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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

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 ...

Comments (Page 7,801)

Showing posts 156,001 - 156,020 of167,664
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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
Donít 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"Do you think the Massachusetts Health Insurance Reform Law should be repealed, continued as the law currently stands, or continued but with some changes made?"

Repealed: 11 percent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
Donít 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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176509
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176511
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176513
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176515
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176516
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176519
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176522
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If Rogue had been around when Jesus was here, the following famous words would've been aimed straight at him : "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." " (Matthew 19:24)

Well, the ironic part is that Rogue is a merely a non-remunerated serf, a vassal, a peon for the rich 1%. Go figure. They'd have HIM go through the eye of the needle for them. LMAO (LRS-Dale tm reg'd).

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176523
Oct 26, 2013
 
Another Idiotard thinks he can trespass on the Eiffel Tower and that will get the 30 trespasser in Russia released. The Eiffel guy needs to sit in prison in France and think about that real hard.
Lefties always think laws do not apply to them.

Greenpeace activist dangles from Eiffel Tower in Russia protest

PARIS (Reuters)- A Greenpeace activist suspended himself from the Eiffel Tower on Saturday to call for the release of 30 people who have spent more than a month in a Russian jail over a protest against oil drilling in the Arctic

After lowering himself from the second tier of the Paris landmark, the man unfurled a large yellow sign saying: "Free the Arctic 30." He was brought down about two hours later by firemen without incident.

Twenty-eight Greenpeace activists and two journalists were arrested last month after trying to scale a Gazprom oil platform off Russia's northern coast, the country's first offshore oil platform in the Arctic.
http://news.yahoo.com/greenpeace-activist-dan...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176524
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
If Rogue had been around when Jesus was here, the following famous words would've been aimed straight at him : "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." " (Matthew 19:24)
Well, the ironic part is that Rogue is a merely a non-remunerated serf, a vassal, a peon for the rich 1%. Go figure. They'd have HIM go through the eye of the needle for them. LMAO (LRS-Dale tm reg'd).
Why are you worried about heaven if it does not exist?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176525
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

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.
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<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!
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Do you know anything about my charitable work and donations? YOU think raising the taxes on the rich to give to the so called poor is a good thing and I disagree.

Since: Feb 11

Nearer than you would like

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176526
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Truth Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be the UnConstitutional ObamaCare that is unaffordable and will provide care to no one.
Obama: USA needs more people without jobs???
Are you getting what you voted for?
1) The PPACA was signed into law because it passed the Republicant controlled House and the Democratic controlled Senate. It survived committees chaired by the opposition and numerous challenges. Even the independent - indicating bipartisan support, agreed with it. Still, you have not provided the quote where President Barack Obama stated he would only sign legislation that was backed by both parties. Why is that?

2) Yes, my career and future are very enjoyable.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176527
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

ChaunceyGardiner wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Where in our Constitution does it say YOU have a "freedom from religion"? Better read the First Amendment again and this time .... slowly!
Oh, by the way, 33% of the people on this Earth are Christians while only 21% are .... Muslims! And you claim to know more about religion than I do?
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adheren...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176528
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you worried about heaven if it does not exist?
Please indicate where and when I said heaven did not exist. Please do so, and at same time, proof I've been asking you the last three days. Also kindly indicate how you came to the conclusion that I am worried. Did I do that by quoting Jesus and the eye of the needle? Did that hit home? Are YOU worried now?

Here's what you ought to know before even touching on religion :

1. Most atheists know more about the bible, old and new testament, the gospels, acts of the apostles, and theologians than practicing Christians;

2. This is why they have become non-religious. If you bothered to read these things, you'd be so shocked and scandalized, and knowing how you harbour violence against those that don't agree with you, you'd most likely end up burning churches.

I've noticed, based on experience and relationships, that so-called atheists" as you like to call them, or me, are so much more tolerant of others. Atheists, for example, are mostly tolerant towards those who practice religions. Very few atheists have ever started a war. Some, yes, but very few indeed. Yet, religions and their leaders are most always at the root of massacres, wars, pogroms, famine and pestilence. If you knew your history, which you don't except for reproduction of right-wing links that you don't comprehend, you'd agree with me.

3. To be non-Christian or one that does not practice religion is not synonymous with atheism. Oh, you didn't know that, now did you?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 156,001 - 156,020 of167,664
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

42 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 7 min Frijoles 65,180
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min John Galt 1,034,555
Obama and Hillary's Just Dessert? 40 min Buckeye 4
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 43 min Mister Tonka 96,148
Abby 4-20 1 hr NWmoon 8
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 1 hr jimtownhounddogsniffing 3,784
Amy 4-20 1 hr RACE 4
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••