Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1507790 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.

sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#855054 Feb 6, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Ministry of Propogana had no choice to "FINALLY" cover the story, nitwit.
I guess it went right over your pointed head, didn't it?
Is it even clear that the "mainstream media" does a poorer job of being adversarial than the conservative press?

Consider Lewis's claim that "the establishment press" cared more about Seamus the dog's rooftop journey than "the fact that an Obama-authorized drone strike killed a 16-year-old American."

There's something important missing from that analysis. Tom Junod wrote the definitive piece about that 16 year old, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, in Esquire. I wrote about him here at The Atlantic on numerous occasions. The New Yorker covered the killing here. The New York Times and The Washington Post both published coverage of his death. Those stories and many others from publications in the "establishment press" treated Awlaki's death far more critically than anything that I saw in any conservative outlet. And some of the most critical pieces written about Obama killing a teenaged American citizen were published by avowedly progressive writers like Glenn Greenwald in the liberal online magazine Salon and staffers at publications like Mother Jones and The Nation, often citing left-leaning civil-libertarian organizations like the ACLU or center-left international affairs academics.

On various subjects that ought to trigger automatic scrutiny from any adversarial press outlet, like apparent violations of federal law, actions that directly contradict a campaign promise, aggressive retaliation against whistleblowers, and unprecedented assertions of secrecy, establishment outlets like The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, along with avowedly liberal publications like Salon, Mother Jones, and The Guardian, did far more to uncover facts, raise awareness, and publish criticism of Obama than the conservative media.

To be sure, there was a schizophrenia to the coverage in some of these publications. The New Yorker must have dedicated hundreds of thousands of dollars to top-flight journalism about various Obama Administration transgressions against civil liberties, the rule of law, and good government. Its editors presumably submitted some of those stories for National Magazine Awards. The same can be said for The New York Times and the Pulitzer Prizes. Yet pre-election editorials in those same publications didn't merely posit that Obama was the lesser of two evils -- they left painstakingly reported transgressions unmentioned, as if they weren't relevant, and issued glowing endorsements that read as if Obama is an especially noble president.

I've been an outspoken a critic of that seeming contradiction.

But when it comes to holding Obama accountable for those unusually consequential, unchecked acts, the conservative media is far inferior, partly because of the time it wastes on birtherism, Kenyan anti-colonialism, and a National Review contributor's theory that Obama is allied with our Islamist enemy in a "grand jihad" against America; but mostly because much of the conservative movement behaves as if the War on Terrorism confers unlimited power to spy without warrants, to violate the War Powers Resolution, to extra-judicially kill American citizens, and to treat even the legal justification for executive branch actions as if they're state secrets. On all those questions, they defer to the Obama Administration.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...

all sources linked.

bonus....

First detailed publicly by NBC News late Monday, the memo....

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/02/05/memo-gives-...

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#855055 Feb 6, 2013
Are you a masochist??

You thrive on looking stupid!!

I popsted it yesterday, but you ran away.

Last time for this truly ignorant question, from the Dept. of the Treasury.

PAY ATTENTION!!

----------

""The Department of the Treasury is an executive department and the treasury of the United States federal government. It was established by an Act of Congress in 1789 to manage government revenue. The Department is administered by the Secretary of the Treasury, who is a member of the Cabinet.
The first Secretary of the Treasury was Alexander Hamilton, who was sworn into office on September 11, 1789. Hamilton was asked by President George Washington to serve after first having asked Robert Morris (who declined, recommending Hamilton instead). Hamilton almost single-handedly worked out the nation's early financial system, and for several years was a major presence in Washington's administration as well. His portrait is on the obverse of the U.S. ten-dollar bill while the Treasury Department building is shown on the reverse.
Besides the Secretary, one of the best-known Treasury officials is the Treasurer of the United States whose signature, along with the Treasury Secretary's, appears on all Federal Reserve notes.
The Treasury prints and mints all paper currency and coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint. The Department also collects all federal taxes through the Internal Revenue Service, and manages U.S. government debt instruments.""

"The basic functions of the Department of the Treasury mainly include:

Producing all currency, coinage and postage stamps of the U.S.;

Collecting taxes, duties and money paid to and due to the U.S.:

Paying all bills of the U.S.;

Managing the federal finances;

Managing government accounts and the United States public debt;

Supervising national banks and thrift institutions;

Advising on domestic and international financial, monetary, economic, trade and tax policy (fiscal policy being the sum of these, and the ultimate responsibility of Congress);

Enforcing federal finance and tax laws;

Investigating and prosecuting tax evaders;

Publishing statistical reports.

----------

Note the third duty of the Treasury;

""Paying all bills of the U.S.;""

Now STFU and go away with your torrent of lies and ignorance.
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>Since you have all the answers, answer this question:
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
All you have to do is identify a simple source of money to answer that question.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#855056 Feb 6, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I am aware it was not the same time as the father.
Was he targeted & if so why?
Ask your Fuehrer.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#855058 Feb 6, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when you right whiners defend terrorists who plot against America & send suicide bombers to kill Americans.
Just like you backed Ghadafi & even Bin Laden.
Liberals are the ones who want Al Jazeera to have a voice in the American media. Go ask Al Gore what his problem is.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#855059 Feb 6, 2013
TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
RealDave do you have a problem with GE paying No Taxes?
As well as Government Motors.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#855061 Feb 6, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
Republicans haven't had a chance at bat yet since the economic fallout. How can you even say that with certainty?
Because I was paying attention when the debt went over $1 trillion for the first time in our history under Reagan. I was paying attention when the debt went over $4 trillion under HW Bush. I was paying attention when Clinton produced 4 years of budget surplus. I was paying attention when once Bush was given the WH with Clinton's Congress they promptly drove up the deficit and ultimately doubled the debt. You can make all the excuses you want but recent history tells us that if you gave them all three houses again you'd have to dream up an entirely new set of excuses.

I'm sick of excuses.

If you weren't such a party hack you'd be even more sick of making excuses for the people YOU elect.
TSM

United States

#855062 Feb 6, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
Are you a masochist??
You thrive on looking stupid!!
I popsted it yesterday, but you ran away.
Last time for this truly ignorant question, from the Dept. of the Treasury.
PAY ATTENTION!!
----------
""The Department of the Treasury is an executive department and the treasury of the United States federal government. It was established by an Act of Congress in 1789 to manage government revenue. The Department is administered by the Secretary of the Treasury, who is a member of the Cabinet.
The first Secretary of the Treasury was Alexander Hamilton, who was sworn into office on September 11, 1789. Hamilton was asked by President George Washington to serve after first having asked Robert Morris (who declined, recommending Hamilton instead). Hamilton almost single-handedly worked out the nation's early financial system, and for several years was a major presence in Washington's administration as well. His portrait is on the obverse of the U.S. ten-dollar bill while the Treasury Department building is shown on the reverse.
Besides the Secretary, one of the best-known Treasury officials is the Treasurer of the United States whose signature, along with the Treasury Secretary's, appears on all Federal Reserve notes.
The Treasury prints and mints all paper currency and coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint. The Department also collects all federal taxes through the Internal Revenue Service, and manages U.S. government debt instruments.""
"The basic functions of the Department of the Treasury mainly include:
Producing all currency, coinage and postage stamps of the U.S.;
Collecting taxes, duties and money paid to and due to the U.S.:
Paying all bills of the U.S.;
Managing the federal finances;
Managing government accounts and the United States public debt;
Supervising national banks and thrift institutions;
Advising on domestic and international financial, monetary, economic, trade and tax policy (fiscal policy being the sum of these, and the ultimate responsibility of Congress);
Enforcing federal finance and tax laws;
Investigating and prosecuting tax evaders;
Publishing statistical reports.
----------
Note the third duty of the Treasury;
""Paying all bills of the U.S.;""
Now STFU and go away with your torrent of lies and ignorance.
<quoted text>
Nuculur hes asked a Simple question now put your thinking Cap On and Try Again!!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#855063 Feb 6, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, I try to invest only in profitable companies.
You should buy stock in green energy companies like Solyndra, the wave of the future.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#855064 Feb 6, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
Menendez just might be the bullet that ends up shooting his party in the foot.
that Caller story is already falling apart.

the folks over there are not happy with me.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#855065 Feb 6, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire article was only about Obama using drones to kill American citizens on his command.
I'm just glad the tables have turned. This president was ready to prosecute GW Bush and Cheney for helping him get the credit for killing Osama after waterboarding only 3 bad guys.
But you probably don't have any problem with the accelerated use of drones by this president either.
Told you to read the White Paper, do I have to do everything for you?

Here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/ne...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#855067 Feb 6, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's just a bit hypocritical. Actually, it's a lot hypocritical.
Drones can cause suffering and mutilations to a lot of people who are just too close to the target if it doesn't kill them right off the bat - but that's more acceptable than pouring water up 3 bad guys' noses with an M.D. standing by.
If you read the White Paper maybe you'll get the point.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#855068 Feb 6, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
The Post Office is required by the Constitution. DUH
Obamacare was found to be Constitutional by the Conservative Supreme Court.
You lose again.
<quoted text>
You are an idiot.
The Constitution allows the government to create a post office.
The Constitution does not command the government to create a post office.
If the government WANTS to create a post office, the Constitution gives the government the authority to do so.

As for the constitutionality of ObamaKare, there are many grounds on which it is unconstitutional. The ruling of the Supreme Court actually blatantly emphasized one point in which the law is obviously unconstitutional.
Vagueness and ambiguity.
As ruled by the Supreme Court:
"Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warnings. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications."

Let's put the ObamaKare law to this test:

Those that wrote the law, the ultimate authority on what the law means, and the intent of the law: "It's not a tax. It's a penalty."

Those that read that same law, the interpretation from the text: "It's a tax."

If those who wrote the law specifically state their intent that the provision isn't a tax, but it is a penalty, then the intent of the law is a penalty.
But, when the law is read, which the Supreme Court obviously did (or should have done), their interpretation of the law is it is a tax.

You cannot have a better example of a law that demonstrates vagueness and ambiguity than this.

Just on this basis, aside form all the other contentions, the entire law is very obviously unconstitutional.

So, now wew are faced with the question of why the Supreme Court ruled an obviously unconstitutional law constitutional.

Congress isn't the only institution we need to fix.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#855069 Feb 6, 2013
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that "there is oversight" on the Obama administration's drone strikes against U.S. citizens who are believed to be senior al-Qaeda leaders.

"I review all of the air strikes that we use under this title of the law," he told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. Rogers added that Americans who decide to join al-Qaeda become enemies of the U.S. "If you have someone who has joined this organization, and they may not be engaged in plot a today, but part of an organization plotting to kill Americans, and so they've joined the enemy. So you don't just kill the enemy when they're at the gate."

Rogers insisted there is not a long list of Americans on any "kill list." "I can candidly tell you that," he said.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/g...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#855071 Feb 6, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly what it means.
Thought so.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#855072 Feb 6, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a whole 'nother topic.
Alaska makes oil companies companies pay Alaskans for the resources they took out of the ground. It's called royalty payments.
Yet the oil companies still made tremendous profits!!
Palin was all for it, too! So it should be part of the TP plank!!
The oil and ng belongs to all Americans, not oil companies.
They should be allowed to drill for it and sell it, but just as in Alaska, we the people should get a share of the money.
But the Rclowns don't even want to take away big oil's tax breaks and subsidies, much less make them pay royalties to Americans.
The oil, ng, and coal belongs to whoever has the mineral rights to that piece of property. Can't you ever get anything right?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#855073 Feb 6, 2013
discordian wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, those poor babies, if only you could have been there with one of your many hair dryers to dry them off after their horrible experience. Oh wait, they might have strangled you with the cord, given the chance.
Would you be talking like that if you were imprisoned and tortured? How about if you were dodging the executioner drone? I know, you right wingers have so much faith in your government that you're certain they'd never use this power inappropriately.

Gee, wish I had that kinda faith.
Nj raider 1

United States

#855074 Feb 6, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, for the really, really slow (stupid) people in the class, if you can't remember this please write it down.
The Treasury isn't a source of money. It is a repository for money collected from a source of money.
To say "debt of the treasury" you are referencing either money that has already been spent and doesn't exist anymore, or additional debt to be incurred by accepting money from some source of money.
To answer the question, you actually have to identify a source of money.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
I truly am sick & tired of you & this stupid ass question. There is no more stee source of revenue generated than taxes. You explaining what thee Treasury is doesn't explain away the fact that taxes is indeed gov't income, so to swear your question for the umpteenth, the US economy will be paid for by the people of the United States of America though an income generating process " paying taxes." Now you answer these questions. How did Bush pay for his gov't ? 2 wars he committed this country to for his selfish agenda & tax cuts that he wrote into law without a plan how the bills would be paid! Answer those questions! Your response should be 1 word!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#855075 Feb 6, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I was paying attention when the debt went over $1 trillion for the first time in our history under Reagan. I was paying attention when the debt went over $4 trillion under HW Bush. I was paying attention when Clinton produced 4 years of budget surplus. I was paying attention when once Bush was given the WH with Clinton's Congress they promptly drove up the deficit and ultimately doubled the debt. You can make all the excuses you want but recent history tells us that if you gave them all three houses again you'd have to dream up an entirely new set of excuses.
I'm sick of excuses.
If you weren't such a party hack you'd be even more sick of making excuses for the people YOU elect.
I've got a question. What is two times five?
It isn't 8.5, you goddam idiot.
When Bush took office, Congress had authorized a grand total of 5 trillion dollars of debt.
dot-come bust and the Arabs declaring war on the United States...
When the Democrats took control of all the purse strings of govenment in January, 2007, the total debt was 8.5 trillion dollars.

You either need to learn arithmetic, or learn how our government works.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#855076 Feb 6, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> no
I hope you're just playing dumb. A lot of these folks on here can't help it.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#855077 Feb 6, 2013
carlos dead husband wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, you crazy little paranoid fkhead! "aisling," huh? You can't fool me, I know the rhythm and tempo (not to mention the sh!t and run content) of your semi-literate scribblings. It's like a virtual fingerprint. It's almost as if I'm incapable of being wrong. And each of you, to the disaffected idiot, is republiscum.
lol, "me" crazy? You're the idiot who swallowed the "Semen is brain food" scam.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/20030...

I know old habits are hard to break, but Just Say No the next time you get weak from lack of protein.

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) 1 hr Coffee Party 239,228
News Chicago had a record year of dog poop complaints 3 hr Trump is the man 1
Trumps travel ban discussion 3 hr The truth is out ... 1
Jonny's Towing is Chicagoland's Most Crooked Co... 5 hr Trekkie 38
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 5 hr SweLL GirL 10,490
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Seer 8,064
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Bbzzoo 63,543

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages