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

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#179637 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Vietnam under LBJ, Obama will not let the military fight to WIN! In the end both sides will lose fewer people.
And what of Bush? Did he fight to win?

I mean we took the whole country in days... right?

This thing should have been mopped up well before the election.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#179638 Nov 16, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>John Bingham was the absolute expert on immigration,as it applied to The Constitution.
Interpreting the Constitution is not based on the personal opinions of anyone. Interpreting the Constitution is solely within the province of the courts and they held that personal opinions of members of congress are irrelevant in determining the meaning of language in the Constitution.

Justice Scalia reminds us that "We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself ...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history....
Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (Scalia, J., concurring)

Moreover, "While it is generally true that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. Binns v. United States, 194 US 486 , 495(1904)(internal citation omitted)

Finally, the piece de resistance "By repeated decisions of this court it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the law-making body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24; United States v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 91 U.S. 72, 79; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 318. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 US 443, 474 (1923)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179639 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Vietnam under LBJ, Obama will not let the military fight to WIN! In the end both sides will lose fewer people.
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
And what of Bush? Did he fight to win?
I mean we took the whole country in days... right?
This thing should have been mopped up well before the election.
Yes we did WIN the Military war in just three weeks. We lost the insurgency because of Obama!!!
Now, how many civilians have been killed in Obama's Drone Strikes?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179640 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Question, who killed and maimed most of those Iraqis? Bush???
Next, Iraq's oil supply was added to the world supply. Case in point, what was the cost of gasoline in the U.S. when Bush left office?
$1.84 per gallon in Jan. 2009!
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2009/ ...
Now, what is the price TODAY?!? Now, shut the F-up!
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Rouge thinks that the oil companies that benefit from American interest in the gulf are going to help Americans save money!!!!
BAhhhahahaha.
Obviously you do not grasp the world oil markets. When Bill Clinton released some oil from the strategic oil reserves, tanker ships that were enroute to the U.S. changed course and went to other countries.
When Iraq put it's oil in the world market, very little came to the U.S. but it did make an impact on the "World Market"!
Imagine a pipe full of marbles. You put a marble in one end and one comes out the other end. So put a "Y"at either end. It does not matter which Y you put it in, another one will pop out some place.
Talking logic to a Libtard is like eating your table for breakfast.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#179641 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Vietnam under LBJ, Obama will not let the military fight to WIN! In the end both sides will lose fewer people.
LBJ didn't lose Vietnam. You can thank General Westmoreland with his outdated WWII tactics of search and destroy in a country where the enemy can dictate when and where to fight. His tactic of attrition was unsuited in a warfare that numbers didn't mean anything to the enemy where he was able to sustain losses 100 to 1 American.

Furthermore, by underreporting the actual strenght of the enemy forces to his superiors including the President as far back as 1965
so as to increase the size of the United States forces in Vietnman from 200,00 in 1965 to 540,000 in 1968.

In his own words, it was General Westmoreland's strategy "not to defeat the North Vietnamese army."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179642 Nov 16, 2013
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Rouge thinks that the oil companies that benefit from American interest in the gulf are going to help Americans save money!!!!
BAhhhahahaha.
You do know there are about 150 oil companies here in America, don't you? How many times has the Democrat controlled House of Congress tried to prove there was a conspiracy but could not find any?
If there was only two or three companies, that would be possible but not with a 150?!?
Get a brain!!!
You do know the average American farmer has a high profit MARGIN than the average oil company, don't you?
Do you know that the Federal, State and local governments make more profit off of oil than the oil companies do, don't you??? Probably not as you do not know the difference between profit and profit margin!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179643 Nov 16, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
LBJ didn't lose Vietnam. You can thank General Westmoreland with his outdated WWII tactics of search and destroy in a country where the enemy can dictate when and where to fight. His tactic of attrition was unsuited in a warfare that numbers didn't mean anything to the enemy where he was able to sustain losses 100 to 1 American.
Furthermore, by underreporting the actual strenght of the enemy forces to his superiors including the President as far back as 1965
so as to increase the size of the United States forces in Vietnman from 200,00 in 1965 to 540,000 in 1968.
In his own words, it was General Westmoreland's strategy "not to defeat the North Vietnamese army."
Ah, it was LBJ and and SecDef McNamara that were cherry picking the targets. You have no idea of what you talk about.
Tell us, when did we mine Haiphong Harbor? Was it 1962 or was it ... 1972?

Vietnam War
See also: Operation Rolling Thunder, Operation Linebacker , and Operation Linebacker II

Late in the Vietnam War, Haiphong was subjected to heavy bombing by US Navy and Air Force strike aircraft because it was North Vietnam's only major port. U.S. Admiral Thomas H. Moorer ordered the mining of Haiphong harbor on 8 May 1972, effectively sealing the port. Until it was lifted, the mining caused no casualty.[6] Despite being targeted, the physical structure of the city was mostly unaffected by the war as the US had a self-imposed prohibition zone for the city. After the war, the city recovered its role as a significant industrial center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiphong

Oh, please note they do not mention Nixon but do you really thing Adm. Moore made the decision all on his own? Or did the author of this article not want to give Nixon credit?!?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#179644 Nov 16, 2013
How come the Libtards will talk about all the people killed while Bush was president but will not talk about the number of innocent people who have been droned to death under Obama?!?
In fact there are a lot of subject on Obama that you will not reply to. Was da matta, CHICKEN?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179645 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Question, who killed and maimed most of those Iraqis? Bush???
Next, Iraq's oil supply was added to the world supply. Case in point, what was the cost of gasoline in the U.S. when Bush left office?
$1.84 per gallon in Jan. 2009!
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2009/...
Now, what is the price TODAY?!? Now, shut the F-up!
You question : "Question, who killed and maimed most of those Iraqis? Bush???"

Answer : Yes

Yes, it was $1.84. What is it now and if you add inflation, what should it be and if the intervention in Iraq was meant to protect oil sources and keep the price low, what happened, Rogue?

And in a final fit of frustration, what with your lies, innumerable lies catching up with you, all that's left is : "Now, shut the F-up!" Poor, very poor.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179646 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, you win a war not by killing people but by demoralizing them. When the bad guys don't know at what time, from what direction or how they will be attacked, they get demoralized!!!
That is why one snipped can destroy several hundreds enemy. He knocks one off here, another there, he kills the leaders and then the privates panic.
The enemy does not know where you are so they do a reconnaissance-by-fire! By using phase-array radar and TacFire we know exactly where the fire came from within seconds, we assign an artillery unit to return fire from exactly where it came from and bad guys world blows up.
They still don't know where we are but they do know if they shoot, all hell will break loose.
Sounds great. Is that how you won in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179647 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And do you know why? Because doctors and lawyers buy MU-2s and Cessna Citations and their egos kill themselves. In any event, the accident rate for MU-2 is much higher that Citations are.
Safety Concerns
Concerns have been raised about safety; there have been 330 fatalities from MU-2 crashes.[10] As of October 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has begun a safety evaluation of the aircraft and decided that the aircraft has met its certification requirements - it is safe when operated by properly trained pilots who operate properly maintained aircraft. The FAA is in the process of mandating training specific to the MU-2 as it has in the past for other aircraft. When such mandated training was required outside of the U.S. the MU-2 accident record was vastly improved.
Because the MU-2 offers very high performance at a relatively low cost, some of its operators lack sufficient training and experience for such an advanced aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_MU-2
Oh, did you know about the Mitsubishi MU-2 before I brought it to your attention?
What the hell ! The above are your answers to my questions and comments, namely :

Jacques from Ottawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't be so stupid. I always acknowledged your piloting skills but also always said that didn't mean you were savvy on aviation in general, any more than driving a car does not make me an automobile industry expert or tapping on this computer makes me a software of hardware expert.
Now, the Cessna is the highest-selling pvt jet aircraft. Did you know that? It also has a high accident record, as the "accident chart" of Airline World will tell you. Of course, that may be because there are so many of them. I don't know the per-capita rate of accidents compared to other pvt jet aircraft.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179648 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is small-minded peoples logic as we know both men and women screw around for a variety of reasons.
Why my baby brother just divorced his wife of ten years (20 year relationship) because he reconnected with an old lover.
By baby brother is an atheist, pot-smoking, flaming progressive. His ex-wife is pretty Liberal too but she is not an in-you-face- progressive like my brother is.
Oh, I went to their wedding Labor Day weekend 2002. His "best man" was a lesbian. We had three lesbian and one gay couple at the wedding. I had taken my 11 year old granddaughter and it was one of those "don't ask, don't tell" events. When she was about 15 I asked her about it and she said she had figured it out.
But Liberals average three times as many partners than Conservatives do. Yes, there are exceptions like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich but I said "average".
You wrote : "But Liberals average three times as many partners than Conservatives do" Prove it now, BSr. NOW. Or will you tell me to find it myself.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179649 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
We knew that when we developed Quick-Fix TacFire that sooner or later the Soviets would also develop it was that is where we came out with the MRLS (Multiple Rocket Launch System).
Once we knew were the bad guys were we could launch 72 precision aimed, multi-warhead rockets within thirty seconds and thirty seconds later we would be buggin' out to the next firing position where they would rearm. So if the bad guys had the same targeting capacity, we would not be were we were at when they returned fire.
Have you ever hear of "shell shocked"? You get shelled and a tenth of your unit is killed and then you wait for the next attack. Pretty soon the troops panic and break! That is how you defeat the enemy.
<quoted text>
How long did it take us to get from the Iraq border to Baghdad?
March 20, 2003 the war starts.
April 10, 2003 we take Baghdad just 20 days later!!!
Yes, and what happened from that day on until today? THAT's what he was asking, but you didn't get it. Again.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179650 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like Vietnam under LBJ, Obama will not let the military fight to WIN! In the end both sides will lose fewer people.
<quoted text>
Yes we did WIN the Military war in just three weeks. We lost the insurgency because of Obama!!!
Now, how many civilians have been killed in Obama's Drone Strikes?
Not too too good on dates, are you? The insurgency began in 2009?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#179651 Nov 16, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
How come the Libtards will talk about all the people killed while Bush was president but will not talk about the number of innocent people who have been droned to death under Obama?!?
In fact there are a lot of subject on Obama that you will not reply to. Was da matta, CHICKEN?
I replied to that nonsense a couple of hours ago. You ignored it and you come right back with this platitude. I repeat, drones regrettably killed innocent civilians. When Bush was president, over 160,000 people were killed and 1 million maimed in Iraq.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#179652 Nov 16, 2013
Note to the thread. A business matter will take me out of the country for the next two weeks. Upon my return in December I will probably check back in for a good laugh. However, I will not waste time reviewing pages of comments made during my absence. Additionally - please note that any exchanges (real or imagined) that you may have during my absence will not be with me.

Birfoons - please also know that each and every fail you experience during the next two weeks will still be a source if great amusement to me even though I do not comment here

Later!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179653 Nov 16, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day. Barack Obama's father was never an immigrant to the United states,you can't compare apples to oranges. The immigration department told immigrants that if they became citizens of the United States and had children,their children would be eligible to run for the office of POTUS. Barack Obama's father does not fall into that category.
Frank, the "Immigration department" never told any alien that their children born in the US would not be eligible to be President.(strike 1)

Incidentally, the INS is not the Supreme Court (strike 2) and Barack Obama's Obama's father never ran for President (strike 3, you're out).
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
According to binding precedent set forth in Ark (and reiterated in Elg - jus soli rule), a child of aliens born in the US is a natural born citizen. Your HS civics teacher was either misinformed, or you did not understand what she was saying.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179654 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Tinker Bell, there isn't a US law that can strip a foreign citizenship from anyone, unless requested by that individual.
As we all know at the moment of birth Obama acquired both citizenship and allegiance to his father's country.
Absolutely, US law recognizes who is a US citizen. Obama was born a US citizen according to US law. Britain can call him whatever the F they want. It has no bearing on his US citizen status, that is unless you believe the US is not an independent and sovereign nation.

US law has no bearing on who is a British citizen and British law has no bearing on who is a US citizen.

Similarly, the US constitution has no bearing on the jurisdiction of the crown over all persons in her territory. The US constitution also has no authority in Canada, where Ted Cruz was born a natural born citizen of Canada.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>There is no US law that grants foreign citizenship to anyone. Just a fact Dufus is clueless about.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179655 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! He was born in Canada, his father was Cuban, wouldn't that make him subject to a foreign power.
Ted was born a Canadian citizen subject to the Crown and under her jurisdiction. He was automatically naturalized pursuant to US statutory law, which has no force or effect in Canada.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#179656 Nov 16, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Knob-polisher, the comma is, what it is, just a fact you can't change.
It is what it is, too bad Dale is illiterate.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, neither Bingham, Howard, nor Trumbull understood the comma, nor did the appellate courts and supreme court.
LOL.
The law shouldn't be read by people who are birthers, fools, who couldn't pass middle school English.
If birfoon Dale can read, he should notice I have used the comma in the same manner as did Sen. Howard. All three, birthers, fools, and (persons) who couldn't pass middle school English refer to the same object (people who possess all three characteristics).
In Howard's, statement,(born) foreigners,(born) aliens, and (persons) who belong to the families of ambassadors are predicated of the same object, i.e., persons excluded from birthright citizenship.
Grow up Dufus, you're out of your league.
<quoted text>

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) 4 min Tony Rome 1,125,568
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 min David 98,501
Abby 10-22 25 min Sublime1 4
Emanuel set to outline re-election agenda in fi... 47 min Walt Kowalski 3
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Eric 70,030
Abby 10-20 1 hr Ralph 20
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr grave digger 47,489
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]