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
Old Goat

Wichita, KS

#72183 Apr 11, 2012
Oolongti wrote:
<quoted text> That's a relief.
a muslim terrorist has greater morals than the combined numbers of the DNC.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#72184 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Oh, this is also for you Libtards. Do you know the difference between ethanol and either? Well, either has that sub-molecule of water stripped out.
And that is why either is more flammable than ethanol.
Oh, the FAA forbids any ethanol in aviation grade gasoline. Do you know why? I do!!!
Sorry Rouge, this is not the Trivial Pursuits forum.
Old Goat

Wichita, KS

#72185 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>Hahaha!!! Screw you, I am not a democrat.
<quoted text>
I agree. The Democrats' gain.
a muslim terrorist has greater morals than the combined numbers of the DNC.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72186 Apr 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG.
Sorry, Rouge Birfoon, I read the Florida law, your 'zine article notwithstanding.
Considering that Rouge is totally ignorant of what the FL law says, where does he get off saying "The Florida law is very clear"?
A lot of this Zimmerman-Martin thing I don't understand, wojar, and perhaps you can explain it to me.

It seems to me that yes or no, Zimmerman may or may not be justified in killing Martin. Whether it was justified or not, it seems like a most regrettable dénouement. It's sad that Martin was shot dead, right or wrong. I'm now coming to the part that I don't understand, and it's this : The dumb KY GB, Rogue, lardy Rush, uncouth Marcus, American er hmm Lady et al, are not only defending Zimmerman without knowing what really happened, they are eulogising him, patting him on the back, way to go, guy's a true American hero.

There you have it. Can you help me understand?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#72187 Apr 11, 2012
Barry Bin Lyin wrote:
<quoted text>Trying to inform you in an endless task,but here goes: Killing is justified if one PERCEIVES life in danger EVEN if in retrospect it may have not actual been...
The 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter
776.013&#8195;Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm
FL stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat.
Get it yet, comrade?
Skid has a reading comprehension problem.

776.013 does not provide Zimmerman with a presumption that his actions were reasonable based purely on subjective perception. Why doesn't Skidmark actually try reading the statutes?

Clue: Presumption of fear of death pertains to HOME PROTECTION.

Zimmerman was following martin out in the street.

Duh!

How about reading the right page? Eh Skid?
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say it was ok? I just wrote the facts as they are. No killing is justifiable, unless it's truly in self defence.
FYI, and check it out, in the Israel-Arab conflict, the ratio of Arabs-to-Israelis killed since Israel's inception is 20-1. Not judging it, as you will jump on that, just stating the facts.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#72188 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of this Zimmerman-Martin thing I don't understand, wojar, and perhaps you can explain it to me.
It seems to me that yes or no, Zimmerman may or may not be justified in killing Martin. Whether it was justified or not, it seems like a most regrettable dénouement. It's sad that Martin was shot dead, right or wrong. I'm now coming to the part that I don't understand, and it's this : The dumb KY GB, Rogue, lardy Rush, uncouth Marcus, American er hmm Lady et al, are not only defending Zimmerman without knowing what really happened, they are eulogising him, patting him on the back, way to go, guy's a true American hero.
There you have it. Can you help me understand?
Yes. First you need to find a horse that will kick you in the head. It will then become clear.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG.
Sorry, Rouge Birfoon, I read the Florida law, your 'zine article notwithstanding.
Considering that Rouge is totally ignorant of what the FL law says, where does he get off saying "The Florida law is very clear"?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72190 Apr 11, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>a muslim terrorist has greater morals than the combined numbers of the DNC.
So, Old Goat, you are now allied with Vladimir Putin, Pravda, muslim terrorists and Hugo Chavez. Very patriotic. Congratulations.

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#72191 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you have against Muslims? You do know that the Muslims base their religion on Judaism, don't you? Muslims believe they broke off from Judaism with Ishmael and every thing before that in our Bible is also part of Islamic teachings to include Genesis!!! I sure hope you can read!!!
From Wiki: Ishmael (Hebrew: &#1497;&#1460;&#15 13;&#1456;&#1473;& #1502;&#1464;&#1506; &#1461;&#1488;&#15 00;, Modern Yishma'el Tiberian Yišm&#257;&#699;&# 275;l ISO 259-3 Yišma&#705;el; Greek: &#921;&#963;&#956; &#945;&#942;&#955; Isma&#275;l; Latin: Ismael; Arabic: &#1573;&#1587;&#16 05;&#1575;&#1593;& #1610;&#1604;&#8206; &#702;Ism&#257;&#7 03;&#299;l) is a figure in the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, and was Abraham's first son according to Jews, Christians and Muslims. Ishmael was born of Abraham's marriage to Sarah's handmaiden Hagar (Genesis 16:3). According to the Genesis account, he died at the age of 137 (Genesis 25:17).
Where did i say the word Muslim ?
All i ask was where did the wifes of Cain & Able come from.
Also the gene pool would have been to small to start the Human Race
Old Goat

Wichita, KS

#72192 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Old Goat, you are now allied with Vladimir Putin, Pravda, muslim terrorists and Hugo Chavez. Very patriotic. Congratulations.
no, I have not allied myself with any of your favorite people, to do so, would make me a scumbag like yourself.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72193 Apr 11, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>no, I have not allied myself with any of your favorite people, to do so, would make me a scumbag like yourself.
Deny it all you want, you said so, now you're stuck with it. Say hi to Vladimir for me when you see him. And don't forget to chug that Comrade Chavez gasoline in your tank.
Old Goat

Wichita, KS

#72195 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Deny it all you want, you said so, now you're stuck with it. Say hi to Vladimir for me when you see him. And don't forget to chug that Comrade Chavez gasoline in your tank.
Please point to the post where I allied myself with scum such as you? Hahaha!!! It ain't there.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72196 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
You Libtards do know that it is impossible for us Conservative to think this shit up!!!
Obama uses Manure for Green Energy?
President Obama’s Department of Agriculture (USDA) committed $5 million today to the construction of a “biogas anaerobic digester” that will use cow manure to heat an ethanol plant and create 15 permanent jobs.
Western Plains Energy, LLC, a Kansas company, will use the money to “utilize waste energy resources from a local cattle feedlot to replace almost 90 percent of the fossil fuels currently used” at the plant.
http://cowboybyte.com/6214/obama-manure-for-g ...
If anything is a good idea, the private sector will fund it!!! Government needs to stay out of the way and stop wasting our tax dollars.
<quoted text>
Well, since you Libtards will not accept anything that comes from a non-George Soros approved site, it would be worthless to try to engage you in a dialog on this subject.
If it makes good business sense, the private sector will fund it!!! If the private sector will not fund it, it is bad business period and government needs to stay out of it!!!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you skirt the heart of the matter, to wit, does Obama have time for this? Does he? You're too naive to realise that this cowboy website will use anything, absolutely anything, to discredit the President. Even YOU of all people, anti-Obama as you are, yes, evenYOU know that Obama had nothing to do with this small-scale project.
I totally disagree with you. Sure O'Bummer does not have his fingers in every piece of the pie but his administration does and they are following his Spend and Tax policy.
I say "Spend and Tax" because the O'Bummer agenda dictates they they spend as much money as they want to and then jack up taxes. Oh you Libtards railed against Bush's UNFUNDED programs (which I did not like either) and then O'Bummer quadruples the UNFUNDED spending and you Libtards think is is just fine? Huh?!?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72197 Apr 11, 2012
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say it was ok? I just wrote the facts as they are. No killing is justifiable, unless it's truly in self defence.
FYI, and check it out, in the Israel-Arab conflict, the ratio of Arabs-to-Israelis killed since Israel's inception is 20-1. Not judging it, as you will jump on that, just stating the facts.
Well, it is not Israels problem that Muslims are stupid. If they want to do suicide attacks, it is their fault that they died.
Oh, how many Jewish suicide bombers have there been? Got a clue?
Muslims do not think the way we do. They think it is fine to put a bomb factory next to a hospital so the Israelis would be less likely yo attack it. But it they do attack and innocent Muslims are killed, the Muslims think that is fine as they died as martyrs and will go straight to heaven.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72198 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you have against Muslims? You do know that the Muslims base their religion on Judaism, don't you? Muslims believe they broke off from Judaism with Ishmael and every thing before that in our Bible is also part of Islamic teachings to include Genesis!!! I sure hope you can read!!!
From Wiki: Ishmael (Hebrew;Modern Yishma'el Tiberian; Greek; Arabic: is a figure in the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, and was Abraham's first son according to Jews, Christians and Muslims. Ishmael was born of Abraham's marriage to Sarah's handmaiden Hagar (Genesis 16:3). According to the Genesis account, he died at the age of 137 (Genesis 25:17).
nebka wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did i say the word Muslim ?
All i ask was where did the wifes of Cain & Able come from.
Also the gene pool would have been to small to start the Human Race
Well, there are three religions that believe in The Book and they are Jews, Christians and Muslims, right?!? All three religions use Genesis!!!
And I added Muslims as you only think you are slandering Christians and Jews.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72199 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Barry Bin Lyin wrote:
<quoted text>Brave critic of Catholicism: It is a sure thing you would NEVER post similar criticism of Islam/Mohammad or if I am wrong go ahead and post something crtical about Islam. It will be 'enlightening' for you to reflect on that, or just perhaps a lightening as you loose your f-ing head if you do. Oh, and if you do think you are 'the brave critic', give 'em a hint to whom you really are...they might like to visit. Ha!
<quoted text>
Sooo, using Libatrdian Logic, we should allow the Muslims to kill Jews and Christians for another 700 years? Yeh, Reverend Wright!!!
Christians killing non-believes was evil then and today is is evil for Muslims to kill Jews and Christians!!! Can you understand that very simple concept?
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say it was ok? I just wrote the facts as they are. No killing is justifiable, unless it's truly in self defence.
FYI, and check it out, in the Israel-Arab conflict, the ratio of Arabs-to-Israelis killed since Israel's inception is 20-1. Not judging it, as you will jump on that, just stating the facts.
Yes I will jump on it. It does not matter how many you have to kill to convince them to stop attacking them!!!
During the Iran-Iraq War the Iranians used human landmine detectors! Is it Iraqis fault they use humans this way?
Is it our fault that the Muslims will take a mentally retarded child, strap a bomb to him and tell him to take some flowers to the America GIs and then when he gets close, they detonate the bomb!!! Even the Japanese did not use these tactics during WWII!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72200 Apr 11, 2012
Old Goat wrote:
<quoted text>Please point to the post where I allied myself with scum such as you? Hahaha!!! It ain't there.
No. YOU prove you didn't write it. Not for me to do your work for you.
Barry Bin Lyin

Port Saint Lucie, FL

#72201 Apr 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Skid has a reading comprehension problem.
776.013 does not provide Zimmerman with a presumption that his actions were reasonable based purely on subjective perception. Why doesn't Skidmark actually try reading the statutes?
Clue: Presumption of fear of death pertains to HOME PROTECTION.
Zimmerman was following martin out in the street.
Duh!
How about reading the right page? Eh Skid?
<quoted text>
Nice try, for a wor'tard, I mean BUT Florida law justifies use of deadly force IE. poppin' a cap in the thug when you are:

1.Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; IE. getting your head smashed against the concrete for the 3rd time...
2.Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Any questions?

Try not to selectively read the law, comrade.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72202 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Relevance? Last time I checked a semi-automatic pistol is deadly force. Last time I checked Trayvon Martin is dead.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Wojo is incapable of comprehending what he reads. The Florida law is very clear. It does not require that the assailant has any weapon and does not require that he be physically assaulted. All it requires is that the shooter is in fear of being attacked.
And it is up to the state to prove otherwise.
And it does not matter if Martin died or not. Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force to protect himself against any perceived threat! If the state even charges him without proof he did not act in self defense, the state has committed a crime.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/double-murder ...
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry birfoon, the law doesn't protect the armed assailant, Zimmerman, after the fact of getting his ass kicked. And it does not protect Zimmerman if his alleged fear was not reasonable. The burden of proof is on Zimmerman.
Okay, what evidence do you have that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin? I will be waiting!!!
Oh, read the Florida law! The State must prove it was not self defense!
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[20]
776.012&#8195;Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)&#8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013&#8195;Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1)&#8195;A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)&#8195;The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)&#8195;The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)&#8195;The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)&#8195;The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
Cont.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#72203 Apr 11, 2012
Cont.
(d)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)&#8195;A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)&#8195;A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)&#8195;As used in this section, the term:
(a)&#8195;“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)&#8195;“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)&#8195;“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032&#8195;Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)&#8195;A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)&#8195;A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)&#8195;The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
776.;Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1);Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2);Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a);Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#72204 Apr 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it is not Israels problem that Muslims are stupid. If they want to do suicide attacks, it is their fault that they died.
Oh, how many Jewish suicide bombers have there been? Got a clue?
Muslims do not think the way we do. They think it is fine to put a bomb factory next to a hospital so the Israelis would be less likely yo attack it. But it they do attack and innocent Muslims are killed, the Muslims think that is fine as they died as martyrs and will go straight to heaven.
You have no idea what you are talking about. How many Abrams tanks, F15s,. F16s, drones, ships, sophisticated armaments do the Palestinians have? Not justifying the suicide attacks, they are intolerable, cruel, unjusitifiable, but so are air strikes and the "collateral damage" they cause, which incidentally account for the 20-1 ratio, as most of the killed are civilians.

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min RealDave 1,141,389
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr IBdaMann 33,221
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Abe 162,651
Obama's immigration plan will weigh on GOP 2016... 4 hr spytheweb 1
Austria far-rightist's presidential bid draws i... (Mar '10) 5 hr swedenforever 84
Republicans strike early blow in U.S. midterm e... 8 hr truth-facts 468
Obama to detail his executive action on immigra... 10 hr barefoot2626 85

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE