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

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#903217 May 14, 2013
frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text>Desecrating a grave or the dead is a crime.
Moslems don't care: Muslims Desecrate WW II British Cemetery Hours After Obama Apologizes for Torched Korans


Read more: http://conservativevideos.com/2013/04/muslim-...
GOP idiots

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#903218 May 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Right. Eric Holder runs guns for Mexican drug cartels, dufus. Like anyone is going to believe anything he says.
More bullcrap from rightwhiners.
Holder stopped the BUSH program and fired the 2 men in charge.

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#903219 May 14, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> The last I looked we are doing just that. Not to the extent of Afghanistan or Iraq but we are there. Scale of force to threat is a good scale to have. Besides the last three are not governments that support terrorism, I don't think. They are states with terrorism in them. You reading comprehension does you in again.


The last I looked, we are not invading Yemen, Libya & other North African countries. We conduct strikes against terrorist camps or other targets & use drones.

That is not an invasion.

We went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden.

I can't believe you right whiners can't admit that.

Bush told the Taliban to hand over the terrorists (Bin Laden) or else. He was not handed over. We invaded.

So tell me again how we didn't invade Afghanistan to get Bon Laden???

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#903220 May 14, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
He escaped into pakistan. Did we invade pakistan?
You still did not answer. Avoiding the question or what.

By the time Bin Laden went into Pakistan, Bush declared him irrelevant.

Let me ask again. If Bin Laden was not in Afghanistan would Bush have invaded it?

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#903221 May 14, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
same as a church supporting Israel?
ah so I see-you hate America's allies and support those who wish America were no more. I did not know. Thank you for putting yourself squarely on the side of anti-American terrorists. At the very least I now understand where you stand and it is not with the United States of America or her people.

G-d Bless America!
G-d Bless Israel!

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#903222 May 14, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
no, idiot. the tea party/nutjob groups.
Speaking of nutjob groups, whatever happened to ows?

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#903224 May 14, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> You still did not answer. Avoiding the question or what.
By the time Bin Laden went into Pakistan, Bush declared him irrelevant.
Let me ask again. If Bin Laden was not in Afghanistan would Bush have invaded it?
Here's my answer again

Let me get my crystal ball...for whatever reason you think you have inside knowledge of alternate universes.

The fact that we didn't chase him into pakistan ought to tell a normal person something about our invasion of afghanistan.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#903225 May 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution says the opposite. How about we read a quote from the Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
For those who don't know what the definition of "is" is, this means the government cannot read your email without a warrant.
Anyone who has ever read the Constitution can tell you this.
Bush says feds can open mail without warrant

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003...

i guess he never read it.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#903226 May 14, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>ah so I see-you hate America's allies and support those who wish America were no more. I did not know. Thank you for putting yourself squarely on the side of anti-American terrorists. At the very least I now understand where you stand and it is not with the United States of America or her people.
G-d Bless America!
G-d Bless Israel!
What’s hard to figure out is why the United States would choose to follow Israel’s path. Yet over the course of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama quarter-century, that’s precisely what we’ve done. The pursuit of global military dominance, a proclivity for preemption, a growing taste for assassination—all justified as essential to self-defense. That pretty much describes our present-day MO.

Israel is a small country with a small population and no shortage of hostile neighbors. Ours is a huge country with an enormous population and no enemy, unless you count the Cuban-Venezuelan Axis of Ailing Dictators, within several thousand miles. We have choices that Israel does not. Yet in disregarding those choices the United States has stumbled willy-nilly into an Israeli-like condition of perpetual war, with peace increasingly tied to unrealistic expectations of adversaries and would-be adversaries acquiescing in Washington’s will.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articl...

you nutjobs seem to forget that some folks see us, and Israel, as terrorists.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#903227 May 14, 2013
...scandals and how bad can things get...

MSM...

"Video: These IRS and DOJ scandals are among the worst excesses I’ve seen, says … Andrea Mitchell"

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/14/video-t...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#903228 May 14, 2013
The Diminishing Returns of Republican “Pro-Israel” Politics

Romney’s frequent declarations that there would be “not an inch” of difference between the U.S. and Israel under his administration summed up the ridiculous degree of “pro-Israel” fervor that Republican politicians in particular now feel obliged to express. It has already become commonplace to acknowledge that there is a growing partisan gap in opinion polls on U.S. Israel policy. A Pew survey from the start of this year found the gap to be very wide:

You’ll notice that Republican sympathy with Israel started skyrocketing at the start of the last decade and has now climbed to an all-time high. What Republicans consistently keep missing is that all of this is gradually working to their disadvantage. Part of this comes from ignoring the fact that most Americans now tend to recoil from knee-jerk hawkishness in general, but it’s also a result of grossly overestimating how popular the status quo on Israel policy is. As Republicans become more resolutely and uniformly a party of “pro-Israel” hawks, they are separating themselves more and more from the rest of the country. As they are on other issues, Republicans are increasingly at odds the views of younger voters, who are more likely to sympathize with neither side or even take a more “pro-Palestinian” view of the conflict:

American sympathy for Israel is real enough (especially when contrasted with general lack of sympathy with Israel’s neighbors), but it doesn’t translate into broad support for extremely one-sided U.S. backing of Israel. Polls have consistently found that a large majority believes that the U.S. shouldn’t take sides in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. It was an article of faith endorsed by members of both parties during Hagel’s confirmation hearing that Israel is an extremely important ally, but most Americans don’t perceive Israel as an ally at all. As new cohorts of voters begin participating more regularly in elections, Republicans will find that their increasingly hard-line “pro-Israel” position has taken them into a political cul-de-sac.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/08/as-hag...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#903229 May 14, 2013
killtaker wrote:
...scandals and how bad can things get...
MSM...
"Video: These IRS and DOJ scandals are among the worst excesses I’ve seen, says … Andrea Mitchell"
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/14/video-t...
lol

are among the worst after 2008?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#903231 May 14, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of nutjob groups, whatever happened to ows?
same thing that happened to the tea party in the 2012 election.
GOPIdiots

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#903232 May 14, 2013
killtaker wrote:
...scandals and how bad can things get...
MSM...
"Video: These IRS and DOJ scandals are among the worst excesses I’ve seen, says … Andrea Mitchell"
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/14/video-t...
HOT AIR LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I say keep those congressional hearings coming. The GOP will overplay their hand, and most Americans have a pretty dim view of the GOP Congress already.
You really think a normal, middle class, non- FOX loon cares about any of this? Think again.
As soon as there is the next shiny new distraction ( OJ back in court, a kidnapping, another building collapsing) or we have the next mass shooting,all of this goes away in the mainstream media.
Polling already confirms that a large majority trust Hillary and Obama more than the GOP on everything.
Mile

Burnley, UK

#903233 May 14, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
you nutjobs seem to forget that some folks see us, and Israel, as terrorists.
Forget? Who cares.

This is the problem with Liberals, they prefer to pander to the enemy.

Neville Chamberlin would be proud of "You Nutjobs"'
GOPIdiots

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#903234 May 14, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush says feds can open mail without warrant
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003...
i guess he never read it.
Or this...which was totally OK by Bonehead and McChinless

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#903235 May 14, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Probably because of multiple country, initial exiles after the Gulf war, and because of his long term involvement IN Afghanistan, you toadbrain.

Shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, bin Laden and his wife, whom he married aged 17, visited Indianapolis and Los Angeles for a meeting with his mentor, Palestinian cleric Abdullah Azzam.

"We were only there for only two weeks, and for one of those weeks, Osama was away in Los Angeles to meet with some men in that city," Najwa told the book's co-author Jean Sasson, later recalling the gathering was with Azzam.

Soon after, bin Laden began to travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet occupation, returning to tell his sons tales of battles in Afghan caves and mountains under Soviet fire....

------

And some reading more reading ona previous comment of yours (on other countries and terrorists)...

But in its first public statement on the killing of bin Laden, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood used the honorific term "sheikh" to refer to the al-Qaeda leader. It also accused Western governments of linking Islam and terrorism, and defended "resistance" against the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as "legitimate."

Osama Bin Laden

The Muslim Brotherhood's response to bin Laden's death may finally end the mythology -- espoused frequently in the U.S.-- that the organization is moderate or, at the very least, could moderate once in power. This is, after all, precisely how Muslim Brothers describe their creed -- "moderate," as opposed to al-Qaeda, which is radical. "Moderate Islam means not using violence, denouncing terrorism, and not working with jihadists," said Muslim Brotherhood youth activist Khaled Hamza, for whom the organization's embrace of "moderate Islam" was the primary reason he joined.

Yet the Muslim Brotherhood's promise that its "moderation" means rejecting violence includes a gaping exception: the organization endorses violence against military occupations, which its leaders have told me include **Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, and Palestine -- in other words, nearly every major conflict on the Eurasian continent...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#903236 May 14, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
same as a church supporting Israel?
Israel is an ally, while Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#903238 May 14, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's my answer again
Let me get my crystal ball...for whatever reason you think you have inside knowledge of alternate universes.
The fact that we didn't chase him into pakistan ought to tell a normal person something about our invasion of afghanistan.
and Pakistan's position in the big picture..

As an ally to both the Taliban and the United States, Pakistan was balancing conflicting policies towards the Bin Laden question. Islamabad continued to support the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, an organization protecting the al-Qaeda leader, while simultaneously promising U.S. leaders it was "taking the bin Laden matter very seriously," and would cooperate with U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Portending momentous events to come, U.S. officials in 1998 lamented that getting Pakistani help in apprehending bin Laden would be "an uphill slog."
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#903239 May 14, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
The Diminishing Returns of Republican “Pro-Israel” Politics
Romney’s frequent declarations that there would be “not an inch” of difference between the U.S. and Israel under his administration summed up the ridiculous degree of “pro-Israel” fervor that Republican politicians in particular now feel obliged to express. It has already become commonplace to acknowledge that there is a growing partisan gap in opinion polls on U.S. Israel policy. A Pew survey from the start of this year found the gap to be very wide:
You’ll notice that Republican sympathy with Israel started skyrocketing at the start of the last decade and has now climbed to an all-time high. What Republicans consistently keep missing is that all of this is gradually working to their disadvantage. Part of this comes from ignoring the fact that most Americans now tend to recoil from knee-jerk hawkishness in general, but it’s also a result of grossly overestimating how popular the status quo on Israel policy is. As Republicans become more resolutely and uniformly a party of “pro-Israel” hawks, they are separating themselves more and more from the rest of the country. As they are on other issues, Republicans are increasingly at odds the views of younger voters, who are more likely to sympathize with neither side or even take a more “pro-Palestinian” view of the conflict:
American sympathy for Israel is real enough (especially when contrasted with general lack of sympathy with Israel’s neighbors), but it doesn’t translate into broad support for extremely one-sided U.S. backing of Israel. Polls have consistently found that a large majority believes that the U.S. shouldn’t take sides in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. It was an article of faith endorsed by members of both parties during Hagel’s confirmation hearing that Israel is an extremely important ally, but most Americans don’t perceive Israel as an ally at all. As new cohorts of voters begin participating more regularly in elections, Republicans will find that their increasingly hard-line “pro-Israel” position has taken them into a political cul-de-sac.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...
http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/08/as-hag...
Yes, Obama's pro-Islamic terrorist policies are working really well.

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) 4 min Rogue Scholar 05 179,340
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 7 min Mandela 70,075
durban women lets explore your fantasies bbm pins 1 hr slum ou 3
ISIS Plans to Blow Up an Entire American City a... 1 hr obomba 102
'We Charge Genocide' Presents Report on Chicago... 1 hr hands on AR 2
GOP Votes go 2 dem. votes. 2 hr hands on AR 2
A young black kid asks his mother, "Mama what's... 7 hr Funny But True 10
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 ]