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

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#902990 May 14, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> Promoting LSD will not permit your obvious resistance to answer the question. Would we have invade Afghanistan if Bin Laden was not there? So far, you have basically said yes. He is a chance to confirm that in a direct way.
Yes, they were supporting terrorism. Just like the IRA. Just like Iraq. What part of "terrorist groups and the governments that support them' CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#902991 May 14, 2013
Okay, I guess I'm going to have to just post what was in this article.

"Shortly after the gruesome discovery of aborted babies in a dumpster behind Dr. Alberto Hodari's Womancare abortion facility in early March, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society discovered the mutilated bodies of aborted babies in another dumpster at Women's Advisory Clinic in Livonia, Michigan, owned by Dr. Reginald Sharpe."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/08/idU...

This was in 2006 and in just one state.

I cringe at how prevelant this is in 2013 in all states.

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#902992 May 14, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> Keep those slurs coming,. Jimmy, you pals here love them.
Is calling tut the boy king racist?
Jane Says

New York, NY

#902993 May 14, 2013
One common theme emerges from the hearings over the Benghazi disaster: The Obama administration is intent on downplaying the Islamic roots of terrorists who harbor an existential hatred of the West.

The killing of Osama bin Laden was supposed to have cut the hideous head off a mutant snake. His death officially destroyed the “core” of the aberrant al-Qaeda.

The removal from power of the outlier Qaddafi was likewise to have put an end to the artificial obstacle to the natural evolution toward democracy in Libya. In those regards, an al-Qaeda–inspired, pre-planned hit on the American consulate, resulting perhaps in a full-fledged Mogadishu-like shootout, just was not in the administration’s pre-election cards.

No one was disposed either to beef up security in the face of escalating threats, or to send in teams in extremis to save the besieged Americans, or to give an honest appraisal afterward of what had transpired.

Meanwhile, the opportunity to blame the entire mess on an easily caricatured right-wing Christian Islamophobe crackpot was too tempting — as Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and the president himself found as they serially damned the suddenly-to-be-imprisoned Mr. Nakoula. He was a con artist, but not the provocateur of the Benghazi violence — and yet he proved a perfect vehicle for showcasing the administration’s multicultural bona fides.

In terms of explaining away the lapses in Benghazi, the challenge arose of how many ways top officials could damn the unfortunate Mr. Nakoula — as if each denunciation made it unnecessary to utter the word “terrorism” or “al-Qaeda.”
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#902994 May 14, 2013
Homer 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>Who were these international terrorists being hardbored in Iraq? When did Afghanistan attack us?
Better questions than "which AP journalists are writing things we don't like?(while we ignore Dagastani mujuhadeen lone wolf, et al(?) type activities).. Homer-keep up the good work!
Jane Says

New York, NY

#902995 May 14, 2013
The fantasy that prior American policy was insensitive to Muslims and did not differentiate sufficiently between Islam and al-Qaeda has been an article of faith of this administration.

Go back and review the initial Obama interview with al-Arabiya or the loud professions of CIA director John Brennan, who was Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser at the time of the Benghazi attack.

The corollary of this fantasy was also natural:

The greater worry is anti-Islamic bigotry and prejudice, not heightened awareness of the propensity for certain people to commit terrorism in the supposed service to Islam.

This odd mindset explains both the Orwellian euphemisms (overseas contingency operations, man-caused disasters, workplace violence, violent extremism, etc.) and the collective madness of some career-minded bureaucrats competing with one another in the public arena with their politically correct nonsense (cf. the Muslim Brotherhood as “secular,” NASA’s “foremost” mission as Muslim outreach, or jihad as a “holy struggle”).

That groupthink was based on the flawed idea that the more we deny an Islamic catalyst to terrorism, the more there will be none.

The problem was not just that elites seeking to ingratiate themselves with the Obama administration routinely indulged in such willful blindness, but that these absurdities filtered down to the day-by-day protocols of our intelligence and law-enforcement bureaus.

In almost every major recent terrorist incident in which Americans have been attacked, the question is not whether, but on how many occasions, American intelligence agencies knew of, and had good cause to detain, the eventual perpetrators, whether Anwar al-Awlaki, Nidal Malik Hasan, or Carlos Bledsoe.

Those on the ground in Benghazi had warned their State Department superiors that American facilities were in danger from attacks by Islamic radicals.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was visited by the FBI and known to the CIA for his overt jihadist sloganeering.

In each instance, the warning signs were ignored. These omissions raise the question: Why?

um....political correctness is more important the using common sense?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#902996 May 14, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion. I thought we went in to dethrone Sadam. Will you Right whiners make up your minds!
Now Afghanistan attacked us?
Overlook Homers remarks on the topic, he's still working out question number one!
Jane Says

New York, NY

#902997 May 14, 2013
The anti-Bush narrative from 2003 to 2008 (spawned by the unexpected luxury of no further 9/11-like terrorism) was largely that reactionaries and bigots had cooked up a war on terror against nonexistent enemies.

Or maybe these paranoid sorts had even goaded otherwise moderate Muslims into terrorism by their counterproductive anti-terrorism protocols: Take away the Guantanamo Bay “recruiting tool” or Iraq as a “provocation,” and, presto, Islamic-inspired terrorism itself wanes.

In near religious fashion, almost every time Barack Obama traveled abroad in his first three years as president, he evoked Guantanamo. It became a sort of verbal tic, intended to denigrate his predecessor and showcase his own multicultural brand.

Alas, for all the obsequiousness and cash, U.S. popularity in the Middle East is as low as it was under Bush.

Yet privately, Obama and his supporters hedged somewhat, in fear that the odious Bush might have been onto something about radical Islam.

Thus, rather quietly, President Obama immediately embraced almost all the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorsim policies and even expanded some of them, with the full knowledge that his own base would prove quite flexible now that he was president.

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#902998 May 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
I just love this so-called "liberal" so-called "logic":
Let's kill all infants a mother doesn't want, then let's go half way around the world to adopt one.
How about this:
Everyone knows where babies come from.
Everyone has access to birth control.
Everyone should be responsible for their own choices. If you choose to f**k some worthless dirtbag who doesn't give a sh*t about you, you have to live with the consequences derived directly from your own choices.
You say you need availability of abortion. What you really need is to use birth control and make better choices in the people you drop your drawers for.
Everyone does not have access to birth control. The best most effective methods are expensive. They require a doctor's appointments, prescriptions & follow ups.

As for better availability of these more reliable options, talk top the Pope & Republicans.
TSM

El Paso, TX

#902999 May 14, 2013
Does this President and the WH communicate with each other…Carney: White House notified of IRS targeting tea party 'several weeks ago;' Obama: I found out Friday!! Today the Washington Post gave the President Four Pinocchio after Carney statement we can add another one!!

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#903000 May 14, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Naaahhh, that's just your period; silly
Classy

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#903001 May 14, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
Is calling tut the boy king racist?
Big surprise, Eman jumps in to protect the use of slurs. Calling a black man "boy" is a racist slur. Everyone know this.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#903002 May 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you just woke up from a fifteen-year, Abu Nidal, for one.
In case this information wasn't in your indoctrination sessions, Saddam Hussein was giving money to mothers of suicide bombers.
In case you were still abducted by aliens at that time, Afghanistan attacked us on September 11, 2001.
When did the aliens return you to Earth?
Abu Nidal was murdered in Iraq most likely upon the orders of Saddam. Saddam also hated OBL and stated that he'd kill him with his own hands. Saddam, the paper tiger, did not need the aggravation of international terrorists at the same time that he was suffering under punishing UN sanctions.

Saddam had "reportedly" paid some families of suicide bombers "as much as" $35,000. The number and total of payments remains in dispute.

You are a fkn lying birther, conspiracy loon and topix troll, nothing you post is true or even plausible. Go away and take all your hats along witcha.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#903003 May 14, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Fox And Issa Claim There's A Difference Between An "Act Of Terror" And A Terrorist Attack
On September 13, 2001, former President George W. Bush described the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as an "act of terror."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/13/fox-a...
Impeach Bush!
belated, but a very worthy cause.
Hey Sonic, even your liberal WaPO give O'bama 4 big noses to go along with his two big dumbo ears:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-chec...

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#903004 May 14, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion. I thought we went in to dethrone Sadam. Will you Right whiners make up your minds!
Now Afghanistan attacked us?
If you want to understand what the terrorist threat is, you must educate yourself with Wahhabism.
All Suni terrorists are Wahhabists.
bin Laden was a Wahhabist before the Soviet Union put troops in Afghanistan.
We went to remove Saddam Hussien from power in Iraq. An idiot could tell you the Wahhabist jihad was going to come fight us regardless of where we went. The spillover benefit of taking out Saddam Hussein was we would be able to fight the war the Wahhabists jihad started there, close to our supply lines, easily accessible by water, and it split the Terrorist Empire that stretched unbroken from Morocco to Tibet in half, and it isolated the terrorist states of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Any jihad army that wanted to go to Afghanistan to fight us would first have to cross Iraq. We just cut their supply line and fought them half way there.
Bush gave the order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
Mission Accomplished.
The Islamic jihad was crushed in Iraq.
Mission Accomplished.
Iraq became a functioning democracy.
Mission Accomplished.
Everything was "mission accomplished" until Obama took office. Now, Al Qaeda is attacking us again as if they are on a schedule. I'm betting that is related to the Wahhabist Muslim Brotherhood having a permenant presence in the White House.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#903005 May 14, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>Is that like Bill Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”?
They're both Democrats, both slime-balls, and both dishonest as the day is long. Either Obama is a clueless dupe or he's a lying POS; there's no middle ground. One way or the other, it disqualifies him from being in charge of anything, much less POTUS.
Homer 2016

Bethlehem, PA

#903006 May 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you just woke up from a fifteen-year, Abu Nidal, for one.
In case this information wasn't in your indoctrination sessions, Saddam Hussein was giving money to mothers of suicide bombers.
In case you were still abducted by aliens at that time, Afghanistan attacked us on September 11, 2001.
When did the aliens return you to Earth?
1 terrorist necessitated a full scale invasion? Afghanistan attacked us on September 11, 2001, does anyone else subscribe to this theory?

Didn't said terrorist actually arrive after the invasion?

Weren't suicide bombers actually in Iraq and being used again after the invasion?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#903007 May 14, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone does not have access to birth control. The best most effective methods are expensive. They require a doctor's appointments, prescriptions & follow ups.
As for better availability of these more reliable options, talk top the Pope & Republicans.
Tell me one American that does not have access to birth control.
Grey Ghost

Partlow, VA

#903008 May 14, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Just where did I say we had him in a secure area? I said he was contained. Bring him to justice? Making a matyr would have been the worse thing at the time. It was better that he fell off the Earth into obscurity.
You specifically said a secured compound...Put down that pipe, pill popper.

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#903009 May 14, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, they were supporting terrorism. Just like the IRA. Just like Iraq. What part of "terrorist groups and the governments that support them' CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!
Wow, if Bin Laden was hiding in the Sudan again, Flack says we would still have invaded Afghanistan.

Terrorists have camps in a wide range of countries & remain there with little government hassle. Why Afghanistan??? There were camps in North Africa, Yemen, Sudan, etc.

You people are wacked out.

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
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 8 min John Lofton 98,849
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 37 min Fair Game 49,178
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Rogue Scholar 05 181,795
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 1 hr _Zoey_ 7,866
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr _Zoey_ 4,916
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 1 hr _Zoey_ 358
alwar ka 9 inch lambaa land plyeboy 1 hr Dinesh Kumar Meena 1
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:44 am PST

NFL 9:44AM
T.Y. Hilton (hamstring) misses third straight practice
NBC Sports11:17 AM
T.Y. Hilton is questionable, but they're not ruling him out
Bleacher Report11:28 AM
Jay Cutler Rumors: Latest Details, Speculation on Bears QB's Future
NBC Sports12:33 PM
1 thing even Rahm can't fix: Da Bears - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:01 PM
Cowboys' Murray listed as questionable for Colts - NBC Sports