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

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#176050 Oct 22, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad BirfoonBoy has no rebuttal?
Yup, too bad, loser.
If Vattel's rules were the law, there would have been MILLIONS of persons ineligible to vote, ineligible for intestate inheritance. Pray tell Vattel's rule was law and nobody ever followed it and NOBODY EVER NOTICED? Is that the ticket?
Eh, sonny?
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
A child born of citizen parentS. Thank you. Second generation at least! LMAO! moronic twit
Huh? "A child born of citizen parents"?

Sorry, loser, no such thing in de Vatell's tome.

De Vattel spoke of children born of citizen parents, NEVER a child born of citizen parents.

In the former case, children are referred to collectively, in the latter, individually. Please, loser, go to college, but learn how to read first.

Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176051 Oct 22, 2013
coreylane wrote:
enough with this birth certificate thing
Corey with 3 posts? Is that you, Corey? LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176052 Oct 22, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Huh? "A child born of citizen parents"?
Sorry, loser, no such thing in de Vatell's tome.
De Vattel spoke of children born of citizen parents, NEVER a child born of citizen parents.
In the former case, children are referred to collectively, in the latter, individually. Please, loser, go to college, but learn how to read first.
LMAO!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176053 Oct 22, 2013
TaDa!

Another indication to the meaning of the term may be found in the Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" as "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1875).
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176054 Oct 22, 2013
The last part is also this nation's biggest problem.

The Constitution clearly and explicitly excludes ordinary citizenship for presidency: ordinary citizenship was reserved only for the presidential candidates - contemporaries of the Framers (referred as the grandfather clause). Definitely the "Natural born citizenship" is not the same as ordinary citizenship, but something stronger. By not explicitly quoting the Vattel's definition, the Constitution therefore leaves some room for confusions.(Many such confusions resulted of deliberate efforts of "progressives" to erode the basic constitutional concepts inconvenient for them).
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#176055 Oct 22, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Justice LRS wrote, "<quoted text>
A child born of citizen parentS. Thank you. Second generation at least! LMAO! moronic twit"

Huh? "A child born of citizen parents"?

Sorry, loser, no such thing in de Vatell's tome.

De Vattel spoke of children born of citizen parents, NEVER a child born of citizen parents.

In the former case, children are referred to collectively, in the latter, individually. Please, loser, go to college, but learn how to read first.

Expecting Romper to know that 5 is greater than 1? You obviously have a much higher opinion of Romper than his mom does
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#176056 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
TaDa!

Another indication to the meaning of the term may be found in the Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" as "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1875).
And Romper clings to the same tired fableS.

Sorry Romper - "you're" misunderstanding of Minor v Happersett is consistent. But wrong
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176057 Oct 22, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Expecting Romper to know that 5 is greater than 1? You obviously have a much higher opinion of Romper than his mom does
Truly riveting material, fluffybritches!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176058 Oct 22, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
And Romper clings to the same tired fableS.
Sorry Romper - "you're" misunderstanding of Minor v Happersett is consistent. But wrong
Your interpretation is incorrect. Convenient but incorrect just the same. LMAO!

Bye now Fluffy! LMAO

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#176059 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's really too bad fer ya, kid. Guess you should carry your commie azz to another country, huh? Or, maybe you could return to your grass hut mansion! Tip: when rebuilding, start with the ground floor! LMAO!
It's too bad for Louisiana Loser.

His Play Law was never the law in this country. It's a little late to carry all those alleged commie asses from the first half of the 19th century to communist countries that did not even exist at the time.

Sorry.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad BirfoonBoy has no rebuttal?
Yup, too bad, loser.
If Vattel's rules were the law, there would have been MILLIONS of persons ineligible to vote, ineligible for intestate inheritance. Pray tell Vattel's rule was law and nobody ever followed it and NOBODY EVER NOTICED? Is that the ticket?
Eh, sonny?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#176060 Oct 22, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Expecting Romper to know that 5 is greater than 1? You obviously have a much higher opinion of Romper than his mom does
I'm expecting he doesn't even know what "greater than" means.

And I think his mom has the same expectation.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#176061 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Your interpretation is incorrect. Convenient but incorrect just the same. LMAO!

Bye now Fluffy! LMAO
Sure - every court and legal scholar agrees with me, but Romper's magic 8 ball says otherwise ....

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#176062 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the honest answer. So, in a normal day you understand nothing anyone says to you. I'm not surprised. LMAO!
I understand your failure to comprehend English, PERFECTLY.

Hey loser, did you score in the top 5% of college graduates in the GRE verbal test?

The birfoon's problem is that no sane person "understands" birfoon reasoning to be sane.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that birfoon does not understand what he is saying.
If a group children, each with one of their parents parents, were in separate rooms, and then got together for dinner, one may ask, are the children and their parents assembled yet in the dining room? Using birfoons logic, the answer could never be “yes” because "both parentS [hee hee]" of each child were not present. That is simply irrational and illustrates a certain degree of cognitive dysfunction in birfoons.
BirfoonBoy needs psychiatric help.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#176063 Oct 22, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>I understand your failure to comprehend English, PERFECTLY.

Hey loser, did you score in the top 5% of college graduates in the GRE verbal test?

The birfoon's problem is that no sane person "understands" birfoon reasoning to be sane.

wojar wrote, "
<quoted text>
The problem is that birfoon does not understand what he is saying.
If a group children, each with one of their parents parents, were in separate rooms, and then got together for dinner, one may ask, are the children and their parents assembled yet in the dining room? Using birfoons logic, the answer could never be “yes” because "both parentS [hee hee]" of each child were not present. That is simply irrational and illustrates a certain degree of cognitive dysfunction in birfoons.
BirfoonBoy needs psychiatric help."
Romper did get a "check minus" on staying within the lines while using crayons ....

Please try to control your envy

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176064 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you make excuse after excuse for ObobbleHead? 45 minutes, my azz! LMAO! Good one.
Maybe less than 45 minutes. But a poor reader and writer the likes of you would never believe that. It's okay, you don't count.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176065 Oct 22, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats because you don't seem to think the democrats deserve any criticism. What's your opinion of the Saul Alynsky's book Jacque? Many of the tactics employed by the administration and the main stream media come from that text. By the way, I love that word enervated. Excellent choice.
Thank you, it's French, and anglicised.

Can we get back to being civil again?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#176066 Oct 22, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO! Oops is right, nitwit! LMAO! Pizz poor job of altering! But then again, you are only 6. LMAO!
Loser caught in flagrante delicto.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Oops!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176067 Oct 22, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he would talk to them. He might not (would not) agree with them on every issue but Lincoln wasn't a closed minded, myopic "us v them" moron
Not your strong suit, analogies, are they? When I say he would not give them the time of day, or would not talk to these right wing birfoon buffoons, I meant he would not associate with them. However, you bet your bottom dollar he'd associate with the likes of JFK, Carter, Clinton, Gore, Biden, Obama, Hillary Clinton etc. Never mind their politics, not important. They are intelligent and interesting and often witty. Most Repubs don't offer any of that. Well, with Reagan, yes. He WAS funny, witty, best speaker but a mediocre president. Still, interesting to hang around with, I guess. Also Einsenhower.

Question for you. You're on a deserted island, stuck there for life . You have the following choice of people who would share this atoll with you . Never mind their politics :

Romney or Obama
Biden or Ryan
Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin (hard choice, yes , true)
Nixon or Carter
GWB or Gore (hard one too, both funny at times)
Gingrich and Harry Reid
Limbaugh and Jon Stewart
O'reilly and Colbert
Trump and Bill Gates

Remember, no politics
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#176068 Oct 22, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>Not your strong suit, analogies, are they? When I say he would not give them the time of day, or would not talk to these right wing birfoon buffoons, I meant he would not associate with them. However, you bet your bottom dollar he'd associate with the likes of JFK, Carter, Clinton, Gore, Biden, Obama, Hillary Clinton etc. Never mind their politics, not important. They are intelligent and interesting and often witty. Most Repubs don't offer any of that. Well, with Reagan, yes. He WAS funny, witty, best speaker but a mediocre president. Still, interesting to hang around with, I guess. Also Einsenhower.

Question for you. You're on a deserted island, stuck there for life . You have the following choice of people who would share this atoll with you . Never mind their politics :

Romney or Obama
Biden or Ryan
Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin (hard choice, yes , true)
Nixon or Carter
GWB or Gore (hard one too, both funny at times)
Gingrich and Harry Reid
Limbaugh and Jon Stewart
O'reilly and Colbert
Trump and Bill Gates

Remember, no politics
Dear Jercque. Please employ your favorite phrase. "Your" whining is far too boring

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176069 Oct 22, 2013
Joe OBiden wrote:
<quoted text>
And Ronald Reagan was NOT smart, wise nor compassionate? You seem to think giving people Obama phones actually does something to help improve their lives? Oh, now than can order a home delivery pizza?!?
Reagan was smart, had to be to achieve the presidency. That goes for pretty much any president. Wise? Not really. Compassionate? Not really. Witty, humourous, pleasant? YES

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) 2 min Suxbumski is weak 1,155,720
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 23 min KiMare 51,283
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Mothra 49,311
Is Vanessa Hudgens A PORN-STAR ?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Jenny Derin 187
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Chitfaced 98,874
Holiday Greetings 2 hr Scrooge and Cratchit 2
Mike Brown hidden video. 3 hr StarScum 4
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Breaking Down Colts' Game Plan vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 5:00 AM
Can't-Miss Picks and Matchup Guide
Bleacher Report 8:09 AM
Breaking Down Bears' Game Plan vs. Vikings
NBC Sports 9:15 AM
Lance Briggs "happy" with Robbie Gould's comments
Bleacher Report11:45 AM
Complete Week 17 Preview for Vikings vs. Bears