*Rahm *Made Legal* To Stay In Race: Obama May Anoint Him King Of Chicago*

chesswarsnow

"SASQUATCH IS WATCHING"
Dec 9, 2007
10,551
3,872
295
Fort Worth, Texas
Sorry bout that,


1. I think I smell another *rig job* in the works.
2. Rahm can't live in two cities at same time.
3. Who's behind this?
4. Looks like the powers that be, ie Obama is pulling out all the stops.
5. Obama will anoint him *KING RAHM OF CHICAGO*!!!!!!!
6. Politics in America are going down the tubes folks, right before your eyes.
7. Read about it here>Clout St: Supreme Court: Emanuel on Chicago mayor ballot



"The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that Rahm Emanuel can stay on the ballot for mayor of Chicago, saying in a unanimous decision that he meets the state's residency requirements despite spending most of the last year as White House chief of staff.

The decision came without a moment to spare; early voting for the Feb. 22 city election begins Monday, Jan. 31. You can read the opinion by clicking here.

"The voters deserved the right to make the choice of who should be mayor. And what the Supreme Court said basically, in short, that the voters should make the decicions of who will be mayor," a victorious Emanuel said after slapping backs and shaking hands with commuters at the Clark and Lake elevated train stop near his downtown headquarters.

"The nice part was to be able to tell the news to voters, because a lot of people had not heard it," Emanuel said.

While at the station, Emanuel took a congratulatory call from President Barack Obama. After that, Emanuel left for a debate tonight with the three other leading contenders in the mayoral contest.

The Emanuel residency issue came up as the first question in tonight's debate. Former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun did not disagree with the court's decision and said the ruling doesn't change the field, since Emanuel has continued campaigning. Candidate Gery Chico said he believes in ballot access and has never challenged anyone's candidacy in his career.

Emanuel said he's looking forward in the campaign."


8. "Here lemme just move some empty boxes over to Chicago so I can say I live there."



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
Last edited:
Why does every Democrat require a Lawyer, a Judge, and many trials just to be politicians. Seems they are about themselves, this elite do not need to follow rules, no birth certificate, not a citizen, no problem, they own the judges.
 
Why does every Democrat require a Lawyer, a Judge, and many trials just to be politicians. Seems they are about themselves, this elite do not need to follow rules, no birth certificate, not a citizen, no problem, they own the judges.

Basically because when a Republican wants to run..Democrats are like, "Sure..no problem".
 
Why does every Democrat require a Lawyer, a Judge, and many trials just to be politicians. Seems they are about themselves, this elite do not need to follow rules, no birth certificate, not a citizen, no problem, they own the judges.

Basically because when a Republican wants to run..Democrats are like, "Sure..no problem".

Until they lose, then it like RECOUNT RECOUNT RECOUNT...
Sorry, could not help it :p
 
Why does every Democrat require a Lawyer, a Judge, and many trials just to be politicians. Seems they are about themselves, this elite do not need to follow rules, no birth certificate, not a citizen, no problem, they own the judges.

Basically because when a Republican wants to run..Democrats are like, "Sure..no problem".

Until they lose, then it like RECOUNT RECOUNT RECOUNT...
Sorry, could not help it :p

That's on both sides..and in close votes.

But..point taken..:lol:
 
Why does every Democrat require a Lawyer, a Judge, and many trials just to be politicians. Seems they are about themselves, this elite do not need to follow rules, no birth certificate, not a citizen, no problem, they own the judges.

All politicians require Lawyers, Judges, etc.

The first step in running a campaign is to try and get your opponents disqualified.

This is universal to all parties and elections in the US.
 
Rahm has already won the election, too.

They just haven't announced it yet.
 
I heard he wasn't that popular in Chicago.

I wonder if he could even win the election???
 
Sorry bout that,


1. I think I smell another *rig job* in the works.
2. Rahm can't live in two cities at same time.
3. Who's behind this?
4. Looks like the powers that be, ie Obama is pulling out all the stops.
5. Obama will anoint him *KING RAHM OF CHICAGO*!!!!!!!
6. Politics in America are going down the tubes folks, right before your eyes.
7. Read about it here>Clout St: Supreme Court: Emanuel on Chicago mayor ballot



"The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that Rahm Emanuel can stay on the ballot for mayor of Chicago, saying in a unanimous decision that he meets the state's residency requirements despite spending most of the last year as White House chief of staff.

The decision came without a moment to spare; early voting for the Feb. 22 city election begins Monday, Jan. 31. You can read the opinion by clicking here.

"The voters deserved the right to make the choice of who should be mayor. And what the Supreme Court said basically, in short, that the voters should make the decicions of who will be mayor," a victorious Emanuel said after slapping backs and shaking hands with commuters at the Clark and Lake elevated train stop near his downtown headquarters.

"The nice part was to be able to tell the news to voters, because a lot of people had not heard it," Emanuel said.

While at the station, Emanuel took a congratulatory call from President Barack Obama. After that, Emanuel left for a debate tonight with the three other leading contenders in the mayoral contest.

The Emanuel residency issue came up as the first question in tonight's debate. Former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun did not disagree with the court's decision and said the ruling doesn't change the field, since Emanuel has continued campaigning. Candidate Gery Chico said he believes in ballot access and has never challenged anyone's candidacy in his career.

Emanuel said he's looking forward in the campaign."


8. "Here lemme just move some empty boxes over to Chicago so I can say I live there."



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

FTA-"This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous."

Baraknaphobia seems to be spreading.
 
When do we follow the rules?
You need to establish residency and when you don't you get thrown off the ballot.
Then another court says you don't really have to follow the rules if you are the President's butt buddy.
Used to be You needed to have been born here to be President...but sometimes....

Damm I can't believe I just went there....
I wonder if anyone will notice this post...:eusa_shhh:
 
Sorry bout that,




When do we follow the rules?
You need to establish residency and when you don't you get thrown off the ballot.
Then another court says you don't really have to follow the rules if you are the President's butt buddy.
Used to be You needed to have been born here to be President...but sometimes....

Damm I can't believe I just went there....
I wonder if anyone will notice this post...:eusa_shhh:




1. Yes we read it, everyone read it, and we know where you live too.:evil:
2. Hehehehehe,.........:lol:



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
FTA-"This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous."
 

Forum List

Back
Top