BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 222922 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.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#176500 Oct 26, 2013
Jacques,
When Old Man Buffet passes away he plans on donating his fortune to charity so they can open soup-kitchens from the Gulf Stream waters to the Redwood Forests.
loose

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176501 Oct 26, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
So basically what your telling us is the guy that you call Mr. Plastic, and obviously have tremendous contempt for since you can only find insults in your childish lexicon about him, did a great job "fixing" healthcare for the people in the great state of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney actually has a resume that qualified him to be president, and a track record of experience, both private sector and public that proved he was capable. It's a shame he wasn't capable of beating Mr. Symbolism.
I'm saying that the Inflatable Plastic Politician was all for the individual mandate until it became a disadvantage to gaining the Republican nomination. He was pro choice when governor of Massachusetts, and flip-flopped when it suited his political ambitions. He has the depth of conviction of a Ted Bundy. The People of the United States decided he could not be trusted to act on behalf of anyone but Mitt himself.

BTW, Barack Obama had ten years of experience in government, including almost four years as a United States Senator. He had more experience in government than did John F. Kennedy when he was elected to the Presidency. And his work as a community organizer put him in touch with people at the grass roots level. So the notion that he was unqualified is simply baseless. President Obama entered the White House when the US economy was in free-fall and the threat of collapse of the US and world economies were perilously close. His track record proved to the people of the United States that he was the most suitable candidate to hold the office of President and they re-elected him accordingly.

Get over it.
wojar wrote:
Do you think the Massachusetts Health Insurance Reform Law should be repealed, continued as the law currently stands, or continued but with some changes made?
Repealed: 11 percent
Continued as the law currently stands: 22 percent
Continued but with some changes made: 57 percent
Don’t know: 10 percent
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176502 Oct 26, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
The only onions you have are growing on your scrotum and feet.
URGENT: Canada just farted.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176503 Oct 26, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read the articles you wouldn't be asking such dumbazz questions, Mr. 6 Year Old. Kid, you're beyond dense. I honestly feel sorry for those unfortunate "few" that "must" be around you. That is certainly cruel and unusual punishment.
If you believe a line of source code that is not included in the agreement presented to the user constitutes a waiver of rights under HIPAA or grants the government the right to ignore HIPAA non-disclosure requirements you are welcome to show where in the articles that rabbit is pulled out of the hat.

BirfoonBoy, when presented with the challenge of rationally connecting the line of source code to actual waiver of rights can only mumble "read the articles". That's what happens when you're a PLAY JUSTICE.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Does BirfoonBoy really think a statement that is not included in the agreement on the page presented to the user constitutes a waiver of rights agreed to by the user? Really? That is the "reason" why the statement is found in source code? Does BirfoonBoy expect anyone to believe that?
Does BirfoonBoy understand what "source code" is?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176504 Oct 26, 2013
Just me wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything is fine here, thanks. The days are still warm, the nights are starting to get chilly and, like everyone else, I'm having a difficult time believing that another year will soon come to an end. Work is busier and, fortunately, we're hiring again. Life is good!
You make me laugh long time! LMAO!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176505 Oct 26, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a contradiction to intelligence wojar.
If you can show how a statement that is not in the end-user agreement materially effects the end-user agreement and the rights of the end-user please be my guest and show the logical connection rather than indulge in ad hominem rants.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
A statement that is not part of the end-user agreement but which, if included in the agreement, would be contrary to HIPAA, is a "contradiction to HIPAA"?
What is BirfoonBoy smoking?
That's like saying it's a "contradiction to law" law to carry a dictionary on an airplane because it contains the word, "bomb", which is "hidden" in the book.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176506 Oct 26, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe a line of source code that is not included in the agreement presented to the user constitutes a waiver of rights under HIPAA or grants the government the right to ignore HIPAA non-disclosure requirements you are welcome to show where in the articles that rabbit is pulled out of the hat.
BirfoonBoy, when presented with the challenge of rationally connecting the line of source code to actual waiver of rights can only mumble "read the articles". That's what happens when you're a PLAY JUSTICE.
<quoted text>
Give it up, Mr. 6 Year Old in wet diapers. Damn, I forgot about your age, no wonder you couldn't grasp the point being made by Mr. Barton. I never said it was a line of source code, you did. I said the clause was hidden in the code, not part of the code, DAB! When you click "agree" you can no longer expect any reasonable privacy of your personal information. It's very simple, well, for most people anyway. Obviously, this is way too advanced for Mr. 6 Year Old with the mentality (and personality) of a gnat. How's that grass hut mansion doing? LMAO! And your big old island mama? LMAO! Been ripping your friends off with anymore Viagra deals? LMAO! Mr. 6 Year Old, if it weren't for BS, you'd be non-existent! Tell us again why you support a liar, fraud and failure. Could it be that you're a liar, fraud and failure also? YEP! Take your childish games elsewhere.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176507 Oct 26, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
So basically what your telling us is the guy that you call Mr. Plastic, and obviously have tremendous contempt for since you can only find insults in your childish lexicon about him, did a great job "fixing" healthcare for the people in the great state of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney actually has a resume that qualified him to be president, and a track record of experience, both private sector and public that proved he was capable. It's a shame he wasn't capable of beating Mr. Symbolism.
No. Basically I'm saying you're FOS and so filled with hate that you have convinced yourself that Romneycare was a failure even though it clearly was not. May I refresh your memory?

Obskeptic wrote:
"The liberal fools of Massachusetts thought he was worthy of giving him a try, and your pathetic excuse for a leader thought Mitt's failure of a healthcare plan was worth copying as well."

FACTS:

"Given what you know about it, in general, do you support or oppose the Massachusetts Universal Health Insurance Law?"
Support: 59 percent
Oppose: 28 percent
Don’t Know: 13 percent

"Do you think the Massachusetts Health Insurance Reform Law should be repealed, continued as the law currently stands, or continued but with some changes made?"

Repealed: 11 percent
Continued as the law currently stands: 22 percent
Continued but with some changes made: 57 percent
Don’t know: 10 percent

Simply saying Romneycare was a failure because you wish it were true does not make it so. As Mitt said, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176508 Oct 26, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
"The liberal fools of Massachusetts thought he was worthy of giving him a try, and your pathetic excuse for a leader thought Mitt's failure of a healthcare plan was worth copying as well."

So Obskeptic's false belief in "Mitt's failure of a healthcare plan" eminently qualified Romney for the office of President?

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

#176509 Oct 26, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you still mad that I reminded the board of your most un-Christian behavior despite your protestations to the contrary?
My goodness, WWJD? LOL! Your fake god is making you look even more ridiculous today.
<quoted text>
I think it is funny when an atheist calls someone "un-Christian" as if he knows what he is talking about. I don't think Jesus ever mentioned giving people Obama Phones!
Yawn. Jesus never talked about vaginal probes either.

This atheist knows far more about Christianity than you do. That is why I am able to mock you so easily.

America has a freedom from religion - we are not a Christian nation though some of you believe that to be the case. Just like the GOPs ignorance regarding those of Latin heritage, you fail to heed the signs. Islam is the worlds largest religion. Jesus lived and died a Jew. Did your deity create man in his image and promise eternal salvation to all who followed him? If so, he must be very spiteful since he created the majority on places where he is not known. That's brilliant duplicity...I can see where your party gets it.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176510 Oct 26, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up, Mr. 6 Year Old in wet diapers. Damn, I forgot about your age, no wonder you couldn't grasp the point being made by Mr. Barton. I never said it was a line of source code, you did. I said the clause was hidden in the code, not part of the code, DAB! When you click "agree" you can no longer expect any reasonable privacy of your personal information. It's very simple, well, for most people anyway.
It was a line of source code whether BirfoonBoy admits it or not. That's what source code is, lines of code.

The terms and conditions which govern are stated in the terms and conditions statement shown to the user, not in the source code.

When the user clicks "I agree' he is agreeing to the terms and conditions stated in the terms and conditions agreement.

The claim that the user is bound to hidden text in source code is contrary to law in the real world, but not PLAY LAW.

Similarly, when you sign a written contract, the other party cannot pull out a card from his wallet with a "hidden clause" and say you are bound to it.

Absurd.

Grow up little boy and join the real world.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe a line of source code that is not included in the agreement presented to the user constitutes a waiver of rights under HIPAA or grants the government the right to ignore HIPAA non-disclosure requirements you are welcome to show where in the articles that rabbit is pulled out of the hat.
BirfoonBoy, when presented with the challenge of rationally connecting the line of source code to actual waiver of rights can only mumble "read the articles". That's what happens when you're a PLAY JUSTICE.
<quoted text>
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176511 Oct 26, 2013
wojar wrote:
Obskeptic wrote:
"The liberal fools of Massachusetts thought he was worthy of giving him a try, and your pathetic excuse for a leader thought Mitt's failure of a healthcare plan was worth copying as well."
So Obskeptic's false belief in "Mitt's failure of a healthcare plan" eminently qualified Romney for the office of President?
What an immature spastic!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176512 Oct 26, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up, Mr. 6 Year Old in wet diapers. Damn, I forgot about your age, no wonder you couldn't grasp the point being made by Mr. Barton. I never said it was a line of source code, you did. I said the clause was hidden in the code, not part of the code, DAB! When you click "agree" you can no longer expect any reasonable privacy of your personal information. It's very simple, well, for most people anyway.
When you click "I agree" you agree to the terms and conditions stated in the terms and conditions agreement, not to comments in source code. There is no basis in law for Play Justice's fable. In fact his fable is contrary to principles of contract law.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe a line of source code that is not included in the agreement presented to the user constitutes a waiver of rights under HIPAA or grants the government the right to ignore HIPAA non-disclosure requirements you are welcome to show where in the articles that rabbit is pulled out of the hat.
BirfoonBoy, when presented with the challenge of rationally connecting the line of source code to actual waiver of rights can only mumble "read the articles". That's what happens when you're a PLAY JUSTICE.
<quoted text>
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176513 Oct 26, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a line of source code whether BirfoonBoy admits it or not. That's what source code is, lines of code.
The terms and conditions which govern are stated in the terms and conditions statement shown to the user, not in the source code.
When the user clicks "I agree' he is agreeing to the terms and conditions stated in the terms and conditions agreement.
The claim that the user is bound to hidden text in source code is contrary to law in the real world, but not PLAY LAW.
Similarly, when you sign a written contract, the other party cannot pull out a card from his wallet with a "hidden clause" and say you are bound to it.
Absurd.
Grow up little boy and join the real world.
<quoted text>
Hot damn, the little idiot finally grasped ONE point! Code is not written out like English, little one. However, this particular line WAS! You are seriously stupid Mr. 6 Year Old. See if you can get your sister to toss one off for you! Now buzz off kid!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176514 Oct 26, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
URGENT: Canada just farted.
See what I mean? I guess I'm all of myself 35 million Canadians.

Birther strategy/reasoning : Let's say a Brit steals $ 1 million. To LRS-Dale, ALL Brits are crooks.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176515 Oct 26, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Hot damn, the little idiot finally grasped ONE point! Code is not written out like English, little one. However, this particular line WAS! You are seriously stupid Mr. 6 Year Old. See if you can get your sister to toss one off for you! Now buzz off kid!
Not true and also irrelevant. The statement was embedded in HTML. Most statements that appear in plain English also are found in the source HTML code, which is NOT PART OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AGREEMENT.

The statement did not appear in the "Terms and Conditions" agreement and is not part of the agreement and is not legally enforceable in the real world.

Parties in a contract are bound by the terms of the agreement stated in the agreement. Source code is not part of the contract, even if it can be read in English.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a line of source code whether BirfoonBoy admits it or not. That's what source code is, lines of code.
The terms and conditions which govern are stated in the terms and conditions statement shown to the user, not in the source code.
When the user clicks "I agree' he is agreeing to the terms and conditions stated in the terms and conditions agreement.
The claim that the user is bound to hidden text in source code is contrary to law in the real world, but not PLAY LAW.
Similarly, when you sign a written contract, the other party cannot pull out a card from his wallet with a "hidden clause" and say you are bound to it.
Absurd.
Grow up little boy and join the real world.
<quoted text>
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#176516 Oct 26, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean? I guess I'm all of myself 35 million Canadians.
Birther strategy/reasoning : Let's say a Brit steals $ 1 million. To LRS-Dale, ALL Brits are crooks.
Try and make sense at least once today, otay Path? Don't injure yourself, now! tootles...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#176519 Oct 26, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
See what I mean? I guess I'm all of myself 35 million Canadians.
Birther strategy/reasoning : Let's say a Brit steals $ 1 million. To LRS-Dale, ALL Brits are crooks
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Try and make sense at least once today, otay Path? Don't injure yourself, now! tootles...
Now, just picture it. Imagine if I or anyone else thought that ALL Americans were like you, OMG. That means that ALL Americans would be closet gays, anal obsessed, filthy-mouthed, liars, phoneys, traitors and much more. THAT is why I DON'T label you gay anal-obsessed filthy-mouthed lying phoney traitor AMERICAN. I just label you gay anal-obsessed filthy-mouthed lying phoney traitor. Period. Get it now?

Oh, who am I? Where am I from? Once you've staggered off the canvas and able to stand, feel free to take a guess LMAO (LRS-Dale tm reg'd).

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#176520 Oct 26, 2013
Such a contract will not be enforced against the weaker party when it is (1) not within that party's reasonable expectations; or (2) is unduly oppressive, unconscionable or against public policy." AEB & Associates Design Group, Inc. v. Tonka Corp., 853 F. Supp. 724, 732 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)(citations omitted).

Courts have ruled that terms accessible through highlighted hyperlinks on the terms and conditions page are enforceable.

"The Court held that plaintiffs were not bound by this policy, which was not linked or otherwise referenced in the Usage Agreement to which plaintiffs were in fact bound."[1]

See, A.V., et al. v. IParadigms, Limited Liability Company, Civ. Act. No. 07-0293 (E.D. Va., March 11, 2008)

Needless to say, non-displayed source code does not qualify as linked or otherwise referenced in the Usage Agreement.

__________
[1] http://www.internetlibrary.com/topics/click_w...

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#176521 Oct 26, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you still mad that I reminded the board of your most un-Christian behavior despite your protestations to the contrary?
My goodness, WWJD? LOL! Your fake god is making you look even more ridiculous today.
<quoted text>
I think it is funny when an atheist calls someone "un-Christian" as if he knows what he is talking about. I don't think Jesus ever mentioned giving people Obama Phones!
We know exactly what we are talking about.

I will make this real simple for you.

Christians like Jesus.

Actual christians emulate Jesus.

The difference is outright evident.

I don't think Jesus talked about the limit of how much you can do to help the poor and unfortunate either.

Is simplistic outdated technology where you draw the line? Should tech be the hallmark of the haves? Or, did it pass you by at food and shelter?

The lion's share of EVERYTHING Jesus preached was on this very subject. Over 300 verses of pretty straight forward word of Christ.

So, yeah... we know what we are talking about.

There is something especially sinister and blasphemous about your attitudes when you are trying to make sure the poor stay right where they are by holding up Jesus. There is something immensely twisted about defending your prejudices with a moral high ground found in a book that tells you that these people...

Those ones you so crave to kill each other, die, or just go away...

Are your greatest and perhaps ONLY charge in this world.

That... in a nutshell, is what pisses us off about your average vocal christian. The use of something sacred to validate ill will.

So, when we say "un-christian". What we mean is... it is a pity that there isn't a hell for you to go to. At least for a day or so.

I don't think I have ever used that exact term myself. But, I am pretty sure I know the feeling of evoking it.

But, by all means... continue to think of it as "funny". It kind of supports our argument if you give it some thought.

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 mdbuilder 1,421,473
Chicago has the Worst Women 15 min Marriage Never 58
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 32 min Actual Science 61,112
last post wins! (Apr '13) 1 hr Retired SOF 1,484
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 2 hr GEORGIA 3,063
last post wins! (Dec '10) 2 hr They cannot kill ... 2,438
News 3 dead, 22 wounded in Chicago shootings 4 hr grounded in reali... 10
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 hr Go Blue Forever 103,469

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages