Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1278943 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.

John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939472 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want the government to arbitrate the dissolution of a marriage contract I can live with that. I personally think private arbitration is better but I tend to think most things are better performed by the private sector.
Why should government give Social Security benefits to someone who has never worked or contributed to the system just by virtue of "marriage"?
gildoganw

Montréal, Canada

#939473 Jul 7, 2013
I am the General Audit Manager, Accounts Department in our bank. I have the opportunity of transferring the sum of(22.850.000.00 twenty two million eight hundred and fifty thousand united states dollars only).
This fund originally belonged to one of our bank Customer who died in the year 2009.

My request for foreigner to stand as next of kin in this business is because the fact that the customer is a foreigner.
Based on the fact that this is a deal, I propose that 50% of this fund for you and 50% for me.
I will give more detail of the transfer process as soon as you show your interest in this transaction.

If anyone is interested please write me e-mail on [email protected]

Thanks byee
The Elephant in the Room

Waynesboro, MS

#939474 Jul 7, 2013
Muslim Brotherhood or Communist Zion, Who's the Bigger Threat? Pt 1of2 (VERY IMPORTANT!)
Watch:
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939475 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know how you got so confused, maybe you should've just stayed out of the discussion.
Nobama's not having any trouble keeping up.
Says the person who claimed the law was forcing the clinics into hospitals which was a total misstatement.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939476 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want the government to arbitrate the dissolution of a marriage contract I can live with that. I personally think private arbitration is better but I tend to think most things are better performed by the private sector.
The contract terms of a "marriage" should be spelled out in writing in advance and should not require any arbitration.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939477 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, its almost inspirational the level of respect you have for the infallibility of the government.
The government has engaged in MANY practices that were subsequently ruled illegal or illegitimate, it just hasn't happened in this case yet.
You don't see how they're violating their own law by discriminating on the basis of gender?
Until then it remains as the law. Isn't that your claim when the right objects to a ruling. Double standards again?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939478 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
You're insisting it is wrong to apply the same standards to an abortion clinic as that of one doing an endoscopy based on your paranoia that the right wants this so it must be wrong leaves a huge gap in both your ethics and logic.
You can pretend to be fooled all you want. You won't fool anybody that doesn't also already want to be fooled.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939479 Jul 7, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
by the birther rules of guilt by association.....it was a Bush plan from the beginning.
No point trying for a serious discussion with the likes of you.
Whatever

Gering, NE

#939480 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
This in no way proves he and McCain are supporting the associates of the democratically elected President of Egypt.
See post above by another poster

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939481 Jul 7, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should government give Social Security benefits to someone who has never worked or contributed to the system just by virtue of "marriage"?
You're asking the wrong person; they shouldn't.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939482 Jul 7, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
it was and they were. from 2001 to 2009.
Total BS.

There are a relatively small number of federal government jobs that are political appointments.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939483 Jul 7, 2013
gildoganw wrote:
I am the General Audit Manager, Accounts Department in our bank. I have the opportunity of transferring the sum of(22.850.000.00 twenty two million eight hundred and fifty thousand united states dollars only).
This fund originally belonged to one of our bank Customer who died in the year 2009.
My request for foreigner to stand as next of kin in this business is because the fact that the customer is a foreigner.
Based on the fact that this is a deal, I propose that 50% of this fund for you and 50% for me.
I will give more detail of the transfer process as soon as you show your interest in this transaction.
If anyone is interested please write me e-mail on [email protected]
Thanks byee
This post is for you Whatever, don't miss your big chance!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939484 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the person who claimed the law was forcing the clinics into hospitals which was a total misstatement.
Forcing abortions out of clinics and into hospitals and surgical clinics.

Sheesh!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939485 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides, who are we fooling?
You know as well as I do this subterfuge serves only to advance the christian right's opposition to abortion. Not even worth arguing over.
Placing reasonable limits on the length of the pregnancy at the time of abortion extends beyond the Christian right and includes many people who are pro-choice.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#939486 Jul 7, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Aunt Patty? And many checked into the Catholic Services homes such as the Florence Crittenden Homes where they'd give birth to babies already promised to good Catholic families.
The key was privacy-secrecy, the parents would not be shamed and the young lady could marry and "live happily ever after" with some toad that believed that he picked a cherry.
Girls off to college or those who moved to larger cities for better work were seeking abortions and many were paying for that mistake with their lives___the statistics of that era cannot be ignored, women were being butchered and/or suffering horrible after effects from chemical cocktails.
It astounds me that the subject remains such a hot topic after all these years.
It appears that the rightwing wishes to return to those days; the girls who could afford it and had family connections were admitted to hospitals for "d & c's" and everyone kept quiet about it. The poor ones bled to death. Now they want to criminalize everything; if a woman self induces her abortion, they'll charge her with murder. With the personhood bill, the egg has more rights than the host. These people are sick in the head.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#939487 Jul 7, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go, another racist f*ck who thinks the only way a black man gets into Columbia & Harvard is through alternative action.
Dumbass Dave, the creepy-ass cracker, strikes again with "alternative action."
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#939488 Jul 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
This post is for you Whatever, don't miss your big chance!
You're a malleable tool Detzing...

It's the culture

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939489 Jul 7, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
The contract terms of a "marriage" should be spelled out in writing in advance and should not require any arbitration.
I agree and should be treated as any other contract the participants of which bound only by the ability to enter into a contract with informed consent.

If you want to get married, go to a church.

If you want to restrict marriage to one man and one woman that should be within the laws of that church.

Its simple, see no reason at all to involve the government in the cultural/religious nature of marriage.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#939490 Jul 7, 2013
Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
All Progressives (communists) use personal attacks rather than logic. They fear the Tea Party as they jeopardize the liberals chances at stealing from other people who actually work.
It's a good thing you use personal attacks son.

That about sums you up quite well.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#939491 Jul 7, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Until then it remains as the law. Isn't that your claim when the right objects to a ruling. Double standards again?
Not if its an illegal law.

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) 10 min Patriot AKA Bozo 54,625
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 35 min Joe Balls 197,202
News Should prostitution be less illegal-or more? 43 min woodtick57 11
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr David Morrison 100,682
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Doug77 6,449
abby 9-4-15 4 hr mrs gladys kravitz 6
Word (Dec '08) 4 hr Red_Forman 5,431
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages