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

#935583 Jul 1, 2013
NJ raider 1 wrote:
<quoted text> Good morning! I'm a fair person so, I defend Obama knowing full well the right is doing everything to see him fail. My knock on Obama is, he should focus like a laser on jobs &, stop being sidetracked on social issues. If the black president isn't going to push the black agenda as far as economic equality, it will never happen. The black unemployment rate is ridiculous. Other than that, I have no issues with him. The man is making Thanksgiving dinner out of table scraps. The right is so confused, they don't know whether to lose their identity to gain ground on the hispanic vote or, to stick to guns & lie, cheat, & steal those same votes. One things for sure, they'll never win the presidency again without the hispanic vote. The change in demographics is already too much to overcome!
Really? why would a president of the Arabs push the black agenda? Colonization of the blacks has already been achieved by the democrats-O'bama sees no reason to bother with them.
NJ raider 1

Baltimore, MD

#935584 Jul 1, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Middle of the pack, overall.
His biggest failiing was to foolishly negotiate with communists and concede no effective oversight of the Democrats' Marxist subprime housing mortgage underwriting program in exchange for the Democrats supporting his initiative in Iraq. That was his part in the economic collapse of 2008.
On the plus side, the US was attacked by the Arab Wahhabist jihad, and he annihilated them, forcing them into an existence in caves in the hiterlands.
Today, that same Arab Wahhabist jihad Bush pushed to the brink of nonexistence is in the White House every day, and with the help of Obama have re-established the Arab Islamist Terrorist Empire that stretched unbroken from the Atlantic shores of Morocco to the Afghan-Tibet border that Bush decimated.
Obama is at the very bottom of the list... for one reason: He's using every bit of authority he has to assist the enemy of the United States in their attempt to end our existence.
Love your honesty but, the truth is, we were fighting a losing battle from the start. If the Arab jihadist were held up in caves, America should've won the war already, given the fact we built the tunnels in the caves &, all we had to do is bomb the hell out of those mountains. Bin Laden also wouldn't have had such easy access to the Pakistan border if he were held up in caves. I don't give any president credit for what go on on the ground in a war. That's what the Generals are for. I do give Obama credit for refocusing like a laser on bin Laden because, Bush was so unsuccessful in his efforts, he gave up looking for him & deemed him unimportant. That was the reason for invading Afghanistan in the first place. You've already given Bush his blame for his part in the housing crisis. Now add the tax cuts & 2 wars (unfunded),& you have the man that single handedly took down the empire he sworn to defend!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#935585 Jul 1, 2013
George who??

Bill O’Reilly suddenly opposed to NSA surveillance he supported under Bush

During the Bush administration, opposing the National Security Agency’s warantless wiretapping program meant you wanted “Americans to die.”

But now Fox News host Bill O’Reilly believes the NSA’s massive collection of data under the Obama administration is an unconstitutional government overreach.

On his show Monday night, the conservative host described the NSA’s surveillance programs as a “massive intrusion.” O’Reilly warned that “corrupt government officials” could leak sensitive data to hurt their political opponents. He said that amassing telephone records might be “acceptable,” but keeping actual content of private conversations on file was “flat out unconstitutional.”

O’Reilly’s tune was far different under the Bush administration. At the time, he voiced strong support for the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, which collected the telephone records of millions of Americans. In 2006, after a judge ruled the program was unconstitutional, O’Reilly speculated that she didn’t care if Americans were killed by terrorists.

“Does she want dead people in the street here in America?” he said on his show.“Because I’m sure that she would not only oppose the NSA program, she would oppose coercive interrogation, profiling at the airports. She would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration has put in just because they’re the Bush administration. But the unintended consequences of the opposition is death.”

He made similar comments regarding the ACLU, which had attempted to prevent the NSA from collecting phone calls and emails without a warrant. He suggested the civil liberties organization wanted “the terrorists to win.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/11/bill-or...
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#935586 Jul 1, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, Kerry thought that certainly the President of the United States would not lie to get 4000 soldiers killed. When he found out Bush lied, then he was against it.
Clinton, inflaming, attacking, killing millions of Muslim people in Europe, Iraq and the planet... because of a Lewinsky, Clinton irresponsible at work, you idiot... Bill Clinton starting WWWIII with the Muslim world you dumbass...

Iraq war John Kerry: I voted for the war before I was against it...

It's the culture...

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#935587 Jul 1, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Disapproval of Bush breaks record
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washingto...
so now you're acting like FOX.
USA Today...
Another incredulous source, dufus.

Gallup says Bush has an approval of 47 percent.
If I have to believe either Gallup or USA Today, it's no contest.
But, keep coming with the propaganda. It gets humorous.
LCN Llin

United States

#935588 Jul 1, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
George who??
Bill O’Reilly suddenly opposed to NSA surveillance he supported under Bush
During the Bush administration, opposing the National Security Agency’s warantless wiretapping program meant you wanted “Americans to die.”
But now Fox News host Bill O’Reilly believes the NSA’s massive collection of data under the Obama administration is an unconstitutional government overreach.
On his show Monday night, the conservative host described the NSA’s surveillance programs as a “massive intrusion.” O’Reilly warned that “corrupt government officials” could leak sensitive data to hurt their political opponents. He said that amassing telephone records might be “acceptable,” but keeping actual content of private conversations on file was “flat out unconstitutional.”
O’Reilly’s tune was far different under the Bush administration. At the time, he voiced strong support for the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, which collected the telephone records of millions of Americans. In 2006, after a judge ruled the program was unconstitutional, O’Reilly speculated that she didn’t care if Americans were killed by terrorists.
“Does she want dead people in the street here in America?” he said on his show.“Because I’m sure that she would not only oppose the NSA program, she would oppose coercive interrogation, profiling at the airports. She would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration has put in just because they’re the Bush administration. But the unintended consequences of the opposition is death.”
He made similar comments regarding the ACLU, which had attempted to prevent the NSA from collecting phone calls and emails without a warrant. He suggested the civil liberties organization wanted “the terrorists to win.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/11/bill-or...
O'Reilly is fun to follow as he watches his rating and changes on immigration. He may change with the wind on NSA as well as security seems popular with GOP, except with conservative trolls.
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Newington, CT

#935589 Jul 1, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
George who??
Bill O’Reilly suddenly opposed to NSA surveillance he supported under Bush
During the Bush administration, opposing the National Security Agency’s warantless wiretapping program meant you wanted “Americans to die.”
But now Fox News host Bill O’Reilly believes the NSA’s massive collection of data under the Obama administration is an unconstitutional government overreach.
On his show Monday night, the conservative host described the NSA’s surveillance programs as a “massive intrusion.” O’Reilly warned that “corrupt government officials” could leak sensitive data to hurt their political opponents. He said that amassing telephone records might be “acceptable,” but keeping actual content of private conversations on file was “flat out unconstitutional.”
O’Reilly’s tune was far different under the Bush administration. At the time, he voiced strong support for the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, which collected the telephone records of millions of Americans. In 2006, after a judge ruled the program was unconstitutional, O’Reilly speculated that she didn’t care if Americans were killed by terrorists.
“Does she want dead people in the street here in America?” he said on his show.“Because I’m sure that she would not only oppose the NSA program, she would oppose coercive interrogation, profiling at the airports. She would oppose every anti-terror measure the Bush administration has put in just because they’re the Bush administration. But the unintended consequences of the opposition is death.”
He made similar comments regarding the ACLU, which had attempted to prevent the NSA from collecting phone calls and emails without a warrant. He suggested the civil liberties organization wanted “the terrorists to win.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/11/bill-or...
Where'd you dig up this propaganda piece for you copy & paste job, libtard? Media Matters or some other known corrupt partisan rag?

The difference now is that under an unethical Democrat President, Democrats have clearly demonstrated how they mishandle the data and abuse the power entrusted in our government.

Huge difference. O'Reilly is correct. We may have to live with increased danger & less safety as long as people vote for Democrats who make giving up our privacy equally harmful to society as terrorists.

Now that we have know liars and power abusers in the White House running the Executive Branch, Congress needs to put checks in place to stop criminal activity coming from the White House & Democrats.
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Newington, CT

#935591 Jul 1, 2013
The ranting of a raving mad lunatic:
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
You can stuff your "politically correct" crap right back where it came from Carol, your anal orifice.
Right wingers have their own brand of PC such as calling the ultra wealthy "job creators" despite the fact that very few of them actually create any jobs. How about calling the estate tax a "death tax" ignoring the fact that it affects only .14% of all estates who themselves will only pay on average 16.5%. There's also the infamous "death panels" made famous by Sarah Palin referring to the independent payment advisory board (or IPAB)–which is given the job of recommending cost-saving measures to the Secretary of Health and Human Services if Medicare expenses rise too quickly. The IPAB will consist of independent healthcare experts who are forbidden, by law, from proposing changes that will affect Medicare coverage or quality. In other words, they are a far cry from a death panel, with the ACA specifically noting that this group is not allowed to do anything that would “ration” healthcare. The law also makes sure that the IPAB is not in a position to make policy, but instead to simply make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, proposals that Congress is specifically empowered to override if it sees fit. There's also the case where the Republican controlled legislature in response to a study on the impact of climate change on that state's shore lines omitted the terms like "climate change" and "sea level rise" with terms like "recurrent flooding" which is in fact caused by sea level rise attributable to climate change.
As for public schools, not all are the same. The system of funding schools through property taxes means that schools in well to do areas will have a distinct advantage over inner city schools or those in less prosperous rural areas. The result is that it's harder for these underfunded schools to attract good teachers or administrators.
One of my nieces graduated with honors from Mount Holyoke College and another recently graduated from Simmons in Boston one of my nephews recently graduated with honors from Amherst. They all came from public schools. My son also from the public school system is a senior at Catholic University in DC and has gone from being an unpaid Congressional intern to being hired as a Congressional staffer even before he's graduated.
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#935592 Jul 1, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Their admiration for Hitler seems telling
Nazism spelled Liberalism; A unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.

It's the culture...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#935593 Jul 1, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
USA Today...
Another incredulous source, dufus.
Gallup says Bush has an approval of 47 percent.
If I have to believe either Gallup or USA Today, it's no contest.
But, keep coming with the propaganda. It gets humorous.
how much 'propaganda'?

must be 10 different polls from then that all say the same.

so now find me one that says that Obama has a 25% approval rating.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidentia...
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Newington, CT

#935594 Jul 1, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
O'Reilly is fun to follow as he watches his rating and changes on immigration. He may change with the wind on NSA as well as security seems popular with GOP, except with conservative trolls.
O'Reilly is always a day late & dollar short (so to speak) on having sound judgment about issues. He is a late bloomer, but usually get's it right when it's too late.

You wingnuts on the other hand, never get it.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#935595 Jul 1, 2013
NJ raider 1 wrote:
<quoted text> Love your honesty but, the truth is, we were fighting a losing battle from the start. If the Arab jihadist were held up in caves, America should've won the war already, given the fact we built the tunnels in the caves &, all we had to do is bomb the hell out of those mountains. Bin Laden also wouldn't have had such easy access to the Pakistan border if he were held up in caves. I don't give any president credit for what go on on the ground in a war. That's what the Generals are for. I do give Obama credit for refocusing like a laser on bin Laden because, Bush was so unsuccessful in his efforts, he gave up looking for him & deemed him unimportant. That was the reason for invading Afghanistan in the first place. You've already given Bush his blame for his part in the housing crisis. Now add the tax cuts & 2 wars (unfunded),& you have the man that single handedly took down the empire he sworn to defend!
Define "win".
In my mind, we win when the Arab jihad surrenders to the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
Their only refuge was the hinterlands of Pakistan with Bush in office. Coincidentally, Pakistan is the country that harbored bin Laden.
Compare that with today when we have the same Arab jihad that killed 3000 Americans on 9/11(2001) in the White House every day, and the Islamist Terrorist Empire that stretched unbroken from the Atlantic shores of Morocco to the Afghan-Tibet border that Bush decimated has been re-established and connected again with the help of the Obama administration.

This won't end until the Arab jihad surrenders to the Armed Forces of the United States. That's the truth.
And, with the president being one of the Islamist terrorists, that's unlikely to happen any time soon.
This war will continue as long as the Democrats and the Islamist jihad want to destroy the United States.
Nothing has changed since the Cold War when the Democrats outright joined the communists and did everything they could to help them defeat the United States and end our existence as a constitutional republic. The Democrats are still a friend of any enemy of the United States.

How many members of SEAL Team Six that participated in the bin Laden raid are still alive? We know what happened to the other part of SEAL Team Six on their very next "secret" mission when the helicopter descended to the "secret" location to disembark the team right into the sights of a lone Taliban/Al Qaeda waiting for them there with a rocket launcher.
If Obama and Vallerie Jarrett had any clue the mission to kill bin Laden was even happening, that would have been the story there, too.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#935596 Jul 1, 2013
Buroc Millhouse Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
Where'd you dig up this propaganda piece for you copy & paste job, libtard? Media Matters or some other known corrupt partisan rag?
The difference now is that under an unethical Democrat President, Democrats have clearly demonstrated how they mishandle the data and abuse the power entrusted in our government.
Huge difference. O'Reilly is correct. We may have to live with increased danger & less safety as long as people vote for Democrats who make giving up our privacy equally harmful to society as terrorists.
Now that we have know liars and power abusers in the White House running the Executive Branch, Congress needs to put checks in place to stop criminal activity coming from the White House & Democrats.
another with mandatory Bush amnesia.

i bet you guys hate Google.
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#935597 Jul 1, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Their admiration for Hitler seems telling
60 million abortions and Nazi eugenics is not exactly a biological love affair you have for children ehh.. Patrick??...

It's the culture..
Jane Says

New York, NY

#935598 Jul 1, 2013
'Team Obama’s play date with jihad

Forget Paula Deen. There are far more dangerous bigots & poisonous haters spoiling the American landscape. They cook up violent rhetoric & murderous plots against our troops, our citizens & our allies 24/7. & THEY HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism just blew the whistle on the Obama administration’s latest flirtation with Muslim jihad. Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah bragged on his Web site that he had met with Team Obama on June 13.

IPT reported that bin Bayyah was invited by National Security Council official Gayle Smith “to learn from you & we need to be looking for new mechanisms to communicate with you & the Association of Muslim Scholars.”

Someone associated with bin Bayyah deleted an online reference to the meeting, but the Internet is forever. The White House has now ’fessed up to the confab. According to Fox News, a senior official spun the troubling event as a discussion about “poverty, global health efforts & bin Bayyah’s own efforts to speak out against al Qaeda.”

Bin Bayyah’s moderate costume shouldn’t fool anyone. This SHARIA THUG, who has worked with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to boost his progressive-friendly cred, lobbied the United Nations to outlaw all mockery & criticism of Allah.

He is a top lieutenant of Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, who exhorts followers to kill every last Jew; sanctioned suicide bombings & the killing of our soldiers; expressed support for executing apostates & stoning gays; & declared that the “US is an enemy of Islam.”

As jihad watchdogs have reported, THIS ADMNISTRATION HAS ROLLED OUT THE RED CARPET for dozens of Muslim Brotherhood officers, flacks & sympathizers.

IPT noted last year:“White House visitor logs show that top US policy-makers are soliciting & receiving advice from people who, at best, view the war on terrorism as an unchecked war on Muslims.

These persons’ perspectives & preferred policies handcuff law enforcement & weaken our resolve when it comes to confronting terrorism.”

No kidding.'

but i'm predicting that the obots in typical blind fashion will invoke the Bush-Saudis-leaving-on-a-plane -after 9/11 as if that excuses Obammy's Jimmy Carter-esque permanent bend over position,

and that Fox is reporting it, because we should we wait for the main stream media to be unbiased and report anything that shows the true goals of THE ONE.
OBAMA the GENIUS

Raleigh, NC

#935599 Jul 1, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
USA Today...
Another incredulous source, dufus.
Gallup says Bush has an approval of 47 percent.
If I have to believe either Gallup or USA Today, it's no contest.
But, keep coming with the propaganda. It gets humorous.
You want a source, one is provided.

Then you stomp around like a jackazzzzzz!

99% disapproved of Bush.

1% republican trash loved the guy:
He handed them $50 million each!

Tax cuts for billionaires! Millionaires!

Is this fantasyland?

Loot the treasury to enrich those ALREADY RICH?

DURING WAR.

Ohhhhhhhhhh man: Republicans special kind of crazy.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#935600 Jul 1, 2013
Fox & Friends Outraged Over NSA Wiretapping They Supported Under Pres. Bush (Video)

"Let’s call it the terrorist surveillance program," said Kilmeade on Jan. 25, 2006. "That would be a lot easier."

“And more accurate,” Doocy added.

“Yeah, more accurate too,” Kilmeade agreed.“If you’re for the NSA wiretapping without going to the FISA court, I guess warrantless, then most likely you’re Republican. If you are against it, you most likely are a Democrat.”

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/forei...

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#935601 Jul 1, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
how much 'propaganda'?
must be 10 different polls from then that all say the same.
so now find me one that says that Obama has a 25% approval rating.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidentia...
Gallup says Bush has an approval of 47 percent.
If I have to believe either Gallup or USA Today, it's no contest.
But, keep coming with the propaganda. It gets humorous.
PDUPONT

Easthampton, MA

#935602 Jul 1, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
In response to one of your posts earlier about Hillary's "what difference does it make" comment, I wanted to say that the difference it makes is she knew full well she lied for a political power grab, had no answers as to why that embassy was abandoned and was not truthful about who did.
A disgraceful display of incompetency and cowardice.
Different screen name same old lies. Not even the intelligence community was certain what caused the attack . In the end the motivation behind the attack was and still is irrelevant. There was no embassy abandoned Carol, the embassy in Tripoli was still open and operating.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#935603 Jul 1, 2013
I'm going to post this again, in case all the Democrat frauds here pretend to not know who's side they are actuall on.

Obama is arming the Islamist terrorists at war with anything not Wahhabist, and the very people that killed 3000 Americans and started a global war.

For those who get their news from only the media:

Well, what's going on in Syria?

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/20220-c...

Here are Obama's friends chopping off someone's head only because he's a Christian.

Oh, yeah. We're not the stupidest country in the world....

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
Abby 9-22 9 min Kuuipo 11
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 21 min loose cannon 178,224
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr RACE 98,253
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr andet1987 1,288
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr andet1987 4,741
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 1 hr andet1987 1,486
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr RACE 4,725
•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••