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

Manchester, KY

#975692 Sep 4, 2013
Unreal.

Since: Nov 11

United States

#975693 Sep 4, 2013
A child is a child in China, USA, Syria but not in the womb!!!

See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites!!!
Whatever

Gering, NE

#975694 Sep 4, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Apparently not happy it doesn't go far enough.
Sad but true: McCain never met a War he didn't like

Since: Nov 11

United States

#975695 Sep 4, 2013
Whatever wrote:
Obama on Syria: "My credibility is not on the line; the international community's credibility is on the line"
Yes, sure! And he is not a crook!

Since: Nov 11

United States

#975696 Sep 4, 2013
WOW wrote:
BUSH IS STILL IN OFFICE Syria: Another Illegal War of Aggression based on Manipulation and Fake IntelligenceThere]“is a memo [at the Pentagon] that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (1997-2000),(March 2, 2007)

“The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources and some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.”

Colin L. Powell, George W. Bush’s Secretary of State, remarks to the United Nations Security Council (on February 5, 2003)

“We don’t know what the chain of custody is. This could’ve been an Israeli false flag operation, it could’ve been an opposition in Syria… or it could’ve been an actual use by [the government of] Bashar al Assad. But we certainly don’t know with the evidence we’ve been given. And what I’m hearing from the intelligence community is that that evidence is really flaky.”

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s former chief of staff,“Israel may be behind Syrian chemical weapons use”, Jerusalem Post, May 4, 2013,(about reports of chemical weapons used in Syria)

“Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them.”

Mark Twain (1835-1910), American author and satirist

“Lying and war are always associated. Listen closely when you hear a war-maker try to defend his current war: If he moves his lips he’s lying.”

Philip Berrigan (1923-2002), American peace activist and former Roman Catholic priest

Chemical Weapons: Background

The Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad has categorically denied that it launched a poison chemical attack on August 21, 2013, against its own civilian population. Rather, it has pointed to Syrian rebels who are alleged to have recently carried out three such chemical weapon attacks against Syrian soldiers in the same area of the country.

Simple logic would also seem to be on the side of the Syrian government. Indeed, it would have been most idiotic for the Assad regime to launch a chemical attack against its own civilian people, especially a few days after the arrival of a U.N. chemical weapons inspection team (led by Ake Sellstrom with a 14-day mandate), on August 18, and knowing full well that this would most likely bring forth a foreign military intervention.

On the other hand, if there ever was a perfect timing for such a crime, it was for the rebels. Indeed, over the last few months, the Syrian rebels have been pushed back by the Syrian army, and such an horrific and immoral act makes a lot of sense, since it could be enough to provoke the hesitant Obama administration to come to their rescue. It is well known that the first question in a crime investigation is ‘who benefits most from the crime’? In this case, the answer is unequivocal, and it is the rebels in Syria and the countries that back and arm them.
See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites!

Since: Nov 11

United States

#975697 Sep 4, 2013
M Stein wrote:
Those who opposed the war in Iraq, like Obama and John Kerry, are suddenly for a war in Syria, even though the circumstances of the two wars don’t look very much different. Those who had to fight the war in Iraq are decidedly less optimistic about the prospects of a war in Syria than they were in Iraq.
This is a war that Obama could very much avoid. And yet he pursues it in the face of opposition that he himself created.

Jimmy Carter on the other hand would’ve rather looked weak than start a war he didn’t believe in.

But Obama pursues war, using arguments that he himself decried:

“Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” said Obama, echoing George W. Bush’s arguments for invading Iraq.

“What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?”

This is true with the economy as well.

No one is really very happy with the performance of this economy. Yet this economy is largely the handiwork of Obama and his progressive friends.

Peoples’ unhappiness stem from the fact that the recovery, so-called, is not a broad-based recovery.

People at the top have disproportionately shared in the benefits of any recovery, thus far, compared to people at the bottom.

Obama was elected using the rhetoric that accused the government of purposefully leaving some people behind. And today’s discontent stems from people feeling the government under Obama is purposefully leaving some people behind.

Again Obama seems confused by the opposition to his policies.

It’s almost as if Obama is conducting a liberal parody of trickle down economics.

In all it’s leading to people having less confidence in government than they have at any time since I’ve been alive.

We don’t believe our leaders anymore, nor should we.

Liberal Boomers who are now largely in charge of our government are “me first,” pettifogging, hedonists, whose worship of self is so strong that they truly believe self-interest is national interest; that self-interest is the only interest.

Our only response can be: Don’t trust them, don’t believe them, don’t reelect them, don’t read their newspapers, don’t watch their television shows.

And that is how liberals today are different than during the unhappy presidency of Jimmy Carter: Today, liberal idols and ideals are one and the same.

If only this had all happened in 2012, because then a real president might have been elected. You know, the guy who warned about the Russians and Obama and the liberal media made fun of.
See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites!!!

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#975698 Sep 4, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
Hannity's a fckn whiner.
Pretty sure the criticism from people like Hannity and Rand Paul is that Obama made it clear he will do what he wants to do with or without Congress' approval.

Therefore, it's a sham.

If only Obama had been a leader and knew he has to get both sides behind him as much as possible rather than totally alienating his opposition - and if he had been honest with the American people rather than stonewalling the Benghazi and IRS investigations, he wouldn't be in this pickle.

He demonizes republicans at every opportunity, blames them for everything, lies to us to cover his butt, and then expects everyone to jump behind him when he gets himself into a foreign policy pickle because he has no clue what he's doing.

That's how I see it anyway.

Since: May 11

Gettysburg, PA

#975699 Sep 4, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Just where did I even come close to saying anything about that? Seriously dude if you are going to post on here you need to come to grips with your reading comprehension. There is a treaty calling for member nations not to use chemical weapons. Syria has not signed the treaty.
When you said this: "Obama on TV lying through his teeth about how he didn't draw a red line the world did. "

Geneva Convention, UN banned the use of chemical weapons. Not just in the nations that signed but all nations.

These bodies drew that red line.

Syria ratified the Geneva Protocol in 1968.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#975700 Sep 4, 2013
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
I've listened to Assad being interviewed a few times; he's a very intelligent man. His father before him killed thousands of muslim brotherhoods around 1980 or so, flattened the whole town of Homs.
Most of the moderate Arab nations did similar things to the fanatics; hence the birth of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
I say, let Assad kill them all and let Russian help them. Hope we stay out of it, but it doesn't look likely.
agree

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#975701 Sep 4, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets look at your claims here.
1) So, lets not have a clerk but instead lets pay someone to watch every checkout on a recording.
2) A well placed hat or an experienced crook would avoid the camera making his appearance on video basically worthless.
3) The bar code of an item is scanned but there is nothing to say that scanned item is the one put into the bag other than weight. Any item with the same weight could be placed in the bag instead of that scanned item.
4) If stolen credit cards are worthless, why are they stolen?
5) I would scan the old Milwaukee & leave it while taking the good stuff.
6) Analyzing a system for weaknesses is just using common sense. If I ran a store, I would think it is imperative to have that mindset.
I don't even now how to respond to this post it is so stupid except for the last sentence..
WOW

Bronx, NY

#975702 Sep 4, 2013
President George W. Bush misled the world on Iraqs WMD, but Bushs bogus case for war at least had details that could be checked, unlike what the Obama administration released August 29 on Syrias alleged chemical attacks no direct quotes, no photographic evidence, no named sources, nothing but trust us, points out Robert Parry, intrepid Washington journalist.
So, in light of all of the above, the path for Mr. Obama to take as a rational, humane being is of course clear. Is it not? Nest-ce pas? Nicht wahr? Bombs Away!
Whatever

Gering, NE

#975703 Sep 4, 2013
Fun fact: We're only 9 months into the president's second term
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#975704 Sep 4, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Who knew all you libtards were experts on shoplifting!! Explains a lot about your mindset. They have these things called cameras and spotters. The bar code is scanned by the machine. Most banks/credit card companies have policies on stolen cards. Do you listen to your self? You are going to carry a case of Old Milwaukee and a case of good stuff to the register then leave the Old Milwaukee behind. Don't you think the cameras and the spotter are not going to see that? By the way the newer scanners will know you have both cases.
Dumbass Dave has the mind and ethics of a criminal.

Since: May 11

Gettysburg, PA

#975705 Sep 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
...teenie girl squealing with Obamalove...
Just mocking you right whiners.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#975706 Sep 4, 2013
M Stein wrote:
Those who opposed the war in Iraq, like Obama and John Kerry, are suddenly for a war in Syria, even though the circumstances of the two wars dont look very much different. Those who had to fight the war in Iraq are decidedly less optimistic about the prospects of a war in Syria than they were in Iraq.
This is a war that Obama could very much avoid. And yet he pursues it in the face of opposition that he himself created.
Jimmy Carter on the other hand wouldve rather looked weak than start a war he didnt believe in.
But Obama pursues war, using arguments that he himself decried:
Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? said Obama, echoing George W. Bushs arguments for invading Iraq.
What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?
This is true with the economy as well.
No one is really very happy with the performance of this economy. Yet this economy is largely the handiwork of Obama and his progressive friends.
Peoples unhappiness stem from the fact that the recovery, so-called, is not a broad-based recovery.
People at the top have disproportionately shared in the benefits of any recovery, thus far, compared to people at the bottom.
Obama was elected using the rhetoric that accused the government of purposefully leaving some people behind. And todays discontent stems from people feeling the government under Obama is purposefully leaving some people behind.
Again Obama seems confused by the opposition to his policies.
Its almost as if Obama is conducting a liberal parody of trickle down economics.
In all its leading to people having less confidence in government than they have at any time since Ive been alive.
We dont believe our leaders anymore, nor should we.
Liberal Boomers who are now largely in charge of our government are me first, pettifogging, hedonists, whose worship of self is so strong that they truly believe self-interest is national interest; that self-interest is the only interest.
Our only response can be: Dont trust them, dont believe them, dont reelect them, dont read their newspapers, dont watch their television shows.
And that is how liberals today are different than during the unhappy presidency of Jimmy Carter: Today, liberal idols and ideals are one and the same.
If only this had all happened in 2012, because then a real president might have been elected. You know, the guy who warned about the Russians and Obama and the liberal media made fun of.
Excellent post - every word is true.

Since: Nov 11

United States

#975707 Sep 4, 2013
M Stein wrote:
Those who opposed the war in Iraq, like Obama and John Kerry, are suddenly for a war in Syria, even though the circumstances of the two wars don’t look very much different. Those who had to fight the war in Iraq are decidedly less optimistic about the prospects of a war in Syria than they were in Iraq.
This is a war that Obama could very much avoid. And yet he pursues it in the face of opposition that he himself created.

Jimmy Carter on the other hand would’ve rather looked weak than start a war he didn’t believe in.

But Obama pursues war, using arguments that he himself decried:

“Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” said Obama, echoing George W. Bush’s arguments for invading Iraq.

“What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?”

This is true with the economy as well.

No one is really very happy with the performance of this economy. Yet this economy is largely the handiwork of Obama and his progressive friends.

Peoples’ unhappiness stem from the fact that the recovery, so-called, is not a broad-based recovery.

People at the top have disproportionately shared in the benefits of any recovery, thus far, compared to people at the bottom.

Obama was elected using the rhetoric that accused the government of purposefully leaving some people behind. And today’s discontent stems from people feeling the government under Obama is purposefully leaving some people behind.

Again Obama seems confused by the opposition to his policies.

It’s almost as if Obama is conducting a liberal parody of trickle down economics.

In all it’s leading to people having less confidence in government than they have at any time since I’ve been alive.

We don’t believe our leaders anymore, nor should we.

Liberal Boomers who are now largely in charge of our government are “me first,” pettifogging, hedonists, whose worship of self is so strong that they truly believe self-interest is national interest; that self-interest is the only interest.

Our only response can be: Don’t trust them, don’t believe them, don’t reelect them, don’t read their newspapers, don’t watch their television shows.

And that is how liberals today are different than during the unhappy presidency of Jimmy Carter: Today, liberal idols and ideals are one and the same.

If only this had all happened in 2012, because then a real president might have been elected. You know, the guy who warned about the Russians and Obama and the liberal media made fun of.
See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites.
WOW

Bronx, NY

#975708 Sep 4, 2013
Secretary of State John Kerry said that if the United States did not respond to the use of chemical weapons the country would become an international laughingstock. Yes, thats really what America and its people have to worry about not that their country is viewed as a lawless, mass-murdering repeat offender. Other American officials have expressed concern that a lack of a US response might incite threats from Iran and North Korea. 10

Now that is indeed something to laugh at. Its comforting to think that the world might be finally losing the stars in their eyes about US foreign policy partly because of countless ridiculous remarks such as these.

United States bombings, which can be just as indiscriminate and cruel as poison gas.(A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesnt have an air force.)
The glorious bombing list of our glorious country, which our glorious schools dont teach, our glorious media dont remember, and our glorious leaders glorify.

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular no-fly-zone basis)
Iraq 2003-2011 (Second Gulf War)
Afghanistan 2001 to present
Pakistan 2007 to present
Somalia 2007-8, 2011 to present
Yemen 2009, 2011 to present
Libya 2011
Syria 2013?


The above list doesnt include the repeated use by the United States of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, and other charming inventions of the Pentagon mad scientists; also not included: chemical and biological weapons abroad, chemical and biological weapons in the United States (sic), and encouraging the use of chemical and biological weapons by other nations; all these lists can be found in William Blums book Rogue State: A Guide to the Worlds Only Superpower
WOW

Bronx, NY

#975709 Sep 4, 2013
A story just released by Foreign Policy magazine, based on newly-discovered classified documents, reports how, in 1988, the last year of the 8-year Iraq-Iran War, Americas military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks by Iraq far more devastating than anything Syria has seen. 11 Indeed, during that war the United States was the primary supplier to Iraq of the chemicals and hardware necessary to provide the Saddam Hussein regime with a chemical-warfare capability. 12

Now, apparently, the United States has discovered how horrible chemical warfare is, even if only of the alleged variety.

Humanitarian intervention
Some of those currently advocating bombing Syria turn for justification to their old faithful friend humanitarian intervention, one of the earliest examples of which was the 1999 US and NATO bombing campaign to stop ethnic cleansing and drive Serbian forces from Kosovo. However, a collective amnesia appears to have afflicted countless intelligent, well-meaning people, who are convinced that the US/NATO bombing took place after the mass forced deportation of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo was well underway; which is to say that the bombing was launched to stop this ethnic cleansing. In actuality, the systematic forced deportations of large numbers of people from Kosovo did not begin until a few days after the bombing began, and was clearly a Serbian reaction to it, born of extreme anger and powerlessness. This is easily verified by looking at a daily newspaper for the few days before the bombing began the night of March 23/24, and the few days after. Or simply look at the New York Times of March 26, page 1, which reads:

with the NATO bombing already begun, a deepening sense of fear took hold in Pristina [the main city of Kosovo] that the Serbs would NOW vent their rage against ethnic Albanian civilians in retaliation.

On March 27, we find the first reference to a forced march or anything of that sort.

But the propaganda version is already set in marble.

If you see something, say something. Unless its US war crimes.
When you sign a security clearance and swear oaths, you actually have to abide by that. It is not optional. Steven Bucci, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, speaking of Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley) 13

Really? No matter what an individual with security clearance is asked to do? No matter what he sees and knows of, he still has to ignore his conscience and follow orders? But Steven, my lad, you must know that following World War II many Germans of course used following orders as an excuse. The victorious Allies of course executed many of them.

Their death sentences were laid down by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany, which declared that Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.

Nuremberg Principle IV moreover states:The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
TheIndependentMa jority

Manchester, KY

#975710 Sep 4, 2013
flack wrote:
John McCain backs out of his support for 'use of force'.
He (and everyone else) should THINK about it all first.

The 1:37 marker kind of puts anyone in mind of teh current sitution (special appearance by ValerieJarret follows shortly thereafter...)

http://www.bing.com/videos/search...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#975711 Sep 4, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
I, too, read it was some sort of virus but they hadn't done enough research on all of them yet to know if this was the reason for all of the beachings. It was last week when I read it, so I'm sure your information is updated.
However, dropping chemicals and nuclear waste in the ocean is more than sad. In my opinion, it's a crime against nature.
The civilized world has become so consumer-oriented with such a false sense of superiority over our environment that we will kill ourselves in the long run. It's my belief nature is trying to tell us that.
A measure of scale is needed. Not that I don't agree with you. Remember the gulf oil spill? Well the amount of oil spilled is equal to one drop of oil in a bath tub full of water. Just like this fire out west. For the most part they should just let it burn. It has burned before and it will burn again. If people must build in those places they must build in protections or insurance. If neither and something happens then they are on their own. No government handouts. Same with flood plains.

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
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 16 min IBdaMann 51,386
want 36 min piyush91 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 45 min wojar 184,799
Dear Abby 2-26-15 54 min Kuuipo 8
wishes 3 hr iyya 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr Not Yet Equal 51,332
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr David Morrison 99,159
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:18 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:18AM
Best Options to Replace Briggs This Offseason
Bleacher Report 8:12 AM
Buzz: Colts Eyeing Trades for Veteran WRs Including Marshall
Bleacher Report 1:14 PM
Could Bears Ever Get Fair Trade Value for Forte?
Bleacher Report 1:40 PM
Wayne Undergoes Surgery on Triceps
NFL 2:44 PM
Reggie Wayne had surgery, mulling Colts future