Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1236309 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.

Jimmy

Newington, CT

#854323 Feb 5, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The CIA is under white House control, dipstick.
George Bush lied to go to war.
I see you;'re still giving people the finger when they aren't looking. How pathetic.
Sure thing lugnut.



I guess Democrats were also.

Baaawwwaaahhhh!!!!!

Moron.
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#854324 Feb 5, 2013
A couple of thoughts about the Brzezinski interview below. First, it flatly contradicts the common justification for U.S. actions in Afghanistan during the 1980s: that the U.S. simply aided forces resisting Soviet imperialism. Brzezinski makes clear that the Soviets were baited into sending forces to Afghanistan; thus their actions were defensive. Moreover, the U.S. used the violent Wahhabi (Saudi Arabian) form of Islam to create a monster-movement which plagues the world today. or more on this, see 'Articles Documenting U.S. Creation of Taliban and bin Laden's Terrorist Network' athttp://emperors-clothes.com/ docs/doc.htm
A reader wrote: "Similarly just because Brzezinski (among others) likes to claim that he personally overthrew the Soviet Union doesn't mean that you or the rest of us have to take him seriously. Nobody in 1979 had any reason to think that the Afghan war would bring down the USSR. Nor have we any real reason to think that it did bring it down."
The point is well taken at least as regards Brzezinski's claim that his Afghan strategy destroyed the Soviet Union. But the issue here is a different one: what role did the U.S. government play in the creation of Islamist terrorism? In that regard, Brzezinski's assertion that the U.S. provoked Soviet actions and that Islamism was deliberately fostered is backed up by sources on all sides of the Afghan issue.
Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and starting the whole mess
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#854325 Feb 5, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
You said they no longer respond immediately.
That is only the case if the suspects were gone. In the event of a robbery or break in where the suspects are still there, they do respond immediately.
Got it?
So, when you call 9-1-1 in Chicago, just say you're not sure if the bad guys are still there.
DBs Mama

Orlando, FL

#854326 Feb 5, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty insightful...and true.
(Although I wouldn't say all deranged people are necessarily democrats...but probably raised by progressive politically correct liberals...since the poison of political correctness is enough to make even the sanest among us a little crazy.)
Well, looky who's here! Speak of the Devil you cheap harlot! I told you what would happen if I catched you round my boy and now look who's landed right in my lap! It wasn't enough that you shot Billy and stole the love of my life away from me but then you went and corrupted DB with your wickedness! He was just a boy.. barely 35. And here you come with your skimpy little dress and perfume and you took my only son from me. I told you what would happen if I caught you near him again, Jezebel! Big-city college girl with her Yankee ways and curly hair, I told DB you was trash but he was a boy and didn't know no better. But you did didn't you, harlot. I swear you bring out the meanness in me, you lyin' piece of Yankee white trash, I told you what'd happen, and now it will! Mark my words!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#854327 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
If you attempt to dodge answering a question by asking a question, I just go back to the original questions you dodged. For instance, the questions you've been dodging for a month now:
Where was Obama during the 7-goddam-hour battle between Al Qaeda and the stripped-down American embassy security detatchment in Benghazi when orders with presidential authority came from the White House to hang the Americans in Benghazi out to dry while the White House watched Al Qaeda kill them on the live video feed?
And;
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
When you answer these questions, then we can get to the questions you posed in your predictable attempt to digress and avoid admitting Obama is a clown act.
The Treasury Dept.
history 101

Orlando, FL

#854328 Feb 5, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Please identify a specific subsidy that is unique to the oil industry.
Texas
Jane Says

New York, NY

#854329 Feb 5, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lighter duty police" sounds like washed-up retreads who should be replaced by capable officers.
Ignoring crimes against property just encourages more such crimes.
that's how NYC was lost by the libs. Guliani brought it back by implementing the Broken Window approach to fighting crime:

'The idea of it is that you had to pay attention to small things, otherwise they would get out of control and become much worse. And that, in fact, in a lot of our approach to crime, quality of life, social programs, we were allowing small things to get worse rather than dealing with them at the earliest possible stage. That approach had been tried in other cities, but all small cities, and there was a big debate about whether it could work in a city as large as New York. One of the ways that New York used to resist any kind of change was to say, "It can't work here," because they wanted to keep the status quo. There is such a desire for people to do that, to keep the status quo. And I thought, "Well, there's no reason why it can't work in New York City. We have bigger resources. We may have bigger problems, we have bigger resources, the same theory should work." So we started paying attention to the things that were being ignored. Aggressive panhandling, the squeegee operators that would come up to your car and wash the window of your car whether you wanted it or not -- and sometimes smashed people's cars or tires or windows -- the street-level drug-dealing; the prostitution; the graffiti, all these things that were deteriorating the city. So we said, "We're going to pay attention to that," and it worked. It worked because we not only got a big reduction in that, and an improvement in the quality of life, but massive reductions in homicide, and New York City turned from the crime capital of America to the safest large city in the country for five, six years in a row.'

compare that to cities run by libs, like Detroit, Chicago and Newark.
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#854330 Feb 5, 2013
Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?**

Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.*

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#854331 Feb 5, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Early Tuesday afternoon, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor plans to deliver a major speech kicking off his latest attempt at revitalizing the Republican Party brand.
If this sounds vaguely familiar to you, it's not your imagination. As Politico's Jake Sherman and Jonathan Allen point out, this isn't Cantor's first rodeo when it comes to brand rebuilding—it will be his fourth. In 2009, there was the National Council for a New America, in 2010 there was the "Young Guns", and in 2011 there was "cut-and-grow."
Sadly for Cantor, in 2012 his efforts were rewarded with the reelection of President Barack Obama, a larger Democratic majority in the Senate, and a smaller Republican majority in the House. But now it's 2013 and it's apparently time for the fourth generation of Eric Cantor, GOP Brand Rebuilder™. So, on Tuesday morning, Cantor explained to CBS News what will be different this time:
What this is about is about making sure that we can express why we're doing what we're doing ... what it is more is explaining why we're doing what we're doing.
Aha. So instead of doing something about being wrong, this time Eric Cantor thinks House Republicans need to do a better job of explaining why they are wrong. Great plan, sir. It worked so well the last three times you tried it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/05/1184...
Hey, maybe in the course of explaining why they're doing something they'll come to the realization that its a stupid thing to do and they can stop themselves from doing it?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#854332 Feb 5, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what this is about is now "an informed, high-level official of the U.S. Government" has the authority to order the execution of US citizens. They don't have to bring charges or have any evidence, evidently they just need their good judgement.
These individuals should be tried, in absentia if necessary, and sentenced to death by a court before being executed.
History 101

Orlando, FL

#854333 Feb 5, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
She is not an Israeli. Like I said, they will more than likely beat us to it.
But say, Homer, wouldn't you be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the world from a threat like Iran?
Then again, I would have been willing to die to save just one child from Saddam's torture rooms.
Maybe we're just different in that way - believing in a higher and nobler cause.
Is there anything you would be willing to die for? Just curious.
Well, speaking solely for ourselves, I'd die to see you die. This is pretty deep stuff so take your time with it.
Jane Says

New York, NY

#854334 Feb 5, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
I think Jane types with her asss.
yes and at a massize size 4, i cover 2/3 of the keyboard. but, sorry....didn't mention anything about "size" and reinforce your inadequecies.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#854335 Feb 5, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddam would be Obama's problem now.
Good thing he's one less enemy for him to worry about, huh?
You'd think the Democrats would be thrilled that he's gone since they wanted to get rid of him too.
So what do you think the UN meant when they issued a warning to Saddam of "serious consequences" if he tried to bamboozle them one more time?
I always wondered about that myself.
Saddam would still be Ahmedinijad's problem and neither would be our problem.
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#854336 Feb 5, 2013
SFRC Testimony -- Zbigniew Brzezinski
February 1, 2007

Mr. Chairman:

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.
Jane Says

New York, NY

#854337 Feb 5, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not take out Castro with a drone now?
Looney Lily is keen on drone attacks, because drive-bys are a popular sport amongst her in-laws the way other families golf or fish.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#854338 Feb 5, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what this is about is now "an informed, high-level official of the U.S. Government" has the authority to order the execution of US citizens. They don't have to bring charges or have any evidence, evidently they just need their good judgement.
So, what are the criteria for who deserves to get a drone up their ass?

Sounds kinda like double secret probation.
TSM

El Paso, TX

#854339 Feb 5, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
You said they no longer respond immediately.
That is only the case if the suspects were gone. In the event of a robbery or break in where the suspects are still there, they do respond immediately.
Got it?
RealDave I didn’t say it, I just posted what they said, but here I’ll post it again!!

CHICAGOLAND: Police… To No Longer Respond Immediately To Burglaries, Car Thefts!! Dave I think Chicago Is promoting Gun ownership!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#854340 Feb 5, 2013
Obama Feeling Sequester Squeeze

By Scott Galupo

Last week I predicted that the fourth-quarter GDP scare would spook the White House into cutting some kind of deal to turn off the sequester, with its across-the-board spending cuts.

Sure enough, today brings news that President Obama will ask Congress for another short-term delay. The AP reports:“Obama will ask for a targeted way to reduce the deficit in the short term, perhaps several months. White House officials say Congress needs more time to work out a 10-year plan worth more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction.”

Because they’ve signaled a willingness to go ahead with the sequester, even as Majority Leader Eric Cantor commences the project of soft-focusing the party’s agenda by talking about issues besides the federal budget, Republicans have found themselves with under-the-radar bargaining leverage. If they’re smart, they will husband this leverage wisely and press for modest measures to rein in spending over the long haul. That they’re no longer threatening to blow up the economy in the short term is a positive sign.

Let’s see how if House GOP leaders can persuade the exuberant freshmen and sophomore members of their caucus not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/obama-...
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#854341 Feb 5, 2013
The White House Could Provoke Attacks in the United States
Reporterre
Thursday 08 February 2007

In testimony before the American Senate, Carter's former National Security Advisor considered the hypothesis that the White House could provoke attacks on its own soil to justify an intervention in Iran plausible.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the people most widely respected in geopolitical matters in the United States. Advisor to Jimmy Carter when the latter was President of the United States between 1977 and 1981, he was considered a "hawk among the doves." Since then, he has stayed very attentive to international questions, within the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Notably, he published a widely regarded essay, Le Grand Echiquier [The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives](Hachette, 1997).
Hostile to the war in Iraq, he spoke February 1st before an American Senate committee on the international situation and more specifically on the power struggle with Iran. One passage in his testimony has caught the attention of several observers: the one in which he considers that the White House could provoke a terrorist act in the United States itself to win public opinion over to the idea of an intervention against Iran. Here is the passage:
"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."
The allusion to a terrorist act in the United States, responsibility for which "would be attributed to the Iranians" is remarkable: an American official at the highest level concedes the idea that the Bush Administration could not only use terrorism to serve its own ends, but even provoke attacks on its own soil in order to justify its aggressive intrigues.
Brzezinski's statements are all the more remarkable in that he himself in his book, The Grand Chessboard, deemed that control of central Asia and its oil resources were necessary for the maintenance of American domination.
But he emphasized that it was difficult to obtain a consensus from the American public to support United States' interventions beyond its borders "in the absence of a sudden threat or a feeling by the population that its well-being was at stake." On that occasion, he recalled the example of Pearl Harbor which tipped American opinion in favor of an intervention in the Second World War.
Consequently, it is not "conspiracy theorists" only who are blowing the whistle on such a corruption of American democracy, even if one must not extrapolate too much from the statements of Jimmy Carter's former advisor. But for several years, many people have, in fact, wondered about the exact unfolding of the events of September 11, 2001 and wonder whether the American administration has not done everything to prevent them [from knowing.] Zbigniew Brzezinski's position provides legitimacy to these questions and undoubtedly constitutes a message addressed to George Bush and his entourage.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#854342 Feb 5, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
We didn't start the fires Homer.
Those fires been burning a long, long time. Decades and milleniums.
So why'd we go stand in the middle of it?

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) 3 min FastandFurious 189,857
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 min IBdaMann 53,593
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 14 min James 51,763
amy 6-2 18 min Mister Tonka 9
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr PEllen 99,596
abby 6-2 2 hr PEllen 14
News Former U.S. House Speaker Hastert indicted on f... 6 hr Drifter 46
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]