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
773,321 - 773,340 of 1,100,233 Comments Last updated 34 min ago

Since: Nov 09

Pharr, TX

#838397 Jan 13, 2013
maddmaxx7 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are as dumb as you look. Did you even go to school?
I do the schooling on this site. Here's your homework question, the one you say is dumb, but you couldn't answer:
Since you claim you need assault weapons to protect yourself from the government, WHO are you going to shoot with that weapon? Police? National Guardsmen? Marines? Army? Who dumfuk?
Gunner

Partlow, VA

#838398 Jan 13, 2013
gossamer wrote:
Live in Detroit for a day. You will become racist.
I will agree that more intercity and national black leaders need to show some backbone and step forward on the issue's of crime,rape and murder in the black community,especially giving the disproportion of crime with-in the black race.

There is a reason there are more blacks incarcarated and it has little to do with racism. It seems to have become a way of life and needs fixing bad.In no way do I view blacks as inferior, but it is an undenialable "FACT" that this issue needs to be addressed, starting from with-in the black community first.

Way to many of their so called leaders are equally guilty of corruption and self interest at the expense of those that they allegedly represent. It's way past time to open all of our eyes not only to the rampant out of control criminals in our society and remove somehow the cowboy, Rambo, fanatical gun mentality that is destroying our great nation.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#838399 Jan 13, 2013
In other news French Mirage jets pounded Islamist rebels in Mali for the third day killing topi AQ Lt Abdel "Kojak" Krim. Ground troops began arriving Sunday from France and West African countries to restore the territorial integrity of Mali.

France don't fk around!
Gunner

Partlow, VA

#838400 Jan 13, 2013
OldRaider wrote:
<quoted text>
I do the schooling on this site. Here's your homework question, the one you say is dumb, but you couldn't answer:
Since you claim you need assault weapons to protect yourself from the government, WHO are you going to shoot with that weapon? Police? National Guardsmen? Marines? Army? Who dumfuk?
Hey Old Raider, how you be? These gun nuts have no clue and simply repeat what the gun lobby programs them to say. Most are insecure wanna be soldiers that never had the nerve to serve with limited self knowledge on most every thing, all nations possess their own fanatics and they seem to be ours whether it be guns, race, religion or moral values the extreme "RIGHT" are Americas embarrassment.
Grey Ghost

Partlow, VA

#838401 Jan 13, 2013
Gunner wrote:
<quoted text>
I will agree that more intercity and national black leaders need to show some backbone and step forward on the issue's of crime,rape and murder in the black community,especially giving the disproportion of crime with-in the black race.
There is a reason there are more blacks incarcarated and it has little to do with racism. It seems to have become a way of life and needs fixing bad.In no way do I view blacks as inferior, but it is an undenialable "FACT" that this issue needs to be addressed, starting from with-in the black community first.
Way to many of their so called leaders are equally guilty of corruption and self interest at the expense of those that they allegedly represent. It's way past time to open all of our eyes not only to the rampant out of control criminals in our society and remove somehow the cowboy, Rambo, fanatical gun mentality that is destroying our great nation.
I'm sorry, I was on another websight and that's the name it gave me, hows that for being ironic.
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#838402 Jan 13, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
You, sir, are the one being duped into believing something that is not entirely true.
Will you admit Democrats also played a major role in this economic downturn?
If you can't - or won't - there's no point in continuing this discussion.
Boo hoo! Carol wants to run away because someone provided actual facts to counter her neurotic obsession with Fannie and Freddie. So what did the post say that wasn't true?
And no stupid, the Democrats didn't play a major role in the economic collapse it was the small government deregulatory policies of the Republicans.
Grey Ghost

Partlow, VA

#838403 Jan 13, 2013
OldRaider wrote:
<quoted text>
I do the schooling on this site. Here's your homework question, the one you say is dumb, but you couldn't answer:
Since you claim you need assault weapons to protect yourself from the government, WHO are you going to shoot with that weapon? Police? National Guardsmen? Marines? Army? Who dumfuk?
Sorry Old Raider, for some strange reason this computer gave me GUNNER as my name. That's downright scary.
Grey Ghost

Partlow, VA

#838404 Jan 13, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Boo hoo! Carol wants to run away because someone provided actual facts to counter her neurotic obsession with Fannie and Freddie. So what did the post say that wasn't true?
And no stupid, the Democrats didn't play a major role in the economic collapse it was the small government deregulatory policies of the Republicans.
Hey Dupont,hope all is well, surely you don't think the facts will change Carols programmed fanatical belief system?

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#838405 Jan 13, 2013
maddmaxx7 wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you answer I'll assume you're hiding something. Like the dems role in this disaster.
Answer what? Your ignorance to what the CRA was & how it worked?

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#838406 Jan 13, 2013
maddmaxx7 wrote:
This is how it went, the dems tried to force the banks to make bad loans they would never be repaid for, the banks said screw you it ain't happening. The dems/feds stepped in and said, don't worry, we'll allow you to dump them off on someone else and if they go bad the taxpayers will be stuck with them.
And that's exactly how it happened, there's no other possible explanation of why people with money would make bad loans.
Government interference.
Banks were not forced to make loans to peple who culd not pay it back.

This is a lie.

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???

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 18 min mahz 49,490
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 54 min wojar 177,388
Video Will The U.S Lead The World Into Nuclear ... 1 hr Hell Yes 1
Diversity is a codeword for white genocide 2 hr 587uioy 1
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr J RULES 68,991
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Brian_G 46,316
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 4 hr SLY WEST 299
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr edogxxx 97,934
•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••