Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1235012 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.

Homer 2016

Bethlehem, PA

#854477 Feb 5, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
4/25/2012 @ 12:52PM |32,397 views
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012...
Oh yeah, the US Treasury.
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.

Since: Nov 09

Pharr, TX

#854479 Feb 5, 2013
While DBWriter is off working on his bunker, I think we may be able to resolve his dilemma. Once we can determine WHO spent the money then we can determine WHERE the money will come from to pay for it. So, first things first, according to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution it would appear that it was congress that spent the money. Once we agree on this then we can examine which congress was responsible for this massive debt.

hint: unprovoked war and deregulated banks

When he comes back we'll have the answer for him!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#854480 Feb 5, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
What f**k*ng question? Probvably one you used to avoid answering a question about where Obama was when the White House ordered the Americans in Benghazi hung out to dry and watched Al Qaeda kill them on real-time video, or why Obama lied for two weeks covering up an Al Qaeda attack on the United States, or avoiding answering the question about where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government.
The Department of the Treasury.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#854481 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
They are math and finance challenged. Be kind.
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#854482 Feb 5, 2013
The North-South difference in color line perception startled newcomers. Union General Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (of Little Round Top, Gettysburg fame) in occupied Virginia after Appomattox, saw…

wild-looking men in homespun gray, standing sulkily by, or speaking only to insist that they are civilians and not soldiers; sometimes white men, or what seem to be, declaring that they are not white, but colored;–a claim not often set up in that part of the Republic, though there may be some truth in it for all that; for there was in those days a whimsical variance between law and fact,–between being actually white and legally white…

Of course, a borderline racial identification that was “legally but not actually” White to Maine-born Chamberlain was as “actual” as can be to a swarthy South Carolinian.
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#854483 Feb 5, 2013
Anna Kingsley
Anna Kingsley (no relation to Calvin Kingsley) was kidnapped by slave traders from her home in Senegal, sold to the highest bidder, and shipped to Florida. Five years later she was free and running a business. By 1826 she was among the wealthiest business owners in Florida.

For the next seventeen years, while increasing her wealth, she wrote hundreds of: editorials, letters to Congress, public circulars, petitions to state and federal courts, and memos to state legislators. All were on the same topic—the need for a color-blind society. Anna passionately believed that the United States could never reach its full potential until black, brown, and white people were treated equally and had identical rights. She understood that both the law and public prejudice had to change. She strove to make them change in step. She honestly believed that no society could call itself civilized unless everyone, black, white or beige, could attend schools, hold jobs, own businesses, attend theaters, ride public transportation, go to church, vote, marry whom they chose, serve on juries, and testify in court. Eradicating the “race” notion once and for all was her unwavering goal for seventeen years.

Why was Anna Kingsley so zealous about a color-blind society? She was a slave trader. By 1843 she owned a chain of slave plantations stretching from Haiti to the Florida-Georgia line. A study of her business accounts reveals that she did not make her money growing and selling cotton or timber or turpentine. The heart of her business was growing and selling slaves. Her husband, a ship’s captain in the triangle trade, brought them from Africa or the Caribbean. Her plantations seasoned them, trained them and sold them for phenomenal profit.

A recently published collection of writings by the Kingsley family (Anna, her husband Zephania, and their son George) pleads their case. The book is: Zephaniah Kingsley, Balancing Evils Judiciously: The Proslavery Writings of Zephaniah Kingsley, ed. Daniel W. Stowell, Florida History and Culture (Gainesville: University of Florida, 2000). Anna felt that slavery was noble, good for both slave and owner. She thought that the way to safeguard slavery forever was to make it an equal opportunity employer. Each plantation, she wrote, should have the same mix of White slaves, Black slaves, and biracial slaves as in the population as a whole (the way her plantations did). She said slavery should also be an equal opportunity business. There should be the same mix of Black slaveowners (like her), White slaveowners (like her husband), and biracial slaveowners (like their children) as in the population as a whole.
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, 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

Bronx, 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

Bronx, 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

El Paso, TX

#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

Point Harbor, 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

Pharr, 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?

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 Former U.S. House Speaker Hastert indicted on f... 3 min Ex Senator Santpo... 17
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 14 min Guru 190,424
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr jimi-yank 53,543
Abby May 29 2 hr mrs gladys kravitz 3
News 2 dead, 13 hurt in city shootings 2 hr reality is a crutch 1
Word (Dec '08) 3 hr not a ghost 5,250
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr not a ghost 6,016
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]