BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243102 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#195497 Jul 10, 2014
loose cannon wrote:
Those jets are like gnats and everyone on them is thought of as a mealworm.
Do you get upset when they fly over your little island when they flush their toilets?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#195498 Jul 10, 2014
Chinook helicopters have 'relief' tubes under the pilots seat which leads to a venturi under the aircarft which atomizes 'the liquid". Well I was on a mission in the U.K. at an Air Force base which had FB-111s and we had parked our Chinooks between the DB-111 shelters.
The next morning they has arrested a civilian clerk typist who had gotten onto the ramp (very bad thing to do at a nuke site) and hen caught was kicking this black plastic thing while blowing on another one she had broken off two of our Chinook helicopters. The SPs had asked us how bad our Chinooks had been damaged and we just laughed. I wonder if anyone had told her that the double-ended horn she was blowing on was a relief ventui?
Now these are picture of instrument venturis but they are about the same size as a relief venturi are.
https://www.google.com/search...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#195499 Jul 10, 2014
Oh, here is a picture of an early model Spitfire with a two-bladed, fixed-pitch propeller (on the nose) and an instrument venturi (below cockpit).
Early in WWII they switched to American-made Hamilton Standard, constant-speed propellers. Oh, they removed the Hamilton Standard markings so the Germans would not know they were getting stuff from America!

https://www.google.com/search...

Yep, the German ME109s had constant speed propellers at the beginning of their war with Britain while the Brits did not and that was one of the reasons why the German planes were out performing the British planes.
But by the time of the Battle of Britain, the Brits were getting American constant speed propellers.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#195500 Jul 10, 2014
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Watch it, Jacqtari is on the rag this morning! And somehow, Glotard managed to get enraged at FOX News during the night! You two certainly live the life, don't ya? LOL
Your limit : Two civilized posts in a row. What a surprise. Still, I shan't sink to your level.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#195501 Jul 10, 2014
Rogue,
There are a lot of libtards up there too.
Yep. Quite a few libtards.
Rahm Emanuel, Richie Daley and Dick Durbin are all big boosters of O'Hare and the unlimited expansion of air travel and the pollution which accompanies it.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#195502 Jul 10, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, here is a picture of an early model Spitfire with a two-bladed, fixed-pitch propeller (on the nose) and an instrument venturi (below cockpit).
Early in WWII they switched to American-made Hamilton Standard, constant-speed propellers. Oh, they removed the Hamilton Standard markings so the Germans would not know they were getting stuff from America!
https://www.google.com/search...
Yep, the German ME109s had constant speed propellers at the beginning of their war with Britain while the Brits did not and that was one of the reasons why the German planes were out performing the British planes.
But by the time of the Battle of Britain, the Brits were getting American constant speed propellers.
And P-51 Mustangs with their sissy bland Allison engines were getting Rolls Royce Merlin engines, transforming them from a flying coffin to the best fighter of WW2.

Sherman tanks in both British and Canadian armoured corps were replacing the instant-flammable power plants to diesel models, thereby reducing the risk of instant fire or explosion by over 50% Increased cannon millimeter also from 60 to 7t mm, I believe, correct me on that. Anyhow, Americans refused these life-savings improvements, saying they wanted to have American-only equipment as much as possible. Do you even know what it took for Shermans to destroy even ONE single German Tiger? Look it up, and if you can't find it, I'll let you know. One American congressman rose during the war (I read it somewhere, can't cite it) but here it is for what it's worth : He accused the war dept of sending "our" boys in combat in inferior Sherman tanks built by Chrysler , Ford, GM and others. It was true. He was accused of being a traitor.

Any more stuff on inferior British armaments?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#195503 Jul 10, 2014
booster - someone who steals for a living

Urban Dictionary

“impeach now replace later”

Since: Sep 09

Dump Trump now

#195504 Jul 10, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>A $10.10 minimum wage is still less than the 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 after adjusting for inflation
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
So!?! What caused the Recession of 1969-70? In 1966 I had at One for $0.90 an hour( was 15 y/o) and the following Summer I has a job that paid $1.35 an hour (I was 16).
<quoted text>
No, you did NOT answer my question which was "What caused the Recession of 1969-70?". And the correct answer was the rise in minimum wage in 1968 caused the recession of 1969-70!!!
I now, "stupid Libtard" is a double negative but you will never understand cause and effect for anything. That is why most people you drive drunk are Liberals.
Rise in minimum wage in 1968 caused the recession of 1969-1970?

I don't think so.

According to the paper entitled “Current Economic Recession: How long, how deep and how different from the Past? Authored by economists Marc Labonte and Gail Makinen of the Congressional Research Service dated January 10, 2002, the following factors contributed to the 1969-1970 recession:

The 1969-1970 recession was preceded by a period of unsustainable growth that led to accelerating inflation, which rose from 3.1% in 1967 to 4.3% in 1968, 4.9% in 1969, and 5.3% in 1970. Many contemporary observers attributed this boom and bust pattern to the fiscal policy stance of the time. As a percentage of GDP, the actual budget deficit rose from 1.1% in 1967 to 2.9% in 1968, and the structural budget deficit rose from 2.6% to 3.5%. During a period
of full employment, this increase in the deficit is likely to be highly inflationary. Many
argued that the easing of fiscal policy was spurred by growing American military
involvement in Vietnam and the government’s purported unwillingness to raise taxes
to finance it. In retrospect, however, monetary policy and a spike in oil prices might
have played a larger role in the cause of the recession than they were assigned by
contemporaries.

A belated effort was made to reduce the budget deficit, which reduced aggregate
spending. In 1968 and 1969, temporary 10% surcharges were applied to individual
income and corporate taxes, ostensibly to curb inflation. Later, the Tax Reform Act
of 1969 was passed. It was advertised as a measure to reform the tax code and close
certain loopholes, but also had the effect of raising revenue by 0.2% of GDP in 1970.
Its major provisions were the repeal of the investment tax credit (revenue raising), the
restriction of the tax exempt status of foundations (revenue raising), a broadening of
the individual income tax base (revenue raising), and an increase in the income tax’s
standard deduction and personal exemption (revenue reducing). In addition, the Act
extended the temporary surcharges for the first six months of 1970 at a rate of 5%
(reduced from the previous 10%), raising tax revenues an additional 0.4% of GDP.30
The result of these efforts, along with a reduction in military outlays, produced an
actual surplus of 0.3% of GDP in 1969 – the last surplus until 1998. This still
represented a structural budget deficit of 1.1% of GDP, however. The drop-off in
economic activity in 1970 returned the budget to a deficit equivalent to 0.3% of GDP.
In structural terms, however, fiscal policy was in fact slightly tighter than in 1969: the
structural deficit was reduced to 0.8% of GDP.

source: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7...

Nowhere in the paper did the government economists considered the minimum wage increase in 1968 from $1.40 to $1.60 (14.2% increase) as a contributing factor of the 1969-1970 recession.

You told us that you have an A.A. degree. Prove it by providing source information of your claim that a twenty cent increase in hourly wage in February 1968 would result in a recession
22 MONTHS LATER IN DECEMBER 1969.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#195505 Jul 10, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, Little Wojo is now three years old and he is still a pisser!
More juvenile schoolyard yarn. Fast forward, Rogue, fast forward, it's grown-up time.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#195506 Jul 10, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Rise in minimum wage in 1968 caused the recession of 1969-1970?
I don't think so.
According to the paper entitled “Current Economic Recession: How long, how deep and how different from the Past? Authored by economists Marc Labonte and Gail Makinen of the Congressional Research Service dated January 10, 2002, the following factors contributed to the 1969-1970 recession:
The 1969-1970 recession was preceded by a period of unsustainable growth that led to accelerating inflation, which rose from 3.1% in 1967 to 4.3% in 1968, 4.9% in 1969, and 5.3% in 1970. Many contemporary observers attributed this boom and bust pattern to the fiscal policy stance of the time. As a percentage of GDP, the actual budget deficit rose from 1.1% in 1967 to 2.9% in 1968, and the structural budget deficit rose from 2.6% to 3.5%. During a period
of full employment, this increase in the deficit is likely to be highly inflationary. Many
argued that the easing of fiscal policy was spurred by growing American military
involvement in Vietnam and the government’s purported unwillingness to raise taxes
to finance it. In retrospect, however, monetary policy and a spike in oil prices might
have played a larger role in the cause of the recession than they were assigned by
contemporaries.
A belated effort was made to reduce the budget deficit, which reduced aggregate
spending. In 1968 and 1969, temporary 10% surcharges were applied to individual
income and corporate taxes, ostensibly to curb inflation. Later, the Tax Reform Act
of 1969 was passed. It was advertised as a measure to reform the tax code and close
certain loopholes, but also had the effect of raising revenue by 0.2% of GDP in 1970.
Its major provisions were the repeal of the investment tax credit (revenue raising), the
restriction of the tax exempt status of foundations (revenue raising), a broadening of
the individual income tax base (revenue raising), and an increase in the income tax’s
standard deduction and personal exemption (revenue reducing). In addition, the Act
extended the temporary surcharges for the first six months of 1970 at a rate of 5%
(reduced from the previous 10%), raising tax revenues an additional 0.4% of GDP.30
The result of these efforts, along with a reduction in military outlays, produced an
actual surplus of 0.3% of GDP in 1969 – the last surplus until 1998. This still
represented a structural budget deficit of 1.1% of GDP, however. The drop-off in
economic activity in 1970 returned the budget to a deficit equivalent to 0.3% of GDP.
In structural terms, however, fiscal policy was in fact slightly tighter than in 1969: the
structural deficit was reduced to 0.8% of GDP.
source: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7...
Nowhere in the paper did the government economists considered the minimum wage increase in 1968 from $1.40 to $1.60 (14.2% increase) as a contributing factor of the 1969-1970 recession.
You told us that you have an A.A. degree. Prove it by providing source information of your claim that a twenty cent increase in hourly wage in February 1968 would result in a recession
22 MONTHS LATER IN DECEMBER 1969.
Then what caused the dip in the Labor Participation Rate after the 1968 Minimum Wage Act?
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Also, the increase in minimum wage in 2009 is one of the factors in the current very low LPR and the very slow recovery from the current recession!
Almost everything Obama has done has contributed to the stalled recovery!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#195507 Jul 10, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, Little Wojo is now three years old and he is still a pisser!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
More juvenile schoolyard yarn. Fast forward, Rogue, fast forward, it's grown-up time.
I tell Mexicans, "Su padre es Sancho" (His father is Sancho)
Do you know who Jody is? Jody is the guy who is messin' with your girl when you are not around. Well Sancho is Mexico's Jody. Anyway, when I tell Mexicans, "Su padre es Sancho", they crack up!
Oh, do you know why ducks can not fly upside down? They will quack-up!(that's a kids joke).

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#195508 Jul 10, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what caused the dip in the Labor Participation Rate after the 1968 Minimum Wage Act?
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Also, the increase in minimum wage in 2009 is one of the factors in the current very low LPR and the very slow recovery from the current recession!
Almost everything Obama has done has contributed to the stalled recovery!!!
May the lower labour participation rate be attributable, by any chance, to the baby boomer phenomena, to wit, more people retiring, less people seeking jobs? I would think that, as we are further mechanised, computerised and otherwise, added to that the large number of ever-increasing baby boomer retirees, that LPRr is bound to decrease and stabilize in 15 odd years when said baby boomers start dying.

Unemployment is at its lowest in 6 years, tricked numbers or not, as the statistical system has not changed. Did you know that the unemployment rate in December 2009 was 10.5%? Sure, Obama had been in charge a full 10 months,but surely you don't think that was his fault?

You keep saying we blame GWB for this long-lasting recession. Yes, we do, as it happened under his watch. You keep , along with LRS , telling us to stop blaming GWB for the Iraq quagmire and ultimate disaster. And so we do, and we're right. You know, Rogue, there is no statute of limitation for mistakes and bad management. It's not because the 2008 recession was 6 years ago and the unfortunate Iraq invasion was 11 years ago that GWB is off the hook. Hitler started WW2 in 1939. So long ago. Are you trying to tell me he had nothing to do with it?(Don't tell me I'm comparing GWB to Hitler, that would be lame. I'm not.GWB is no Hitler. It's an analogy).

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#195509 Jul 10, 2014
corr :(auto correction? why should I write may?)

Read : Maybe the lower labour participation rate ...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#195510 Jul 10, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what caused the dip in the Labor Participation Rate after the 1968 Minimum Wage Act?
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Mister Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, confronted with the fact that his reasoning concerning cause and effect, regarding the 1969-70 recession (which he insinuated was caused by the 1968 increase in minimum wage) is utterly bogus then moves the goalpost, demanding an answer to why wasn't "the dip in the Labor Participation Rate " CAUSED BY "the 1968 Minimum Wage Act", purely on the basis of timing.

Really, is this a joke?

Bigger joke, Rougetard:
"I now, "stupid Libtard" is a double negative but you will never understand cause and effect for anything."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

And what is really sad is that the Rougetard has no clue what I'm talking about.
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Rise in minimum wage in 1968 caused the recession of 1969-1970?
I don't think so.
According to the paper entitled “Current Economic Recession: How long, how deep and how different from the Past? Authored by economists Marc Labonte and Gail Makinen of the Congressional Research Service dated January 10, 2002, the following factors contributed to the 1969-1970 recession:
The 1969-1970 recession was preceded by a period of unsustainable growth that led to accelerating inflation, which rose from 3.1% in 1967 to 4.3% in 1968, 4.9% in 1969, and 5.3% in 1970. Many contemporary observers attributed this boom and bust pattern to the fiscal policy stance of the time. As a percentage of GDP, the actual budget deficit rose from 1.1% in 1967 to 2.9% in 1968, and the structural budget deficit rose from 2.6% to 3.5%. During a period
of full employment, this increase in the deficit is likely to be highly inflationary. Many
argued that the easing of fiscal policy was spurred by growing American military
involvement in Vietnam and the government’s purported unwillingness to raise taxes
to finance it. In retrospect, however, monetary policy and a spike in oil prices might
have played a larger role in the cause of the recession than they were assigned by
contemporaries.
A belated effort was made to reduce the budget deficit, which reduced aggregate
spending. In 1968 and 1969, temporary 10% surcharges were applied to individual
income and corporate taxes, ostensibly to curb inflation. Later, the Tax Reform Act
of 1969 was passed. It was advertised as a measure to reform the tax code and close
certain loopholes, but also had the effect of raising revenue by 0.2% of GDP in 1970.
Its major provisions were the repeal of the investment tax credit (revenue raising), the
restriction of the tax exempt status of foundations (revenue raising), a broadening of
the individual income tax base (revenue raising), and an increase in the income tax’s
standard deduction and personal exemption (revenue reducing). In addition, the Act
extended the temporary surcharges for the first six months of 1970 at a rate of 5%
(reduced from the previous 10%), raising tax revenues an additional 0.4% of GDP.30

....
source: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7 ...
Nowhere in the paper did the government economists considered the minimum wage increase in 1968 from $1.40 to $1.60 (14.2% increase) as a contributing factor of the 1969-1970 recession.
You told us that you have an A.A. degree. Prove it by providing source information of your claim that a twenty cent increase in hourly wage in February 1968 would result in a recession
22 MONTHS LATER IN DECEMBER 1969.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#195511 Jul 10, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
corr :(auto correction? why should I write may?)
Read : Maybe the lower labour participation rate ...
OMG, "May" was correct. LOL

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#195512 Jul 10, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, Little Wojo is now three years old and he is still a pisser!
<quoted text>
I tell Mexicans, "Su padre es Sancho" (His father is Sancho)
Do you know who Jody is? Jody is the guy who is messin' with your girl when you are not around. Well Sancho is Mexico's Jody. Anyway, when I tell Mexicans, "Su padre es Sancho", they crack up!
Oh, do you know why ducks can not fly upside down? They will quack-up!(that's a kids joke).
You : "when I tell Mexicans," Are they real Mexicans or true-blue Americans of Mexican ethnicity? There's a difference, you know. Like calling you a Brit because you language is English. Or, like LRS, thinking I live in France because I have a French-language name. Or worse, for some strange, weird and unrelated reason, in Chicago.

“impeach now replace later”

Since: Sep 09

Dump Trump now

#195513 Jul 10, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what caused the dip in the Labor Participation Rate after the 1968 Minimum Wage Act?
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Also, the increase in minimum wage in 2009 is one of the factors in the current very low LPR and the very slow recovery from the current recession!
Almost everything Obama has done has contributed to the stalled recovery!!!
You still haven't answered the question. You stated that the 20 cent increase in the minimum wage in February 1968 caused the recession that occurred 22 MONTHS LATER in December 1969. As a college educated person with an A.A. degree that you claim to have I would expect you to support your argument with a coherent and logically response. Instead, you go off tangent by telling us that the 20 cent increase caused a dip of the LPR and then you jump in your time machine and spin a yarn about the minimum wage in 2009 and LPR.

Again where is your supporting documentation that the 20 cent increase in the minimum wage in February 1968 caused the recession 22 MONTHS LATER in December 1969?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#195514 Jul 10, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't answered the question. You stated that the 20 cent increase in the minimum wage in February 1968 caused the recession that occurred 22 MONTHS LATER in December 1969. As a college educated person with an A.A. degree that you claim to have I would expect you to support your argument with a coherent and logically response. Instead, you go off tangent by telling us that the 20 cent increase caused a dip of the LPR and then you jump in your time machine and spin a yarn about the minimum wage in 2009 and LPR.
Again where is your supporting documentation that the 20 cent increase in the minimum wage in February 1968 caused the recession 22 MONTHS LATER in December 1969?
I'll give you 20:1 Rougie Baby cannot stay on-point.

And, BTW, you have not yet answered the question that Rougie will pose in his next tangential post in reply!
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what caused the dip in the Labor Participation Rate after the 1968 Minimum Wage Act?
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Also, the increase in minimum wage in 2009 is one of the factors in the current very low LPR and the very slow recovery from the current recession!
Almost everything Obama has done has contributed to the stalled recovery!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#195515 Jul 10, 2014

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#195516 Jul 10, 2014
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't answered the question. You stated that the 20 cent increase in the minimum wage in February 1968 caused the recession that occurred 22 MONTHS LATER in December 1969. As a college educated person with an A.A. degree that you claim to have I would expect you to support your argument with a coherent and logically response. Instead, you go off tangent by telling us that the 20 cent increase caused a dip of the LPR and then you jump in your time machine and spin a yarn about the minimum wage in 2009 and LPR.
Again where is your supporting documentation that the 20 cent increase in the minimum wage in February 1968 caused the recession 22 MONTHS LATER in December 1969?
Rougie's documentation is that if one thing preceded another then the former caused the latter.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

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 RoxLo 1,659,698
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Ben Avraham 72,047
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Sublime1 105,379
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr what a russsh 11,599
News A Big Fish in a little marina (Jan '09) 15 hr Kasmier 19
News Rauner courts black votes with $1M investment (Oct '14) 20 hr RUN OUTA ILLINOIS 14
US Media Humiliated, all in 1 day. 20 hr US Media is Malig... 10

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages