Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1263792 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.

Since: May 11

Hustontown, PA

#955548 Jul 28, 2013
Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really?
What policy was that Dumb Dave?
Congress holds the purse strings and as far as I recall, Democrats controlled Congress at the end of his term when the trouble started.
Now don't go postal on us and start using four letter words, Dumb Dave. A meltdown does not help an old geriatric fool like you.
Yes, you are a partisan for sure. What do you think you are?
1) Unfunded tax cuts
2) Unfunded Medicare expansion
3) Unfunded war if Afghanistan
4) Unnecessary & unfunded war in Iraq

The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. Please list the legislation the Democrats passed in the first 10 months of 2007 that created this recession. I keep asking & you keep being unable to answer.

My comment about being partisan had nothing to do with me. I would suggest you learn to read.
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#955549 Jul 28, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol!
run, waxman, run!!!
Waxman doesn't run. When a zero comes to my door, I first say "beat it", then shut the door.

You can think whatever you want, retard.

You're not welcome in my domain, Dumb Dave sock loser.

baawwaahhh!!!!

Now go play with yourself until 4AM.
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#955550 Jul 28, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Eed should refuse Medicare & keep that aspect of Government out of his life.
He was talking about "regulations", fool.

God! Are you an old moron, 2008Bill.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#955553 Jul 28, 2013
EasyEed wrote:
<quoted text>
"dumos"
You are in La La land. Begging the government? Wrong again. I just want them to get the hell out of the way. Quit telling folks they have to purchase a product they do not want or need. Adding layers of regulations.
The problem is left wing whiners like you, no answers, your mantra attack conservatives republicans never comment on left wing disasters. A pure phoney and a lair.
Peace
KMA
You're the one constantly whining the government isn't "creating" enough jobs. Whatsamatta? You get laid off from Mattress King?
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#955554 Jul 28, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Unfunded tax cuts
2) Unfunded Medicare expansion
3) Unfunded war if Afghanistan
4) Unnecessary & unfunded war in Iraq
The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. Please list the legislation the Democrats passed in the first 10 months of 2007 that created this recession. I keep asking & you keep being unable to answer.
My comment about being partisan had nothing to do with me. I would suggest you learn to read.
Dumb Dave thinks he is not a partisan.

Hey Dumb Dave, did Bush "abandon" Afghanistan?

It's all Bush's fault! Bush Derangement Syndrome, for sure.

Baawwaaaahhhh!!!!!
LCN Llin

United States

#955555 Jul 28, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>no you might want to read a volume to two of history to see the error of your post and go back to 1937 when the SCOTUS issued there ruling that Social Security is a tax just like any other tax and no such thing as a Social Security Trust Fund and Remember Taxes are the Property of the Federal Government and if you remember it was Jimmy Carter & Congress that were the last ones to reduce Social Security Benefits.
Michael Tanner Talks about Social Security
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Social Security’s Sham Guarantee
By Michael D. Tanner
May 29, 2005
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...
LOL
47%
LCN Llin

United States

#955556 Jul 28, 2013
Good News

A New Defense of Voting Rights
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. took an important step toward repairing the damage from last month’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a central element of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He is right to adopt an aggressive approach to defending the most fundamental right in our democracy.

In a federal lawsuit first brought by black and Hispanic voters against Texas over its redistricting maps, the Justice Department relied on a rarely used provision of the act, Section 3, to ask a federal court to require Texas to get permission before making any voting changes in the state.

Until last month, Texas already had to get such permission under the act’s “preclearance” process. This process had long been the most effective means of preventing racial bias in voting laws in states with histories of discrimination. It required state and local governments that wanted to change the laws to first show there would be no discriminatory effect. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the act as unconstitutional; that provision laid out the formula that determined which jurisdictions had to get permission.

In theory, the court’s ruling allows Congress to update the list of nine states and parts of six others identified by Section 4. But given the dysfunction of Congress, that will not happen anytime soon.

This is why Mr. Holder’s decision to rely on Section 3 in the Texas case is so significant. Section 3 — also known as the “bail-in” provision — may be the most promising tool we have to protect voting rights after Shelby. It allows courts to identify jurisdictions that are passing intentionally discriminatory voting laws and then “bail” them in as needed — that is, require them to get permission before establishing new voting rules.

This is functionally similar to the system the court struck down last month, but Section 3 has several distinguishing features. It does not contain a preset list of jurisdictions, and it is forward-looking: instead of relying primarily on historical evidence of discrimination, it allows individual voters or the government to ask courts to zero in on any jurisdiction, like Texas, that continues to try to impose racially discriminatory voting laws.

Section 3 is also flexible. The period of coverage for preclearance under Section 3 is determined by court order, and may last for only as long as a federal judge deems it necessary to overcome voting discrimination in that jurisdiction.

These features make Section 3 a useful provision, but it has its weaknesses. The preclearance may be imposed only if a federal judge determines that the jurisdiction’s laws are intentionally discriminatory. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, such laws were much easier to identify. But lawmakers have since discovered countless ways to discriminate on the basis of race without saying so explicitly, and will continue to do so.

In the Texas case, a Federal District Court in Washington found that state redistricting maps showed intentional discrimination — among other things, black and Hispanic lawmakers were excluded from the map-drawing process, and districts were drawn to minimize the power of minority voters in ways that “could not have happened by accident,” including one district shaped like a lightning bolt. While the Texas record is full of clear evidence of discriminatory intent, in most places such a claim is harder to show. To address that problem, the Congressional Black Caucus has called for Section 3 to be amended to apply to voting laws that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not intent can be proved. If Congress is serious about protecting voting rights, it should pass this amendment immediately.
LCN Llin

United States

#955557 Jul 28, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I agree Carter was responsible some of the other BS like the 401k's, Community Reinvestment Act, and also in reducing Social Security benefits but I blame alot of the incompetence too on Nixon who even Herb Stein who was a member of the Council of Economic Advisors made it clear that Nixon and the others including himself had no clue what they were doing when it came to the US Economy and called their theory "Flaky" and they were the ones that got the ball rolling and Carter took the fall for some of it too.
You seem properly unhappy.

Since: Jul 13

United States

#955558 Jul 28, 2013
:)
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#955559 Jul 28, 2013
Waxman wrote:
"Clinton’s Spending Cuts—Not His Tax Hikes—Worked"
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12...
Obama thinks you create jobs by raising taxes.
Bush didn't create any with tax cuts.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#955560 Jul 28, 2013
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>Fourteen years? So if any of us were so naive as to believe your often altered bio, you chose to leave a profession that wouldn't have had your living in a rented condo in order to become a full-time mom when your taxpayer funded daughter turn ten??? Oh, do please tell us another one while high fiving the other most vile, reprehensible pseudo-human trolls on the planet.
Yes, 14 years as an MT - take or give a few months.

Yes, raising my own daughter after having her late in life was more important to me than a career and someone else raising her and, yes, working from home in another career with flexible hours made that possible.

No, my daughter was not taxpayer funded at the age of 10 and still isn't. If you don't like student loans, take it up with the government.

Being a homeowner for 25 years, townhome living suits us just fine. God willing, we will buy a home outright with hubby's 401k when he retires. Assuming, of course, Obama doesn't take that from us too.

Now what is your problem exactly?

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#955561 Jul 28, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
BS News/ July 18, 2013, 2:01 PM
Liberal groups may have been targeted by IRS as well
New documents provided to the Treasury Department's inspector general indicate that progressive groups, in addition to conservative groups, may have been targeted by the IRS for additional scrutiny, according to testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by J. Russell George, the inspector general. The revelation bolsters the case of congressional Democrats who have argued that IRS targeting was not politically motivated, and that the groups targeted were more ideologically diverse than originally believed.
In his prepared testimony, George described documents from July 2010 that included the term "progressive" within a discussion of the types of groups that should be scrutinized by the IRS. Those documents were provided to George's office on July 9, but were not provided prior to the inspector general's original audit that initially jump-started the targeting scandal and the resultant committee hearings.
Only 19 progressive groups compared to 292 conservative groups. The former didn't have near the same level of scrutiny or length of delays.

Pretty big discrepancy. Many of those conservative groups had small memberships and only wanted to participate in the political process.

Since: Feb 08

Spokane, WA

#955562 Jul 28, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> Look, dipstick, Eed said he was against government interfering. I just wondered why he is not practicing what he preaches. He wants government out of his life so he should man up & refuse medicare or STFU.
"real dumb"
Interfering? Refuse something I paid for? Fortunately I am not as stoopid as you are. I have a few bucks invested in government bonds. Should I refuse those monies also?
"real dumb" you are dumb, rewal dumb.
Peace
KMA
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#955563 Jul 28, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Unfunded tax cuts
2) Unfunded Medicare expansion
3) Unfunded war if Afghanistan
4) Unnecessary & unfunded war in Iraq
The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. Please list the legislation the Democrats passed in the first 10 months of 2007 that created this recession. I keep asking & you keep being unable to answer.
My comment about being partisan had nothing to do with me. I would suggest you learn to read.
Tax cuts are not spending and do not require funding.

However, if the tax cuts result in lower revenue, then spending must be reduced.

If we had worried about funding WWII, the world would speak German.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#955564 Jul 28, 2013
SHADOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Question is----do you know:
"Crime Rates
* Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
* When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
* Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
* The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.
Interracial Crime
* Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
* Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
* Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
* Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa."
"Racial Disparities in Incarceration
•African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population
•African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites
•Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population
•According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50%"
diggin' the source....

The New Century Foundation is an organization founded in 1994 known primarily for publishing American Renaissance. From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund, and has been described as a white supremacist group, which its founder, Jared Taylor, denies, calling it white separatist.

Taylor advocates segregation as a natural expression of racial solidarity while denying that his views constitute white supremacism. Viewing societal problems as racial in nature, Taylor upholds white racial homogeneity as the key to peaceful coexistence. He sees Japan as an exemplar of a racially homogenous society, and views Asians generally as genetically superior in intelligence to whites. He also view whites as genetically superior in intelligence to blacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foun...

i notice his site doesn't give a source for that info.

so let's try this.

The truth? As the largest racial group, whites commit the majority of crimes in America. In particular, whites are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes. With respect to aggravated assault, whites led blacks 2-1 in arrests; in forcible-rape cases, whites led all racial and ethnic groups by more than 2-1. And in larceny theft, whites led blacks, again, more than 2-1.

Given this mathematical truth, would anyone encourage African Americans to begin shooting suspicious white males in their neighborhoods for fear that they'll be raped, assaulted or murdered?

http://www.theroot.com/views/why-don-t-we-tal...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

and what's up with the DUIs??
LCN Llin

United States

#955565 Jul 28, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Only 19 progressive groups compared to 292 conservative groups. The former didn't have near the same level of scrutiny or length of delays.
Pretty big discrepancy. Many of those conservative groups had small memberships and only wanted to participate in the political process.
faux news seems interested, Chicago Tribune seems not

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#955566 Jul 28, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one constantly whining the government isn't "creating" enough jobs. Whatsamatta? You get laid off from Mattress King?
The government doesn't create jobs. It encourages hiring by getting out of the way or becomes an obstruction by not doing so and passing legislation like Obamacare.

Have a good weekend?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#955567 Jul 28, 2013
Benjamin Pride wrote:
The best free online dating website everything is really free, send and receive messages free and even video chat free, never pay for anything! whereloveisfound .com
Call lily at 1-800-BOCAJEW

Black stud preferred
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#955568 Jul 28, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one constantly whining the government isn't "creating" enough jobs. Whatsamatta? You get laid off from Mattress King?
Nothing wrong with asking the government to create jobs by getting out of the way.
LCN Llin

United States

#955569 Jul 28, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, go home to your fatherland son. And let Americans speak!
Tea Party fight democracy

The same day, last month, that the Supreme Court struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott declared that Texas laws that had been stopped by the Act—because courts found them to be discriminatory—would immediately go into effect. On Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder struck back.

In the color-blind wish-world of Chief Justice Roberts and his four conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court, Jim Crow-era restrictions on minority voting represent a sad, historical curiosity, unrelated to modern reality. Surveying the landscape from their marble aerie, these five Justices decided in Shelby County v. Holder that requiring the pre-clearance of election-law changes in certain jurisdictions, a provision of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, was now unconstitutional. Congress had passed the Act in 1965 in response to the broad denial of the right to vote; as recently as 2006, an overwhelming majority of Congress found that it was still necessary. The Court simply disagreed:“Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.”

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) 1 min budd 54,324
Truly evil folks 1 min Concern Citizen 5
News Four Dead in Bridgeview Head-On Collision (Jul '14) 1 min MyNameIsToby 75
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 min PEllen 100,284
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 36 min Justus von Liebig 194,598
Chicago One Direction concert on the 23rd! 1 hr Tristascottcom 1
Sasitorn boonsin 3 hr donna 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages