Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1458991 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.

Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#917886 Jun 3, 2013
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
Still trying to muddy the water, eh, Racist?
Try pizzing into the wind, too.
lol! Wham! And there's that race card again!
Jane Says

Jamaica, NY

#917887 Jun 3, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
So what did they have in mind to remove Saddam from power and initiate a democratic government to replace his regime? Ask them nicely? I'm sure the insurgents would have politely stepped aside and Saddam willingly allowed himself to be led away in handcuffs.
This is just how naive Democrats are.
They can bark real loud but when it comes to putting their teeth into anything that might upset their base and their precious seats of power, they whimper and pee their pants.
You should be embarrassed just by association.
Obama deserves to win the Naive Lib Pandering Fool Award.

...John Lennon, bumper-sticker foreign policy — Imagine World Peace. Obama pretends that the tide of war is receding. But it’s demonstrably not. It’s metastasizing to Mali, to the Algerian desert, to the North African states falling under the Muslim Brotherhood, to Yemen, to the savage civil war in Syria, now spilling over into Lebanon and destabilizing Jordan. Even Sinai, tranquil for 35 years, is descending into chaos.

It’s not war that’s receding. It’s America. Under Obama. And it is precisely in the power vacuum left behind that war is rising. Obama declares Assad must go. The same wish-as-policy fecklessness from our bystander President. Two years — and 70,000 dead — later, Obama keeps repeating the wish even as the tide of battle is altered by the new arbiters of Syria’s future — Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. Where does every party to the Syrian conflict go on bended knee? To Moscow, as Washington recedes into irrelevance.

But the ultimate expression of Obama’s Dorothy Doctrine is Guantanamo. It must close. Must, mind you.

Okay. Let’s accept the dubious proposition that the Yemeni prisoners could be sent home without coming back to fight us. And that others could be convicted in court and put in U.S. prisons.

Now the rub. Obama openly admits that “even after we take these steps, one issue will remain — just how to deal with those Gitmo detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks but who cannot be prosecuted.”

Well, yes. That’s always been the problem with Gitmo. It’s not a question of geography. The issue is indefinite detention — whether at Gitmo, a Colorado supermax or St. Helena.

Can’t try ’em, can’t release ’em. Having posed the central question, what is Obama’s answer?“I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved.”

That’s it! I kid you not. He’s had four plus years to think this one through — and he openly admits he’s got no answer.

Because there is none. Hence the need for Gitmo. Other wars end, at which point prisoners are repatriated. But in this war, the other side has no intention of surrender or armistice. They will fight until the caliphate is established or until jihadism is as utterly defeated as fascism and communism.

That’s the reason — the only reason — for the detention conundrum. There is no solution to indefinite detention when the detainees are committed to indefinite war.

Obama’s fantasies are twinned. He can no more wish the detention away than he can the war.

We were defenseless on 9/11 because, despite Osama Bin Laden’s open, written declaration of war in 1996, we pretended for years that no war against us had even begun. Obama would return us to pre-9/11 defenselessness — casting Islamist terror as a law-enforcement issue and removing the legal basis for treating it as armed conflict — by pretending that the war is over.

It’s enough to make you weep.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obama-wish...

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#917888 Jun 3, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny I don't see the word 'invasion' or 'by direct American intervention' there, do you??
The words 'support efforts' mean just what?? Basically nothing.
We also 'support efforts' to remove Assad in Syria. Note we didn't invade.
It took a hateful fool like Cheney to promote a war with Iraq. Cheney was in charge, Bush went along.
Bush didn't have the balls to stand up to Cheney until his second term.
But Bush got even by not pardoning Scooter Libby!! LOL
Cheney is still pissed off about that.
Yeah, the Democrats were going to send Saddam Hussein a nicely written letter informing him we were taking over his regime.

Regime change was the clear intent written in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

The Democrats had no intention of doing anything. They just like to talk big. Ooooh...scary.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#917889 Jun 3, 2013
The Wall Street Journal
Copyright (c) 1998, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Tuesday, April 14, 1998
How the IRS Repays a Citizen's Taunt
By James Bovard
Ever since last fall's hearings on abuses by the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS has labored to
present itself as kinder, gentler and self-reformed. The effort seems to be working: The push to
place the IRS under the rule of law seems stalled on Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, American citizens
continue falling victim to the vast powers the agency has granted itself.

Consider the case of Carol Ward. In 1993 Ms. Ward, a Colorado Springs businesswoman, became
incensed when, during a meeting between her son and IRS auditor Paula Dzierzanowski, Ms.
Dzierzanowski began asking questions about her family's children's clothing stores that Ms. Ward
felt showed gross ignorance. Ms. Ward taunted the auditor: "Based on what I can see of your
accounting skills, you'd be better off dishing up chicken-fried steak on an interstate somewhere in
West Texas."

Three weeks later, the IRS responded by seeking to impose a financial death penalty on Ms.
Ward. On April 19, 1993, IRS agents swarmed into Ms. Ward's three stores, proclaimed that she
owed $324,889 in taxes, froze her bank accounts, shut down the stores and confiscated their
inventory, and allegedly informed some of her customers that Ms. Ward was suspected of drug
smuggling. The IRS even sought to seize the house owned by Ms. Ward's 74-year-old mother,
claiming that it was somehow related to Ms. Ward's purported tax dodging.

Prior to the seizure, the IRS had made no finding that either she or other family members who co-
owned the stores owed any taxes. The IRS violated federal law by seizing the assets without first
formally giving her a notice of deficiency of taxes.

Ms. Ward hotly denied that she owed any taxes and demanded an audit. After the examination --
which covered seven years of Ms. Ward's tax returns -- the IRS concluded that she owed only
$3,400 in additional taxes, barely 1% of the amount the agency had already confiscated. However,
before the IRS would accept her $3,400 check and return her assets, the agency insisted that she
sign a statement promising not to sue the IRS for violating her rights. The seizure occurred
shortly before Pope John Paul II came to Denver in 1993, and an IRS official told Ms. Ward that
if she "played ball," the IRS would return her merchandise in time for her to sell baptismal gowns
for the pope's visit.

Ms. Ward refused to sign such an agreement, complaining that "you don't have to surrender your
constitutional rights in order to pay your taxes." After Ms. Ward publicly protested the IRS's
treatment of her, IRS District Director Gerald Swanson and an assistant appeared on a Colorado
Springs talk show and illegally disclosed information from her tax return. Ms. Ward called up
during the talk show to dispute the officials' allegations that she still owed $324,000 -- after the
agency had determined her tax bill was a tiny fraction of that amount.

Eventually, the IRS relented and took her check. After Ms. Ward continued publicly complaining
about the IRS abuses, IRS officials sought to vilify her by repeating the same accusations their
agency's own audit had disproved. IRS agent James Scholan, who participated in the raids that
shut down Ms. Ward's stores, wrote a letter to the Colorado Springs Gazette declaring that
people like Ms. Ward and her son "are the biggest problem our society faces" and denouncing her
as a "classic deadbeat freeloader." IRS officials also illegally disclosed information from Ms.
Ward's tax return to the television program "Inside Edition."

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#917890 Jun 3, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your legitamate baby-daddy wear a hoodie too?
Yes, he does on occasion; so do I. Nice to see you're still hanging onto a typo for weeks--such a maroon buffoon your slight man sock has become...well, probably always was.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#917891 Jun 3, 2013
Five months later, the IRS returned about 75% of the merchandise it had seized. "They gave us
back three stores full of summer clothing just in time for Christmas," Ms. Ward says, adding:
"They took almost $3,500 out of the stores' cash registers and they gave us receipts for it -- and
they have never applied it to taxes or given it back to us."

Ms. Ward wanted her day in court -- but because her finances were exhausted by the initial
seizure and the struggle to get her business back on its feet, and because of statutory limitations
on legal fees for winning parties, she could not find a lawyer until after the statute of limitations
had expired for the wrongful seizure. Eventually, however, she sued the IRS for wrongful
disclosure of her personal tax information.

Last June, Federal Judge William Downes slammed Mr. Scholan for acting with "reckless
disregard" for the law. Judge Downes awarded Ms. Ward $325,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages, plus attorneys' fees, and warned the IRS that "reprehensible abuse of authority by one of
its employees cannot and will not be tolerated."

When the IRS loses in federal court, the Justice Department routinely uses stalling tactics to
prevent citizens from collecting judgments. The Justice Department has filed a motion to deny
fees to Ms. Ward's lawyers. And, as Denis Mark, Ms. Ward's lead trial counsel, observes, "If the
government chooses to file an appeal, this case might be dragged out for many more months or
years." Of the three agents who the judge found violated Ms. Ward's rights, one has retired, one is
still on payroll in the same position, and the third has been promoted to chief of IRS collections
for the state of Colorado, according to information the IRS recently provided to Sen. Pete
Domenici (R., N.M.).

Even if Ms. Ward ultimately prevails in court, her case will by no means signal a halt to the IRS's
abuses. Bob Kammen, a Phoenix tax attorney and a National Taxpayers Union counsel, observes:
"The unfortunate aspect of the Carol Ward case is that it gives people the mistaken impression
that there is some actual recourse. You have to assume that for every case like that ... there are
probably 50 to 100 cases where the [lawyer's] advice to the client is: You cannot afford to take on
the federal government."

As congressmen fret over whether reforming the tax law to end such abuses might adversely
affect federal revenue, they should remember the human costs of the IRS's heavy hand. Ms. Ward
is full of rage against Washington. Says she: "The fact that I won in court does not remedy the
fact that my entire family has been bankrupted and destroyed."

And this is the same IRS under Clinton that the liberals are touting as doing their job under O'bama.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#917892 Jun 3, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Not if she lived in Big Stone Gap, Norton, Grundy or especially Gate City.
Flack assumes everywhere is just like Flackville.
what are those/ Florida ghetto? I'm sure it's a common occurrence there?

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#917893 Jun 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! It's a good thing you believe it in your world, son.
Oh, I'm just pointing out his narcissism - doesn't really matter how many times he did or didn't say "I" in his speeches.

Actions speak louder than words. The content of his speeches is also pretty loud.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#917895 Jun 3, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I'm just pointing out his narcissism - doesn't really matter how many times he did or didn't say "I" in his speeches.
Actions speak louder than words. The content of his speeches is also pretty loud.
You don't say?

So we can give credit to Obama for the iraq drawn down? Afghanistan too?

And for reducing the debt at a faster than anticipated rate?

And for the lower unemployment?

interesting.....

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#917896 Jun 3, 2013
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, he does on occasion; so do I. Nice to see you're still hanging onto a typo for weeks--such a maroon buffoon your slight man sock has become...well, probably always was.
typo? lmao. you've seen it spelled that way when you cash your welfare check.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#917897 Jun 3, 2013
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.

The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.

The five justices in the majority ruled that DNA sampling, after an arrest “for a serious offense” and when officers “bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.

Under those specifications, the court said,“taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

Scalia’s siding with the liberals reflects his growing concern over the past five years about privacy, said Tom Goldstein, the publisher of SCOTUSblog, who teaches at Harvard Law School and is a Supreme Court analyst for NBC News.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/03/18...

I wonder how Galt feels about this?
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#917898 Jun 3, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> what are those/ Florida ghetto? I'm sure it's a common occurrence there?
Dang I forgot to mention Galax and Martinsville.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#917899 Jun 3, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I'm just pointing out his narcissism - doesn't really matter how many times he did or didn't say "I" in his speeches.
Actions speak louder than words. The content of his speeches is also pretty loud.
Strange that you don't notice the narcissism in any of your friends here.

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#917900 Jun 3, 2013
Aunt Bettie Lou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I'm just pointing out his narcissism - doesn't really matter how many times he did or didn't say "I" in his speeches.
Actions speak louder than words. The content of his speeches is also pretty loud.
Thank you Rush Limbaugh. My God, are all you right whiners dittogeads?

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#917901 Jun 3, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>Neither is a poor person. You don't have to accept any medicare. There are people who are retired and are healthy that would sooner not pay the 100 plus dollars to have medicare. And what about the retired military, they don't have to pay to have medicare either. So it these people don't want to pay for medicare--why do you think anyone is going to pay for O'bamacare? stupid O'bamacare. Only a sickness orientated shrill like yourself is touting O'bamacare--why else would you?
I was replying to a comment how ryan's reform allowed wealthy people to opt out.

Try to keep up.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#917902 Jun 3, 2013
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
A person doesn't have to be covered by an employer or the government to have health insurance. An ignoranmus who values concerts and lattes more than their health deserves to be targeted.
I'm tired of having tax payer dollors pay for their free emergency room visits and wouldn't mind seeing them turned away at the hospital door if they couldn't prove they were financially able to pay. Guess one could refer to that as "Preventive Maintenance".
liberals wanting Americans to die in the streets-wow just wow. It was from your state of California that it actually happened. That is why no one is refused service to this day. It cost about 58 billion dollars for the uninsured. That is a far cry from the 1 trillion dollars that O'bama care is going to cost tax payers. And then add another 50 million illegals and the cost... should go to 2 trillion. Yes, liberals like you are about as smart as a rock. Do you think they are going to take the tax line off our property taxes that pays for state and county hospitals. It cost tax payers in Illinois 800 million a year for gang violence associated with the gun ban. You may have a point--why save the violent illegals and negroes in Illinois.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#917903 Jun 3, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I was replying to a comment how ryan's reform allowed wealthy people to opt out.
Try to keep up.
I am going to opt out regardless.

Since: May 11

Waynesboro, PA

#917906 Jun 3, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>what would that be? play a game of chess?
How many puppet governments has the US installed around the world?

I guess you think we invaded them?

We can use sanctions, we can fund, arm and/or support the opposition.

Just how uninformed are you people??
shinningelectr0n

Caro, MI

#917907 Jun 3, 2013
Nuculur option wrote:
<quoted text>
Whereas you Waxtuird mutts are vile liars and racists.
Bile burping boy, you are:]

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#917908 Jun 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You don't say?
So we can give credit to Obama for the iraq drawn down? Afghanistan too?
And for reducing the debt at a faster than anticipated rate?
And for the lower unemployment?
interesting.....
Iraq would have been stable by now, if O'bama had not declared 'we surrender' and if he would not have waved the flag of Islam.

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min Into The Night 62,331
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 27 min Jacques Ottawa 231,084
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Bureau Of Hurt Fe... 104,525
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 3 hr GEORGIA 3,454
The Color of Crime in Chicago. 3 hr Color BLOOD RED 16
Make Room for Rosie. 3 hr The PILOT 1
Are democrats destroyed? 3 hr ThomasA 4

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages