Barack Obama, our next President

There are 20 comments on the Nov 5, 2008, Hampton Roads Daily Press story 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.

LCN Lincoln

United States

#925917 Jun 17, 2013
Emaen wrote:
<quoted text>
Topix right winger's heads are spinning over this. They just can't make themselves support a program Obama supports even though it originated with a Republican and is promoted by Republican leadership.
Obama is black..end of story for the right wing living in the 1950s

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#925918 Jun 17, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Son, you keep repeating the same thing.
And we already KNOW the government suspended those rights once.
It's historical fact.
Boy, you're still dodging the subject. If I have to take my belt off and tan your hide to get an answer out of you, it won't be pretty.
Now, here's the post again. Break out your Big Chief tablet and tell us why you support Obama and the Democrats leading the government in a revolt against the constitutional republic:

... anything to avoid talking about the real issue.
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.
Yup. We'll most likely have to fight another war over the principles written in the Constitution.
What do you think? Do you think the Democrats are willing to fight a war to eliminate the Constitution?
Or, do you think they plan to fight a war to stay in the White House so a follow-on administration can't discover all the treason going on there now?
I'm thinking, considering there are Wahhabists in the White House while Wahhabism is at war with the United States, it is likely there are hanging offenses happening.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#925919 Jun 17, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You keep making the claim son...
... just like you do with nearly everything else you post!
Conservative Comedy Channel Programming (cccp). Gotta love it!
... back away from the crack pipe.
You pretend to have military service. I think you're a lying fraud. Are you one of those frauds who pretended to be Vietnam veterans in the so-called "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" that slandered real veterans with lies?
Why would you join a political party that spit on veterans and invented a system of lies to slander them with?
... well?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#925920 Jun 17, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, I don't know.
How about "when a version dubbed into Arabic was posted on the same YouTube channel and then copied and viewed tens of thousands of times more"
How about that?
How about this, dufus:
That video got a grand total of 17 hits from around the entire world before Obama's lies began to foul the air around the White House.

More importantly, the White House watched Al Qaeda kill the Americans in Benghazi on the real-time video feed and knew there was never any spontaneous demonstration. The Obama lie was preplanned.
Now, just why do you think the White House would have a plan to lie about an Al Qaeda attack before it happened?
Do you think that is connected with there being Wahhabist terrorists in the White House every day?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#925921 Jun 17, 2013
Emaen wrote:
<quoted text>
Topix right winger's heads are spinning over this. They just can't make themselves support a program Obama supports even though it originated with a Republican and is promoted by Republican leadership.
An agreement between Democrats and RINOs is not bipartisan. They're both Democrats.

But, in case you're confused, here is the rule written in English so simply any average person can easily read and understand it:

"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."

This rule is non-negotiable. It is part of the Constitution.
Do we have to fight yet another war over this principle?
Are you willing to die in support of the Democrats' rebellion?
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#925922 Jun 17, 2013
LCN Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Birthers on the thread.
Wow did birthers help discredit the GOP, now few listen to their whine?
Good Morning
Birthers and serial posters go hand in hand.
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Newington, CT

#925923 Jun 17, 2013
LCN Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Birthers on the thread.
Wow did birthers help discredit the GOP, now few listen to their whine?
Good Morning
Democrat bigots on the thread.
Wow did homophobes like you help discredit the loony left here, now few listen to your whine?
Good Morning

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#925924 Jun 17, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Birthers and serial posters go hand in hand.
Care to explain why it is necessary to post an obviously fraudulent birth certificate on the White House web site?
Care to explain why the White House lawyers reach into the Stratosphere to come up with reasons why that obviously fraudulent birth certificate can't be submitted as evidence in any case?
Do you think it might be because even they know it's fraudulent?

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Yellowknife NT

#925925 Jun 17, 2013
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
The Magic Negro enjoys meeting with Putin in private for private reasons.
"Wait until after the election. I can be a lot more flexible"
Is bending over considered being "flexible"?
Mr. Putin will be putin something somewhere, That's for sure. LOL.

How NSA Surveillance Jeopardizes Obama's G-8 Trip to Europe

President Obama's task in Europe this week, already daunting as the death toll in Syria mounts and the pressure for a more assertive U.S. policy there grows, has been made even more challenging by the recent disclosures of American surveillance in allied countries...

...Peter Schaar, Germany's freedom of information commissioner, told Reuters he wanted "clarity" from the United States "regarding these monstrous allegations of total monitoring of various telecommunications and Internet services." Another German official has called for a boycott of the companies. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is running for reelection, has said she will raise the issue with Obama this week either at Lough Erne or in Berlin.

"The most upset party in all of this, I think, is the Germans," said Michael J. Geary, an assistant professor at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and an expert on Europe. "The Germans were the most snooped-upon country, apparently, in March. In a country where memories of the former East German Stasi are still quite fresh, the response has been quite critical." Geary described Europeans as "peeved" and "quite annoyed" at the U.S. actions and said they have the potential to set back sensitive trade negotiations and do damage to transatlantic relations. "It's a major PR disaster for the administration," he said. "Now, they have really lost the moral high ground."

Full Story...
http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-surveillance-jeopar ...
NJ raider 1

Newark, NJ

#925926 Jun 17, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, you're still dodging the subject. If I have to take my belt off and tan your hide to get an answer out of you, it won't be pretty.
Now, here's the post again. Break out your Big Chief tablet and tell us why you support Obama and the Democrats leading the government in a revolt against the constitutional republic:
... anything to avoid talking about the real issue.
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.
Yup. We'll most likely have to fight another war over the principles written in the Constitution.
What do you think? Do you think the Democrats are willing to fight a war to eliminate the Constitution?
Or, do you think they plan to fight a war to stay in the White House so a follow-on administration can't discover all the treason going on there now?
I'm thinking, considering there are Wahhabists in the White House while Wahhabism is at war with the United States, it is likely there are hanging offenses happening.
I guess you don't read what you write! "Unreasonable search & seizures." Those are the key words. Now ask yourself, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks is PRISM reasonable? Is the govt looking through your phone records in attempts to prevent another 9/11? Did president Bush go through the necessary steps to enact the Patriot Act , therefore PRISM? Answer those questions &, you will quickly render your thought process as dumb!

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Yellowknife NT

#925927 Jun 17, 2013
American Lady wrote:
MUST WATCH: REP. LOUIE GOHMERT BLASTS OBAMA FBI DIRECTOR:‘SIR, IF YOU’RE GOING TO CALL ME A LIAR…’– FBI CALLS BOSTON TERRORISTS’ MOSQUE INVESTIGATION ‘OUTREACH’
...
The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15th attacks.
If the Russians tell you that someone has been radicalized and you go check and see the mosques that they went to, then you get the articles of incorporation, as I have for the group that created the Boston mosques where these Tsarnaevs attended, and you’ll find out the name Alamoudi.
You’ll remember because while you were FBI Director, this man who was so helpful to the Clinton administration with so many big things, he gets arrested at Dulles Airport by the FBI and he’s now doing over 20 years for supporting terrorism.
This is the guy that started the mosques where your Tsarnaevs were attending and you didn’t even bother to go check about the mosques?
And then when you have the pictures, why did no one go to the mosque and say, who are these guys? They attend — may attend here? Why was that not done since such a thorough job was done?
http://www.tpnn.com/must-watch-rep-louie-gohm...
Jack 3 days ago
Omitting Mosques from surveillance and making it classified keeps prying eyes from connecting Obama's joined at the hip, slobbering love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood.
plain45 3 days ago
Gohmert was much too kind to this scumbag. I would have been blunt. This entire administration including the FBI are incompetent and should resign. The terrorists were identified to them by the Russians and for some strange reason they refused to do anything about it
joebideyourtime plain45 3 days ago
Looks like another stand down order from O.
Seems that way.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#925928 Jun 17, 2013
G-8 Summit...

The world sees all the buffoonery and lies characteristic of our seat of government. To them, we are a country of ignorant buffoons, with a lying fraud as president. It's no secret to them that Obama is nothing more than a prop to make it appear as if someone's actually president.
Meanwhile, Obama prances around like some crown prince in a lavish life-style while his subject peasants repeat ignorant propaganda and wait for the government dole to come and give them everything they need and want.
Everyone knows our government is certain to collapse going in the direction it's currently headed. We'll see a strong movement to replace the US dollar as the standard currency in the world's trading economy. Given our inevitable collapse, that might not be such a bad idea for the other countries. However, it will have a horrendous effect on our living standard here.
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Newington, CT

#925929 Jun 17, 2013
Speaking of Democrat bigots & homophobes:
NJ raider 1 wrote:
<quoted text> I guess you don't read what you write! "Unreasonable search & seizures." Those are the key words. Now ask yourself, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks is PRISM reasonable? Is the govt looking through your phone records in attempts to prevent another 9/11? Did president Bush go through the necessary steps to enact the Patriot Act , therefore PRISM? Answer those questions &, you will quickly render your thought process as dumb!

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Yellowknife NT

#925930 Jun 17, 2013
LCN Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
Republicans still do not understand how they lost the election
You just don't understand the concept of fraud, do you?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#925931 Jun 17, 2013
NJ raider 1 wrote:
<quoted text> I guess you don't read what you write! "Unreasonable search & seizures." Those are the key words. Now ask yourself, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks is PRISM reasonable? Is the govt looking through your phone records in attempts to prevent another 9/11? Did president Bush go through the necessary steps to enact the Patriot Act , therefore PRISM? Answer those questions &, you will quickly render your thought process as dumb!
You ignore the stated conditions.
"...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."

Anything that violates these conditions is unreasonable. The government just taking all private communications for a subjective course of action, as is the case with PRISM, is unreasonable.
A case in point, we actually had the 9/11 detailed plans in our possession before 9/11. But, some liberal judge decided that some alien here violating the terms of his visa and in custody had the right to keep the 9/11 plans private. However, on 9/12, there were no constitutional objections.
The clause "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" was obviously satisfied in that case.
So, there is nothing needed other than for judges to actually use the Constitution instead of obstructing an investigation just because a Republican is president. Had a Demcorat been president and requested to see Moussaoui's hard drive, that judge would have conceeded and had no objection to the search.
That's the problem.
The 4th Amendment is as close to perfection as humans can hope to achieve. A subjective general vilation of privacy is about as far away from perfect as you can get.
TheIndependentMa joruty

London, KY

#925932 Jun 17, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
We were talking about Iraq.
..As in still stuck in "it's awrl Bushes fault" years.

Bush FOLLOWED the regs as outlined in the WAR POWERS ACT.

Found HERE-

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

As in-NO need for any (WASTE of Time) rewritten -added opinion to- bullchit stuff.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#925933 Jun 17, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
The War Powers Act had nothing to do with Iraq. It did apply to Libya but that's not what we're talking about. If you're going to cite something you should probably at least read a little something about it so's not to look foolish.
There you go again. Why are you claiming it has nothing to do with Iraq when a resolution was passed based on that bill?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#925934 Jun 17, 2013
NJ raider 1 wrote:
<quoted text> I guess you don't read what you write! "Unreasonable search & seizures." Those are the key words. Now ask yourself, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks is PRISM reasonable? Is the govt looking through your phone records in attempts to prevent another 9/11? Did president Bush go through the necessary steps to enact the Patriot Act , therefore PRISM? Answer those questions &, you will quickly render your thought process as dumb!
I take it from your response that you think Bush was a great president, so great that a very common propaganda line from the Democrats is "Bush did it, too."

What you should do is actually read the Patriot Act to learn that what is happening now could not possibly have legally happened under the Patriot Act. That is why a new law had to be written. The Patriot Act would not have permitted what is happening now.
TheIndependentMa joruty

London, KY

#925935 Jun 17, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignore the stated conditions.
"...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."
Anything that violates these conditions is unreasonable. The government just taking all private communications for a subjective course of action, as is the case with PRISM, is unreasonable.
A case in point, we actually had the 9/11 detailed plans in our possession before 9/11. But, some liberal judge decided that some alien here violating the terms of his visa and in custody had the right to keep the 9/11 plans private. However, on 9/12, there were no constitutional objections.
The clause "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" was obviously satisfied in that case.
So, there is nothing needed other than for judges to actually use the Constitution instead of obstructing an investigation just because a Republican is president. Had a Demcorat been president and requested to see Moussaoui's hard drive, that judge would have conceeded and had no objection to the search.
That's the problem.
The 4th Amendment is as close to perfection as humans can hope to achieve. A subjective general vilation of privacy is about as far away from perfect as you can get.
To rational, law abiding, Constitution following US citizens anyway.

To freakishly warped, commieticish dictatorship style jackboots on ego-power trips--well, we see how such can be abused and used to torment and harass INNOCENT people, while lawless mujihadeens roam free.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#925936 Jun 17, 2013
Americans think Bush was a president than Obama.

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
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 9 min _Zoey_ 5,908
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min FastandFurious 187,323
anybody know Glen Musielak? Glentech? (Mar '13) 59 min Cracker Jack 87
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 69,700
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Progressive Democrat 52,858
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Michael Satterfield 99,362
Ask Amy 4-25-15 3 hr mrs gladys kravitz 3
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]