BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 243009 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

#177356 Nov 1, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
If Mitt is so smart, why ain't he president?
"ain't"? You are starting to sound like a Redneck!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#177358 Nov 1, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you REALLY want me to go into THAT again ... "dumchit"!
If Mitt ain't so smart, why ain't he president?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#177359 Nov 1, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your caliber of wit hasn't changed either.
It that's so, explain why you can't answer in kind?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#177360 Nov 1, 2013
I wonder if anyone in this administration gave any thought to identity theft before crearing healthcare.gov ? It's only one of the biggest problems associated with the net.

The Feds simply do not possess the authority to tell Americans "you must buy this or we will fine you"! They've never had that authority. Guess I need to call and remind them!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#177361 Nov 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
But, but, but McAuliffe was leading by 15% just yesterday!!!
Poll: Virginia governor race a nail-biter
By TAL KOPAN | 10/30/
With less than a week until Election Day, Virginia gubernatorial hopeful Terry McAuliffe holds a slim lead over Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a tightening race, according to a poll on Wednesday.
McAuliffe leads Cuccinelli among likely voters 45 percent to 41 percent, with 9 percent for Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis, according to a Quinnipiac University poll. The edge is within the pollís margin of error.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/virgini ...
<quoted text>
Did I say that? Did I hint that? Has there been any allegations? Right now there are three gubernatorial candidates and the Libertarian is taking away votes that would probably go to the Republican, but that is not fraudulent!
Fact is that Bush-41 would probably have won the election of 1992 if it were not for Ross Perot. Likewise Al Gore probably would have won the election of 2000 if it had not been for Ralph Nader who won 2.74% of the vote.
Fact is is that third parties are often times spoilers and it happens to both parties. But that is just politics.
Fact, many of those who are on this forum are not Conservatives by Libertarians just like few on the other-side are are not Liberals but Progressives.
I consider myself a Conservatarian in that I am a Fiscal Conservative but a Social and Religious moderate. True Libertarians are ultra-conservative on Fiscal issues by Liberal on Social and Religious issues.
Just as true Liberals are open minded individuals whereas Progressives are narrow minded bigots.
No, you didn't say that. Geez, sensitive, are we? I simply posed the question. And, btw, you are not a Religious moderate. You are a bigoted religious zealot, as you call anyone who is not religious or who criticizes Christianity an atheist. Politically-wise, I am none of the things you wrote, I am just me, for sale to no one, particularly not to the 1% like you. I've voted socialist, liberal AND conservative here, and regretted most, unfortunately.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#177362 Nov 1, 2013
*creating
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#177363 Nov 1, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
It that's so, explain why you can't answer in kind?
Answer what?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#177364 Nov 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
If Mitt is so smart, why ain't he president?
<quoted text>
Using Jacqueau's Libtardian Logic, Owl Gore lost the election of 2000, and John F-up Kerry the election of 2004, because they were ..... stupid!
Rewind. Gore WON the 2000 election, were it not for Jeb Bush and the majority repub supreme court. Gore had the votes. Everyone but you knows that. As to being smarter, you're not gonna tell me GWB is smarter than Gore, now will you? Remember, I did not say GWB was dumb or stupid, as he is neither, but as to which man is smarter...

Kerry lost fairly to GWB in 2004, but it was not because he was stupid, he is not. None of those guys are. He just ran a bad awkward campaign, with his stupid salutes, "as he mouthed ready to serve or something". GWB ran a much better campaign, and Kerry's aides were no match for GWB's Cheney, Grove, Rice etc.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#177365 Nov 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
"ain't"? You are starting to sound like a Redneck!
And you "ain't" one? LMAO (LRS-Dale tm reg'd)

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#177366 Nov 1, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer what?
OXFORD DEFINITION OF "IN KIND" :

IN KIND : "in the same form" or "repaid his insolence in kind"

Lesson's free. This time. Sigh.
Learn to Read

United States

#177367 Nov 1, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>Rewind. Gore WON the 2000 election, were it not for Jeb Bush and the majority repub supreme court. Gore had the votes. Everyone but you knows that. As to being smarter, you're not gonna tell me GWB is smarter than Gore, now will you? Remember, I did not say GWB was dumb or stupid, as he is neither, but as to which man is smarter...

Kerry lost fairly to GWB in 2004, but it was not because he was stupid, he is not. None of those guys are. He just ran a bad awkward campaign, with his stupid salutes, "as he mouthed ready to serve or something". GWB ran a much better campaign, and Kerry's aides were no match for GWB's Cheney, Grove, Rice etc.
Anyone that is honest and has knowledge of the matter will tell you that they aren't sure who would have won Florida (and thus the election) had the counting continued. Subsequent reviews suggested differing results depending on how generously counters attempted to infer the "intent" of the voter and how many counties were counted.

The one truth is that Clinton's affair and subsequent song and dance caused the election to be much closer than it otherwise would have been.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#177368 Nov 1, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Rewind. Gore WON the 2000 election, were it not for Jeb Bush and the majority repub supreme court. Gore had the votes. Everyone but you knows that. As to being smarter, you're not gonna tell me GWB is smarter than Gore, now will you? Remember, I did not say GWB was dumb or stupid, as he is neither, but as to which man is smarter...
Kerry lost fairly to GWB in 2004, but it was not because he was stupid, he is not. None of those guys are. He just ran a bad awkward campaign, with his stupid salutes, "as he mouthed ready to serve or something". GWB ran a much better campaign, and Kerry's aides were no match for GWB's Cheney, Grove, Rice etc.
I disagree. Bush won in 2000. Or, at least the vote was so close that Gore was stupid to have counted on Florida and should have assumed that he would lose that state and put resources into other states. As has been pointed out, Clinton's actions had a lot to do with Gore losing--but the fact is, he lost.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-...

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#177369 Nov 1, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone that is honest and has knowledge of the matter will tell you that they aren't sure who would have won Florida (and thus the election) had the counting continued. Subsequent reviews suggested differing results depending on how generously counters attempted to infer the "intent" of the voter and how many counties were counted.
The one truth is that Clinton's affair and subsequent song and dance caused the election to be much closer than it otherwise would have been.
Sound reasoning, that. Could be rehashed forever and everyone would be right AND wrong. Let's say it was close. This is interesting :

United States presidential election, 2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


United States Presidential Election, 2000

United States
----------

Popular vote
50,456,002 50,999,897

Percentage
47.9% 48.4%

----------

The United States presidential election of 2000 was the 54th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000. The contest was between Republican candidate George W. Bush, the incumbent governor of Texas and son of former president George H. W. Bush, and Democratic candidate Al Gore, the incumbent Vice President.

Incumbent Democratic President Bill Clinton was not eligible to serve a third term, and Vice President Gore was able to secure the Democratic nomination with relative ease. Bush was seen as the early favorite for the Republican nomination, and despite a contentious primary battle with Senator John McCain and other candidates, secured the nomination by Super Tuesday. Many third party candidates also ran, most prominently Ralph Nader. Bush chose former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney as his running mate, and Gore chose Senator Joe Lieberman as his. Both major party candidates focused primarily on domestic issues, such as the budget, tax relief, and reforms for federal social insurance programs, though foreign policy was not ignored. Clinton and Gore did not often campaign together, a deliberate decision resulting from the Lewinsky sex scandal two years prior.

Election results hinged on Florida, where the margin of victory triggered a mandatory recount. Litigation in select counties started additional recounts, and this litigation ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court's contentious decision in Bush v. Gore, announced on December 12, 2000, ended the recounts, effectively awarding Florida's votes to Bush and granting him the victory. This marked only the fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote (after the elections of 1824, 1876, and 1888). Later studies have reached conflicting opinions on who would have won the recount had it had been allowed to proceed.

==========

Above last sentence is important. But the Supreme Court halted all of that.

And I think that Kerry's mistake was not using Clinton in his campaign - he was afraid of the effects of Clinton's White House shenanigans. He was wrong. Clinton would've helped him and Obama, though the two can't stand each other, was smart enough to use him. And he won, and I don't think, in both cases, that one could discount Clinton's contribution.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#177370 Nov 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Bush won in 2000. Or, at least the vote was so close that Gore was stupid to have counted on Florida and should have assumed that he would lose that state and put resources into other states. As has been pointed out, Clinton's actions had a lot to do with Gore losing--but the fact is, he lost.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-...
Not sure he lost, but as I just wrote, everyone that speculates as to who won or lost are wrong AND right. I disagree with the Clinton factor. Had Clinton been allowed to run for a 3rd term, he would've won hands down against any contender. Gore was afraid, of the Lewinski affair, as I just wrote to LTR, but I reckon he misjudged a democratic electorate and some conservatives that had forgiven his stupid indiscretions. Had he solicited Clinton more, he probably would've won without a recount.
Learn to Read

United States

#177371 Nov 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree. Bush won in 2000. Or, at least the vote was so close that Gore was stupid to have counted on Florida and should have assumed that he would lose that state and put resources into other states. As has been pointed out, Clinton's actions had a lot to do with Gore losing--but the fact is, he lost.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-...
Not anticipating that Clinton's actions would impact Florida of all places was inexcusable on the part of Gore's campaign. In more recent elections he has been a big help for the Democrat in many elections. But for Gore he was an albatross

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#177372 Nov 1, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
That presidents would campaign for some of their candidates is the most normal thing in the world. Has been done by both Repubs and Dems for eons.
But tell me this, Rogue, and seeing Obama's low standing in the Rogue polls, isn't his campaigning for this dem candidate more likely to hurt him? Watcha say? Why is "ever so popular" Speaker Boehner not showing up for the Repub candidate? LMAO (LRS-Dale tm reg'd).
Did either Hillary or Obama campaign in New Jersey for Buono? NO! And if McAuliffe was 10-15 points ahead, they would not have gone to Virginia either.
No, I haven't heard about Bonehead going to Virginia but Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin have or will.
But, IHMO, if McAuliffe loses, it will be because of ObamaCare.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#177373 Nov 1, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Sound reasoning, that. Could be rehashed forever and everyone would be right AND wrong. Let's say it was close. This is interesting :
United States presidential election, 2000
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Presidential Election, 2000
United States
----------
Popular vote
50,456,002 50,999,897
Percentage
47.9% 48.4%
----------
The United States presidential election of 2000 was the 54th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000. The contest was between Republican candidate George W. Bush, the incumbent governor of Texas and son of former president George H. W. Bush, and Democratic candidate Al Gore, the incumbent Vice President.
Incumbent Democratic President Bill Clinton was not eligible to serve a third term, and Vice President Gore was able to secure the Democratic nomination with relative ease. Bush was seen as the early favorite for the Republican nomination, and despite a contentious primary battle with Senator John McCain and other candidates, secured the nomination by Super Tuesday. Many third party candidates also ran, most prominently Ralph Nader. Bush chose former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney as his running mate, and Gore chose Senator Joe Lieberman as his. Both major party candidates focused primarily on domestic issues, such as the budget, tax relief, and reforms for federal social insurance programs, though foreign policy was not ignored. Clinton and Gore did not often campaign together, a deliberate decision resulting from the Lewinsky sex scandal two years prior.
Election results hinged on Florida, where the margin of victory triggered a mandatory recount. Litigation in select counties started additional recounts, and this litigation ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court's contentious decision in Bush v. Gore, announced on December 12, 2000, ended the recounts, effectively awarding Florida's votes to Bush and granting him the victory. This marked only the fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote (after the elections of 1824, 1876, and 1888). Later studies have reached conflicting opinions on who would have won the recount had it had been allowed to proceed.
==========
Above last sentence is important. But the Supreme Court halted all of that.
And I think that Kerry's mistake was not using Clinton in his campaign - he was afraid of the effects of Clinton's White House shenanigans. He was wrong. Clinton would've helped him and Obama, though the two can't stand each other, was smart enough to use him. And he won, and I don't think, in both cases, that one could discount Clinton's contribution.
You do know that 47.9%+ 48.4%= 96.3%, don't you? That means 3.7% voted for someone else and 2.74% voted for .... Ralph Nader. If Nader had not run, Owl would have won.
But in 1992 Bush-41 lost because Ross Perot got 18.9% of the vote!!! Third Party candidate often hurt their own side more.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#177374 Nov 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
"ain't"? You are starting to sound like a Redneck!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
And you "ain't" one? LMAO (LRS-Dale tm reg'd)
Most people who know me think I am from the Mid-West and that I am a middle-class sort of guy.
When I drove long-haul 18-wheelers many thought I was driving an RV Motorhome. I don't think anyone that knows me would mistake me for a Redneck. But I would rather be a Redneck than a Ghetto Person.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#177375 Nov 1, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that 47.9%+ 48.4%= 96.3%, don't you? That means 3.7% voted for someone else and 2.74% voted for .... Ralph Nader. If Nader had not run, Owl would have won.
But in 1992 Bush-41 lost because Ross Perot got 18.9% of the vote!!! Third Party candidate often hurt their own side more.
You're right. No doubt Nader was THE difference. Gore would've won, yes. I've liked, idolized, even, Nader since the very beginning, in the days of the Corvair. Sincere, honest, man BUT I can't bring myself to forgive him for losing that election for Gore, specially that he KNEW he had no hope of winning and that his candidacy could kill Gore. It did.

Did Perot help Clinton? Of course.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#177376 Nov 1, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Rewind. Gore WON the 2000 election, were it not for Jeb Bush and the majority repub supreme court. Gore had the votes. Everyone but you knows that. As to being smarter, you're not gonna tell me GWB is smarter than Gore, now will you? Remember, I did not say GWB was dumb or stupid, as he is neither, but as to which man is smarter...
Kerry lost fairly to GWB in 2004, but it was not because he was stupid, he is not. None of those guys are. He just ran a bad awkward campaign, with his stupid salutes, "as he mouthed ready to serve or something". GWB ran a much better campaign, and Kerry's aides were no match for GWB's Cheney, Grove, Rice etc.
You need to start accepting reality. Even Owl Gore acknowledge that Bush won!!!
Does "None of those guys" include G.W. Bush? G.W. has a MBA and Owl Gore just has a a Bachelor's degree in Journalism!

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr ThanksForTheLaugh... 64,159
News California business leaders call on Congress to... Wed tomin cali 1
News Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order uncons... Nov 21 Solarman 1
News Watch these bizarre flies dive underwater using... Nov 21 Faith 5
News Charles Manson, whose cult slayings horrified w... Nov 20 Conspiracies Abound 3
News Cult leader Charles Manson dead Nov 20 CM Was Rat Filth 1
News Charles Manson, whose cult slayings horrified t... Nov 20 MAGA On Electio... 1
More from around the web