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

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#838407 Jan 13, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Has Duh A Vey figured out a volcano cap yet?
Volcanoes are natural events that are a part of this planet's history. They helped form our climate.

Man has added to the pollutants & greenhouse gases into our atmosphere that changed our atmosphere beyond what would be natural levels.

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#838408 Jan 13, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
You first said the eir was never completed, now you say it was. Your dementia is getting worse old man
Charlie rangle says you're a lying sack of camel sht. I agree.
You can lie all you want (you do it every day here), but as i said, obama is loading his cabinet with white men, sucka! Hahahahahaha
I clearly said the EIR was completed for the OLD ROUTE.

You are sofa king stupid, you did not know the route had been changed. The EIR was not complete for this new route.

Just like you were to sofa king stupid to know the Secretary of State is a cabinet position.

My God you are one dumb f*ck.

Since: Nov 09

Pharr, TX

#838409 Jan 13, 2013
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Old Raider, for some strange reason this computer gave me GUNNER as my name. That's downright scary.
That threw me too. There's a lot of phony names lately so you have to sort things out. Anyway glad you're back. I'm surprised these morons on the right stuck around after getting their asses handed to them in November but where else can they find someone to listen to their lunatic rantings.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#838410 Jan 13, 2013
GhostofRaygun wrote:
<quoted text>Were you this upset when Bush43 wrote 291 executive orders? Were you upset about those you hypocrite?
Give us an example of an executive order that was an edict to the population.

How about a lesson on the Constitution, dufus.

The Constitution prohibits the president from issuing edicts to the population.
An Executive order has no authority outside the Executive Branch of government.
The only commands/requirements/restrict ions from the government any American citizen is obligated by law to comply with are in the form of laws enacted in accordance with the Constitution. No American citizen is required to obey any order from the government that did not originate in the form of a law enacted in accordance with the Constitution.

Let's introduce to you some definitions. We'll start with:

Fascism - a system where the head of state defines the government and blind alegiance to the state is required. Because the head of state defines the state, blind alegiance to the head of state is required.

In a fascist system, the head of state can write his own law to suit his whim.

The Constitution was written to prohibit fascism.

Since it's obvious Democrats intend to institute a fascist government, when do you think the Democrats will formally begin their rebellion against the government of the United States?
In other words, when will Obama begin to write his own laws and declare himself dictator?

You can answer that question after you reference any executive order that issued an edict to the people.
BLOOMING IDIOTS

Nashville, NC

#838411 Jan 13, 2013
On his Friday radio show, conservative talker and Fox News host Sean Hannity warned that the United States may fall apart if tax rates remain high.

“The states are now fighting and battling against their own federal government,” Hannity said.”Same thing with individuals. If you live in a state like New York, New Jersey, California [or] one of these high-tax states [where] 60-plus cents of every dollar goes to taxes, you’ll say,‘What the hell am I doing this for?’”

“A lot of people have told me that,” Hannity continued.“A lot of people are moving.… I noticed that Bobby Jindal moved to remove his state income tax. He’s not stupid. You know what’s going to happen in Louisiana? The same thing that is happening in Texas and Florida — their populations are soaring. They’re doing a lot better. State governments are fine. They’re surviving. They don’t have the property taxes they do in New York, which is obscene. In New York, you just pay and pay and pay and pay.”

States with lower taxes may soon decide they want to stop shouldering the burden of states with higher taxes, Hannity warned.

“People that are fed up with a power hungry, radicalized, abusive federal government intruding into every aspect of our lives,” Hannity continued.“People are going to say they’re fed up, and states are going to want more liberty and more freedom. They’re not going to want to tax their citizens to death anymore. If this pattern continues and gets worse and worse and worse, I can see at some point the states saying,‘Forget it. I don’t want to be a part of this union anymore.’”

Hannity rejected the idea that secession is necessarily a “radical concept,” arguing that the Declaration of Independence is itself a “radical document.”

“There is a tipping point in all of these debates,” he said.“Now, politically speaking, that means people are going to be thrown out of office, I hope. But if not, there are going to be people in more conservative states that have had enough. I can see a state like Utah saying,‘Enough is enough,’[and] a state like Texas saying,‘Enough is enough.’ I absolutely can.”

“A lot of people [are] getting sick” of President Barack Obama’s executive orders on matters like immigration policy, Hannity added.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/11/hannity-for...
BLOOMING IDIOTS

Nashville, NC

#838412 Jan 13, 2013
President Obama's Abuse of Executive Power
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
font size
Print
E-mail
In an opinion article published October 10 in the Washington Post, political commentator George Will describes one of President Barack Obama’s latest “abuses of executive power.” Writes Will:
On Jan. 4,[President Obama] used recess appointments to fill three seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), even though the Senate said it was not in recess. Obama’s cheeky Humpty Dumpty rejoinder was: I decide what “recess” means.
Now a court must decide whether the Constitution means what it says.
In 2011, the Noel Canning company, which bottles soft drinks in Yakima, Wash., was negotiating a labor contract with Teamsters Local 760. The union says it and the company reached a verbal agreement. The company disagrees. An administrative law judge sided with the union. On Feb. 8, after Obama’s disputed appointments, the NLRB upheld that decision and asked a federal court to enforce it. Noel Canning is asking the court to declare that the NLRB’s intervention in the dispute was unlawful because the board lacked a quorum until Obama made the recess appointments, which were invalid because the Senate was not in recess.
In defense of his controversial and legally questionable appointments, President Obama insists that they were made in complete compliance with the Constitution’s grant of such power to the president in Article II.
Is the president’s interpretation of Article II correct? To answer that question, one must first look to the text being cited as a justification for the appointments.
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
The plain language of that clause authorizes recess appointments. If the Senate is in recess, then the president is within the sphere of his constitutionally enumerated powers to fill a vacancy that will be valid until the end of the next congressional session.
An additional analysis of the black letter of Article II makes it clear that the Senate must already be in recess in order for an appointment made in its absence to be valid.
There is no provision in the Constitution even hinting at the right of the president to use trickery to create artificial breaks in congressional sessions in order to forcibly impose his will in defiance of express senatorial opposition to it.
Not surprisingly, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) defended the president’s appointments. In a memo dated January 6, 2012, DOJ officials cited various scholarly and bureaucratic interpretations of the so-called Recess Appointment Clause of Article II in order to buttress their opinion:
This Office has consistently advised that “a recess during a session of the Senate, at least if it is sufficient length, can be a ‘Recess’ within the meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause” during which the President may exercise his power to fill vacant offices.
Although the Senate will have held pro forma sessions regularly from January 3 through January 23, in our judgment, those sessions do not interrupt the intrasession recess in a manner that would preclude the President from determining that the Senate remains unavailable throughout to “‘receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.’
Thus, the President has the authority under the Recess Appointments Clause to make appointments during this period.
In summary, the Department of Justice memo argues that the business conducted by the Senate between January 3 and 23 was conducted pro forma and thus does not qualify as an interruption of the recess begun by the vote to adjourn taken on December 17, 2011.
BLOOMING IDIOTS

Nashville, NC

#838413 Jan 13, 2013
This argument was echoed in a piece recently published by David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. In his paper, Arkush posits two constitutional pretexts allowing the president to place someone in office whose nomination has already been blocked by the Senate.
First, Arkush insists that Article 2, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the president to force the House and Senate to adjourn. Then, once Congress has obeyed that presidential mandate, the president may then lawfully make a “recess appointment.”
Next, Arkush argues that the 20th Amendment orders Congress to assemble at least once a year, with each session beginning on January 3. Arkush says that in order to be able to start a session on January 3, Congress would have to have ended a previous session, thus leaving a gap between the last session and the current session during which the president may squeeze in and make “recess appointments,” obviating the requirement of senatorial advice and consent.
The Founders felt otherwise. In The Federalist, No. 76, Alexander Hamilton explains that the Constitution “requires” the cooperation of the Senate in appointments in order to “check” the president and “to prevent the appointment of unfit characters”; and that “the necessity of its [the Senate’s] co-operation, in the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate [the president].”
Addressing the issues underlying the current constitutional crisis specifically, in The Federalist, No. 68, Alexander Hamilton writes of the Recess Appointment Clause:
The ordinary power of appointment is confided to the president and senate jointly, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the senate; but, as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers; and as vacancies might happen in their recess, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the president, singly, to make temporary appointments "during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which should expire at the end of their next session.
What, then, was the role the Senate was designed to play in the nomination and appointment process? Again, we turn to The Federalist Papers and Alexander Hamilton:
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connexion, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
A quote from an article published online by the San Francisco Chronicle hints that while the president understands that the Senate has a constitutional duty to check his power, he will not allow the exercise of such to impede the growth of government:
Administration officials have said Obama made the appointments because Senate Republicans have been unfairly blocking Senate confirmation of nominees as a way to limit the power of agencies they oppose.
Despite President Obama’s immeasurable regard for his own moral, legal, and intellectual superiority, not even he is an alchemist capable of turning Senate reluctance into a Senate recess.
The coda to George Will’s Washington Post piece puts the president’s behavior in an apt and timely frame:

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#838414 Jan 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. I think I've got it now.
Money is taken from Social Security and put into the general fund, then Social Security is paid back from the general fund.
I think you should begin with something a lot simpler, like where money comes from. How money is manipulated in government obviously confuses you. So, let's begin with a very simple question:
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
To answer this question, you actually have to identify a source of money.
If you can't answer this simple question, any other discussion about government expenditures will be beyond your ability to understand.
From the Treasury, next stupid question ...
BLOOMING IDIOTS

Nashville, NC

#838415 Jan 13, 2013
The constitutional guarantee of congressional self-governance, combined with the Senate’s determination that it was in session Jan. 4, destroys Obama’s position, which is that he can declare the Senate in recess whenever he wishes to exercise what the Framers explicitly denied to presidents — a unilateral appointments power. Consider this episode when deciding whether on Jan. 20, 2013, he should again have a chance to swear to (only selectively) defend the Constitution.

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#838416 Jan 13, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
It absolutely does reduce fees to doctors, stupid fck.
"In 2011, the ACA will slow payment increases that are made to Medicare providers such as, hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies. Please note that doctors are not included in that group. The ACA does not reduce payments to your primary care doctor."

http://blog.njfoundationforaging.org/...

Now let's see.

1) You did not know the Keystone pipeline route was changed
2) You didn't know the Sec of State was a cabinet position

And now we add

3) You did not know that the ACA did not reduce payments to doctors.

Wow, is there anything you actually do know???

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#838417 Jan 13, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Banks were not forced to make loans to peple who culd not pay it back.
This is a lie.
search "CRA redlining" and read.
Now, when the propaganda says "race", change that to match reality and insert in its place "places where the history is poor investment and the bank loses money".
The link to race was, it was a coincidence the zones where banks lost money also were predominantly black. Banks don't care what you're race is. They only care that you pay your goddam note and the interest that allows them to not collapse.
Banks were faced with the threat of law suits if they did not make loans to these zones that historically caused them to lose money. The New York Times published an article in 1999 describing Cill Clinton applying the power of the White House to that threat. And, that article also predicted what we saw later in 2008.

And, lo and behold, Bill Clinton applying the weight of the White House to force banks to make loans in areas that historically caused the banks to lose money almost collapsed the entire banking system of the United States.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#838418 Jan 13, 2013
conservative magazine....2001.

Don't Blame Liberals for Gun Control

ANTI-GUN CRUSADERS seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.a...
Grey Ghost

Partlow, VA

#838419 Jan 13, 2013
OldRaider wrote:
<quoted text>
That threw me too. There's a lot of phony names lately so you have to sort things out. Anyway glad you're back. I'm surprised these morons on the right stuck around after getting their asses handed to them in November but where else can they find someone to listen to their lunatic rantings.
I guess fanatics never change, I suspect things will only get worse for those programmed haters.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#838420 Jan 13, 2013
Ah. Sunday morning. Let's go over the list of things not done this week and see if we can catch up on some things.
Looks like there were two questions that never got answered this week.
And it looks like the same fraud Democrats that ran away from these questions all week are here today.
Do any of you fascist Democrats have an answer to these questions nobody in the world has been able to answer:

Where was Obama during the 7-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down security detatchment in Benghazi while the real-time video was being watched in the White House?

And;

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

And a bonus question:

When will Obama formally declare a rebellion against the government of the United States and begin writing his own laws to suit his whim?

It is a little humorous that it was the Democrats that used the word "fascist" to insult everything they didn't like, and now it is those same Democrats attempting to replace the constitutional republic with a fascist dictatorship.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#838421 Jan 13, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
conservative magazine....2001.
Don't Blame Liberals for Gun Control
ANTI-GUN CRUSADERS seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.a...
I think I recall hearing them say something like, "Oh, the stupid things you have to do to get along with Democrats."

Now, back to the issue....

When will Obama formally declare a rebellion against the government of the United States and begin writing his own laws to suit his whim?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Conroe, TX

#838422 Jan 13, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
From the Treasury, next stupid question ...
Good....

And where will the treasury get the money to pay for Obama's government, dufus?
Lincoln

United States

#838423 Jan 13, 2013
Cuomo -Christie 2016

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#838424 Jan 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Give us an example of an executive order that was an edict to the population.
How about a lesson on the Constitution, dufus.
The Constitution prohibits the president from issuing edicts to the population.
An Executive order has no authority outside the Executive Branch of government.
The only commands/requirements/restrict ions from the government any American citizen is obligated by law to comply with are in the form of laws enacted in accordance with the Constitution. No American citizen is required to obey any order from the government that did not originate in the form of a law enacted in accordance with the Constitution.
Let's introduce to you some definitions. We'll start with:
Fascism - a system where the head of state defines the government and blind alegiance to the state is required. Because the head of state defines the state, blind alegiance to the head of state is required.
In a fascist system, the head of state can write his own law to suit his whim.
The Constitution was written to prohibit fascism.
Since it's obvious Democrats intend to institute a fascist government, when do you think the Democrats will formally begin their rebellion against the government of the United States?
In other words, when will Obama begin to write his own laws and declare himself dictator?
You can answer that question after you reference any executive order that issued an edict to the people.
How does banning embryonic stem cell research fit into your definition? Does it mean that only members of the Executive Branch were banned from conducting such research?

PS: Fascism developed in the 20th century, most of the founders were dead by then.
BLOOMING IDIOTS

Nashville, NC

#838425 Jan 13, 2013
Nearly 40 people were wounded in gun violence over one of Chicago's bloodiest weekends in recent months this weekend.

According to Fox Chicago, seven people were killed in shootings and one in a stabbing incident over the weekend in Chicago.

The fatal shooting victims range in age from 23 to 46. William Lee Martin, 30, died after being shot in the 4200 block of South Wells Street in Fuller Park around 6:20 p.m. Friday. Three other people were wounded in the same shooting which was followed, fifteen minutes later, with a separate shooting about two miles away -- in the 1100 block of West 51st Street -- where two 19-year-old men were critically wounded in an apparent drive-by shooting, according to DNAinfo.com Chicago.

Later on Friday, around 9:30 p.m., Aswell Selmon, 46, was fatally shot in front of his home and two others wounded critically during a shooting in the 5000 block of North Winthrop Avenue in the city's Uptown neighborhood, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Marlon L. Vaughn, 28, was stabbed in the chest in the city's Lawndale neighborhood around 12:25 a.m. Saturday and died shortly thereafter at an area hospital.

Fox Chicago has a rundown of additional fatal and non-fatal shootings in Chicago.

According to the RedEye homicide tracker's tally, Chicago is up to 485 homicides this year, as of early Sunday. Last Monday, on the heels of a holiday weekend that saw at least 24 shootings, two men were shot, one fatally, outside of a funeral for an alleged gang member. Later Monday evening, Porshe Foster, a 15-year-old girl, was fatally shot while standing with friends in a back yard during a sleepover.

WERE IN THE HELL WAS JOE AND OBAMA????
BLOOMING IDIOTS

Nashville, NC

#838426 Jan 13, 2013
Rate of Killings Rises 38 Percent in Chicago in 2012


Daniel Borris for The New York Times

Officers and onlookers at a crime scene on Chicago’s West Side.

By MONICA DAVEY

Published: June 25, 2012 453 Comments


Facebook
Twitter
Google+
E-mail
Share
Print
Reprints


CHICAGO — Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s first reading material each morning, at 5:30, is not a budget update, a legislative proposal or a packet of headlines. It is an e-mail from the Chicago Police Department listing the crimes that were committed during the night that just ended. By 7 a.m., he is calling Garry F. McCarthy, the police superintendent. That is unlikely to be their final conversation of the day, or even of the morning

Daniel Borris for The New York Times

A mural urges children in the area to resist gangs and drugs.

Mr. Emanuel listed safer streets among his top three priorities when he became mayor a year ago, but Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city, is now testing that promise. Homicides are up by 38 percent from a year ago, and shootings have increased as well, even as killings have held steady or dropped in New York, Los Angeles and some other cities. As of June 17, 240 people had been killed here this year, mostly in shootings, 66 more deaths than occurred in the same period in 2011.

WERE IN THE HELL IS JOE AND OBAMA?????

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
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min OzRitz 46,877
mera name bablu hai aur main aap sab se dosti k... 20 min bablu 1
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 28 min andet1987 1,490
Playboy offered Sarah Palin $4 Million to pose ... 1 hr Larry Flint 4
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 3 hr _Zoey_ 7,786
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Jacques from Ottawa 178,266
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 3 hr _Zoey_ 326
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr PEllen 98,269
Amy 9-23-14 6 hr edogxxx 21
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••