Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1396569 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

LeosAnusfaketeac her

Palm Coast, FL

#1151174 Jun 15, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
She has 5th grade concept of history and hates President Obama.
It rained in Orlando thus it is ...... LOL
At least she can spell "claim" and "does". She also successfully passed in 5th grade, leaving you behind, and realizes Obama has spent most of his life lying and evidently plans to continue doing so for the rest of it. Get some tutoring, fool.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1151175 Jun 15, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text> Carol and Waxman really bother you a lot. Good for them! Just sayin'
--Angela
Or maybe he just has a low tolerance for stupid and lying social ingrates like them and you.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1151176 Jun 15, 2014
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were to take a deep breath of yourself, you'd pass out.
You can't recognize your caretakers for their masks and Hazard Suits.
A personal note, your auto-biography is not gonna be very interesting.

“Peace on Earth”

Level 4

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1151177 Jun 15, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
“The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines necessary in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolution regarding Iraq.”
The resolution was approved 296 to 133 in the House, and 77 to 23 in the Senate. The majority of Senate Democrats voted for it. Not only did Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschlel vote for it—attaching their names and their credibility to it forever—but so, too, did liberal Democratic senators such as Joe Biden (Del.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), John Edwards (N.C.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Tom Harkin (Iowa) and John Kerry (Mass.).
These senators told us three months ago, in the most serious venue imaginable—a formal act of Congress authorizing a war in which Americans will kill and be killed—that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, is developing nuclear weapons, is harboring al Qaeda, is a real threat to attack the United States, and is lying about all these things.
If these senators were telling the truth, there is no choice but war.
Since Clinton and Daschle and other Senate liberals approved a war against Iraq, their claims have been backed up by President Bush, as well as by a unanimous vote in the UN Security Council. Just like Daschle and Clinton, the French and the Russians and the Chinese determined that they could no longer risk Saddam’s continued defiance in possessing and developing weapons of mass destruction. "
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Everyone knows that Bush lied about Hussein's possession of chemical and biological weapons to fool congress into voting for his resolution.

Hillary Clinton in her floor speech supporting the resolution:

"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, THIS COURSE IS FRAUGHT WITH DANGER. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

IF WE WERE TO ATTACK IRAQ NOW, ALONE OR WITH FEW ALLIES, IT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT THAT COULD COME BACK TO HAUNT US. "

Bush lied and soldiers died.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#1151178 Jun 15, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
“The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines necessary in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolution regarding Iraq.”
The resolution was approved 296 to 133 in the House, and 77 to 23 in the Senate. The majority of Senate Democrats voted for it. Not only did Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschlel vote for it—attaching their names and their credibility to it forever—but so, too, did liberal Democratic senators such as Joe Biden (Del.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), John Edwards (N.C.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Tom Harkin (Iowa) and John Kerry (Mass.).
These senators told us three months ago, in the most serious venue imaginable—a formal act of Congress authorizing a war in which Americans will kill and be killed—that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, is developing nuclear weapons, is harboring al Qaeda, is a real threat to attack the United States, and is lying about all these things.
If these senators were telling the truth, there is no choice but war.
Since Clinton and Daschle and other Senate liberals approved a war against Iraq, their claims have been backed up by President Bush, as well as by a unanimous vote in the UN Security Council. Just like Daschle and Clinton, the French and the Russians and the Chinese determined that they could no longer risk Saddam’s continued defiance in possessing and developing weapons of mass destruction. "
Do you realize you are supporting Hillary Clinton with this post? You make the case that the Iraq war was a good idea and that Hillary thought so too.
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1151179 Jun 15, 2014
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
No money, no war.
Where did Bush get the money from? Did he steal it from the Welfare Funds?
Facts don't appear out of nowhere simply because *you* created them:-)
He charged it, condom head.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#1151180 Jun 15, 2014
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
Facts don't appear out of nowhere simply because you created them:-)
Iraq Liberation Act states that it is the United States' intention to support regime change in Iraq. Later, this Act was used to convince Congress to pursue it militarily.
Got any more of them "facts", boy?
Yep. Show me where in the Iraq Liberation Act (referenced below) where Bush was authorized to send TROOPS to Iraq.
Here's a quote from the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed:
"Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq.
Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate
response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so."

Two important facts you ignore.
1. US is ready to supply arms, NOT INVADE WITH TROOPS.
2. Iraqis, NOT US TROOPS, will rise up to liberate themselves.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/98110...

Facts don't cease to exist simply because you ignore them.
DOD

Stroud, OK

#1151181 Jun 15, 2014
Nostrilis Waxmoron wrote:
<quoted text>
Put your hand on a Bible and swear that you'd be willing to send your son or daughter over to Iraq and stay there until the "Iraq war is over", whatever the hell that means. You'd never see them again because the religious nuts over there will never stop fighting each other. Bush never had an exit strategy.
You base your esteemed opinion (just kidding) that the war in Iraq was the USA coalition vs Iraq which is a false premise. We are NOT fighting the country of Iraq we are fighting terrorism the war on terrorism is not over!

Wrong on the exit strategy Sherlock. Any military incursion requires as part of the planning a exit strategy....ask any West Point Cadet.

I had a family member in Iraq for 9 years Sherlock the same person I'm married to for the last 25 years.
DOD

Stroud, OK

#1151182 Jun 15, 2014
Nostrilis Waxmoron wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you realize you are supporting Hillary Clinton with this post? You make the case that the Iraq war was a good idea and that Hillary thought so too.
Nonsense. Hillary was basing her opinion of support on the Intelligence Reports which confirmed what our allies Intelligence Reports said. Has nothing to do with demo/repub politics it has to do with the best information available at the time.

“Amor patriae.”

Level 5

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1151183 Jun 15, 2014
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Everyone knows that Bush lied about Hussein's possession of chemical and biological weapons to fool congress into voting for his resolution.
Hillary Clinton in her floor speech supporting the resolution:
"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, THIS COURSE IS FRAUGHT WITH DANGER. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
IF WE WERE TO ATTACK IRAQ NOW, ALONE OR WITH FEW ALLIES, IT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT THAT COULD COME BACK TO HAUNT US. "
Bush lied and soldiers died.
It's easy to call it a lie, now. At the time, when everyone was reading the same intel, the call to war was virtually unanimous and had been for years - distasteful as that may be.

We'll see if Obama has balls. The optimistically re-energized Islamists are betting he doesn't.
DOD

Stroud, OK

#1151184 Jun 15, 2014
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Everyone knows that Bush lied about Hussein's possession of chemical and biological weapons to fool congress into voting for his resolution.
Hillary Clinton in her floor speech supporting the resolution:
"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, THIS COURSE IS FRAUGHT WITH DANGER. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
IF WE WERE TO ATTACK IRAQ NOW, ALONE OR WITH FEW ALLIES, IT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT THAT COULD COME BACK TO HAUNT US. "
Bush lied and soldiers died.
Wrong on the chemical WMD's they were not only found and destroyed but our troops suffered terrible sicknesses from these chemical compounds. Google Gulf War Syndrome and educate yourself. Furthermore, Saddam used chemical WMD's on the Kurds and killed men, women and children so quickly they died where they stood didn't even have a chance to run and hide. Google that also WARNING: pictures are graphic in nature.

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Spokane, WA

#1151185 Jun 15, 2014
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were to take a deep breath of yourself, you'd pass out.
You can't recognize your caretakers for their masks and Hazard Suits.
"shinningelectron"
I do not know if "poop's" caretakers wear Hazzard Suits, but rhey aklways take a shower after they feed him and change his Depends.
Peace

“Amor patriae.”

Level 5

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1151186 Jun 15, 2014
Nostrilis Waxmoron wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you realize you are supporting Hillary Clinton with this post? You make the case that the Iraq war was a good idea and that Hillary thought so too.
Hillary thought ignoring Americans in Benghazi was a pretty good idea too. That's going to come back to bite her on her fat ass.
No Surprize

Largo, FL

#1151187 Jun 15, 2014
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Everyone knows that Bush lied about Hussein's possession of chemical and biological weapons to fool congress into voting for his resolution.
Hillary Clinton in her floor speech supporting the resolution:
"Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, THIS COURSE IS FRAUGHT WITH DANGER. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
IF WE WERE TO ATTACK IRAQ NOW, ALONE OR WITH FEW ALLIES, IT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT THAT COULD COME BACK TO HAUNT US. "
Bush lied and soldiers died.
Clinton Lied and America Died.

It's the culture..
Nostrilis Waxman

Simsbury, CT

#1151188 Jun 15, 2014
Nostrilis Waxmoron wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously congress didn't authorize the war in Iraq, that's a fact.
Someone sent the troops to Iraq, that's a fact.
That someone was George Bush, that's a fact.
You're a moron, that's a fact.
Facts don't cease to exist simply because you ignore them.
Idiot:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-20...

H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
Nostrilis Waxman

Simsbury, CT

#1151189 Jun 15, 2014
Nostrilis Waxmoron wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Show me where in the Iraq Liberation Act (referenced below) where Bush was authorized to send TROOPS to Iraq.
Here's a quote from the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed:
"Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq.
Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate
response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so."
Two important facts you ignore.
1. US is ready to supply arms, NOT INVADE WITH TROOPS.
2. Iraqis, NOT US TROOPS, will rise up to liberate themselves.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/98110...
Facts don't cease to exist simply because you ignore them.
You and facts don't get along ding-a-ling Ghost.

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Level 4

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#1151191 Jun 15, 2014
Nostrilis Waxmoron wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. Show me where in the Iraq Liberation Act (referenced below) where Bush was authorized to send TROOPS to Iraq.
Here's a quote from the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed:
"Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq.
Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate
response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate
themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready
to help their democratic forces with arms to do so."
Two important facts you ignore.
1. US is ready to supply arms, NOT INVADE WITH TROOPS.
2. Iraqis, NOT US TROOPS, will rise up to liberate themselves.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/98110...
Facts don't cease to exist simply because you ignore them.
You are getting smaller. Everything goes right over your head.
GayGhostsmama

Palm Coast, FL

#1151192 Jun 15, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe he just has a low tolerance for stupid and lying social ingrates like them and you.
You're a stupid, lying social ingrate with a low tolerance for intelligent voters who knew better than to elect an incompetent, inexperienced, unqualified puppet of the corrupt Chicago Democratic Machine, Honey?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#1151193 Jun 15, 2014
The fact that the south are picking tea baggers over long standing conservatives means the GOP is almost certainly finished as a party. There will most likely be a split and the radical right will never see government again.
No Surprize

Largo, FL

#1151194 Jun 15, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
The fact that the south are picking tea baggers over long standing conservatives means the GOP is almost certainly finished as a party. There will most likely be a split and the radical right will never see government again.
Any fool who says he knows the GOP is almost certainly finished as a party, is likely telling you what he thinks rather than what he knows you dumbass.

And... every family has one weird relative. If you don't now who it is, then it's probably you Greg.

It's the culture

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.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Forced diversity training backfires, claims Har... 2 min Oh No You Di-nt 9
1.5 Billion Blacks Need to take Actions Against... 3 min ugly monkeys 3
White Man Sentenced to 40 Years for Throwing Feces 4 min Oh No You Di-nt 41
Do you ever use your third eye on white people? (Apr '10) 4 min peter 28
Why don't prostitutes sleep with black men? 9 min T-BOS 5
Want your Black Daughter to grow up to be a Sta... 11 min Guest 5
Africans discovered the AMERICA before Columbus! (Jan '12) 14 min Don Barros Serrano 8,023
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 31 min TranshumanX 46,656
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 33 min you knew 136,195
5 stabbed @ white nationalist trump rally 41 min Don Barros Serrano 129
Black Failure 1 hr Guest 37
More from around the web