Barack Obama, our next President

"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 ... Full Story
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#855105 Feb 6, 2013
Now let us look at court cases.
“Racial” Classification Court Cases
In May of 1834, Ohio residents Mr. and Mrs. Williams tried to enroll their five White-looking children in the District 6 public school. They were turned away because the law demanded racially segregated schools.Although the children’s mother was White, the father admitted to having an imperceptible trace of Negro ancestry. The Williams couple sued the school board in Williams v. School District, 1834 Ohio.The trial went to the heart of the issue. Were the Williams children members of the Black “racial” group because their father had slight African ancestry? Or were they White based upon the traditional rules: appearance, blood fraction, and association?The school board advocated a one-drop rule of invisible Blackness. The children’s records showed that they had African blood, they argued, and so they should be ruled to be Black even though they did not look it.The Williams family lawyer argued in favor of an appearance-based view of color line positioning. The children should be ruled White because, physically speaking, they “really were White,” even though their father was probably not.The judge ruled in favor of the rule of physical appearance. The children were White because they looked White. The court awarded damages to be paid to the Williams family and ordered the school board to admit their children.In fact, the decision was far from inevitable, and the case could easily have gone either way. The judge ruled against the school board partly because they,“had the shabby meanness to ask from [Mr. Williams] his contribution of tax, and [then turn around and] exclude his children from the benefit of the schools he helped to support.” Had the members of District 6 School Board had the sense to exempt the family from school taxes first, in order to exclude the children, as did the schools of the time in Connecticut, the court might well have ruled in their favor.The defendants in this case argued that one could look European (as did the Williams children) yet be a member of the Black “racial” group nonetheless. As it turned out, the judge did not agree with the argument and he did not impose a one-drop rule. But the case is still important because Williams v. School District, 1834 Ohio was the very first time that a one-drop rule was seriously argued in a U.S. court of law.Incredibly, this watershed case happened just three years after Gray v. Ohio, 1831, the robbery conviction case that opened this topic. Recall that in Gray v. Ohio, the state prosecutor allowed a convicted felon to go free rather than argue that the female robber was “really” Black due to her acknowledged trace of African ancestry.Nevertheless, although the change was abrupt, there would be no turning back. Just three years later, across the Ohio river in Kentucky, in Gentry v. McMinnis, 1835, a lawyer argued (again unsuccessfully) in favor of invisible Blackness.
History 101

Orlando, FL

#855107 Feb 6, 2013
Football. I meant football not baseball. Cubans play blaseball.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#855108 Feb 6, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So now Al Jazeera is what, a terrorist organization?
Here I thought you right whiners were all about freedom & now you bitch because Al Gore sold his company to whomever he wanted.
I suspect you would also support his decision to eat human fetuses for breakfast.
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#855109 Feb 6, 2013
JUST THE FACTS MAMm JUST THE FACTS friday
History 101

Orlando, FL

#855110 Feb 6, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Why not deal with the "here and now" and not crap that happened over a hundred years ago?
Because he's a spammer you moron. Now go and take care of the old man. His colostomy bag looks like it's about to explode!
Jane Says

New York, NY

#855111 Feb 6, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama's exact words: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems!"
Oh crap...the President of the United States doesn't know Obamacare is going to be another disaster like the Post Office...God help us.
it will be very interesting to watch the reaction of many middle class voters whose jobs will only insure the employee and not the family--and they will not be eligible for any Obamacare subsidies.

get ready to say it:
"told you so"
and
"WHO did you vote for?"

Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for ManyBy ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The new health care law is known as the Affordable Care Act. But Democrats in Congress and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by the administration and by the Internal Revenue Service in particular.

Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.

The fight revolves around how to define “affordable” under provisions of the law that are ambiguous. The definition could have huge practical consequences, affecting who gets help from the government in buying health insurance.

Under the law, most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits and other subsidies to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer.

The law specifies that employer-sponsored insurance is not affordable if a worker’s share of the premium is more than 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income. The I.R.S. says this calculation should be based solely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.”

Critics say the administration should also take account of the costs of covering a spouse and children because family coverage typically costs much more.

In 2011, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,430 a year for single coverage and $15,070 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $920 for individual coverage and more than four times as much,$4,130, for family coverage.

Under the I.R.S. proposal, such costs would be deemed affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.

The debate over the meaning of affordable pits the Obama administration against its usual allies. Many people who support the new law said the proposed rules could leave millions of people in the lower middle class uninsured and frustrate the intent of Congress, which was to expand coverage.

“The effect of this wrong interpretation of the law will be that many families remain or potentially become uninsured,” said a letter to the administration from Democrats who pushed the bill through the House in 2009-10. The lawmakers include Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Sander M. Levin of Michigan.

Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group, said:“This is a serious glitch. Under the proposal, millions of children and families would be unable to obtain affordable coverage in the workplace, but ineligible for subsidies to buy private insurance in the exchanges” to be established in each state.

continued:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/ambiguit...
leosanusobama

Pompano Beach, FL

#855112 Feb 6, 2013
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>Waxturds, Dumbya, and now Methmouth! If it weren't for Bill, Hillary, and John Kerry, they probably would have shut it down by now...wait, flack will be receiving his honorary PhD. in fortune telling from them any time now...'course, it might just be from the lock company.
babymama squealin agin
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#855114 Feb 6, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Why not deal with the "here and now" and not crap that happened over a hundred years ago?
SIMPLE THE HERE AND NOW IS BASED ON HISTORY SO DO NOT READ OR BOTHER YOURSELF WITH WHAT PHD INFORMED PEOPLE PUBLISH AND I PUT ON HERE YESTERDAY IS NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU STAY IN YOUR WORLD MATH COMES FROM THE PAST SO DONT STUDY IT BASED ON YOUR REASON FINE STAY AWAY FROM TEACHING CHILDREN OR ANYONE NO PROBLEM BUT THE GARBAGE THAT YOU ALL POST WITH YOUR GARBAGE OPINIONS THATS THE IMPORTANT HERE AND NOW lololololhahahah if one person reads my post and it makes sense im golden so I really don't think about your kind thanks anyway bye O i've been typing this with my MIDDLE FINGER to answer YOU
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#855115 Feb 6, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted it to show the drones were utilized under President Bush & many civilians were also killed in the process.
You f*cking loons act as though this is some Obama came up with.
As far as targeting American citizens by the government, it happens all the time.
If a US citizen is threatening to do harm/ has done harm to people & they can not be captured to prevent further harm, then they are killed or wounded.
The police do it all the time.
We have the cleric go & join terrorists & actively recruit suicide bombers to attack US assets.
You take him out if you can because invading Yemen to try to capture is too risky.
If a US citizen joined the Taliban & was attacking US forces, I guess you would jump up & say " Stop, you can't shoot that attacker - he is a US citizen. OMG OMG OMG". Yep, I guess, according to you, we should just allow him to kill as many soldiers as possible until we can capture him & put him on trial.
The same with the sniper in the clock tower.
So, when Sean Penn travels to Iran, or Cuba, or Venezuela to give support to our enemies, a high-ranking government official can make the decision to assassinate him without any specific criteria or any warning?
Jane Says

New York, NY

#855116 Feb 6, 2013
what happens when jobs are dumbed down and affirmative action policies control the hiring:

"Impregnated by Prisoner, Guard Now Faces Charges"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/nyregion/po...
History 101

Orlando, FL

#855117 Feb 6, 2013
John Galt wrote:
What will Obama and the Democrats say if the Republicans go along with what the Democrats have always wanted, which is massive cuts in defense spending?
Of course, these cuts would be to reduce the deficit, not to piss away the money elsewhere.
Who? All of them? Non, non, johnny, we're a diverse group with differing opinions it's you guys who are the musk oxen of the political universe. Sequestration was a deal you tee-pees extorted from us to get a rise in the debt ceiling passed so the government could operate, so now it's already done. turns out there is no "Defense Department," there's only a "War Department" doing what it's always done: funneling money back to the white trash in the south.
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#855119 Feb 6, 2013
Frank W. Sweet is the author of Legal History of the Color Line (ISBN 9780939479238), an analysis of the nearly 300 appealed cases that determined Americans’ “racial” identity over the centuries. It is the most thorough study of the legal history of this topic yet published. He was accepted to Ph.D. candidacy in history with a minor in molecular anthropology at the University of Florida in 2003 and has completed all but his dissertation defense. He earned an M.A. in History from American Military University in 2001. He is also the author of several state park historical booklets and published historical essays. He was a member of the editorial board of the magazine Interracial Voice, and is a regular lecturer and panelist at historical and genealogical conferences.
History 101

Orlando, FL

#855120 Feb 6, 2013
Truth is no SIN wrote:
<quoted text>SIMPLE THE HERE AND NOW IS BASED ON HISTORY SO DO NOT READ OR BOTHER YOURSELF WITH WHAT PHD INFORMED PEOPLE PUBLISH AND I PUT ON HERE YESTERDAY IS NOT IMPORTANT TO YOU STAY IN YOUR WORLD MATH COMES FROM THE PAST SO DONT STUDY IT BASED ON YOUR REASON FINE STAY AWAY FROM TEACHING CHILDREN OR ANYONE NO PROBLEM BUT THE GARBAGE THAT YOU ALL POST WITH YOUR GARBAGE OPINIONS THATS THE IMPORTANT HERE AND NOW lololololhahahah if one person reads my post and it makes sense im golden so I really don't think about your kind thanks anyway bye O i've been typing this with my MIDDLE FINGER to answer YOU
No fear there, old crone, not one person reads your spams and, since you haven't the skill to write yourself you're reduced to copying the words of others. In other words, you're a drone.
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#855121 Feb 6, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Why not deal with the "here and now" and not crap that happened over a hundred years ago?
AND ALSO SO SO CALLED BLACK PEOPLE AND SO CALLED WHITES CAN SEE THEIR HISTORY IN AMERICA AND SEE THEIR LIES TO THEMSELVES xyz so little F UP DON'T READ CONTINUE WITH YOUR SOAPs
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#855122 Feb 6, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Karl Rove defends super PAC, cites Todd Akin
Karl Rove roared back Tuesday night against tea party critics within his party who say his super PAC’s new initiative is aimed at undermining their candidates during Republican primaries.
“Some people think the best we can do is Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock — they’re wrong. We need to do better if we hope to take over the United States Senate. We need to get better conservative candidates and win,” Rove, a former White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said on Fox News.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/karl-ro...
So Rove's new superpac is actually anti conservative ?
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#855123 Feb 6, 2013
Jane Says wrote:
<quoted text>it will be very interesting to watch the reaction of many middle class voters whose jobs will only insure the employee and not the family--and they will not be eligible for any Obamacare subsidies.
get ready to say it:
"told you so"
and
"WHO did you vote for?"
Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for ManyBy ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The new health care law is known as the Affordable Care Act. But Democrats in Congress and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by the administration and by the Internal Revenue Service in particular.
Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.
The fight revolves around how to define “affordable” under provisions of the law that are ambiguous. The definition could have huge practical consequences, affecting who gets help from the government in buying health insurance.
Under the law, most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits and other subsidies to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer.
The law specifies that employer-sponsored insurance is not affordable if a worker’s share of the premium is more than 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income. The I.R.S. says this calculation should be based solely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.”
Critics say the administration should also take account of the costs of covering a spouse and children because family coverage typically costs much more.
In 2011, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,430 a year for single coverage and $15,070 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $920 for individual coverage and more than four times as much,$4,130, for family coverage.
Under the I.R.S. proposal, such costs would be deemed affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.
The debate over the meaning of affordable pits the Obama administration against its usual allies. Many people who support the new law said the proposed rules could leave millions of people in the lower middle class uninsured and frustrate the intent of Congress, which was to expand coverage.
“The effect of this wrong interpretation of the law will be that many families remain or potentially become uninsured,” said a letter to the administration from Democrats who pushed the bill through the House in 2009-10. The lawmakers include Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Sander M. Levin of Michigan.
Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group, said:“This is a serious glitch. Under the proposal, millions of children and families would be unable to obtain affordable coverage in the workplace, but ineligible for subsidies to buy private insurance in the exchanges” to be established in each state.
continued:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/ambiguit...
MIDDLE CLASS THEY NO LONGER HERE MIDDLE SLOWLY BEING PUT TO SLEEP xyz
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#855125 Feb 6, 2013
History 101 wrote:
<quoted text>
No fear there, old crone, not one person reads your spams and, since you haven't the skill to write yourself you're reduced to copying the words of others. In other words, you're a drone.
lololol and you respond to a drone what does that make you lololol bye more spamming to do you are lonely awwwww
Truth is no SIN

Bronx, NY

#855126 Feb 6, 2013
How Much of the European Contribution to the African-American Genome Comes From Females?
Virtually all African Americans have some detectable European genetic admixture. Some carry few Euro DNA markers and some have many; but overall, about 17 percent of the collective African-American gene pool comes from Europe. What fraction of that 17 percent comes from European females? Can DNA tell? The short answer is “no”. Let’s see why not.

The question arises because it is fraught with ethno-political implication. Many Americans see Blacks and Whites as mutually hostile groups. About half of those who see “races” as adversarial blame Whites for the challenges facing the African-American community, challenges such as gaps in net worth, test-scores, and criminality. They attribute these challenges to White-on-Black racism past and present. The other half blames Blacks for their own plight, attributing it to an oppositional culture that idolizes victimization and disdains diligence. The former ideology sees the European genetic contribution as resulting from the rape of Black female slaves by White male slaveowners. If much of the European DNA in the African-American genetic enclave were to actually come from European females, it would weaken this ideology.

Unfortunately, how much of the European contribution to the African-American gene pool came from which sex may not be answerable via DNA studies. First, let’s look at autosomal markers. Then we shall consider paternal and maternal haplotype lineages.

Some autosomal DNA markers are more common in west Africa or in Europe, enabling laboratories to estimate your continent-of-ancestry admixture ratios. So you can say with some confidence that the mean subsaharan admixture among self-identified White Americans is under 5 percent and the mean Euro admixture among self-identified Black Americans is about 17 percent. See this for yourself in the following scatter diagram.

YOU ALL WANT RACISM HERE IS SOME MORE
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#855127 Feb 6, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>So Rove's new superpac is actually anti conservative ?
anti-crazy person-conservative.

lost cause.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#855128 Feb 6, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush was actually still President in 2007 & 2008.
Bush left office with the debt at 10.8 trillion.
No wonder the country is on a path to destruction. You idiot Democrats don't even know how government works.
I'll educate you.
Only Congress has the authority to borrow money.
The Democrats took control of all the purse strings of government in January, 2007, when the total debt was 8.5 trillion dollars, up only 3.5 trillion dollars since the dot-come bust and the Arabs declaring war on the United States.
Since, the Democrats have doubled that debt.

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
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min jacques Ottawa 179,223
Abby 10-20 41 min edogxxx 2
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 43 min Boy G 50,582
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Eric 69,951
IL: Police: Man Fires Assault Rifle at Chicago ... 2 hr hands on AR 3
Obama Gives Trillions for Wall Street, Not a Di... 2 hr commies are blue 16
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Earthling-1 47,470
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]