wow. the space cadet acknowledges!<quoted text>
Sure thing, Hoover.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.
#914296 May 29, 2013
#914297 May 29, 2013
BLACK MAYORS dont pay their BILLS TI suing council of BLACK MAYORS lololohahaha PAY YO BILLS
#914298 May 29, 2013
Son, I'm reaching down to your level.
The problem is, you make no effort to come up and meet half way. So you throw your temper tantrum.
Since: Sep 10
#914299 May 29, 2013
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the UNPRECEDENTED midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006, by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".
See the word 'unprecedented', nitwit??
Having no previous example
Your lies don't work here, Teabagger.
#914300 May 29, 2013
You did? Are you some sort of 'civilian commander' son?
#914301 May 29, 2013
Other, slicker operatives promote the dangerous notion that progressive political aims will be achieved by virtue of rapid demographic change in the United States. Rather than defend Obama’s indefensible record in office, Bill Fletcher and Carl Davidson described the 2012 election as a contest that pits “the changing demographics of the U.S.” against the forces of “far right irrationalism” that are trying to turn back the “demographic and political clock.” In this construct, the substance of politics is totally removed, replaced by faith in the innate political inclinations of younger whites and the growing non-white population. Obama’s expanded theaters of war, his disregard of international law, his servility to Wall Street and contempt for the historical Black political consensus – none of this matters to Fletcher and Davidson, whosearticle was titled,“The 2012 Elections Have Little To Do With Obama’s Record … Which Is Why We Are Voting For Him.”
It is becoming a common theme: that the darkening of America will somehow lead inexorably to profound changes in power structures. Just sit back and wait for the demographic revolution. Such thinking is appropriate to Madison Avenue, which plots demographic changes like the wolf anticipates the migratory patterns of the caribou. Demographics are important, but are not magic. All that can be safely predicted based on U.S. demographic trends is that there will be more Black and brown (especially brown) faces in positions of authority, elected and appointed, and that the presence of these darker faces may actually make Wall Street’s rule more palatable. Four years of Obama has already provided us with that lesson.
For those who are looking for an easy route to the Promised Land, one without struggle, in which the course of the revolution can be numerically charted just as McDonald’s displays its billions of hamburgers sold, 2042 is the magic number. That’s when U.S. Census demographers project that persons now classified as non-white will outnumber white Anglos. But, who will actually occupy the pinnacles of power in this non-white majority nation, and wield whatever influence the U.S. retains in the world? Based on current trends, according to a 2012 report by Boston-based United for a Fair Economy,“the overwhelming share of the nation’s income and wealth will remain solidly in White hands.” Tim Sullivan, co-author of the report on “The Emerging Majority,” says the numbers paint a picture that looks very much like South Africa, with the white minority on top, requiring a vast police presence to keep the non-white majority in check.
Such an outcome is not written in stone, either, but is likely in the absence of a sustained movement to topple corporate power and disassemble the structures of U.S. imperialism. However, such a movement will never coalesce under the guidance of the Fletchers and Davidsons, who counsel folks to go with the demographic flow. And, we have already experienced the disaster of corporate rule via dark proxy.
2042 will only be a good year if people fight to make it so. Majorities hold no magic, and never have.
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.”- Frederick Douglass.
THEY NEVER LEARN SMH THEY SOLD BLACKS OUT FOR OBAMA
#914302 May 29, 2013
lol! Like I said son, you people refuse to move up!
#914303 May 29, 2013
He reminds me of the Lil Abner character Joe Btfspik.
Flack's been talking about a 30% correction since this thread began and the market was less than half of today's value. Gas was going to be $7, electric bills were going up by 800%, and ordinary beer would go over $20 per 24 count.
And now it's cute little Smithfield Hams, in cute little Smithfield VA. LMAO, Smithfield has plants in Europe and "gasp" Mexico with worldwide sales of over $13 billion.
#914304 May 29, 2013
More War,“Kill Courts” at Home. The Real Meaning of Obama’s National Security Speeches
This past Thursday and Friday, President Obama delivered two speeches designed to outline his new thinking on national security and counter-terrorism. While much was made in the media of the president’s statements at the National Defense University and the US Naval Academy suggesting that the most active phase of US military action overseas was coming to an end, this “new” approach is but the same old policy wrapped in new packaging. In these addresses, the president panders to the progressives, while continually expanding and solidifying the “enabling act” principle.
The president will continue and even expand drone attacks overseas because they are “less deadly” than ground invasions. He promises to be more careful in the future.
He is entertaining the introduction of “kill courts” which will meet in secret to decide who is to be executed without trial or charge. He promises these will have sufficient oversight.
He will seek a new and updated Authorization for the Use of Military Force to expand his legal authority to wage war wherever and whenever he wants. He promises it will one day be repealed.
He will continue to indefinitely detain at Guantanamo individuals who have been neither charged nor convicted of any crime, and who cannot even be tried because they were tortured and thus the evidence is tainted. He promises to “commit to a process of closing GTMO.”
The speech speaks of more war and more killing and more interventionism all masked in the language of withdrawal.
The president warns of the threats of the new al-Qaeda affiliates that have sprung up in places like Iraq without explaining that it was the US invasion of Iraq that opened the door to their entry in the first place. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein, just as there was little extremism in Libya before the US attack on that country in 2011.
The president claims that “unrest in the Arab world has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria.” However, it was the US-led attack on Libya that resulted in extremists gaining power there, with many fighters afterward spreading unrest and destruction by joining the wars against the Syrian and Malian regimes. The extremists brought to de facto power in places like Benghazi were responsible for the murder of the US ambassador, yet the president says nothing about that unintended consequence of his interventionist policies.
He calls for even more interventionism in the future, but he promises that it will be a different kind of interventionism. He wants the US to shape democratic transitions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya while actively supporting those seeking to overthrow the government in Syria.
He wants to take nation-building to a whole new level, urging that the US “help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship.” He promises to battle extremism overseas by “training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.”
“Bill Clinton could have ”
Since: May 10
#914305 May 29, 2013
I would say Billy Clinton's legacy should be "Worst President Ever"-and the shame has nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky and everything to do with the fact that the biggest beneficiaries of his administration were Wall Street, Chinese factory owners and U.S. banks and the biggest losers were blue collar workers. Mitt Romney may have run a company that outsourced jobs but Clinton ran a country that did.
Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguing that exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially."
Clinton, your hero, screwed America-get it through your head.
Since: Sep 10
#914306 May 29, 2013
You hateful nitwits crossed the line years ago with your attacks on our President, our economy, our Capitalist System.
You can GFY trucker. Lorac deserves whatever insults she recieves, due to her lies, racism and hatred for her fellow Citizens.
Same for you. I notice you say nothing when Fenris and Electron come here with disgusting graphic homophobic insults.
Until you address and correct your fellow nitwits, you will recieve what you dispense.
#914307 May 29, 2013
lol! Funny how Colin Powell was a military hero under bushie boy, but thrown under the bus once Obama put him on his cabinet.
Military service was a great political tool until cons couldn't use it!
I love this comedy channel.
“Bill Clinton could have ”
Since: May 10
#914308 May 29, 2013
LOL...as the liberals cry...
Since: Sep 10
#914309 May 29, 2013
Dumbwaiter once pretended to be a 'Nam Vet.
As par for the course, he was lying. That's what he does.
#914310 May 29, 2013
President’s Obama’s Promise: Global War on Terror to Continue, with Fresh Makeup. Assassinating People Prevents Them From Attacking Us
The United States uses Predator and Reaper drones to kill people at a distance, sometimes at random, sometimes Americans or children, and after a decade of this practice, in the face of scattered popular protest, President Obama gave a speech about it on May 23 that was preceded by waves of advance media buzz that the President was going to change some of the policy in the global war on terrorism.
Who in a sane state of mind would expect any change of policy when the president gives a speech about counter-terrorism at the National Defense University?
In effect, two American administrations have followed the same pre-emptive killing policy that can be summed up simply:“Assassinating people prevents them from attacking us, whether they want to or not, and it’s not up to us to figure out what they want.”
No administration official since 2001 has put it quite that way, of course, but it is a fair summary of the country’s fear-based endless war against an abstraction, terrorism, that is made more palpable by the very actions taken to fight it.
Another way to summarize a dozen years of pre-emptive war is that the United States is within its rights to defend itself against all enemies, real and imagined.
What Do You Call It When One Man Decides Who Lives or Dies?
Since American terror policy is contradictory and semi-secret, it appears incoherent. In March 2012 on CNN, Attorney General Eris Holder expressed the administration’s point of view in a manner suitable to Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass.” Here, rendered in the quasi-poetic form it deserves, is Holder’s explanation of lethal drone strikes:
Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’
They are not. And the use of that loaded term is misplaced.
‘Assassinations’ are ‘unlawful killings.’
Here, for the reasons that I have given,
the US Government’s use of lethal force
in self-defense against a leader of al Qaeda
or an associated force
who presents an imminent threat of violent attack
would not be unlawful
and therefore would not violate
the executive order banning assassination….
In Holderworld, it is somehow not an assassination to commit a killing that fits the widely accepted definition of “assassination” as “the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons…. An assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives….”
You Don’t Need Law When There’s No Political Challenge
As Holder well knows, as does Obama, both being lawyers, there is no clear constitutional, statutory, court precedent, or other legal grounding for assassination by drone. The only basis in law is untested legal argument, some if which remains secret. But as both men know, the assassination policy has solid grounding in both politics and psychology.
And so the President framed his counter-terrorism speech with 9/11, which is as logical and useful as it is exceptional and misleading, telling his audience falsely but with Humpty Dumpty mastery of words,“And so our nation went to war.”
DIDNT AMERICA AND BLACK PEOPLE HATE BUSH FOR THESE SAME THINGS
Since: Sep 10
#914311 May 29, 2013
Remember, it was his Daddy who told him electric bill would triple or whatever.
The nut didn't fall too far from that tree.
Since: Sep 10
#914312 May 29, 2013
Gotta go. It's been fun.
#914313 May 29, 2013
Who Calls the Shots in Washington? Government Of, By, and “For The Banks Five years since the 2008 financial meltdown, the speculation and fraud that caused the crash are back in full force in the United States. Flush with the $85 billion in cash printed up and handed to the banks every month by the Federal Reserve, business at the Wall Street casino is booming. Stock values are at record levels and so are bank profits, amidst declining wages and mass poverty.
Under these conditions, the banks have been pushing to rip up even the very modest restrictions on financial speculation, while broadening the scope of government bailout laws. The aim is simple: to give banks the maximum ability to speculate without constraint, while getting the maximum possible government assistance if and when the bubble collapses.
So close is the bankers’ grip on the reins of government that, no longer content to let their bought-and-paid-for politicians write laws, the banks have taken to doing the work themselves.
This was the case with a bill that passed the House Financial Services Committee this month, HR 992, which significantly expands the number of financial institutions eligible for coverage by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The bill, which passed with majority support by both Democrats and Republicans, amends an earlier law that prevented financial institutions that trade swaps—a set of dangerous and largely unregulated derivatives—from coverage by the FDIC.
The New York Times reported Friday that, according to emails the newspaper examined, 70 out of the bill’s 85 lines were based on the recommendations of Citigroup, one of the largest US banks. Two paragraphs were inserted nearly word-for-word from an email written to lawmakers by the bank.
The bill restricts provisions in the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed on July 21, 2010. This law was largely a publicity measure by the Obama administration, made to appear as a crackdown on financial speculation while in reality allowing the banks to go on with business as usual.
Instead of creating regulations, the Dodd-Frank bill merely mandated that a series of regulations be implemented at some point in the future by regulators. Nearly three years after the bill’s passage, the vast majority of these regulations have not been implemented.
Out of 135 bank regulatory rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank bill, only 40 have been put into effect. The act’s much-vaunted mandate for the creation of a “Volcker rule,” preventing deposit-taking institutions from carrying out financial speculation, remains a dead letter.
Moreover, many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill, toothless as they were, are being scaled back by subsequent acts of Congress, such as HR 992, described above.
Even those regulations that have been implemented have been even further weakened by regulators to comply with the demands of the banks. Last week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted to implement regulations on derivatives—speculative financial products based on other asset values—that were significantly weakened from those that were proposed under Dodd-Frank.
The Commission had initially proposed that the purchasers of derivatives be required to contact five banks when seeking to set the price of a contract. Under the new law, purchasers are only required to contact two banks, further tightening the monopoly of a handful of institutions that dominate the largely unregulated multitrillion-dollar derivatives market.
The bill likewise originally proposed that derivatives be traded on electronic exchanges similar to stock markets, so that buyers would have a better understanding of prices across the market, making price gouging by issuers more difficult. But the final rules allow for much of derivatives trading to take place over the phone, making it nearly impossible to regulate.
obama big business besty
#914314 May 29, 2013
After your outburst at Betty Lou you will be lucky if any of your stupid posts are up here much longer.
No one here really cares about your opinions or your childish insults but we have gotten you to go over the line.
#914315 May 29, 2013
Rogue President Obama: Defending the Indefensible
Forked tongue rhetoric can’t disguise it. Throughout Obama’s tenure, he has governed lawlessly. He’s done so at home and abroad. He spurns rule of law principles and other democratic values.
Nothing suggests change. Business as usual continues. War on humanity is policy. Rogue leaders govern that way. Obama threatens everyone.
On May 23, he spoke at Washington’s National Defense University. He defended what he urged changing four years earlier.
On May 21, 2009, he spoke at the National Archives. He addressed national security. He said America can’t be safe “unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values.”
“The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights – these are not simply words written into aging parchment.”
“They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.”
“(O)ur government made a series of hasty decisions.”
“(O)ur government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”
“(W)e set (aside fundamental) principles as luxuries that we could no longer afford.”
“In other words, we went off course.(Americans) called for a new approach – one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.”
We must act, he said,“with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.”
“(D)ecisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach.”
He called doing so “neither effective nor sustainable.”
He pledged change. He said he took steps to prohibit torture. He ordered Guantanamo closed, he claimed.
He made other high-minded promises. He “swore an oath to uphold the Constitution,” he said. He systematically spurned it. He did so across the board. He represents the worst of rogue leadership.
His Thursday address reflected same old, same old. It was beginning-to-end demagogic boilerplate. We’ve heard it throughout his tenure. He repeats it ad nauseam.
Promises made are broken. Defending the indefensible doesn’t wash. CODEPINK Women for Peace co-founder Medea Benjamin challenged him.
She interrupted his speech. She did so several times. She called on him to close Guantanamo, release cleared detainees, and stop killer drone attacks.
“Will you apologize for the thousands of Muslims that you killed,” she asked?“Will you compensate the families of innocent victims?”
“Can you tell the Muslims that their lives are as precious as our lives?”
“Can you take the drones out of the hands of the CIA?”
“Can you stop (drone) strikes that are killing people on the basis of suspicious activity?”
“You are commander in chief! You can close Guantanamo today! You can release” all cleared detainees.
“It’s been 11 years. Abide by the rule of law. You’re a constitutional lawyer.”
Speaking truth to power has a price. Benjamin was forcibly removed. She was detained. She was interrogated by Secret Service, military and FBI personnel. She was then released.
Add your comments below
|BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09)||2 min||Jacques Ottawa||239,351|
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||20 min||Raymond||63,546|
|Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08)||40 min||Patriot AKA Bozo||8,066|
|Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09)||46 min||CrunchyBacon||105,055|
|This doesn't seem fair to me.||5 hr||Publishers R Fasc...||9|
|Look at Minn. Maine & Michigan.||5 hr||Halal butcher||2|
|Ron Kessler's observations about Presidents etc.||5 hr||Jimmy blows||4|
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC