BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 190417 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

#186205 Mar 7, 2014
Jacques,
I've never really listened to Rush Limbaugh, but I know he is an opiate addict.
Oxycontin. He may as well be shooting morphine.
I can't believe people listen to that useless gutterspeak day in and day out.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#186206 Mar 7, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you on the citizenship thing and eligibility "Ellen 1". If there were any there there it would have been uncovered by now for real, not just wishful thinking. What speaks volumes though is the fact that democrats and a majority actually believed that Barry had a resume that qualified him for the job. Now that we have had the test of time to judge what kind of leadership he has delivered versus the emotion surrounding electing our first black president, it is obvious that the country made a massive error in judgement. His current polling numbers makes what I am saying even more credible then just someone who never thought he should have made into the job in the first place due to his lack of experience. Community organizer? what a sad a cruel joke that is as a resume qualification.
Re: "and a majority actually believed that Barry had a resume that qualified him for the job"

Answer: I recall that Republicans and a majority actually believed that George W. Bush had a resume that qualified him for the same job. What was the result? IRAQ and the crash.
wojar

Bristol, CT

#186207 Mar 7, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Fantasy that the media is left wing? It's statements like that Woj that causes people to question your intellectual honesty. Even Columbia University reports that the media is left wing. I know your a smart guy, it's your honesty and integrity thats in question.
And the disgruntled loser who cannot get over Mitt's loss does not cite his "report". The alleged "left wing" Columbia U reports "the media" is left wing? That's like claiming Fox News reports the media is right wing. Ob is a joke.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the birfoon who fantasizes that "the media" is left wing.
BTW, Jimmy Carter was ruthlessly criticized by the so called "liberal" press.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#186209 Mar 8, 2014
Jacques,
Mitch McConnell really torques the wrong way me too.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#186210 Mar 8, 2014
Jacques,
I am going to pick them apart, one by one and piece by piece.
loose

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#186211 Mar 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
Tell us what this means!
BREAKING PROOF! OBAMA BORN IN KENYA - Long Form BC A FRAUD?
It means poor Tacky believes --anything-- he sees on the internet so long as it agrees with his preconceived ideas.
I noticed he is very concerned with authenticity, raised seals, the congressional record....

But when it comes to info on the subject... anything with a web address will do.

If he spent half the time scrutinizing where he gets his info....

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#186212 Mar 8, 2014
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "and a majority actually believed that Barry had a resume that qualified him for the job"
Answer: I recall that Republicans and a majority actually believed that George W. Bush had a resume that qualified him for the same job. What was the result? IRAQ and the crash.
Dubbya Bush had clearly proved that he could run multiple multi-million dollar corporations straight into the ground. He was a sure thing.

We rolled the dice on Obama being able to do the same.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#186213 Mar 8, 2014
Scrutiny,
The winds of change will blow them overboard.
loose

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#186214 Mar 8, 2014
"The Repiblicans veer between apathetical torpor and hysterical fanaticism."

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#186215 Mar 8, 2014
Jacques,
Torpor describes the Republic party quite succinctly.
It means dormant or sluggish. A condition of mental inactivity or insensibilty.
They are failing to adapt to a ever changing socio-evironmental landscape.
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#186216 Mar 8, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
And the disgruntled loser who cannot get over Mitt's loss does not cite his "report". The alleged "left wing" Columbia U reports "the media" is left wing? That's like claiming Fox News reports the media is right wing. Ob is a joke.
<quoted text>
Here is a pull quote from the article Woj.

Though MSNBC has a handful of moderate conservatives—namely Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough—Fox stands out for the prominence it awards its on-air naysayers, many of whom occupy regular roles on the network’s most popular shows. Personalities like Kirsten Powers, who made her way up through the Clinton administration and now goes head-to-head with Bill O’Reilly on nationalized healthcare (she’s for it), the death penalty (against), and the Iraq war (against). Their screen relationship is one of playful respect; when their debates grow heated, O’Reilly warmly calls her “Powers.”
Why would liberals in good standing risk becoming Democratic Party outcasts by going to work for Fox? And why does Fox spend good money acquiring them? The first question is easier than the second. Tamara Holder says she’s often asked how a person who once wrote for GrassRoots, a medical marijuana magazine, found herself on a network geared toward the country’s most faithful conservatives. Her one-word answer:“ratings.”
The harder question is the one directed at Fox’s motives. Ratings, of course, would be the logical answer here, too. But it’s possible that’s not the sole explanation.
For a network that relies on a partisan base, adding a group of liberals is risky, pushing against the purity of programming that has historically been the core of Fox’s success. And yet the nation’s most-watched cable channel doesn’t maneuver without strategy. Since it launched in 1996, Fox has grown into the largest cable news network, drawing 1.1 million viewers in primetime and 1.76 million viewers in total per day, an audience that’s four times larger than its next closest competitor, CNN, and greater than both MSNBC and CNN’s audiences combined. Fox has gained this market share by its masterful manipulation of ideology, drawing an audience that’s primarily conservative, and then seeking to reinforce their values. It’s a strategy that MSNBC has scrambled to copy, setting itself up as Fox’s ideological opposite. But this year, when MSNBC’s daytime ratings slid below CNN’s, Politico’s Dylan Byers blamed the fall on MSNBC’s programming, which airs more opinion than any other news network, reaching a tipping point of “too much liberal outrage.”

And here is a link so you can read the entire article yourself.

http://www.cjr.org/feature/and_from_the_leftf...
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#186217 Mar 8, 2014
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Overall I agree, except I am not real sure what you mean exactly by symbolism/substance.
I don't remember substance being a tangible thing for a long time now.
I don't believe in the accuracy of polls. That probably stems from our media having clearly chosen their respective "sides". When MSNBC obviously twists their figures and Fox can't even post an intellectually honest graph... there is no one left to believe. And in a sense... there is no one left to lie to.
Obama ... contrary to popular belief, did not win on symbolism. He won because he wasn't George Bush and couldn't be linked to a Bush.
The second time he won was certainly not about merit. It was that Romney is not electable. I know GOP fanatics can't wrap their heads around that... but it is true. America had been stripped of it's industry and sold to the highest bidder. Putting a guy who helped make that happen in front of us as an answer... well, I have mentioned before that I seriously believe the GOP has been purposefully dodging the presidency. I can't imagine the motivation, but I am sure one exists.
And now... citizen's united was not done away with. Anyone in the world can buy our White House. China could covertly run a candidate and not only would they have a real solid chance of winning... we would never be the wiser. Corporations are people too now and we are no longer entitled to know where candidates are getting their cash flow from.
I don't run around saying that Hillary is our next pres. for nothing. If you look back, and look at what is taking place now it seems to me that she will win simply because it is her turn. I hate to think that is what America has come to... but scientifically speaking, "It's Hillary's turn" is as plausible (maybe more) as any other scenario.
Be well.
Thats what I like about you "Scrutiny". You offer thoughtful and serious responses based on your perspective. You're objective, and present an honest and intellectual opinion. I agree that the republicans as a party seem to be lacking a ruder in their platform and offer very little contrast to the democrats, who continue to maintain total control of the debate and the strategy. What I mean regarding symbolism over substance is the reality that Barry was all about electing the countries first black president, not an individual who presented the country a resume that qualified him for the job. Electing Hillary will be no different. The fact she has no penis is the most important component of her candidacy to the democrats. Pure symbolism just like Barry. I understand she was a senator and the Secretary of State, but in my opinion getting elected to the senate and getting the appointment was the significant aspect of that. She accomplished nothing of significance to suggest that she would be a great leader, which the country is in desperate need of. With the major media information suppliers being nothing more then an extension of the democrat party, no republican will ever get an objective narrative from them unless the media itself becomes so marginalized the left wing suppliers go bankrupt and leave the marketplace and gets replaced with some real journalist that challenge the political classes honesty and integrity. Fox is hated so much by the left because it's the only domestic presenter of opinion and news that challenges their propaganda. They are not perfect by any means but they do attempt to bring both sides better then their competition. There are more liberals on Fox then on MSNBC.
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#186218 Mar 8, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
Scrutiny,
Marsha Blackburn embodies everything that is wrong with the Republicans.
She discredits the whole GOP.
Number twelve is unquestionably the lefts favorite. It provides the opportunity to practice what they are best at, hate!

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.(This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

No one understood what is in the heart and soul of a socialist better then Saul.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#186219 Mar 8, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a pull quote from the article Woj.
Though MSNBC has a handful of moderate conservatives—namely Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough—Fox stands out for the prominence it awards its on-air naysayers, many of whom occupy regular roles on the network’s most popular shows. Personalities like Kirsten Powers, who made her way up through the Clinton administration and now goes head-to-head with Bill O’Reilly on nationalized healthcare (she’s for it), the death penalty (against), and the Iraq war (against). Their screen relationship is one of playful respect; when their debates grow heated, O’Reilly warmly calls her “Powers.”
Why would liberals in good standing risk becoming Democratic Party outcasts by going to work for Fox? And why does Fox spend good money acquiring them? The first question is easier than the second. Tamara Holder says she’s often asked how a person who once wrote for GrassRoots, a medical marijuana magazine, found herself on a network geared toward the country’s most faithful conservatives. Her one-word answer:“ratings.”
The harder question is the one directed at Fox’s motives. Ratings, of course, would be the logical answer here, too. But it’s possible that’s not the sole explanation.
For a network that relies on a partisan base, adding a group of liberals is risky, pushing against the purity of programming that has historically been the core of Fox’s success. And yet the nation’s most-watched cable channel doesn’t maneuver without strategy. Since it launched in 1996, Fox has grown into the largest cable news network, drawing 1.1 million viewers in primetime and 1.76 million viewers in total per day, an audience that’s four times larger than its next closest competitor, CNN, and greater than both MSNBC and CNN’s audiences combined. Fox has gained this market share by its masterful manipulation of ideology, drawing an audience that’s primarily conservative, and then seeking to reinforce their values. It’s a strategy that MSNBC has scrambled to copy, setting itself up as Fox’s ideological opposite. But this year, when MSNBC’s daytime ratings slid below CNN’s, Politico’s Dylan Byers blamed the fall on MSNBC’s programming, which airs more opinion than any other news network, reaching a tipping point of “too much liberal outrage.”
And here is a link so you can read the entire article yourself.
http://www.cjr.org/feature/and_from_the_leftf...
Dixit you from the article : "and the Iraq war (against)." Do you actually mean you were, are, in favour of the Iraq war?(Shaking head, looking to the sky, eyes rolling). Next thing you know, you'll be telling us these poor 55,000 G.I's died for a worthy cause in Vietnam, preventing the domino effect. Uh?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#186220 Mar 8, 2014
Jacques,
I know Rush is a hate-filled ogre.
Let me reiterate myself. I know Rush is a hate-filled ogre.
What a disgusting human being that man is.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#186221 Mar 8, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Number twelve is unquestionably the lefts favorite. It provides the opportunity to practice what they are best at, hate!
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.(This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
No one understood what is in the heart and soul of a socialist better then Saul.
What Saul? Surely not aka St-Paul?
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#186222 Mar 8, 2014
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: "and a majority actually believed that Barry had a resume that qualified him for the job"
Answer: I recall that Republicans and a majority actually believed that George W. Bush had a resume that qualified him for the same job. What was the result? IRAQ and the crash.
And the crash continues with the exception of Wall Street getting way more wealthy at the expense of the little guy, and a world that is even more unstable with Barry's "lead from behind approach". Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Ukraine are in turmoil and radical islam is gaining more and more power along with Russia, China, and Iran. Bush was by no means anything special and made many mistakes, I agree, but he at least served as a Governor of one of our largest States, and got re-elected with support from many democrats in Texas. If you have any desire to be taken seriously, pay attention to the posts from "Scrutiny", as he is not an apologist for either party, and he clearly loves being an American over being a loyal democrat or republican. The only political party that sucks more then the republicans is the democrats and thats being real.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

#186223 Mar 8, 2014
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a pull quote from the article Woj.
Though MSNBC has a handful of moderate conservatives—namely Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough—Fox stands out for the prominence it awards its on-air naysayers, many of whom occupy regular roles on the network’s most popular shows. Personalities like Kirsten Powers, who made her way up through the Clinton administration and now goes head-to-head with Bill O’Reilly on nationalized healthcare (she’s for it), the death penalty (against), and the Iraq war (against). Their screen relationship is one of playful respect; when their debates grow heated, O’Reilly warmly calls her “Powers.”
Why would liberals in good standing risk becoming Democratic Party outcasts by going to work for Fox? And why does Fox spend good money acquiring them? The first question is easier than the second. Tamara Holder says she’s often asked how a person who once wrote for GrassRoots, a medical marijuana magazine, found herself on a network geared toward the country’s most faithful conservatives. Her one-word answer:“ratings.”
The harder question is the one directed at Fox’s motives. Ratings, of course, would be the logical answer here, too. But it’s possible that’s not the sole explanation.
For a network that relies on a partisan base, adding a group of liberals is risky, pushing against the purity of programming that has historically been the core of Fox’s success. And yet the nation’s most-watched cable channel doesn’t maneuver without strategy. Since it launched in 1996, Fox has grown into the largest cable news network, drawing 1.1 million viewers in primetime and 1.76 million viewers in total per day, an audience that’s four times larger than its next closest competitor, CNN, and greater than both MSNBC and CNN’s audiences combined. Fox has gained this market share by its masterful manipulation of ideology, drawing an audience that’s primarily conservative, and then seeking to reinforce their values. It’s a strategy that MSNBC has scrambled to copy, setting itself up as Fox’s ideological opposite. But this year, when MSNBC’s daytime ratings slid below CNN’s, Politico’s Dylan Byers blamed the fall on MSNBC’s programming, which airs more opinion than any other news network, reaching a tipping point of “too much liberal outrage.”
And here is a link so you can read the entire article yourself.
http://www.cjr.org/feature/and_from_the_leftf...
Kristen Powers is a pretty weak example. They act like fox scours the Earth for respectable opposition and this piece of christian eye candy is the best they could come up with?

So she is against the death penalty and is a realist about war...so what?

It's only entertainment. People facing off repeating what they have heard at each other with superficial urgency. Usually one of them is intended to be eaten by the other.

It doesn't work out for them every time but after nearly every "panel" the host can confidently wink and nod you into the commercial break as the viewer's ideas have again stood victorious in the face of a random challenger.... god bless America....
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#186224 Mar 8, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Dixit you from the article : "and the Iraq war (against)." Do you actually mean you were, are, in favour of the Iraq war?(Shaking head, looking to the sky, eyes rolling). Next thing you know, you'll be telling us these poor 55,000 G.I's died for a worthy cause in Vietnam, preventing the domino effect. Uh?
Excuse me for not being hip on terms Jacques, but I don't know what "dixit" means. I'm not sure how you gathered that I was for the war in Iraq from my post, but for the record I despise war. It is the ultimate failure in rational human behavior. Unfortunately history demonstrates that at times it is necessary, so I am for having the strongest and most advanced military of all countries, because without it freedom and liberty is very difficult to defend. My response to 9/11 would have been a careful investigation of who was responsible, and then quickly destroy them wherever they were hiding. Invading a country and nation building is stupid and imperialistic.
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#186225 Mar 8, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
What Saul? Surely not aka St-Paul?
Saul Alinsky. The spiritual leader of the left and a dedicated follower of satan. Rules for Radicals was credited to the devil by the author and folks like "loose" worship him.

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) 3 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,234,951
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 38 min ritedownthemiddle 53,541
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr not a ghost 5,250
News Former U.S. House Speaker Hastert indicted on f... 1 hr Lawrence Wolf 13
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr not a ghost 6,016
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 1 hr not a ghost 415
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 1 hr not a ghost 8,047
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]