mean you aggressed me? You just don't get it, do you?
I repeat, fact he was on top of Z DOES NOT MEAN HE ATTACKED. Not at all. And, again, I was not there, YOU were not there. Stop saying M attacked Z because M was on top and Z was screaming. What does that prove? I don't know who aggressed who, I was not present. News for you, YOU don't know who aggressed who, YOU WERE NOT THERE.
Case I closed. I predicted he'd probably walk. He did. Why keep talking about it?
DAB! Martial arts expert? LMAO! You're the one that cannot understand what the evidence says because you're blinded by hatred. You're the one that doesn't get it, spanky. The problem lies in your head!

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) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,261,663
Abby 7-28-15 3 min RACE 5
Ask Amy 7-27-15 16 min boundary painter 9
Word (Dec '08) 28 min boundary painter 5,378
Ask Amy 7-28-15 32 min boundary painter 4
Dear Abby 7-27-15 36 min Blunt Advice 8
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr PEllen 100,189
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages