Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1460079 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.

Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978485 Sep 8, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
The source does matter. You see, I cited the primary source and you cited a misleading report from the increasingly unreliable news media. Like I said, you're a victim. Your source doesn't come out and say 2/3 of the 169k new jobs are part time but because of sloppy reporting it sounds like that.
He loves his own version of kool aid!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978486 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Let me throw some smoke in and maybe I-Tenzing- can confuse the issue?
You MISINTERPRETED what the original source said is the issue.
Math is hard
lol! I'm still waiting for those declarations son!!!!!!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978487 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
You make a misogynist comment, but hey the rest of the is irrelevant and retarded.
lol! Speaking of irrelevant and retarded, have you found those declaration of wars yet son?

Just one maybe?

Just to prove you didn't totally lie?

No?

poor baby!
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#978488 Sep 8, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>That should distract the average citizen away from Obama's failures for a few days. The mass media will concentrate their attention on Syria instead of Fast and Furious,NSA spying,ObamaKare,unemployment numbers,immigration,out of control government spending,cost of living,etc. Oh, never mind the mass media has never held Obama to any standard.
Don't forget the birth certificate Frank__and those darned college transcripts.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978489 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction:
You make a misogynist comment, but the rest of the world is irrelevant and retarded.
lol!... still waiting for those declarations son!

Or did you lie?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978490 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem couldn't possibly be that you are reading the stats wrong?
Here is a source that explains them in lay terms
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/six-points-t...
Hellllloooooo! Found those documents yet my boy?

Or are they.... invisible!
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#978491 Sep 8, 2013
Anyone seriously believe that this was not a declaration of war? Or any different than the current mess?

Text of Joint Resolution, August 7, Department of State Bulletin, 24 August 1964, p. 268:

"To promote the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia.

"Whereas naval units of the communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and

"Whereas these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom; and

"Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of Southeast Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in their own way: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.

"Sec. 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.

"Sec. 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress."
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978492 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
I post a list of wars started under a Dem POTUS
This turkey, rather than countering the argument with proof that it was inaccurate or a list of Rep wars...
thinks this a brilliant and logical counter point.
lol! You posted a list you CLAIMED were wars started under dems son.

And nowhere to be found was any PROOF!

I wonder why?

I don't need to counter your opinions son, I'm just asking you prove yours.

Do you have a problem with that?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978493 Sep 8, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>Most liberal women don't either, they use it to their advantage because they can get a free abortion paid for by the tax payers.
You should go to your fatherland son. Seems israel give free abortions.

And since they receive money from the US, it must be US sponsored!!!!

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/H...

A 1977 law ensures a low-cost, and in some cases free, legal abortion to any woman who fills one of four criteria:

She is under 18 or over 40 (cost to those in between: 1,500 shekels [$370]).

She is carrying a fetus with a serious mental or physical defect (free).

She claims that the fetus results from forbidden relations such as rape or incest (free) or, in the case of a married woman, that the baby is not her husband's (not free). Single women also fall under this clause, and they too must pay.

She shows that by continuing the pregnancy, her physical or mental health would be damaged (free).

In 1980, a fifth criterion that allowed abortions for women living in economic hardship was abolished due to pressure from religious political parties.

A woman who seeks to terminate a pregnancy must appear before one of the 41 abortion committees operating in public and private hospitals around the country. These committees include three members — a physician whose field of expertise is obstetrics and gynecology; another physician who is either a family doctor, psychiatrist, internist or gynecologist, and a social worker. At least one woman must be present on each committee.

Six separate committees consider requests for termination when a fetus is beyond 24 weeks old. No hospitals in Jerusalem, however, will perform these abortions.
In 1999, 19,674 applications out of 20,581 were approved (96%) and 18,785 pregnancies were terminated. In addition, 16,000 abortions were illegally performed in private doctors' clinics. In general, about 40,000 abortions are carried out in Israel every year. The Health Ministry approves about half of them, and private doctors perform the rest, without the supervision of the state and at the cost of thousands of shekels.

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#978494 Sep 8, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>Why would the US care about air pollution n China?? Ummmmmm let me think.

This is how GD dumb you are.
.
Why Liberal Obama care abutting fossil oil in Brazil?

Uhmmmm? Goerge Soro's stock portfolio invested in Brazil's oil exploration?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978495 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Confused as usual, I didn't post that comment.
But, rant on....
lol! poor baby. calls others confused yet still can't valid his own claim.

poor baby. poor, poor baby!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978496 Sep 8, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, I know ... I'm as bad as anyone about calling them liars when in fact they're usually just arguing from uninformed positions.
lol! That what they call 'discussing.'

Once they're confronted with the facts, they call you someone who just argues, then run for cover!

It's so funny. It's like watch a 5 year old play hide and seek!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978497 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Another history illiterate.
Look up what party was in power at beginning of WW I and WW II
lol! poor baby....

.... and you still can't support your claims.

(Pssssst! just fyi, I had to give you WWII. Someone else gave you WWI!!!)
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978498 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
You are supporting a moron whose whole argument against Dems were in power during WW I, WW II, Viet Nam etc is no one provided him with the Declarations of War.
Carry on, it is only your credibility that you are challenging.
lol! No son. I made no argument.

It was YOUR argument!!!

I simply asked for paperwork since it SHOULD be there.

And yet, YOU provided nothing other than your opinions so far.

Did you lie son? Did you LIE?!?!?!?!

I love this comedy channel.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978499 Sep 8, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
I think his point is that you don't have a coherent definition of "war" since you confused your own point by including Syria with Korea, Vietnam, etc. If you include a possible Syria then you need to include a whole host of other military actions of which many are owned by Republicans.
The first step is realizing that someone is unclear or uninformed and its not everybody BUT you.
Ta da! He hasn't caught on yet. He just can't get past his politics to see anything clearly!

poor whatevers. just does whatevers!!!!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978500 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
Be real, Yeah's deepest thoughts is limited to choosing Charmin because he bought the the tag line "enjoy the go."
A military action is war. I don't buy the euphemism about it isn't really war/war.
I will leave it to you and Yeah to naval gaze over that one.
lol! and yet, you can't find documents that should have been passed by Congress son.

I wonder why?

I wonder why you can't find something that doesn't exist?

Oh, I know.... you must have LIED!!!!!

I love this comedy channel!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978501 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
The figures provided by the BLS does not divide the net number into exact subsets.
The number of part time employees is figured from the chart provided to you as well as the average hours Americans work in a week and compared to past numbers to get an estimate of how many new jobs are part time.
How about the documentss for wars you claim exist son?

Have you found them?

Can you show them?

Or is the only one who can see them.... YOU?!?!?!?!!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#978502 Sep 8, 2013
Whatever wrote:
<quoted text>
So it is Eed's fault that you misinterpreted BLS numbers is your final save on this?
Right now I can you see it's your fault you lied son.

Unless you found those declarations.......

... have you?
Whatever

Scottsbluff, NE

#978503 Sep 8, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, the BLS provides reports in 25 different measures including the A-9 table which categorizes workers by sector and part time status.
Again, try this:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.ht...
Scroll down to near the bottom of the page for the tables.
Bumping up
Whatever

Scottsbluff, NE

#978504 Sep 8, 2013
John Galt wrote:
Anyone seriously believe that this was not a declaration of war? Or any different than the current mess?
Text of Joint Resolution, August 7, Department of State Bulletin, 24 August 1964, p. 268:
"To promote the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia.
"Whereas naval units of the communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and
"Whereas these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign of aggression that the communist regime in North Vietnam has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom; and
"Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of Southeast Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in their own way: Now, therefore, be it
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
"Sec. 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
"Sec. 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress."
Bumping up

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) 7 min Into The Night 62,353
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 58 min RACE 104,553
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 1 hr ChromiuMan 7,948
Are democrats destroyed? 1 hr FAILED-PLAN-DEMS 12
The Color of Crime in Chicago. 1 hr Called Rahm RED 21
News 700 are dead and Chicago is out of control 1 hr red dawn 2
Blank ATM card available for exchange 4 hr Win Adrian 3

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages