Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1496574 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.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#835872 Jan 9, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading comprehension!! Do you know what deterrent means?
A murderer doesn't say "oh, I'd better not commit mass murder because I'll get the death penalty"
You should go on that show, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader",
you should see all the stupid adults on there, it's a disgrace to this country how damn dumb you all are.
Even a dog learns what bad behavior brings. The death penalty means nothing if it isn't used. The average stay on death row is over 10 years and very often never carried out. I guarantee that if it was executed swiftly and painfully, with national coverage, it would have a profound impact on criminals. While we're at it, let's add gun crimes, ANY gun crime, to the list of capitol offenses, see what that would do.

The single most destructive idea our legal system has devised is the theory of "rehabilitation". In the rush to prove that academia can outwit nature, we allow 'evil and defect' to prey on use time and time again. The number of repeat offenders vs. those "rehabilitated" should show any reasonable person how ridiculous the concept really is. And as we make the same mistake over and over, the innocent victims keep piling up.
carol

Orlando, FL

#835873 Jan 9, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
interested?
The Abstinence Gluttons
Over the past six years George W. Bush's faith-based Administration and a conservative Republican Congress transformed the small-time abstinence-only business into a billion-dollar industry. These dangerously ineffective sexual health enterprises flourish not because they spread "family values" but because of generous helpings of the same pork-heavy gumbo Bush & Co. brought to war-blighted Iraq and Katrina-hammered New Orleans--a mix of back-scratching cronyism, hefty partisan campaign donations, high-dollar lobbyists, a revolving door for political appointees and a lack of concern for results.
One of the chief cooks is a media-shy 63-year-old Catholic multimillionaire, welfare privatizer and Republican donor named Raymond Ruddy. With close ties to the White House, federal health officials and Republican power brokers that date back to W.'s days as Texas governor, Ruddy has leveraged his generous wallet and insider muscle to push an ultraconservative social agenda, enrich a preferred network of abstinence-only and antiabortion groups, boost profits for his company and line the pockets of his cronies--all with taxpayer dollars.
http://www.thenation.com/article/abstinence-g... #
though i have to say....hypocrisy doesn't seem of much interest for you.
I see no hypocrisy whatsoever. Someone spending their own money - not yours - to push awareness of abstinece as being the only sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy and decrease the number of abortions shouldn't bother you or any other clear-thinking person.

But you can't see the difference, I know.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#835874 Jan 9, 2013
on "us"

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#835875 Jan 9, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion is the law of the land.
You hate the USA?? You question our legal system?? You challenge the Supreme Court??
But it's idiots like you that ensure th ewomen's vote will go to Democrats for decades to come, while you pretend a fetus is a human.
It's not, and you're an idiot!!
That is per a conservative Supreme Court that decided the issue.
You lose.
I don't care if you libtards want to kill your babies. Most likely means less moochers to take care of. I just don't wish to pay for it.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#835876 Jan 9, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> You forget that every person who joins the military swears to uphold the constitution not the word of the president.
But you forget the US Constitution

Military Power in Law Enforcement: The Posse Comitatus

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

“The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both ... shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law …”

These quoted provisions of the United States Code consolidate a course of legislation which began at the time of the Whiskey Rebellion of 1792.666 In Martin v. Mott, which arose out of the War of 1812, it was held that the authority to decide whether the exigency had arisen belonged exclusively to the President. Even before that time, Jefferson had, in 1808, in the course of his efforts to enforce the Embargo Acts, issued a proclamation ordering “all officers having authority, civil or military, who shall be found in the vicinity” of an unruly combination, to aid and assist “by all means in their power, by force of arms or otherwise” the suppression of such combination. Forty-six years later, Attorney General Cushing advised President Pierce that in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, marshals of the United States had authority when opposed by unlawful combinations to summon to their aid not only bystanders and citizens generally, but armed forces within their precincts, both state militia and United States officers, soldiers, sailors, and marines, a doctrine that Pierce himself improved upon two years later by asserting, with reference to the civil war then raging in Kansas, that it lay within his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed to place the forces of the United States in Kansas at the disposal of the marshal there, to be used as a portion of the posse comitatus. Lincoln’s call of April 15, 1861, for 75,000 volunteers was, on the other hand, a fresh invocation, though of course on a vastly magnified scale, of Jefferson’s conception of a posse comitatus subject to presidential call. The provisions above extracted from the United States Code ratified this conception as regards the state militias and the national forces.""

----------

the President is Commander in Chief.

The military must obey the Commander in Cnhief, per the US Constitution.

Or else they will be tried for treason.

You're really stupid on this matter. I'll rub your stupid face in the laws of the USA if you persist.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#835877 Jan 9, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
I always laugh at the line by Nathan Hale in "The Birdcage" when he's trying to impress the pro-life senator's father of Val's fiancee pretending to be his mother.
He said something like "If you want to kill the fetus, kill the mother too. That way, the fetus can go down with the ship."
Of course, it was a liberal's version of humor when it comes to abortion. But it does prove liberals are selective when it comes to which lives it's okay to take.
Save the irresponsible mother for not preventing the creation of life but kill the innocent victim of her choice not to.
It's just that you'd think with the spotlight on abortion over the past decades and knowing the mindboggling number of abortions since the late 1970s, women would have a little more sense and those numbers would decrease. Instead, they keep rising.
They have been brain washed into believe it's not a baby.
TSM

United States

#835878 Jan 9, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that was a pretty ignorant comment.
What's with all the projection from you nitwits??
You must be this, you must be that..........
All because you're afraid to discuss issues..........once your bullspit is questioned, you go silent and fal back on juvenile 'you must be ####.
You're a weak player.
To believe Al Gore won is pretty Far Out There!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#835879 Jan 9, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
I see no hypocrisy whatsoever. Someone spending their own money - not yours - to push awareness of abstinece as being the only sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy and decrease the number of abortions shouldn't bother you or any other clear-thinking person.
But you can't see the difference, I know.
....all with taxpayer dollars.

http://www.thenation.com/article/abstinence-g...

which has been a complete failure.

.... Already nine states have opted out from federal funds for this faith-based boondoggle in favor of more comprehensive and effective programs of sex education for their youth.

"I can't think of another federal program where so much money was spent without any oversight and to such little effect," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a national organization that promotes comprehensive sexual health policies. "It wasn't that policy-makers didn't know that abstinence-only didn't work. In 2000 the Institute of Medicine issued a scathing report on these programs. But they went full steam ahead despite the warning. It's beyond naïve. It's immoral."

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#835880 Jan 9, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> I don't care if you libtards want to kill your babies. Most likely means less moochers to take care of. I just don't wish to pay for it.
An abortion is far cheaper than lifetime healthcare expenses.

Yet you want to increase the number of people that you have to pay healthcare costs for.

Pretty stupid way to look at it.

Save $100.00 now, so you can spend $100,000.00 later.

Typical wingnut math.
carol

Orlando, FL

#835881 Jan 9, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Are yoyu willing to pay for the healthcare and education costs for these 330,000 potential children??
Of course not. You'd let them die right after birth, saying it's not your problem to raise these unwanted beings.
You just want to control other women's uteri. You've proven you have no interest in protecting the health and welfare of anyone.
You're a fraud.
I'd gladly pay for a concerted effort to bring awareness to the ugliness of abortion and the consequences of being stupid.

It'd probably be a lot cheaper too.

But as long as abortion is considered a perfectly acceptable contraceptive choice and everyone keeps avoiding the social pressure to prevent it or at least decrease the numbers, no one is going to address it. Certainly, not you.

Your liberal blinders prevent you from seeing that many democrats are also anti-abortion. It's periphery vision that blinds you. But go ahead and keep adjusting your blinders. You might get spooked otherwise.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#835882 Jan 9, 2013
Have to go get filters for the fish tank. BBL

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#835883 Jan 9, 2013
TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
To believe Al Gore won is pretty Far Out There!!
It's a fact. Al Gore won the popular vote!! Look it up.

Doing basic research might prevent you from making a fool of yourself so often.

Since: Jan 13

Windsor, Ct.

#835884 Jan 9, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Meant to say million...500 million...with over 330,000 abortions performed. Aren't you even the least bit interested where that 500 million of our money is going?
Well, presumably it's going to perform 330,000 abortions. Is this a trick question? Say, that's about what it costs to mill and re-pave 100 miles of rural four lane with. There's a coincidence.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#835885 Jan 9, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
An abortion is far cheaper than lifetime healthcare expenses.
Yet you want to increase the number of people that you have to pay healthcare costs for.
Pretty stupid way to look at it.
Save $100.00 now, so you can spend $100,000.00 later.
Typical wingnut math.
Talk about wingnut. Placing a price tag on a life. You loony libtards are really losing it.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#835886 Jan 9, 2013
Morgan Stanley to cut 6% of it's work force. So it begins.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#835887 Jan 9, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Yer an idiot.
Syrian rebels are well armed, but getting slaughtered.
You really think rifles and handguns are a good defense against panzers and the Luftwaffe??
The Russian Army was welll armed by America, but that didn't stop Hitler from overrunning most of the USSR.
The power of the state makes your small popguns meaningless.
It just makes you feel like you're a man. But you're not. It's an illusion.
And that explains the battles in the suburbs of Damascus....
You are an idiot....
The United States didn't supply the Soviet Union with significant quantities of weaponry until the war was well underway, idiot. Here's a rough timeline for you:

1940 Lend-Lease Act
1939 Hitler invades Russia.
... oops. 1939 happened before 1940.

1935 Stalin begins series of purges.
... oops. 1935 happened before 1939.

... dufus.

And, if you had any knowledge about what you speak, you will know that the total arms from the United States to Russia during the war amounted to less than 10 percent of the weaponry and supplies Russia used to defeat Hitler.

It's amusing watching you dance and dodge, but it becomes repetitive and boring. Let's get back to the subject. There are still two questions that nobody on Earth has been able to answer:

Exactly where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down America security when real-time video of the battle was being watched in the Pentagon?

And;

Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

Got an answer?
carol

Orlando, FL

#835888 Jan 9, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> They have been brain washed into believe it's not a baby.
I agree. So maybe it's time we put the ugly truth out there and show what an abortion is really like in high schools and even middle schools.

One video is all it would take to make a difference in the mindset of young people's views about abortion.

Just showing 4D sonograms of babies in the womb as early as two months' gestation would go a long way to educate young people.

It's like when we had to watch videos of the worst kind of car wrecks in high school to make us more aware of being better drivers in driver's ed.

But schools were run by people who actually cared about us and our well-being back then.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#835889 Jan 9, 2013
flack wrote:
Hospitals in Chicago are being so overwhelmed with people who have the flu they are turning away anybody who does not have insurance or the inability to pay for services.
What??????????

Where is ObamaKare??????????

That was supposed to make that impossible.

Please don't tell us that even Chicago has to ration health care now.

Since: Jan 13

Windsor, Ct.

#835890 Jan 9, 2013
So, here's the way I look at it: A fetus is to a conservative as a gun is to a liberal. Mathematically, that looks like this - fetus: conservative = gun: liberal. In simplest terms, a fetus is like a loaded gun. Boy, is there wisdom in this!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#835891 Jan 9, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to tell us where Bush got his.
Obama gets his from the same places.
For the "special" people in the class, to answer the question you actually have to identify a source of money.

Nobody here has yet answered the question of where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government.
The inescapable reality is, if that question isn't answered the government collapses and the existence of the United States ends.
So:
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

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
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 min Zippohead 237,210
IT'S Really really true, nancy pelosi............ 29 min HasALargePenis 10
The Mexicans stay home 36 min More-Truth NoLies 24
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Well Well 10,332
Review: Skydiving In Chicago 3 hr Bjohns 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Ashley 63,269
News Off-duty Cook County correctional officer shot ... 6 hr former democrat 1

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages