Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1478718 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.

Buster Chops

Orlando, FL

#839506 Jan 15, 2013
Dudes and Dudettes! How fine a day is this? I'm just back from a quick run to Jamaica and took a break from unloading the boat to say, "If anybody need a little break from the daily grind I got some gooooooooood stuff here..."
Truth is no SIN

New York, NY

#839507 Jan 15, 2013
1st black female computer science PhD student at Univ. of Michigan reveals lack of rolemodels,Am I really the first?”

That was the first thought that came to mind when Kyla McMullen, 29, found out she would soon become University of Michigan’s first African-American female computer science PhD alumna this past year.

McMullen later decided to go to the records office to search for another fellow black female alumnus to connect with. But she soon discovered that she would become the first black female student in the history of the program to complete the PhD.

“Typically when you think of someone who is in computer science. you think of a person who is a geek — with pocket protectors, suspenders and highwater pants,” McMullen joked in a phone interview with theGrio.“African-American women often don’t think ‘Okay, I wanna be that [nerd].””

While McMullen’s graduation this past spring marked a racial landmark for Michigan’s computer science department, she said that her experience in the department was sometimes “isolating” because she had very few people to turn to for mentorship.


Orlando, FL

#839508 Jan 15, 2013
Lily Boca Raton Fl wrote:
<quoted text>
President Clinton did not invade Iraq
He wanted to. He but bombed Iraq instead.

LILY, PLEASE READ THIS...PLEASE!! Taken DIRECTLY from the terms laid out in H.R.4655 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to SEEK TO REMOVE THE SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME FROM POWER IN IRAQ and to replace it with a democratic government.

"Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals..."

It can't be any more clear. It really can't.

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#839509 Jan 15, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, well, none of the terrorists were from Iraq dummy
" "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002"

But...but...saddam had no ties to al qaeda
Truth is no SIN

New York, NY

#839510 Jan 15, 2013
Impeachment Of President Barack H. Obama For War Crimes

Whereas, Barack H. Obama is Commander In Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and the head of the Executive Branch of the United States government, and

Whereas, President Obama, on 19 March 2011, committed a criminal act by ordering the U.S. military to war in Libya without first obtaining the consent of the U.S. Congress in a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, and

Whereas, the illegal U.S. invasion, bombing and occupation of Iraq initiated by the Bush administration continues under the Obama administration; and

Whereas, the U.S. government is currently engaged in illegal wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and President Obama pledged to increase the number of military personnel and tax dollars spent on the these wars, and

Whereas, the U.S. military used and continues to use depleted uranium munitions, cluster bombs and white phosphorous in densely populated areas in violation of U.S. laws and international laws and treaties prohibiting the indiscriminate killing of civilians; and,

Whereas, the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit the use of especially injurious weapons and materials causing unnecessary harm that remain active and lethal after battle, and over large areas of land, and

Whereas, large numbers of babies born in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer life-long illness and deformity like severe disfigurements and brain damage, Down’s syndrome, and weak hearts doctors state are caused by the U.S. military’s massive and widespread use of toxic and radioactive materials, and

Whereas, millions upon millions of Iraqi, Afghani, Pakistani, Yemeni, Somali, and Libyan civilians have been maimed, poisoned, displaced from their homes, and killed in a direct result of ongoing, illegal acts of war by the United States, and

Whereas, illegal, immoral and counterproductive detainee torture and brutalization at the hands of the U.S. military’s Immediate Reaction Force continue at Guantanamo under the Obama administration and in particular, the torture of Pfc. Bradley Manning at Quantico, Virginia, and

Whereas, President Obama is an accessory after the fact in obstructing justice by failing to order the Department of Justice to initiate investigations into numerous and blatant U.S. war crimes committed by the Bush administration, for which it is manifestly accountable under the law, and
Truth is no SIN

New York, NY

#839511 Jan 15, 2013
Drones are the “Weapon of Choice” in Obama’s Destruction of Due Process

Orlando, FL

#839512 Jan 15, 2013
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
As is the case always, your logic is totally flawed. Clinton conveyed his opinion but didn't start a war based on lies and accusations. The Iraqi war will forever be Bush-Cheneys mistake along with the neglect in Aft. Just by pretending or wishing that the Democrats were also to blame shows that you think it also was a mistake, but given the depth of your fanatacism along with your obvious inability to see the forest for the trees there is little hope of you ever seeing reality.
Clinton signed a piece of legislation that was passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress specifically stating it was the policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.

But you'll believe anything, won't you?
Grey Ghost

Partlow, VA

#839513 Jan 15, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, they're pretty stupid then, aren't they?
If they believed the same CIA evidence that Bush and his generals had and then decided it was all a big ruse just to fool them - when every single one of them said the exact same thing about Saddam just a few years prior - they probably shouldn't be in leadership positions.
I realize i'm beating an over aged dead horse here, but your leaders hyped and lied us into a war that they wanted and it will forever be their war. Bush-Cheney knew exactly what they were doing and also their real intentions, they also knew that Iraq was of no threat to us. Most that voted for the action in Iraq were persuaded either by pressure or the mood of the nation so shortly after 911, and Bush preyed on that. Your war, you own it PERIOD.
Truth is no SIN

New York, NY

#839515 Jan 15, 2013
OBAMA is A PUPPET The military operation in Mali launched on January 11 is another vivid example of special activities aimed at recolonization of the African continent. It’s an orderly and consistent capture of new African territories by Western powers. They have got hold of Sudan by dismembering it (taking away the oil deposits from the major part of the country), the Nigerian oilfields have been captured in accordance with the International Court of Justice rulings,(1), Libya has been captured as a result of direct military intervention, Cote D’Ivoire has been conquered thanks to a small-scale military action conducted under the aegis of the United Nations. The way to do the things differ, but the result is the same. The process of recolonization picks up momentum in Africa…

The mistakes of previous aggressive actions were taken into consideration while occupying Mali. Today everyone is sure the West is defending Mali’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Not exactly so, as some facts tell us. In reality it was not in 2011-2012 when the terrorist groups appeared in the north of the country. They had been organizing and conducting activities there for dozens of years.(2) The situation exploded because the Libyan weapons were captured after the Gaddafi’s overthrow. The military materials didn’t get to Mali by themselves; there are facts to prove France was involved in their transfer from Libya.

The very logic of events in the North of Mali in 2012 proves it is a well-orchestrated performance aimed at preparing the public opinion for “an imperative of military intervention”. That’s how it was arranged that Libyan arms spread around and wound up in the hands of Tuaregs. It incited military actions. But pretty soon the Tuaregs understood they were being used and started to dissociate themselves from the independence they had declared previously. The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (French: Mouvement National pour la Libération de l’Azawad; MNLA) said the declaration of independence was “an attempt to draw international attention to the plight of the population in the north” and expressed willingness to hold talks.(3)

That’s what the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad was attacked for by real perpetrators of the provocation – the Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the Islamists of Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJWA or MUJAO). Ansar Dine said it was ready to join without delay. At the November meeting in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, the group said it rejected violence, extremism and terrorism and assumed the responsibility for fighting organized crime across the border.(4) The Ansar Dine’s turn around led to its involvement into fighting. In November combat actions were sparked, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad fought the opposing Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa. By the end of November Ansar Dine waged combat actions against the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa forces in the south-western part of Timbuktu.
Buster Chops

Orlando, FL

#839516 Jan 15, 2013
Whoa! You guys in here fightin'? Uncool, uncool. There nuthing worth fighting over. About 30% of you guys have been rootin' around in the bushes for the last 6000 or so years and you survived this long so you figure you got the answers: "if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead." Another 20% of you are over in the palace behind the curtain talkin' into the microphone which gives your voice that big booming sound the other animals respond to. The other 47% are intractable leeches sittin' in lawn chairs out on what's left of the beach with a big doobie and a rum punch. I lost 3% of you somewhere but you'll show up. Maybe those are the guys who make up the "rules?" Never have seen the rulebook so I don't know, but I don't mind saying I don't know something when I don't know it. Rock on!
brown eyes

Radford, VA

#839517 Jan 15, 2013
M13 British Militaty Intelligence thanks for brunch old chaps. Why is Great Britian much safer no school shootingsz? Tell Royal family Tea Party is hated in Europe also. GF008 Safer World 2013

Orlando, FL

#839518 Jan 15, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Carol found waterbording in the Bible, so it can't be torture
Yes. Jesus had Judas Iscariot waterboarded to determine if he'd betrayed him!!
He said "Let there be waterboarding".
Do you ever read the stupidity you write before posting it??
And you dare to call yourself a Christian?? You don't even understand the meaning of Christianity.
Waterboarding IS tortuere per US Law,not to mention the Geneva Conventions.
Carol supported a criminal regine. Bush is still limited where he can travel, many nations would arrest him if he entered.
Do you ever stop to think why Bush is the invisible man, while other ex-presidents are sought after for appearances??
As far as your horseshit about both sides being equally responsible; nonsense;
Bush was President, he had a Republiclown Congress for 6 out of 8 years, the economy and housing market collapsed on his watch, you can point to NO legislation that the Dems passed in 2007-08.
So quit the bullshit and face the truth. Bush was a disaster for America, one we're still recovering from.
ASll your brainless cheerleading won't change that.
He is the most reviled President in history.
The Repubs didn't even invite him to the Republican Convention!!
So shut up and quit making an ass of yourself.
You have a misconception that Christians are wimps. Early Christians were willing to be fed to the lions and present-day Christians are oppressed and killed every day.

If Jesus himself were posed the question: If pouring water up someone's nose could potentially save millions of innocent lives, would that be a forgiveable act?

I can't be sure, but he'd probably say, "Of course. Innocent lives come first."


Crime in Italy. Grow a spine, will you?
Truth is no SIN

New York, NY

#839519 Jan 15, 2013
The Geopolitical Reordering of Africa: US Covert Support to Al Qaeda in Northern Mali, France “Comes to the Rescue”
NATO funding, arming, while simultaneously fighting Al Qaeda from Mali to Syria
A deluge of articles have been quickly put into circulation defending France’s military intervention in the African nation of Mali. TIME’s article,“The Crisis in Mali: Will French Intervention Stop the Islamist Advance?” decides that old tricks are the best tricks, and elects the tiresome “War on Terror” narrative.TIME claims the intervention seeks to stop “Islamist” terrorists from overrunning both Africa and all of Europe. Specifically, the article states:What TIME elects not to tell readers is that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is closely allied to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG whom France intervened on behalf of during NATO’s 2011 proxy-invasion of Libya – providing weapons, training, special forces and even aircraft to support them in the overthrow of Libya’s government.

As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:

Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar noted a more direct connection between LIFG and AQIM in an Asia Times piece titled,“How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli:”

Orlando, FL

#839520 Jan 15, 2013
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize i'm beating an over aged dead horse here, but your leaders hyped and lied us into a war that they wanted and it will forever be their war. Bush-Cheney knew exactly what they were doing and also their real intentions, they also knew that Iraq was of no threat to us. Most that voted for the action in Iraq were persuaded either by pressure or the mood of the nation so shortly after 911, and Bush preyed on that. Your war, you own it PERIOD.
Clinton signed a piece of legislation that was passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress specifically stating it was the policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.

That was even before 9/11.

Orlando, FL

#839521 Jan 15, 2013
carol from orlando wrote:
This man is dangerous, MARK MY WORDS!!!!!
Oh great, the other one now. It's charming how the slugs come out of the woodwork once the good people start conversing intelligently. I suppose I'lll just have to tolerate this until Topix-mods decide to do something about it - which appears to be never.


#839522 Jan 15, 2013
America has a too much nasty foreign policy.triggering war everywhere in the poo country invoved terrorism.we shan t be surprised if attacks like these of the world trade center rise in the future.
brown eyes

Radford, VA

#839523 Jan 15, 2013
Nossad Tamir Pardo thank-you for getting rid of Latvian Herberts Cukurs. GF008 Safer World 2013
Truth is no SIN

New York, NY

#839524 Jan 15, 2013
Financial Fraud and The Bank Bailouts: The Government’s Entire Strategy Was to Cover Up the Truth
The Government Lied When It Said It Only Bailed Out Healthy Banks … 12 of the 13 Big Banks Were Going Bust
We noted in 2011 that the Geithner, Bernanke and Paulson lied about the health of the big banks in pitching bailouts to Congress and the American people:
The big banks were all insolvent during the 1980s.
And they all became insolvent again in 2008. See this and this.
The bailouts were certainly rammed down our throats under false pretenses.
But here’s the more important point. Paulson and Bernanke falsely stated that the big banks receiving Tarp money were healthy, when they were not. They were insolvent.
Tim Geithner falsely stated that the banks passed some time of an objective stress test but they did not. They were insolvent.
We explained:
[All of the big banks were] insolvent in the 1980s, but the government made aconcerted decision to cover that up.
Financial writers such as Mish and Reggie Middleton pointed out in late 2007 and early 2008 that B of A was again insolvent.
Nouriel Roubini noted in January 2009 that the entire U.S. banking system is “bankrupt” and “effectively insolvent”:
“I’ve found that credit losses could peak at a level of $3.6 trillion for U.S. institutions, half of them by banks and broker dealers,” Roubini said at a conference in Dubai today.“If that’s true, it means the U.S. banking system is effectively insolvent because it starts with a capital of $1.4 trillion.”
“The problems of Citi, Bank of America and others suggest the system isbankrupt,” Roubini said.“In Europe, it’s the same thing.”
We noted earlier this year:
The American government’s zero interest rate policy is very much like the British Libor manipulation scandal … it’s nothing but an attempt to breathe life back into the insolvent banks, at the expense of the taxpayer. And see this.
And the “financial reform” laws passed in the wake of the crisis have, in some ways, actually weakened regulations of the financial markets, allowed the big banks to get a lot bigger, and have intentionally allowed fraudulent accounting (and see this).
Likewise, the “stress tests” in both Europe and America have been a total scam … a naked attempt to put lipstick on a pig to cover up the fact that the big banks are insolvent.
Matt Taibbi adds details to the bailout scam:
The main reason banks didn’t lend out bailout funds is actually pretty simple: Many of them needed the money just to survive. Which leads to another of the bailout’s broken promises – that taxpayer money would only be handed out to “viable” banks.
Soon after TARP passed, Paulson and other officials announced the guidelines for their unilaterally changed bailout plan. Congress had approved $700 billion to buy up toxic mortgages, but $250 billion of the money was now shifted to direct capital injections for banks.(Although Paulson claimed at the time that handing money directly to the banks was a faster way to restore market confidence than lending it to homeowners, he later confessed that he had been contemplating the direct-cash-injection plan even before the vote.) This new let’s-just-fork-over-cash portion of the bailout was called the Capital Purchase Program. Under the CPP, nine of America’s largest banks – including Citi, Wells Fargo, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, State Street and Bank of New York Mellon – received $125 billion, or half of the funds being doled out. Since those nine firms accounted for 75 percent of all assets held in America’s banks –$11 trillion – it made sense they would get the lion’s share of the money. But in announcing the CPP, Paulson and Co. promised that they would only be stuffing cash into “healthy and viable” banks. This, at the core, was the entire justification for the bailout: That the huge infusion of taxpayer cash would not be used to rescue individual banks,

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#839525 Jan 15, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton signed a piece of legislation that was passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress specifically stating it was the policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That was even before 9/11.
There are ways to get a regime change besides invading.

Orlando, FL

#839526 Jan 15, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you're an idiot, but even you shouold be able to see a difference between Clinton's no fly zone and tough talk towards Iraq and a military invasion under false pretenses.
They went in for WMD's. The WMD's were non-existant.
You can make up all the stories about the alleged movement of WMD's but you can't provide any proof.
Nor could Bush, which is why he admitted there were no WMD's/ DUH
WMD's being his justification for war, that means it was a war of mistake.
And he lost it, signing a peace treaty favoring Iraq, cmmitting to a 'date certain' to withdraw US forces.
You lose, nitwit.
I know you're completely clueless but Saddam had more then enough time to remove those weapons.

One of Saddam's top generals and one of his scientists said he did just that.

As President Clinton himself said, he will use those arsenal again once the international community loses its will to stop him.

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
last post wins! (Apr '13) 26 min They cannot kill ... 2,148
last post wins! (Dec '10) 27 min They cannot kill ... 2,880
John Lewis is NOT a hero, he's an idiot who got... 34 min DeservedBashedHead 3
News Candle started Cabrini-Green apartment fire, of... (Feb '08) 36 min Galathilion 17
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 38 min Jacques in Orleans 233,821
NO Negrah HATE CRIMES,Ha Media protected 39 min MostJigsRRacists 7
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 42 min KKK R US 104,711

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages