Barack Obama, our next President

Full story: Hampton Roads Daily Press

"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 ...

Comments (Page 38,610)

Showing posts 772,181 - 772,200 of1,033,519
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Homer 2013

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835902
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Good afternoon rightwing fckers and normal people.

Since: Jan 13

Windsor, Ct.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835903
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Man, are you stupid or what? Here's what a dog learns: never to bite the hand that feeds it unless it stops feeding it, in which case, you eat it. If you take away the "dog's" food, it will eventually eat you instead (nature.) Now, since we're not talking about dogs let's look at the rest of your idiotic statement. Good and evil are completely subjective terms. If you are the CEO of a drone defense contractor, then you are doing God's work by dropping hell-fire missiles on people who look like they're up to no good. If, however, you are a Taliban soldier celebrating your son's or daughter's wedding when the missile lands in the cake, you're inclined to look upon the whole concept of drones as being something evil. So, who's "right?" Well, you're "right" obviously. To use your own analogy, even a dog can learn, but can he? Can he really?

Is has been conclusively determined that infants - dogs in this case - can recognize right and wrong as you define them; moral vs. immoral behavior,(leaving aside for a moment the completely different concept of socially acceptable behavior because you were speaking in absolutes and therefore so will I.) This tends to deny the theory that right and wrong are learned behaviors if the little rascals pop out already knowing which is which. Probably the same thing with dogs don't you figure? I assume that's why you drew the analogy in the first place.

No one pops out of the womb thinking, "Hey! I'm a criminal." It takes somebody like you to apply that judgement. For all he knows he's a dog.

Ok, now for the socially acceptable part. Let's say the little pup appears bright-eyed and bushy tailed and the first thing you do is to beat the shit of of him or her. Well, now you've got a different animal entirely. That little moral creature you started with becomes... angry, or withdrawn, or suicidal, or fuckin' crazy, or all of the above, at which point, if I understand you correctly, you kill him? Well, there's all different levels of this stuff and it's hard to know what behavior triggers what response based on some enlightened use of harsh punishment because - if for no other reason - the laws of unintended consequences.

There is no "average" good, or "average" evil, there are 50 shades of each and if I or someone else began to look at YOUR life closely we'd find the same thing. I already know you tried to fuck your dog when you were a boy, but since he was a boy too you failed. This is an extreme example introduced for color I admit but I wouldn't have to look too hard to find something for which shunning might be a bit too tepid of a response.

You are clearly a man who believes that the process of acquisition relieves one of any guilt about how they might have done it. By having stuff - what you describes as your "pile" you are therefore exonerated from any guilt over the many very, very bad things you did to get it. Only... not so much. You clawed your way up to the top floor and now you want to slam the door in the face of those nameless strivers coming up by any means behind you. Oops! Out of space, more to come...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835904
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nuculur we don’t elect presidents on the Popular Vote, again Gore Loses!! Bush Wins
Too bad.

Gore could have sold the US to Qatar.
Homer 2013

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835905
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

DBWriter off by a couple years on just about everything, maybe that is why he blames the Democrats for all the country's ills.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835906
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that is something we'll never know. They don't all kill themselves. I'd personally rather be dead than rot in a prison for life. It does not prevent a person from committing a crime; that has been proven. The moral issue with the death penalty is this:
If murder is a crime punishable by death, how can the state commit another murder? In addition to the thousands who have been exonerated from death row after the great work by the Innocence Project. What if they're innocent?
You might have given one reason, they would rather be dead, than rot in prison. Where is it proven that thought of prison, doesn't prevent a crime?? The State does not commit murder. They execute murderers.
Homer 2013

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835907
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

The Lend-Lease Act was enacted in March 1941.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835908
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Homer 2013 wrote:
<quoted text>Germany did not invade Russia until June 1941. I swear did any of you stupid fcks every read a history book?
Sorry. I meant to say Poland.
That set the stage for everything.
The amount of munitions going to Russia amounted to less than 10 percent of what Russia used in their war with Germany. So, that being the case, how could it have possibly been that the United States armed Stalin, which the most ignorant poster here stated?

“Seriously Misguided Democrat”

Since: Oct 12

Chicago Thugtown

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835909
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Gore won the election by 500,000 votes.
You like proving how ignorant you are, don't you??
Gee that's funny. He didn't end up as president, did he Moonbat. Must have been that pesky Electoral College thingy.

He didn't win the election you moron, you mean popular vote. Maybe if your fellow leftie Nader didn't run and Gore won his own home state, Gore could have won, Moonbat.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835910
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

flack wrote:
<quoted text> You forget that every person who joins the military swears to uphold the constitution not the word of the president.
If Obama tried to turn the military against the American people, doubt that they would obey.

But if they did, the Socialist Democrats would never win another election. Of course, there might never be another election.

Gun control, beyond minimal measures, is a losing political issue, a huge loser.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835911
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
you've got nothing but your word.
but you sure can tickle a funny bone.
You seem to have a lot of time here, so why don't you find some of my words posted her to back up your bullshit?

And, you still haven't answered the question:

I've always known that video was watched real-time in DoD facilities in the region and in the Pentagon. And, I made the comment that it is a certain conclusion that the real-time video was being watched by someone in the White House. The only question is, was Obama among those in the White House watching the real-time video, or was he doing what he usually does, like when he thought he would be playing golf all goddam day on the day supposedly he decided to invade an allied country and kill bin Laden.
Where exactly was Obama when the real-time video of the battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American security detatchment in Benghazi was being watched in the White House?
Patriot

Longmont, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835913
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Gun Grab in US Precludes UN Arms Trade Treaty Talks to Disarm the World

http://occupycorporatism.com/gun-grab-in-us-p...

----

OBAMA'S GOVERNMENT = ORGANIZED CRIME

http://www.commieblaster.com/obamacrimes/inde...
JEB

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835914
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Homer 2013 wrote:
<quoted text>Germany did not invade Russia until June 1941. I swear did any of you stupid fcks every read a history book?
If you had, you would never have voted for the incompetent Obama.

“Festina lente”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835915
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.
How appropriate that you'd assume ALL children will end up wards of the welfare state. Is it a cop-out on how you expect it will be or does it show your utter contempt for the women most likely to have abortions? Both, more than likely. You hate the people that get abortions but you have to defend them as a means to an end.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835916
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that is something we'll never know. They don't all kill themselves. I'd personally rather be dead than rot in a prison for life. It does not prevent a person from committing a crime; that has been proven. The moral issue with the death penalty is this:
If murder is a crime punishable by death, how can the state commit another murder? In addition to the thousands who have been exonerated from death row after the great work by the Innocence Project. What if they're innocent?
The CT murderer's mother was apparently trying to have her son committed to a mental institution, but was unable to do so.

Addressing that problem would be far more effective than trying to disarm honest American citizens. Particularly defenseless women.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835917
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

On a more humorous note....

In the news today:

In the never-ending drama of the 2008 bailouts, AIG has gone from thanking America in a major ad buy to threatening to sue the federal government. As reported by Reuters via Huffington Post:

AIG confirmed on Tuesday that its board would meet Wednesday to discuss joining a lawsuit filed against the government by the insurer’s former chief executive, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg.

Greenberg, whose Starr International owned 12 percent of AIG before its near-collapse, has accused the New York Fed of using the rescue to bail out Wall Street banks at the expense of shareholders, and of being a “loan shark” by charging exorbitant interest on the initial loan.

A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed Greenberg’s suit in November; a separate suit under different legal theories in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is still pending.

On the one hand, this is utterly ridiculous. AIG was saved by government intervention, and now within a month of paying off its loan it is suing? Additionally, what did AIG’s executives expect when the bailout happened? Did they think they were going to be treated like kings?

While I am open to being a little sympathetic to potential improprieties by the federal government – one of many reasons bailouts are bad – the fact is that AIG took a loan from the federal government. It did so knowing it would go bankrupt otherwise, and that stockholders would probably lose more value than whatever expenses they allegedly incurred due to federal mismanagement or corruption. Lastly, I have strong doubts AIG’s executives were at all surprised at the interest rate when they signed for the loan under their own free will.

The drama of 2008 is still unfolding, as is the cost of the bailout. Another reason the federal government should not bail out companies ever again.

Can you believe this? I can. It's well known that if you prevent any animal from doing what it is genetically programmed to do and feed itself by giving to it everything it needs, that animal will turn on you to do what it is genetically programmed to do: get more.
This is no different than what the people being programmed to rely upon the government plantation for everything they need will do. It is inevitable that there will be a demand for more.
It is also inevitable that, because they have never developed the means to provide for themselves either physically or economically, they will have no other choice than to steal what they have been programmed to expect to receive.
I can't see anything but a murderous disaster coming from a situation like this. People providing for themselves are not going to peacefully give up what they need to provide for people who will not provide for themselves. It's just a matter of genetically programmed human instinct.
Reading from a teleprompter won't change that.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835918
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Homer 2013 wrote:
The Lend-Lease Act was enacted in March 1941.
Correct, but the US was providing military assistance by other means prior to that date.
Homer 2013

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835919
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry. I meant to say Poland.
That set the stage for everything.
The amount of munitions going to Russia amounted to less than 10 percent of what Russia used in their war with Germany. So, that being the case, how could it have possibly been that the United States armed Stalin, which the most ignorant poster here stated?
Apology accepted. Show me where it's less than 10 percent, although I am not disagreeing it very may well have been. But you need to also facter in non-munitions such as rail, trucks, etc things that are not 'munitions' and look at the total picture.
Homer 2013

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835920
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DBWriter wrote:
On a more humorous note....
In the news today:
In the never-ending drama of the 2008 bailouts, AIG has gone from thanking America in a major ad buy to threatening to sue the federal government. As reported by Reuters via Huffington Post:
AIG confirmed on Tuesday that its board would meet Wednesday to discuss joining a lawsuit filed against the government by the insurer’s former chief executive, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg.
Greenberg, whose Starr International owned 12 percent of AIG before its near-collapse, has accused the New York Fed of using the rescue to bail out Wall Street banks at the expense of shareholders, and of being a “loan shark” by charging exorbitant interest on the initial loan.
A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed Greenberg’s suit in November; a separate suit under different legal theories in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is still pending.
On the one hand, this is utterly ridiculous. AIG was saved by government intervention, and now within a month of paying off its loan it is suing? Additionally, what did AIG’s executives expect when the bailout happened? Did they think they were going to be treated like kings?
While I am open to being a little sympathetic to potential improprieties by the federal government – one of many reasons bailouts are bad – the fact is that AIG took a loan from the federal government. It did so knowing it would go bankrupt otherwise, and that stockholders would probably lose more value than whatever expenses they allegedly incurred due to federal mismanagement or corruption. Lastly, I have strong doubts AIG’s executives were at all surprised at the interest rate when they signed for the loan under their own free will.
The drama of 2008 is still unfolding, as is the cost of the bailout. Another reason the federal government should not bail out companies ever again.
Can you believe this? I can. It's well known that if you prevent any animal from doing what it is genetically programmed to do and feed itself by giving to it everything it needs, that animal will turn on you to do what it is genetically programmed to do: get more.
This is no different than what the people being programmed to rely upon the government plantation for everything they need will do. It is inevitable that there will be a demand for more.
It is also inevitable that, because they have never developed the means to provide for themselves either physically or economically, they will have no other choice than to steal what they have been programmed to expect to receive.
I can't see anything but a murderous disaster coming from a situation like this. People providing for themselves are not going to peacefully give up what they need to provide for people who will not provide for themselves. It's just a matter of genetically programmed human instinct.
Reading from a teleprompter won't change that.
Bush bailed out AIG, Obama didn't become president until 2009.
Homer 2013

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835921
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, but the US was providing military assistance by other means prior to that date.
Yes, no thanks to the isolationist Republicans, they would have let the Nazi's take over the world. Homer just getting the dates corrected.
GhostofRaygun

Morgantown, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#835922
Jan 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
From taxes. Next question.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 772,181 - 772,200 of1,033,519
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

99 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 5 min everybody 64,955
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 min cheluzal 96,005
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min OzRitz 42,923
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 20 min Justice Dale 167,375
Strip club laws in Chicagoland and in Illinois.... (Oct '10) 34 min REAL POLICE 15
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr David 46,990
Men charged with selling sewer covers, grates f... (Aug '12) 1 hr Per Usual 7
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••