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

There are 20 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.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174184 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Like the honorable Justice Dale has been telling you.....Obobblehead was a brit from day one. Suck on it, kid! LMAO!
Your playmate's fantasy Play Law has nothing to do with Vattel.

In fact Dufus Dale's asinine theory requires jurisdiction to be defined according to no law that ever existed.

Dufus Dale even repudiates Vattel, which Play Justice LRS holds so dear.

Vattel:
Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.

The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”

According to the demented Play Justice Dale, the jurisdiction only extends over citizens. If aliens commit a crime, "it is NOT her proivince ... to exercise justice...."

MORON.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174187 Oct 7, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>Parental birthplaces and their childhood citizenship means nothing. The definition of "natural-born" in our Constitution is born to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of their child's birth ON U.S. soil....
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy WelbyMD wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy WelbyMD's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy WelbyMD would like to throw out that principle too.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.

And yet slimy WelbyMD thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.

Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents? Why does slimy WelbyMD want you to think that George Washington, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and the others were afraid of the US-born children of foreigners----such as your ancestors?

IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy WelbyMD want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who claims that where eligibility to become president is concerned the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal to the US born children of US citizens? Slimy WelbyMD and slimy Dale do.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174188 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Twinkerbelle....the only thing you can wipe a floor with is your tongue. manboy
In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Like the honorable Justice Dale has been telling you.....Obobblehead was a brit from day one. Suck on it, kid! LMAO!
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution was wrong because MORON BOY quotes Vattel?

According to Vattel, children of aliens would be aliens. That was NEVER the rule in this country. What country is Play Justice from?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174190 Oct 7, 2013
According to Vattel, children [born in the US] of aliens would be aliens. That was NEVER the rule in this country. What country is Play Justice from?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174191 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Twinkerbelle....the only thing you can wipe a floor with is your tongue. manboy
In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Like the honorable Justice Dale has been telling you.....Obobblehead was a brit from day one. Suck on it, kid! LMAO!
Vattel also recommended that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it or allow them to leave the country. We did not adopt that recommendation, and there is no evidence that we adopted Vattel's definition of a Natural Born Citizen either. Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. John Jay, who apparently used the term Natural Born Citizen first in his letter to George Washington, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. If he had intended to change the meaning of Natural Born from the definition in the common law to Vattel, HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO---and he didn't.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174192 Oct 7, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Your dual-citizen would be below the level of a naturalized citizen, since they would carry two allegiances. This is why the constitution does not recognized a dual-citizenship status.
There is no mention of either a two-parent requirement or a bar on dual citizens becoming president in the US Constitution.

You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.

And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.

Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? If Washington did think so, he could have said so--but he never did. So why assume that he did?

IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners including dual citizens, they would have SAID SO. But they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who believes that the principle "all men are created equal is wrong and that the writers of the Constitution really did not believe it? Slimy Dale and slimy WelbyMD.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174193 Oct 7, 2013
Re: "An older half-brother, older half-sister and Grandma Sarah Obama were present at the birth in Mombassa which was attended by Dr Alan Schecter. "

That is total crap. Not one single Obama relative has ever said that Obama was born in Kenya. And Obama's Kenyan grandmother certainly didn't. Birther sites simply did not quote her when she said repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii "where his father was studying at the time."

The claim that Dr Aland Schecter was the doctor is simply another big lie. Only 21 people total came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and all but one of them came by ship----and there were no direct ships from Kenya to Hawaii. And the KENYAN GOVERNMENT has said that it investigated the "born in Kenya" story----and that it is not true.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174194 Oct 7, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but de Vattel's theory was not law in the US (nor was it a standard even as late as 1898).
Indeed, Vattel stated that "whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
Duh!
Furthermore, Vattel's law requires that the citizenship of the child follows that of the father. If that were the law in the US children of foreign parents would not only be deprived of natural born status THEY WOULD BE ALIENS. That has never been the law practiced in this country.
MORON.
“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).
Get real. MORON.
Your interpretation is incorrect. Sorry 'bout that, lil fella! LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174195 Oct 7, 2013
wojar wrote:
According to Vattel, children [born in the US] of aliens would be aliens. That was NEVER the rule in this country. What country is Play Justice from?
Two aliens do not produce an alien? Really? Look up allegiance, brainfart. You simply do not understand what "our" founding fathers intended. You are at sea! LMAO! Pout often? LMAO!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174196 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of FOS, you're carrying around a load there, Twinkerbelle. Get mommie to puy a fresh diaper on ya. You're spooking the vultures.
Twinkerbelle wants us to think the founding fathers gave no thought of protecting the presidency from usurpers. Twinkerbelle thinks the founding fathers were too stupid to realize that by allowing anyone born on U.S. soil, to be considered an NBC, would be asinine. Twinkerbelle doesn't think the founding fathers had the foresight to protect its own government from our enemies! Twinkerbelle is flat out wrong. Isn't that correct, Twinkerbelle? LMAO! such a small child LMAO!
Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns". Tip 2; alone, one cannot produce a child. I threw tip 2 in just for ya, Twinkerbelle.
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy Justice LRS wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Justice LRS's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Justice LRS would like to throw out that principle too.

IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners including dual citizens, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Justice LRS want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Slimy Justice LRS, Slimy WelbyMD and slimy Dale.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174197 Oct 7, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.
And yet slimy Justice LRS wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Justice LRS's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Justice LRS would like to throw out that principle too.
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners including dual citizens, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Justice LRS want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Slimy Justice LRS, Slimy WelbyMD and slimy Dale.
Good Lord, sockpuppet! Do you have any clue as to how badly you need someone else pulling your strings? Big time!!! LMAO! ID 10T Error (catastrophic failure). boing boing boing
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#174198 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Your interpretation is incorrect. Sorry 'bout that, lil fella! LMAO!
Oh look. Romper is an expert on the translation of French AND time travel.

Talk about stuck on stupid.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174199 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Lord, sockpuppet! Do you have any clue as to how badly you need someone else pulling your strings? Big time!!! LMAO! ID 10T Error (catastrophic failure). boing boing boing
Rational people will notice that Justice LRS has neither responded to the facts nor discussed the Constitution.

You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does NOT say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy Justice LRS wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Justice LRS's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Justice LRS would like to throw out that principle too.

But that is NOT what the Constitution says. There is nothing in it that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal to the US-born children of US citizens where becoming president is concerned. And, surely, if the writers of the US Constitution had wanted to make an exception to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"---they would have told us, and they didn't.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174200 Oct 7, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look. Romper is an expert on the translation of French AND time travel.
Talk about stuck on stupid.
Any other shyt you'd like to just pull out of the air, while you're at it? Talk about a pure BSer....you're it, fluffybritches! Idyot.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174201 Oct 7, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rational people will notice that Justice LRS has neither responded to the facts nor discussed the Constitution.
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does NOT say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.
And yet slimy Justice LRS wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
Why? There isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Justice LRS's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Justice LRS would like to throw out that principle too.
But that is NOT what the Constitution says. There is nothing in it that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal to the US-born children of US citizens where becoming president is concerned. And, surely, if the writers of the US Constitution had wanted to make an exception to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"---they would have told us, and they didn't.
Are you going to start spamming the board again? I hope you don't think that is a talent or something?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174202 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Two aliens do not produce an alien? Really? Look up allegiance, brainfart. You simply do not understand what "our" founding fathers intended. You are at sea! LMAO! Pout often? LMAO!
Sorry, loser, but James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) already addressed the matter of allegiance.

Got Alzheimer's?

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison

Sonny, I told you I would wipe the floor with your arse, Loser.
wojar wrote:
According to Vattel, children [born in the US] of aliens would be aliens. That was NEVER the rule in this country. What country is Play Justice from?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174203 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to start spamming the board again? I hope you don't think that is a talent or something?
Rational people will notice that Justice LRS has not responded to the facts or to the law. Justice LRS claims that the writers of the US Constitution really believed that the US-born children of foreigners are lower-level citizens than the US-born children of US citizens. And he believes this despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

So Justice LRS does not believe that all men are created equal. But that does not mean that George Washington and Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson thought what Justice LRS believes. IF they had thought that the Declaration of Independence was wrong, and that the US-born children of foreigners were not just as equal, just as able to become president, as the US-born children of US citizens, they would have said so----and they NEVER did.

Moreover, under both strict construction and libertarian principles, it is not allowed to assume that something is in the Constitution unless the Constitution really says it, and it never says that either the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president or that dual citizens are not eligible to become president.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#174205 Oct 8, 2013
Maher mocks WWII vets visiting closed memorial:‘Nobody said they were the brightest generation’


Liberal comedian Bill Maher ridiculed the group of World War II veterans for visiting the barricaded World War II memorial, telling his audience that the Greatest Generation wasn’t the “brightest generation.”

“The other that was apparently so important for the Republicans to keep open was the World War II Memorial in Washington. That was closed, so a bunch of the World War II vets knocked down the barriers and stormed it,” Maher said on his Friday HBO “Real Time” program, making a sardonic face at the audience.

“And then I love this — they posed for pictures with Michele Bachmann, who showed up. Michele Bachmann — one of the people most responsible for shutting the fucking thing down. They’re the greatest generation. Nobody said they were the brightest generation,” he said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/06/maher-mocks...
Obskeptic

Southfield, MI

#174206 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what the Heritage Foundation said when they originally proposed the individual mandate. It would save money under Republicans and cost under Democrats?
UR FOS Frank.
I just love it when you rabid lefties use the Heritage Foundation to back up your narrative. Its like using Fox News as your reliable source to make a point.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#174207 Oct 8, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Any other shyt you'd like to just pull out of the air, while you're at it? Talk about a pure BSer....you're it, fluffybritches! Idyot.
Poor Romper. Blathering on and on with not a clue.

Missing your buddy Jercque? No one to spend all day exchanging page after page of meaningless pastes with?

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) 11 min Bluestater 1,224,609
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 53,064
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 7 hr Gas Woman 69,825
Word (Dec '08) 7 hr _Zoey_ 5,213
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 7 hr _Zoey_ 5,951
Song Title Game (Dec '11) 14 hr boundary painter 1,175
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 14 hr boundary painter 1,650
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]