BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 219295 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

#176466 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is, WHY IS IT NOT SHOWN, you moronic moosetwit.
It was not shown because it is not part of the end-user agreement and has no effect or significance whatsoever.

The source code could also include a statement that the Wizard of Oz shall decide all medical questions. It would be equally irrelevant as it would not be part of the end-user agreement.
What part of "not part of the end-user agreement" does Dufus not comprehend?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176467 Oct 25, 2013
I'm talking about the message that you have no right to expect any privacy with regards to the information one provides on the website. I'm not talking about reading the EULA. Ineptness at its finest!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176468 Oct 25, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It was not shown because it is not part of the end-user agreement and has no effect or significance whatsoever.
The source code could also include a statement that the Wizard of Oz shall decide all medical questions. It would be equally irrelevant as it would not be part of the end-user agreement.
What part of "not part of the end-user agreement" does Dufus not comprehend?
Your private and personal information is of no significance? Speak for yourself bonehead. Do you know what the major concern over this very issue is?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176469 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how frickin' inept are you? Uh, "hidden" usually means, out of sight! LMAO! That message is not displayed on the webpage. Hence, HIDDEN! The question is, WHY IS IT NOT SHOWN, you moronic moosetwit. Did you ever figure out how the sentence was supposed to be read? Probably not. Why do users have to register before seeing prices? So, someone registers, decides none of the plans are appropriate for him, opts out, BUT he's already given his personal information which the Gov. says he should not expect any privacy in regards to the information he provided! Can lil Mr. 6 Year Old understand that? Any decent website will assure you of your privacy, why not here? Hmm? Tissue, you've shat all over your face AGAIN! LMAO!!!!!
Huh? Perhaps in Play Law World the government issues regulations and makes binding agreements in source code, but not in the real world.

GROW UP LITTLE BOY. The government did not state to the end-user that there was no expectation of privacy. It NEVER HAPPENED.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha! Dufus believes anything he sees in print? Gullible fool.
So how does a nonfunctional statement in source code that is NOT SHOWN to the user SHOW the user a friggin' thing?
Eh genius?
Does Dufus know anything at all about HTML source code?
Didn't think so. Gullible fool.
<quoted text>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176470 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you agree that in order to see the message about the privacy of your information, that you must look at the source code? Yes or No?
That was not a "message" about privacy of "your" information pertaining to the end-user agreement at healthcare.gov .

A source code comment is not a message to the end-user. Dufus.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that the source code is not part of the end user agreement is not an issue, it's a fact, numskull.
The fact is your "damn issue" is not an issue. It's a wet dream.
What part of "the source code is not the web page" does Dufus not comprehend? The programmers could write anything they damn well please in source comments and the end user is not bound in any way whatsoever.
<quoted text>
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176471 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176472 Oct 25, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Perhaps in Play Law World the government issues regulations and makes binding agreements in source code, but not in the real world.
GROW UP LITTLE BOY. The government did not state to the end-user that there was no expectation of privacy. It NEVER HAPPENED.
<quoted text>
You've missed the entire point! Read the article.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176473 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how frickin' inept are you? Uh, "hidden" usually means, out of sight! LMAO! That message is not displayed on the webpage. Hence, HIDDEN! The question is, WHY IS IT NOT SHOWN, you moronic moosetwit. Did you ever figure out how the sentence was supposed to be read? Probably not. Why do users have to register before seeing prices? So, someone registers, decides none of the plans are appropriate for him, opts out, BUT he's already given his personal information which the Gov. says he should not expect any privacy in regards to the information he provided! Can lil Mr. 6 Year Old understand that? Any decent website will assure you of your privacy, why not here? Hmm? Tissue, you've shat all over your face AGAIN! LMAO!!!!!
I've extracted the best and brightest part of your above post :

"Tissue, you've shat all over your face AGAIN! LMAO!!!!! "

Memorable words, those. They propel computer science to its outer limits. Yes, the jury, based on the impressive evidence as presented by Justice LRS, with the clincher "shat all over your face" declares him the uncontested winner in this informatics war against wojar. Another great leap forward for Justice LMAO LRS-Dale.

You've wasted a lot of good computer knowledge on this loser, wojar.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176474 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your private and personal information is of no significance? Speak for yourself bonehead. Do you know what the major concern over this very issue is?
Illiterate fool. The source code comment is of no significance. It is not part of the end-user agreement and is not directed to the end-user.

After buying a mattress are you afraid to take the tag off that says do not remove?

Moron.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It was not shown because it is not part of the end-user agreement and has no effect or significance whatsoever.
The source code could also include a statement that the Wizard of Oz shall decide all medical questions. It would be equally irrelevant as it would not be part of the end-user agreement.
What part of "not part of the end-user agreement" does Dufus not comprehend?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176475 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I was? Delusional much? Let's not forget your name.....Pathological Liar. Idiot.
Not a liar at all.

You deny you chanted "Can you hear us coming" though you did inform me that this was a song.

Never mind chanting and, NEVERTHELESS, do you deny you incessantly wrote, posted "Can you hear us coming" during the presidential camping of 2012 and stopped doing so from the morning of November 07, 2012? Will you also once and for all inform one and all why you kept repeating "Can you hear us coming" and why you stopped the morning after Obama won?

Twist, as your nose elongates.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176476 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You've missed the entire point! Read the article.
I read the article and it is misinformation. There was no "message" to the end-user informing or abridging in re privacy rights. There was nothing except a comment in source code not intended to be read by the end-user and not intended to have any legal effect whatsoever - and not capable of effecting privacy rights.

This means the article doesn't have a valid point and you are drooling over yourself.

On some web pages the disclaimer is used, and on others it is not used.

At healthcare.gov it is not used. That is why is is a comment not seen on the actual page displayed to the end-user.

The comments are for programmers, not end-users.

Moron.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Perhaps in Play Law World the government issues regulations and makes binding agreements in source code, but not in the real world.
GROW UP LITTLE BOY. The government did not state to the end-user that there was no expectation of privacy. It NEVER HAPPENED.
<quoted text>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176477 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
I'm talking about the message that you have no right to expect any privacy with regards to the information one provides on the website. I'm not talking about reading the EULA. Ineptness at its finest!
A comment in source code is not a message to the end-user and has no legal significance binding the end-user or relieving the government of its responsibility under the law.

You're confused.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176478 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Now what part of that article negates US law?

What part of US law permits disregard of HIPAA on the basis of a source code comment not intended to be viewed by the end-user?

Who other than a technologically illiterate fool would think a source code comment is a message to the end user or that it has any legal significance in relation to the end-user's rights?

Play Justices believe everything on the web that agrees with their fantasies.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176479 Oct 25, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a liar at all.
You deny you chanted "Can you hear us coming" though you did inform me that this was a song.
Never mind chanting and, NEVERTHELESS, do you deny you incessantly wrote, posted "Can you hear us coming" during the presidential camping of 2012 and stopped doing so from the morning of November 07, 2012? Will you also once and for all inform one and all why you kept repeating "Can you hear us coming" and why you stopped the morning after Obama won?
Twist, as your nose elongates.
He didn't say "Can you hear ...".

He said "Can't you hear ..."

The juvenile from Louisiana thinks that's really clever.
Just me

Studio City, CA

#176480 Oct 25, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said or hinted you were "just me". I merely said it was nice to see him. How could I mistake him for you? He would be gravely and rightfully insulted had I done that. You could never be him. He writes, drafts well. He is smart. He is level-headed. Now, who is becoming paranoid?
LOL. I appreciate the compliments Jacques but I have one correction, I'm a woman.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176481 Oct 25, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Illiterate fool. The source code comment is of no significance. It is not part of the end-user agreement and is not directed to the end-user.
After buying a mattress are you afraid to take the tag off that says do not remove?
Moron.
<quoted text>
You're FOS, Twinkerbelle!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176482 Oct 25, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Now what part of that article negates US law?
What part of US law permits disregard of HIPAA on the basis of a source code comment not intended to be viewed by the end-user?
Who other than a technologically illiterate fool would think a source code comment is a message to the end user or that it has any legal significance in relation to the end-user's rights?
Play Justices believe everything on the web that agrees with their fantasies.
It was hidden for a reason, dummy!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-24752...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#176483 Oct 25, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
It was hidden for a reason, dummy!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-24752...
Thanks for this info Wingman
:)
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176484 Oct 25, 2013
A direct contradiction to HIPPA and Mr. 6 Year Old can't seem to grasp what the issue is! LMAO!!!! HUH? R U on DRUGS? R U on LSD? Are you stoned or just stupid, kid?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-24752...

Enough of the Grass Hut Nut!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176485 Oct 25, 2013
I'm going out in the backyard to explain this simple issue to the wild onions growing there. I know they'll get it right off the bat, unlike the 6 Year Old. ccccyyyyyaaaaaaaa

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) 1 min John Galt 1,403,198
the larry meber political forum (Jun '11) 2 min Mr Whiny Ferret 77
News Thursday was actually a bad day for Trump 28 min Go Blue Forever 7
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 34 min Ize Found 70,823
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 40 min SweLL GirL 9,195
last post wins! (Dec '10) 56 min honeymylove 2,265
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 103,113

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages