Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1460464 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.

Truth is no SIN

New York, NY

#854484 Feb 5, 2013
Other Biracial Slaveowners
The Kingsleys were by no means unique. Biracial slave businesses were common during the centuries of the transatlantic slave trade. Although the financiers of the slave trade were mostly Europeans and North Americans, most of the collection centers (called “factories”) and depots on both sides of the Atlantic were family owned.

As explained in Hugh Thomas’s massive work, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), the purchase of slaves in Africa, their coastal warehousing, ocean shipping, acclimatization, and retailing in the New World were mainly conducted by people who called themselves by the Portuguese word lançados. These were generations-removed descendants of European colonizers who married Africans and sought their fortunes in the slave trade. According to Ira Berlin, in Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1998), these families considered themselves uniquely qualified to negotiate slave purchase on one side of the Atlantic and sales on the other side precisely because they “played fast and loose with their mixed heritage, employing whatever identity paid best.”

In this light, we can understand that the Kingsleys’ closest friends were John and Phenda Fraser, James and Molly Erwin, and Job and Nansi Wiggins. In addition to owning plantations with 370 slaves, the Frasers operated a slave factory on the Pongas River in West Africa, where Phenda, of the Pongas tribe, had been born. The Erwins worked 50 slaves on their rice plantation on the St. Marys River, just north of the Cow Ford (later renamed “Jacksonville”), some of whom were of Molly’s own African tribe. The Wiggins owned slaves of Nansi’s Serer tribe (also from Senegal, like Mrs. Kingsley).

Of course, that most slave-trading families were of dual heritage does not mean that most families of dual heritage were slave traders. Many biracial slaveowners were farmers, shopkeepers, professionals, or planters. Florida, a Spanish colony until 1821, was merely an extreme example of Southern color-blindness.

Since: Feb 08

Spokane, WA

#854485 Feb 5, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you accomplishing by posting untruths & lies?
"real dumb"
Point out a single lie in "Jimmy's" post. You can not he pointed out some facts, you have a filth mouth and you are stoopid.
Peace
KMA

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854486 Feb 5, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
Marine Dude, he was makin' fun of you. I swear to god you prob'ly think Gomer Pile sumthin' a marine puss might aspire to be.
The question goes to you, too.
What would you know about it?
Truth is no SIN

New York, NY

#854487 Feb 5, 2013
The parents of José Hernandez, Florida’s first U.S. congressman, had been among the original slaves of the New Smyrna Colony. In 1768, several hundred bondsmen and women from the Balearic Islands, southern Italy, Sicily, Africa, and Greece had been bought to work indigo plantations in New Smyrna by Scotsman planter Andrew Turnbull. In a rare example of successful servile insurrection, they had fled the plantations during the chaos of the American Revolution and migrated to St. Augustine. By 1821, the “Minorcans”(as they are still called today, despite their genetic diversity) had become yeomen, shopkeepers, tradesmen, and professionals. A few, like Hernandez, had become wealthy planters.

The father of David Levy, Florida’s first U.S. senator, was born in Africa. According to the diary of John Quincy Adams,“Levy is said to be a Jew, and what will be, if true, a far more formidable disqualification, that he has a dash of African blood in him, which sub rosa, is the case with more than one member of the house.”

Like the Kingsley, Hernandez, Levy, Fraser, Erwin, and Wiggins clans, other powerful Florida families were racially mixed: Luis Mattier, Juan Leslie, the province’s royal treasurer Miguel Ysnardy, Eduardo Wanton, the merchant brothers Jorge and Carlos Clarke, the physicians Tomas Tunno and Tomas Sterling. Less prosperous middle class folks were also mixed, including George Clarke, an official with the Spanish government, and Francis Richard, both of whom had African wives. Indeed, one searches in vain for a pre-1821 slaveowning Hispanic Florida family that did not openly display some biracial roots. All owned slaves. All strove for color-blind equal rights for non-slaves.

Conclusion
Truth is no SIN

New York, NY

#854488 Feb 5, 2013
According to their own writings, Anna Kingsley and other biracial slaveowners advocated a color-blind society, not just because social and political equality were desirable in themselves. They fought for color-blind civil rights in order to safeguard slavery—in their eyes, a noble institution that could never, must never be allowed to die.

Do not misunderstand. We are not offering a new myth, reversing the myth taught in U.S. grade schools. Equating slave owning with racial tolerance would be equally puerile. We merely point out that whether one supported the “race” notion had nothing to do with whether one supported slavery. Many abolitionists (e.g.: William Garrison) zealously supported the “race” notion. Many others (e.g.: Frederick Douglass) opposed it. Many slaveowners (e.g.: Anna Kingsley) fought for a race-free society. Many others (e.g.: Alexander Stephens) believed in the “race” notion to their marrow, as do most Americans of every shade today.

The “race” notion (like religion or like patriotism) was used both to defend and to attack slavery. Bigoted slaveowners defended slavery with racist arguments, just as religious slaveowners defended it with the Old Testament, and patriotic ones quoted the Constitution. Bigoted abolitionists opposed slavery with racist arguments, just as religious abolitionists quoted the New Testament, and patriotic ones the Declaration of Independence.

SO OBAMA HAVING AFRICAN BLOOD MEANS NOTHING

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854489 Feb 5, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I get it.
If an oil company makes a billion dollars in profit, handing then $200,000 is a subsidy.
If an oil company makes a billion dollars in profit, handing them a $200,000 tax break is not.
Right whiner thinking at its best
You still haven't given us the so-called "subsidy" the oil companies get.
You Democrats have been hammering that lie for so long, I'd think your defense of it would come right off the top of your pointy heads.
Tell us about those mythical subsidies to oil companies.
Exxon pays 12.3 billioni dollars in taxes to the federal government. They earn only 9.6 billion dollars from investment in the United States.
Where's that subsidy?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854490 Feb 5, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you enlighten us on why the Republican congress cut funding for the security of US embassies abroad and perhaps how Obama or his defence dept was going to change anything on the outcome when nearest support was 2 hrs away. Do you think they might have taken a time out to wait for the cavalry to arrive ? This crap is typical tea bagger white noise, it has no factual background just a bunch of fox news wannabe's.
Sure. The embassy in Helsinki doesn't need a platoon of Marines.
Obviously, they needed a platoon of Marines in Benghazi.
Total funding was cut. I noticed I don't hear you say someting like, "every embassy staff was cut to the bone and the embassy in Libya, being the most volitale location in the world, had the largest contingent of Marines of all the embassies."

... well?????

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854491 Feb 5, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
They are math and finance challenged. Be kind.
Exxon paid 12.3 billion dollars in taxes to the federal government.
Exxon earned 9.6 billion dollars from investment in the United States.

Where is that subsidy for oil companies?
TSM

United States

#854492 Feb 5, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lessee... um... 199 plus 163.... equals... 362? Somebody missin' in there ain't they? Wait, I get it, you usin' that new southern math ain't you, boy?
At least you can Add those were just the total votes to cut embassy security they did not include the votes against cuts to embassy security!!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854493 Feb 5, 2013
Homer 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>U.S. Department of The Treasury.
The Department of the Treasury operates and maintains systems that are critical to the nation's financial infrastructure, such as the production of coin and currency, the disbursement of payments to the American public, revenue collection, and the borrowing of funds necessary to run the federal government.
http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasur...
So now we all know where the president will get the money to run the government.
... for the really, really slow people in the class.

Your answer is analogous to money growing on trees.

The Department of Treasury isn't a source fo money. The Department of Treasury is a repository for money collected from a source of money.
The Department of Treasury can't invent money, or conjure money out of thin air, and doesn't have a grove or trees out back where money grows on them.
Besides, the Department of Treasury is 16.5 trillion dollars in debt. It doesn't have any money.

So, where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

You have to identify a REAL source of money to answer the question. The Department of Treasury is not a source of money. The Department of Treasury is a REPOSITORY for money collected from a source of money.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854494 Feb 5, 2013
Truth is no SIN wrote:
According to their own writings, Anna Kingsley and other biracial slaveowners advocated a color-blind society, not just because social and political equality were desirable in themselves. They fought for color-blind civil rights in order to safeguard slavery—in their eyes, a noble institution that could never, must never be allowed to die.
Do not misunderstand. We are not offering a new myth, reversing the myth taught in U.S. grade schools. Equating slave owning with racial tolerance would be equally puerile. We merely point out that whether one supported the “race” notion had nothing to do with whether one supported slavery. Many abolitionists (e.g.: William Garrison) zealously supported the “race” notion. Many others (e.g.: Frederick Douglass) opposed it. Many slaveowners (e.g.: Anna Kingsley) fought for a race-free society. Many others (e.g.: Alexander Stephens) believed in the “race” notion to their marrow, as do most Americans of every shade today.
The “race” notion (like religion or like patriotism) was used both to defend and to attack slavery. Bigoted slaveowners defended slavery with racist arguments, just as religious slaveowners defended it with the Old Testament, and patriotic ones quoted the Constitution. Bigoted abolitionists opposed slavery with racist arguments, just as religious abolitionists quoted the New Testament, and patriotic ones the Declaration of Independence.
SO OBAMA HAVING AFRICAN BLOOD MEANS NOTHING
To you and me...
It means one hell of a lot to the 100 percent of black people who voted for him.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854495 Feb 5, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
If you work in a bakery and earn $50k/year and are taxed at a rate of 28% but your neighbor who also earns $50/year but, as an employee in the subsidized shoe manufacturing industry, is taxed at a rate of 15% is he being subsidized?
The direct question is, what subsidies are you talking about?

Tell us about those subsidies.
Taxpayer

Rougemont, NC

#854496 Feb 5, 2013
Truth is no SIN wrote:
According to their own writings, Anna Kingsley and other biracial slaveowners advocated a color-blind society, not just because social and political equality were desirable in themselves. They fought for color-blind civil rights in order to safeguard slavery—in their eyes, a noble institution that could never, must never be allowed to die.
Do not misunderstand. We are not offering a new myth, reversing the myth taught in U.S. grade schools. Equating slave owning with racial tolerance would be equally puerile. We merely point out that whether one supported the “race” notion had nothing to do with whether one supported slavery. Many abolitionists (e.g.: William Garrison) zealously supported the “race” notion. Many others (e.g.: Frederick Douglass) opposed it. Many slaveowners (e.g.: Anna Kingsley) fought for a race-free society. Many others (e.g.: Alexander Stephens) believed in the “race” notion to their marrow, as do most Americans of every shade today.
The “race” notion (like religion or like patriotism) was used both to defend and to attack slavery. Bigoted slaveowners defended slavery with racist arguments, just as religious slaveowners defended it with the Old Testament, and patriotic ones quoted the Constitution. Bigoted abolitionists opposed slavery with racist arguments, just as religious abolitionists quoted the New Testament, and patriotic ones the Declaration of Independence.
SO OBAMA HAVING AFRICAN BLOOD MEANS NOTHING
Right, so when are we going to send the communist minded SOB and his anti-Amenrcan trash supporters their get the hell out of our country notice?

Since: Nov 09

Mcallen, TX

#854497 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
... for the really, really slow people in the class.
Your answer is analogous to money growing on trees.
The Department of Treasury isn't a source fo money. The Department of Treasury is a repository for money collected from a source of money.
The Department of Treasury can't invent money, or conjure money out of thin air, and doesn't have a grove or trees out back where money grows on them.
Besides, the Department of Treasury is 16.5 trillion dollars in debt. It doesn't have any money.
So, where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
You have to identify a REAL source of money to answer the question. The Department of Treasury is not a source of money. The Department of Treasury is a REPOSITORY for money collected from a source of money.
For a constitutionalist you don't seem to know very much about how it works. Article I, section 8 gives CONGRESS the power to tax and spend money, not the president. You have dodged this question for days and we can't make any progress until we at least agree on what the constitution says.
Can the President spend ONE DOLLAR without approval from the congress?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854499 Feb 5, 2013
OldRaider wrote:
<quoted text>
For a constitutionalist you don't seem to know very much about how it works. Article I, section 8 gives CONGRESS the power to tax and spend money, not the president. You have dodged this question for days and we can't make any progress until we at least agree on what the constitution says.
Can the President spend ONE DOLLAR without approval from the congress?
And you still haven't told us where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government. All you have to do is cite a simple source(s) of money. A source of money is a place that generates money, like someone working for a living being paid a portion of the money they generate. Or, the company that person works for, generating money through the economy. Or, the sale of federal lands to some country like, oh, for instance, China.

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

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#854500 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
... for the really, really slow people in the class.
Your answer is analogous to money growing on trees.
The Department of Treasury isn't a source fo money. The Department of Treasury is a repository for money collected from a source of money.
The Department of Treasury can't invent money, or conjure money out of thin air, and doesn't have a grove or trees out back where money grows on them.
Besides, the Department of Treasury is 16.5 trillion dollars in debt. It doesn't have any money.
So, where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
You have to identify a REAL source of money to answer the question. The Department of Treasury is not a source of money. The Department of Treasury is a REPOSITORY for money collected from a source of money.
You keep asking where Obama gets his money.

The answer is the GD Treasury Department.

You have an answer in mind that you want & just are too stupid to ask the right question.

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#854501 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't given us the so-called "subsidy" the oil companies get.
You Democrats have been hammering that lie for so long, I'd think your defense of it would come right off the top of your pointy heads.
Tell us about those mythical subsidies to oil companies.
Exxon pays 12.3 billioni dollars in taxes to the federal government. They earn only 9.6 billion dollars from investment in the United States.
Where's that subsidy?
So, Congress voted on ending these subsidies that you claim don't exist.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854502 Feb 5, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep asking where Obama gets his money.
The answer is the GD Treasury Department.
You have an answer in mind that you want & just are too stupid to ask the right question.
A) It's not Obama's money. It's my money.
B) The Treasury Department isn't a source of moneey. It is only a repository for money. And, it doesn't have any money. It is 16.5 trillion dollars in debt.

I've read about taxing/seizing existing assets, something right out of Karl Marx's "Das Kapital". And, I've read about the Democrats setting up an unconstitutional government, aside from the Constitutional government that is required to be funded through Congress, to be funded by trillion dollar coins given to the Fed (assuming the Fed isn't broke, too... it's time we audit the Fed and find out if we really have any backing for our currency or not) and the Fed gives to this unconstitutional alternate government what it says is real money, which is right out of Machievelli's "The Prince". And I've read about plans to sell federal land (that is actually part of states) to China in exchange for payment on the debt.(Obama is about as ignorant as a person can get, but even he should know the federal government can't give part of a state to some foreign government.)

I cannot think of a source of enough money to pay for Obama's government. If I could think of a source for that much money, I'd suggest it as a way to avoid collapsing the government.
So, I'm asking the Democrats who are in control where they will get the money from to pay for Obama's government and prevent the collapse of the government.

What is their plan? They do have a plan, don't they? Please don't tell me they don't even have a plan.

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

Since: Nov 09

Mcallen, TX

#854503 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
And you still haven't told us where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government. All you have to do is cite a simple source(s) of money. A source of money is a place that generates money, like someone working for a living being paid a portion of the money they generate. Or, the company that person works for, generating money through the economy. Or, the sale of federal lands to some country like, oh, for instance, China.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's govenment?
Economics 101:
Before a debt is satisfied it must be determined WHO spent the money. Why would I be responsible for money that some idiot spent. In this case, using your loony illogic, you are trying to make the case that Obama is responsible for paying a debt that your Republican party accrued.
Make the ceiling in your bunker higher, it appears you keep hitting your head on it.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#854504 Feb 5, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Congress voted on ending these subsidies that you claim don't exist.
What subsidies?
Tell us about these subsidies to oil companies.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 30 min District 1 231,241
Chicagoland bartenders and waitresses NEVER hug... 1 hr Tourism warning 1
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Dudley 7,968
last post wins! (Dec '10) 3 hr They cannot kill ... 2,764
last post wins! (Apr '13) 3 hr They cannot kill ... 1,977
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr Burn Gas for Fun 62,366
Are democrats destroyed? 5 hr enter username 17

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages