Barack Obama, our next President

"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 ... Full Story
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#772419 Oct 15, 2012
Obama: my administration is most pro-gay in history

Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:53 EST

Comments (22)Tags: obama, sexual orientation
President Obama greets attendees at a gay pride event at the White House in 2009.
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 12, 2011 – President Barack Obama again vowed his fidelity to the homosexual lobby at a White House reception in honor of LGBT pride month, boasting that his administration has done more than any other president to advance their cause.

“This administration, under my direction has consistently said we cannot discriminate as a country against people on the basis of sexual orientation, and we have done more in the two-and-a-half years I have been in here than the previous 43 presidents to uphold that principle,” said Obama at a news conference June 29, the day of the reception, according to the Christian Post.

Nonetheless, the president performed an awkward tightrope walk for gay rights supporters at the White House, as he praised their efforts, while coyly acknowledging their frustration with his public stance against federal imposition of same-sex “marriage.”

“There are going to be times where you’re still frustrated with me. I know there are going to be times where you’re still frustrated at the pace of change. I understand that. I know I can count on you to let me know,” said Obama to laughter and cheers from the raucous crowd.

Earlier in his remarks, Obama lauded “folks who are standing up against discrimination, and for the rights of parents and children and partners and students,” to which he added “and spouses” at the prompting of the audience. The president faced a similar reaction at an LGBT fundraiser in Manhattan days earlier, where the crowd chanted “marriage” at him in playful protest.

The president pointed to his accomplishments so far, including eradicating the military ban on open homosexuals serving and refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as a reminder of his “commitment” to their cause, which he compared to the cause of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

“It was here, in the East Room, at our first Pride reception, on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, a few months after I took office, that I made a pledge, I made a commitment. I said that I would never counsel patience; it wasn’t right for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was right for folks to tell African Americans to be patient in terms of their freedoms,” said the president.“I said it might take time to get everything we wanted done. But I also expected to be judged not by the promises I made, but the promises I kept.”

.
dim wrote:
Why is Obama losing?

“It's always darkest 'fore dawn”

Since: Jul 08

When's dawn?

#772420 Oct 15, 2012
Oh, look, the closeted gay bashing hydra-head is back with the reams (pun intended) of pre-packaged spam...time to be elsewhere. What a bunch of morans!

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#772421 Oct 15, 2012
dem wrote:
Six geriatric azzholes attacking lily.
Hope you guys don't mind if I treat your mother carol like you treat lily.
You're many adolescent reprobates making fools of yourselves. I only wish I could 'treat' you like you deserve.
Gunner

Cromwell, CT

#772422 Oct 15, 2012
FIRE THE GOP wrote:
Who was talking to you?
You offtopic spammer nuts clueless idiot.
The topic was a racist weekend comment from glenn69.
Try to keep up! DOOOOOOOOOOOOFUS!
Oh yeah: Ryan: today: we can't disclose the facts behind our rich guy tax cuts! There is an election going on.
Huh?
R's are dumb!
<quoted text>
Obama sucks. Try to keep up, azzhole.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772423 Oct 15, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he built the roads that brought people to his business and educated the people who work for him.
He is the government. So are you, Homer. So am I. Our taxes pay for everything the government does.
Maybe that's what's confusing him, you and Obama.
Great, so you support Obama as well. You're starting to come around.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772424 Oct 15, 2012
Gunner wrote:
<quoted text>
Who are you and this fictional "Mark Olberding" trying to kid? Obama doesn't care about the people who don't support his "vision".
Why do you say he doesn't care?
Gunner

Cromwell, CT

#772425 Oct 15, 2012
dim wrote:
Why is Obama losing?
Hey, maybe you didn't get the memo. A Romney lead is really a "statistical dead heat".

“It's always darkest 'fore dawn”

Since: Jul 08

When's dawn?

#772426 Oct 15, 2012
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait... Isn't Big Bird Obama's current economic advisor?
Elmo is National Security Advisor...
Oscar the Grouch would be qualified, and certainly an improvement, as head of the RNC.
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#772427 Oct 15, 2012
Obama's bad moves on infanticide come back to haunt him

Since former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich pointed out in the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday that President Barack Obama supported infanticide, the media has been in an uproar. Many outlets are wondering where such an accusation could possibly come from.

Unfortunately, during the last presidential campaign cycle, too many outlets were too busy fawning over then presidential candidate Barack Obama and doing political hit jobs on GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to bother to ask Mr. Obama about reports regarding his votes and remarks within the Illinois State Senate concerning the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Additionally, Mr. Obama has done a good job in distorting his position in this area.

First, many Republicans and conservatives alike are referring to a 2003 health and human services committee vote within the Illinois State Senate. Former Washington Times columnist Amanda Carpenter covered this story in great detail in her Town Hall column in 2008:(emphasis is mine)

“We have a smoking gun committee report,” said National Right to Life Committee Legislative Counsel Susan Muskett.

Muskett’s “smoking gun” is a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff. It documents a unanimous 10-0 vote by the 2003 Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time, to amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent “final action” vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority.

This means that, in essence, Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way that Obama has said would have enabled him to support it—before he voted against it. It also puts Obama further to the left of NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to a statement released by the abortion-rights lobby in the run-up to the U.S. Senate’s BAIPA vote in 2002,“NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

For those who may doubt partisan records, the Republican committee report is backed by an Associated Press article that documented the 6-4 vote on the amended version of the bill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercool ...

.

dim wrote:
Why is Obama losing?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#772428 Oct 15, 2012
What Will They Call the Romney Stimulus?(Part III)

One of my pet speculations for the last year has involved one certainty — a Romney administration would engage in short-term Keynesian stimulus — and one question: What will they call it?

In his provocative feature on what both Obama and Romney might try to accomplish as early as January 2013, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait suggests that nomenclature isn’t the key point. Rather, it’s that, with Romney in the White House, Republicans could tie short-term stimulus to what they’re really after (rate reductions on the wealthy). He paints the following scenario:

A plan that increases deficits in the short run allows him to offer a political olive branch to Democrats without breaking faith with his own base. They’ve been calling for more stimulus since 2009, haven’t they? Well, here’s their chance! This was the approach Republicans used during George W. Bush’s first term to Shanghai Democrats into voting for their tax cuts. They would attach the short-term stimulative tax cuts Democrats demand (focused more on the middle class) to long-term tax cuts for the rich, and dare Democrats to mock their own constituents’ economic pain by opposing it.

This seems plausible.

To answer the question I’ve been asking all along, the Romney administration will pass a stimulus package in 2013 — and they will call it Compromise.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-w...
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772429 Oct 15, 2012
leosnana wrote:
FACT: The National Debt increased by 189% under Reagan, 55% under George H.W. Bush and 86% under George W. Bush who left our country bankrupt.
Now, compare that to the increase of 37% under Clinton and the current 35% under Obama. Anyone concerned about the debt should know better than to put a Republican in charge. Romney will be no different. He has already stated that he will not address the issue of the national debt in his first four years in office. Wake up!!!
Reagan was a BIGGGG spender but he wore a flag on his lapel and said all the right things so nobody noticed. Well, Homer noticed.
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#772430 Oct 15, 2012
Obama admin website: infants and children are ‘sexual beings’

.


Comments (1170)
Tags: planned parenthood



WARNING: disturbing content.

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Borrowing Planned Parenthood’s talking points almost verbatim, the Obama administration is now encouraging parents to begin thinking about their children, and even babies, as “sexual beings” who should be allowed to sexually stimulate themselves from infancy.

“Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings,” says a Q&A about sex directly linked to by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).“It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this, just as it’s hard for kids to think of their parents as sexually active. But even infants have curiosity about their own bodies, which is healthy and normal.”

The page was reported by NewsBusters before it was picked up by Fox News on Tuesday.

The talking points on the page closely reflect the counseling on a parenting page by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s top contraception and sex education lobby, where readers are told they “need to give babies a sense of themselves, their sexuality, and their bodies from birth.”

Both pages teach that infant masturbation is already sexual in nature, and thus stopping it could cause the child sexual “shame” later in life. Instead, parents are told to encourage children to keep masturbating in private.

“It is natural for children to be interested in their own bodies. Some parents may choose to casually ignore self-touching. Others may want to acknowledge that, while they know it feels good, it is a private matter,” states the Obama administration’s popup link.

The theory that infants experience sexual pleasure stems from the research of Alfred Kinsey, a seminal researcher of the 1940s and 50s who sexually molested babies as young as five months old to collect data on children’s “orgasms.”
Infamous sexologist Alfred Kinsey

Although immensely influential in modern sexual theory, the truth about the nature of Kinsey’s research has been shut out of media attention for decades.

One chart from Kinsey’s files, found in his 1948 report “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” lists the number and duration of sexual stimulations of boys aged between 14 years and five months, including a four-year-old with 26 “orgasms” in a 24-hour time period.

Judith Reisman, PhD., an internationally-renowned expert on the 20th-century foundations of the sexual revolution, says Kinsey and his researchers defined “orgasms” as children convulsing, crying, hitting the molester, and expressing hysterical fear.

In a recent article, Reisman points to an August conference of mental health professionals seeking to normalize pedophilia as another symptom of Kinsey’s influence.

“In large measure, Dr. Kinsey’s mission has been accomplished, mostly posthumously, by his legion of true believers – elitists who have systematically brainwashed their fellow intellectual elites to adopt Kinsey’s pan-sexual secular worldview and jettison the Judeo Christian worldview upon which this country was founded and flourished,” wrote Reisman.

.

dim wrote:
Why is Obama losing?
Jimmy

Newington, CT

#772431 Oct 15, 2012
Why is Obama losing?
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#772432 Oct 15, 2012
Obama admin introduces gay rights declaration at UN
Tweet by Kathleen Gilbert
Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:25 EST
Comments ()Tags: gender identity, obama, sexual orientation, unWASHINGTON, D.C., March 22, 2011 ( LifeSiteNews.com )- An upcoming declaration by the Obama administration will mark the first time the United States has endorsed homosexualist policy at the United Nations.

The statement condemning any criminal punishment against homosexual activity and urging greater attention to rights related to sexual orientation is scheduled for delivery Tuesday at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, reported the Associated Press Monday.

The document, which has received support from 80 other countries, also calls upon the UN to scrutinize how governments worldwide treat homosexuals.

While acknowledging that “these are sensitive issues for many,” the document urges the finding of “common ground” and states that “in dealing with sensitive issues, the Council must be guided by the principles of universality and non-discrimination.”

It also reaffirms a 2008 UN statement in support of the homosexualist agenda that urged an end to discrimination based upon “sexual orientation or gender identity,” and commends the “continued attention to human rights issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity within the context of the Universal Periodic Review.”

Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe said that the U.S. government is “proud” to have taken a leading role in promoting the statement.

“Human rights are the inalienable right of every person, no matter who they are or who they love,” she said.“The U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals to lead productive and dignified lives, free from fear and violence. We look forward to working with other Governments from all regions and with civil society to continue dialogue at the Council on these issues.“

Although professing marriage as existing only between one man and one woman on the campaign trail, President Obama has courted the homosexualist lobby since taking office. Most recently he announced that his government would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. Congressional Republicans later confirmed they would step up to defend the federal law, which is likely to face a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court.

When the international homosexualist movement was gaining steam in the early 2000s, the United States under the George W. Bush administration had declined to sign on to similar documents

dim wrote:
Why is Obama losing?
Jane Says

New York, NY

#772433 Oct 15, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Cookie Monster the Attorney General?
Oscar has a stronger resemblence to Holder. all the characters voted for Obama in the last election, some twice.

Cookie Monster was once a community organizer, which means he is qualified to someday run for president.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772434 Oct 15, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush just repeated everything Clinton ever said about Saddam Hussein, you ignorant buffoon.
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing."
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
I'm just curious, in your opinion have the Republicans added one thin dime to the debt?
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772435 Oct 15, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush just repeated everything Clinton ever said about Saddam Hussein, you ignorant buffoon.
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing."
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
I'm sorry, when did Clinton order our military to invade/destroy/rebuild Iraq?

“It's always darkest 'fore dawn”

Since: Jul 08

When's dawn?

#772436 Oct 15, 2012
Homer wrote:
<quoted text>Reagan was a BIGGGG spender but he wore a flag on his lapel and said all the right things so nobody noticed. Well, Homer noticed.
Reagan was the beginning of the corporate takeover of America...he was their paid spokesman, at least. If only they'd thought to round up a washed-up actor to play the role of R'Money this election, they might not be having such problems with the sale. Maybe they think he wants too big a percentage of the gross instead of a straight kickback?

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#772437 Oct 15, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a racial slur.
Hear that Glenn the Gun Nut.
Who are the real gun nuts? look no further than Chicago over the weekend. 5 dead 36 wounded over the weekend-Frankly it wouldn't surprise me when Fast and Furious guns given to the Cartel by the O'bama administration are found in gun violence in O'bama's old neighborhood.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772438 Oct 15, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
What Will They Call the Romney Stimulus?(Part III)
One of my pet speculations for the last year has involved one certainty — a Romney administration would engage in short-term Keynesian stimulus — and one question: What will they call it?
In his provocative feature on what both Obama and Romney might try to accomplish as early as January 2013, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait suggests that nomenclature isn’t the key point. Rather, it’s that, with Romney in the White House, Republicans could tie short-term stimulus to what they’re really after (rate reductions on the wealthy). He paints the following scenario:
A plan that increases deficits in the short run allows him to offer a political olive branch to Democrats without breaking faith with his own base. They’ve been calling for more stimulus since 2009, haven’t they? Well, here’s their chance! This was the approach Republicans used during George W. Bush’s first term to Shanghai Democrats into voting for their tax cuts. They would attach the short-term stimulative tax cuts Democrats demand (focused more on the middle class) to long-term tax cuts for the rich, and dare Democrats to mock their own constituents’ economic pain by opposing it.
This seems plausible.
To answer the question I’ve been asking all along, the Romney administration will pass a stimulus package in 2013 — and they will call it Compromise.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-w...
If Romney wins there will absolutely be some type of stimulis, unfunded of course because we are broke, and the rightwingers will cheer. Fcking hypocrites.

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
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 20 min LRS 177,988
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 56 min mdbuilder 46,605
IL Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in I... (Oct '10) 1 hr Weneedchange 150
Amy 9-16 1 hr Mister Tonka 31
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr andet1987 615
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 3 hr Blwlgo 1,923
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr D-U-H 49,807
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr cheluzal 98,213
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••