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
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#971779 Aug 28, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't want me to talk about race, quit posting racial slurs. It is that simple.
How can I be a race baiter when I respond to posts with racal slurs.
Even a dumbass racist f*ck like you should be able to figure that out.
Here whiney baby-have a tootsie roll pop..tell us how many licks it takes ya to get to the chocolate in duh middle.(or in your wahwahwah case-have a bag full out of the handy dandy, super duper storage box on hand full of them!!)
WOW

Bronx, NY

#971781 Aug 28, 2013
It is a funereal occasion.

“For those that spent much of the next 50 years jockeying for greater opportunities to join structures of power, there is no shame in hosting the nominal head of Empire at a great public ceremony.”

Not that the actors were so different in 1963. But, back then, the grasping Black classes had not yet been launched on the trajectory that would give them a stake in the imperial order. Their status was still aspirational. Years of tumult would unfold – and Dr. King’s assassination – before the system would deign to offer serious silver to the Judases in his entourage and the larger movement. For those that spent much of the next 50 years jockeying for greater opportunities to join structures of power – the “burning house” that Dr. King feared he was leading his people into – there is no shame in hosting the nominal head of Empire at a great public ceremony. Rather, such an event is the pinnacle of success – especially for folks that imagine they have a special, complexional relationship with His Highness.

It has been so long since the dissolution of the Black Freedom Movement, the pretenders to Black leadership have forgotten how to speak the language of struggle. Non-violent “direct action,” Dr. King’s preferred tactic to “create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue,” has degenerated to mean simply marching down a street on a sunny day.

The 1963 march was not an example of direct action – quite the opposite. The purpose was to gather as many people as possible for an orderly and “dignified” demonstration of the movement’s mass following and broad support – and then get them out of town by sundown, as promised to the powers-that-be. The last thing the organizers wanted was that a quarter million marchers create a “crisis” in the heart of Washington – a scenario that Dr. King hoped to organize in the summer of 1968, but was interrupted by an assassin.

“The pretenders to Black leadership have forgotten how to speak the language of struggle.”

The 1963 march was so accommodating to the Kennedy’s demand for orderliness, Malcolm X dubbed it the “Farce on Washington.”

“It ceased to be a black march; it ceased to be militant; it ceased to be angry; it ceased to be impatient,” said Malcolm.“In fact, it ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, an outing with a festive, circus-like atmosphere....”

It was also the biggest show of massed humanity in the history of the Nation’s Capitol – which certainly made the intended impression. But, accommodation with Power is not what created the movement that brought the throngs to Washington for the one-day “outing,” nor did strolling in the park carry that movement forward in the ensuing years of confrontation with power.

The 1963 March on Washington was sanitized by the organizers, themselves, whose goal was to impress the nation – including other Black people – with the size and the breadth of the forces the leaders could call on at that point in time. It did not seek confrontation on that day, although its immensity served as implicit warning that masses of people were deeply committed to social transformation, and might not always be so orderly.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#971782 Aug 28, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Big Majority Of Americans Opposed To Defunding Obamacare
Republican leaders on Capitol Hill don't support the effort to defund Obamacare and, according to a new poll released Wednesday, neither do the American people.
The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll showed that 57 percent of Americans disapprove of "cutting off funding as a way to stop some or all of the law from being put into place." Only 36 percent said they approve the idea. Kaiser has found consistent opposition to the proposal since 2011.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/b...
the right wing media seem to be failing on the issue. so expect the noise that no one is paying attention to get even louder.
what your article says is that Republicans are against shutting the government down to defund O'bamashitcare. That would be correct. But are for defunding O'bamashitcare.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#971783 Aug 28, 2013
WOW wrote:
I hope obama does his speech that says if you have a business you didnt build that because that applies to him Big tyme, and in Black America he doesnt hold a candle to MARTIN LUTHER KING King made Him Possible and he didnt need to do much he just shashayed in twerking
O'bama will pretend he is Martin Luther King today--don't worry he will tell the world he is MLK.
WOW

Bronx, NY

#971785 Aug 28, 2013
“Accommodation with Power is not what created the movement that brought the throngs to Washington.”

In that sense, the event on the Mall was quite unrepresentative of the movement. It was, as Malcolm described from the sidelines,“a festive, circus-like atmosphere”– but it also occurred smack in the middle of years of mortal combat with the “system.” When the march is taken out of the context of what happened before and after, all that remains is the “picnic” and the self-censored, deliberately non-confrontational speeches – most notably Dr. King’s vague “dreaming.” Which perfectly suits the needs of today’s Black Misleadership Class, who have no intention of confronting Power – ever! On the contrary, they cling to the garments of Power, in the person of the First Black President, and wrap themselves in the flag of Empire.

Dr. King rejected U.S. empire, and broke with President Lyndon Johnson over the "inter-related" issues of foreign war and and domestic poverty. There is not a shadow of a doubt that King would denounce Obama in the strongest terms, were he alive, today. Yet, those who pose as his political and moral descendants hug the presidential scorpion to their bosoms.

Malcolm’s critique of the 1963 March does not seem so dated if one substitutes the words “Obama” or “Democrats” for “white liberals”:

“The white liberals [Democrats/Obama] control the Negro and the Negro vote by controlling the Negro civil rights leaders. As long as they [Democrats/Obama] control the Negro civil rights leaders, they can also control and contain the Negro's struggle, and they can control the Negro's so-called revolt.”

This August 28th will be a day of control and containment – amid a love-fest with Power.

Obama is to the CIA what AL quida is to the CIA a tool
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#971787 Aug 28, 2013
WOW wrote:
<quoted text>I came to that conclusion about your thoughts months ago
i thought i was the copy and paste king? you know, citing sources, presenting facts, just generally making your ilk look as stupid as you act.

“It's always darkest 'fore dawn”

Since: Jul 08

When's dawn?

#971788 Aug 28, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
I POSTED IT --no translation from ignotards required.
The POTUS is NOT above the LAW.
GET USED TO IT.
REALITY-
BOOTS ON FOUR DEPLOYED SHIPS-ARE BOOTS ON the GROUNDS of.
He used his 90 days up three months after ILLEGALLY invading LIBYA.
They can FOLLOW the LAW--or be IMPEACHED.
Wow, Methmouth, just when I thought you couldn't possible get any more ignorant, "there you go again." Ships on the GROUNDS of...why don't ya' go elect Turtle McConnell again or run Rand for POTUS? Got teeth?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#971789 Aug 28, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes,m, you should read the law.
The ACA dores not make your employer provided healthcare benefits taxable as part of your income.
You are either lying or dumber than sh*t. In your case, likely both.
For the very ignorant students in the class:

The value of health care coverage provided by your employer is now reported in Box 12 with Code DD to identify the amount. The amount reported in the box should include both the portion paid by your employer and any amount paid in by you.

Prior to ObamaKare, this wasn't on the W-2.
So why is this information showing up on your form W-2 now? Under ObamaKare, most employers must now report the cost of your health care plan. A few small businesses have received an exemption from reporting under the transitional relief subjectively offered by IRS.

If it's on the W-2, it's already taxable, dumbass. The only thing that's required is the order given to the IRS to apply a tax. I'm thinking that will happen in 2017. It doesn't really matter who wins, as far as this goes. The government has been driven so far into debt, it will have to use any excuse it has to get revenue. With the economic "recovery" putting 5 people into poverty and being supported by the government for every tax payer it generates, the IRS will be given the order to count the health care benefit as taxable income.

Do you ever know anything about what comes out of your mouth?
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#971790 Aug 28, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>what your article says is that Republicans are against shutting the government down to defund O'bamashitcare. That would be correct. But are for defunding O'bamashitcare.
yes, they keep trying live to the dream. some of them have even gone so far down the rabbit hole that they think Obama will help them defund it.
WOW

Bronx, NY

#971791 Aug 28, 2013
The new Civil Rights (leaders Racist propaganda comes in many forms, and from many sources. Russell Simmons and Lee Daniels are well-paid Black purveyors of the anti-Black propaganda arts. Daniel’s turns history and truth on its head in The Butler, while Russell Simmons depicts Harriet Tubman as a whore who turns tricks for freedom.

The fact that Simmons chose to make Harriet Tubman a character in a porno reveals much about him, his feelings about black people and his high regard of white people.”

On August 14, 2013, Russell Simmons posted these words on twitter:“Funniest thing I’ve ever seen Harriet tubmans [sic] sex diary.” Those are words guaranteed to catch one’s attention, the way a bomb going off gets attention. Simmons wasn’t lying or joking either. His latest entertainment venture, All Def Digital, had in fact produced something he called The Harriet Tubman Sex Tape. For the worst and most despicable reasons possible, Mr. Simmons chose to commit a character assassination of Harriet Tubman, one of the greatest in the pantheon of black American heroes. By extension he defamed not only Tubman, but all black people and perpetrated the worst slanders used against black women. The fact that Simmons chose to make Harriet Tubman a character in a porno reveals much about him, his feelings about black people and his high regard of white people.

One might conclude that Simmons is nothing more than clueless and ignorant of the history of this country and of his people. Yet his treachery shows something far worse than obvious misogyny, self-hatred and stupidity. This so-called parody existed because Simmons determined that the path to success must go straight through the heart of our heritage and bring down a woman whose actions were above reproach. Simmons obviously believes that his success depends on black people being demeaned and willing to laugh about it.
WOW

Bronx, NY

#971792 Aug 28, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text> Like most working Americans, they already have coverage through their employer.
goose geese gander does not apply to royalty
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#971793 Aug 28, 2013
Why Republicans Are Starting to Love Health Reform

Turns out a lot of Republicans love Obamacare. Or at least, they like coverage for their kids, health-care rebates and a ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions.

In the old days, they used to say that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. When it comes to health insurance, it seems a liberal is a conservative who has been mugged by an illness.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08...

sorry i had to post it again.

wait. why again? oh yeah, ilk and their stupidity.

“It's always darkest 'fore dawn”

Since: Jul 08

When's dawn?

#971794 Aug 28, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close-not even wanna be close.
MLK did NOT propagate hate, intolerance, division and violence!
And one of you violent, racist, ignorant rednecks with three names shot him for it...
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#971795 Aug 28, 2013
They Were John Birchers Then, They are John Birchers Now: The Tea Party GOP Would Have Hated Dr. King and The Great March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

http://www.chaunceydevega.com/2013/08/they-we...
WOW

Bronx, NY

#971796 Aug 28, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
i thought i was the copy and paste king? you know, citing sources, presenting facts, just generally making your ilk look as stupid as you act.
wow you kissed my as* thru the internet i felt your lips i thought i was the copy and paste king? you know, citing sources, presenting facts, just generally making your ilk look as stupid as you act.hahahahahahahahalolololol touched by love lololololhahahahaha
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#971797 Aug 28, 2013
WOW wrote:
<quoted text>Negroes why the jim crow term negro slipping back in tyme
right wing racists are the reason.

too bad it's backfiring.
Anthony W

New York, NY

#971798 Aug 28, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>O'bama will pretend he is Martin Luther King today--don't worry he will tell the world he is MLK.
Oh COME ON NOW!!! Just because he'll have his face plastered next to King up on the podium in all the rewritten history books doesn't mean he says he IS MLK.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#971799 Aug 28, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to the issue and current events....
The war in Syria is between the pro-Iranian Assad government (Shi'ite) and an invading Al Qaeda jihad (Suni).
The winner of that war will have chemical weapons facilities and stores.
Who here wants Al Qaeda to have chemical weapons to use in their terrorist attacks here?
Russia will give Assad the most modern anti-ship missile systems they have. These systems are just as good as ours. It is a certainty US ships will be hit by these missiles. It is a certainty US sailors will be killed. It is likely US ships will be sunk. It is certain the aircraft carrier will be the most significant target, and these missiles are capable of sinking it.
Who here wants perhaps thousands of US sailors killed just so Obama can help Al Qaeda acquire chemical weapons?
If we have to become involved, we should kill the existing enemy of the United States. We should help Assad kill the invading Al Qaeda Suni jihad army.
Otherwise, there should be no US involvement.
sorry, not playing your game today. the uber-troll thing is wearing thin.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#971800 Aug 28, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Why Republicans Are Starting to Love Health Reform
Turns out a lot of Republicans love Obamacare. Or at least, they like coverage for their kids, health-care rebates and a ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions.
In the old days, they used to say that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. When it comes to health insurance, it seems a liberal is a conservative who has been mugged by an illness.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08...
sorry i had to post it again.
wait. why again? oh yeah, ilk and their stupidity.
So, why are they trying to exempt themselves from ObamaKare?
What Congressman went to Congress without existing health insurance?

Why does every Democrat in Congress hate ObamaKare?
Anthony W

New York, NY

#971801 Aug 28, 2013
If Obama had a War, it would look just like Syria.

Well actually, Syria is Obama’s Third Iraq, but who's counting? wink, wink--the MS media? wink, wink.

President Obama has made his entire career off of not being George W. Bush.

During his shockingly fast political rise, he differentiated himself by claiming that he had stood alone against the warmongers who wanted to depose Saddam Hussein (never mind that he wasn't in Congress at the time).

During the 2008 campaign, he claimed that he wouldn't be the kind of president who would enter America into open-ended conflicts without true American interests at stake. Iraq, he said, was the bad war; Afghanistan was the good war.

Well, so much for that. First there was Iraq-Libya, then Iraq-Egypt and now in Iraq-Syria, President Obama has decided to double-down in his support of the al-Qaida-led opposition to the Bashar Assad regime. Never mind that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Assad a "reformer." Never mind that Russia and China oppose action against Assad, and that the Obama administration had announced a new era of international cooperation with both countries.
"Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should heed U.S. warnings to neither use nor move chemical or biological weapons, lest he risk crossing a 'red line' and provoke a U.S. military response," Obama said.

And so now America will likely embark on another episode of swashbuckling Democrat-led interventionism in a part of the world in which America has no friends. At least President Bush went to Congress for authorization to use force in Iraq.

President Obama's imperialistic ambitions match his imperial attitude toward the executive office:
He needs no Congressional approval, and so he will seek no Congressional approval.
In Libya, Obama never bothered to ask Congress to sign off on a no-fly zone; instead, he simply put the military in place, then ignored Congressional deadlines for a cut-off.
In Egypt, Obama has avoided declaring the current Egyptian military coup a coup -- and yet Obama is apparently ready to cut off aid regardless, meaning that he wants to avoid any sort of Congressional control over his decision-making.

Now, in Syria, Obama is readying the missiles, despite the fact that just 9 percent of Americans want America to intervene in Syria.

Why you ask? Because for Obama, personal pride is at stake.

Obama once accused George W. Bush of a petty obsession with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
But at least America had interests in Iraq ranging from preventing terrorism to quashing threats to American oil flow. America has no such interests in Syria.

President Obama is intervening in Syria for one reason: He wants to. He wants to because he set down a "red line" on the use of chemical weapons in Syria; he wants to because he is sick of being seen as a lead-from-behind world ninny; he wants to because he believes that his personal influence trumps the Islamism of the enemies we now fund and arm.

Most of all, President Obama wants to intervene in Syria because we have no interests in Syria.

This has become a running theme with Democrat-led wars. American interests in Yugoslavia were non-existent. American interests in Somalia were non-existent.

For Democrats, the virtuous war is the war in which America has nothing to gain -- except, of course, glory for the occupant of the White House.

President Bush could rightly be accused of wanting to remake the Middle East in the American image.

President Obama wants to make the Middle East over in his own image, unblemished by considerations about America. A new world. A world without American hegemony. And he'll use American force to do it.

And the MS media will still be asking the easy questions and getting tingles up and down their legs. Now, if this WAS Bush, that would be a horse of a different color (pun intended).

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
Why do some cover for obumbler? 5 min HolderjakdMyCock 1
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 7 min auntiesemite 70,992
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 9 min Rogue Scholar 05 181,743
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 17 min Mister Tonka 98,833
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 48 min Yumpin Yimminy 68,878
It's the Gangs and Not the Police as Chicago's ... 54 min Culture Auditor 1
Abby 12-18 1 hr pde 4
Deat Abby 12-16 1 hr Mister Tonka 70
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:02 pm PST

NBC Sports12:02PM
Marc Trestman thinks Jay Cutler can benefit from benching
ESPN12:14 PM
Bears seek 'spark', bench Cutler for Clausen
NBC Sports12:20 PM
Cutler says he was "shocked" and "disappointed" to lose job
NFL12:26 PM
Trestman on Cutler benching: I think we need a spark
Yahoo! Sports12:48 PM
Jay Cutler wants to stay in Chicago, but will the Bears keep him?