Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1497849 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.

PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1021743 Nov 11, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please stop. Because what you're implying is it's okay to be tolerant of homosexuals but not Christians.
Please tell me that's not what you're implying.
You can't tolerate Christians without accepting Christianity?
Well Carol, at least John Galt is honest about who he is, an Ayn Randian, self centered sociopath who doesn't care about anyone but himself. You're pretty much the same but try to hide it under a paper thin veneer of Christianity, totally ignoring the fact that the crux of the Gospels is about social justice.
Bill Maher recently had a message for hypocrites like you;
And finally New Rule, it's okay if you don't want to feed the hungry, or heal the sick, or house the homeless. Just don't say you're doing it for their own good. Don't say you'd like to help people, but your hands are tied, because if you did it would cause the culture of dependency, or go against the Bible, or worst of all, rob them of their freedom.... to be sick and hungry.
Just admit you're selfish and based on how little your beliefs mirror the actual teachings of Jesus, you might as well claim to worship Despicable Me.[…]
Now, I am sure there are millions of Christians who try to actually follow Jesus, but you've got to admit, conservatives always seem to have a reason why they would love to give but they just can't. We would love to help the unemployed, but it would discourage working. I believe in charity, just not for people who need it. Of course we'd like it if everyone could see a doctor. We're not monsters, but if the government does it, it will destroy our way of life. Plus the web site is glitchy which leads to Stalinism.
Oh sure, we'd like to help people who are starving, but what if they used the strength from not starving, to take drugs? Yes, there's always a good, moral, Christian reason to tell everyone you meet to f**k off and die.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021744 Nov 11, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
There are gays among Conservatives, Atheist, women, minorities, blacks, etc.
We embrace everyone because we are they ONLY tolerant people on Earth! We are too nice actually!
Democrats hate, Conservatives love!
Why we have so many different people in the Republican party?
Because we ALLOW you to think and teach your own conclusions! We respect individuals rights! We love freedom!
To join the Democrat party you have to accept all their socio-communis-Islamic beliefs else they will destroy you!
To join the Republican party all you need us only three things: Love freedom, want a small government and embrace personal responsibility!
That's all!
Democrats are hateful monsters that hate Christians but love Muslims!
Why?
Because Muslims believe in controlling people against their will.
Well said.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021745 Nov 11, 2013
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good morning. Yeah. I skipped over 1,200 posts. I can't imagine that I missed anything. Rethugs still seem to be stuck on stupid.
But, but, but..."Bush isn't president anymore". Don't you get sick of hearing that excuse? Rush Limpball said the promise that "you can keep your plan" is "the biggest lie ever told by a sitting president." Worse than lying about WMD's?? Worse than Reagan's Iran-Contra affair? Nixon's Watergate scandal? What an idiot.
I do believe that Obama mislead the public about the ACA but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of the lies told by Republican presidents. Besides, if your policy was grandfathered and you liked it...you could keep it. It was a half-truth. He certainly could have added "unless your insurer makes changes to your plan."
Certainly the Department of Health and Human Services ALWAYS said that policy holders would have to "transition" to "ACA-compliant" plans. That was disclosed from the very beginning. There was no subterfuge about the fact of change. IMO, it won't be an issue come election time IF the webpage is fixed and millions of people are able to benefit from the ACA. Change is always difficult.
"There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction" --Winston Churchill The ACA is headed in the right direction.
"It's Bush's fault."
Don't you get sick of hearing that?
"Bush did it, too."
Don't you get sick of hearing that?

The ACA has nothing, nada, zero, zilch to do with health care. There is not one word in the ACA that applies to the application of health care. The only focus of the ACA is health insurance. And, any idiot can tell you that just because you have health insurance doesn't mean you get health care. As the ACA specifically states throughout, "the Secretary will determine" ... everything.
You do remember when you feel into that trap and took the lure and posted the actual text of the ACA that proves it is nothing more than a medieval Machiavellian instrument for the government to establish a totalitarian subjective control over the American people, don't you?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021746 Nov 11, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, when there is a Republican landslide win Democrats are quite about it, Reagan, 2010 midterms, etc. No mention of "the End of Liberalism", "The End of the Democrat party".
But when a few Democrats marginally win over a Republican then "it is the death of the Republican party"!
See? Democrats are brain dead hypocrites.
Democrats are attempting to institute a one-party totalitarian government without any opposing entities. All that propaganda about Republicans being on their death bed is nothing more than an attempt to fix the mindset of people who will mindlessly bow to the perceived victor, and not give any attention to what they are being programmed to believe something that won't exist in the future.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021747 Nov 11, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Carol, at least John Galt is honest about who he is, an Ayn Randian, self centered sociopath who doesn't care about anyone but himself. You're pretty much the same but try to hide it under a paper thin veneer of Christianity, totally ignoring the fact that the crux of the Gospels is about social justice.
Bill Maher recently had a message for hypocrites like you;
And finally New Rule, it's okay if you don't want to feed the hungry, or heal the sick, or house the homeless. Just don't say you're doing it for their own good. Don't say you'd like to help people, but your hands are tied, because if you did it would cause the culture of dependency, or go against the Bible, or worst of all, rob them of their freedom.... to be sick and hungry.
Just admit you're selfish and based on how little your beliefs mirror the actual teachings of Jesus, you might as well claim to worship Despicable Me.[…]
Now, I am sure there are millions of Christians who try to actually follow Jesus, but you've got to admit, conservatives always seem to have a reason why they would love to give but they just can't. We would love to help the unemployed, but it would discourage working. I believe in charity, just not for people who need it. Of course we'd like it if everyone could see a doctor. We're not monsters, but if the government does it, it will destroy our way of life. Plus the web site is glitchy which leads to Stalinism.
Oh sure, we'd like to help people who are starving, but what if they used the strength from not starving, to take drugs? Yes, there's always a good, moral, Christian reason to tell everyone you meet to f**k off and die.
I suppose your indocrtrinated propaganda never educated you on the base principle of Ayn Rand's idealistic plots. The more people who achieve individual success, the better it is for EVERYONE else. Otherwise, we'll be subjected to the same poverty-stricken living conditions that were evident in every communist country that ever existed in history.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021748 Nov 11, 2013
The USS Gerald R Ford.
I can think of so many better names for an aircraft carrier in the United States Navy. I cannot imagine what motivated naming a carrier after the first unelected president of the United States who's tenure was most noted by the unilateral world-wide retreat of the United States during the Cold War, which continued until Ronald Reagan became president.

A ship in the US Navy has a name assigned very early in its program. I can guarantee the original name for that aircraft carrier wasn't the Gerald R Ford.
Now, just why would this administration change the name to that of what every Democrat called the most inept president in US history?

Hillary Clinton commissioned it. Can you imagine Hillary commissioning the USS Ronald Reagan? Just because of the name, she'd never do it. That's how much she actually respects the Armed Forces... if her complicity in the murder of a US ambassador and 3 other Americans in Benghazi wasn't enough to convince you of that.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021749 Nov 11, 2013
After 50 years of hooting and guffawing at even the notion of a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, in the past week the media initiated the broadcast of several "documentaries" produced by different people aired on multiple channels, even in overlapping time slots, promoting the idea of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
I don't know what this means, but after 50 years of the television networks laughing in concert out loud at conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination, the networks are now flooding the airwaves with "documentary" shows about conspiracies to kill Kennedy. There's so many Kennedy assassination conspiracy shows being made by these same networks that laughed at them before, you have multiple choices of which conspiracy "documentary" you want to watch at the same time.

Can someone explain why the networks would outright laugh at the notion of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy for 50 years, then bombard the cable channels with multiple "documentaries" promoting the idea that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy and cover it up?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021750 Nov 11, 2013
I have always agreed with Congress when they overwhelmingly rejected the findings of the Warren Commission when it was first presented to them.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021751 Nov 11, 2013
This very intereting.
The Russan GRU sent an urgent memo to the Russian Foeign Ministry waning of an imminent dramatic chang in the government of the United States about a month ago.
Last week, after 50 years of castigating the notion of a conspiracy in the Kennedy asassination, the media last week began bombarding the cable channels with multiple "documentaries" promoting the notion of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, then cover it up.
I wonder if hese two events in history are related.
Obviously, with the simultaneous broadcast of multiple conspiracy documentaries on multiple channels, diametrically opposed to the idea they have been promoting for 50 years, there has to be some kind of a plan.
I wonder what reason there is for the propaganda arm of the Democrats to begin promoting the notion of a conspiracy to kil Kennedy and a subsquent government coverup.
THANKS VETERANS

Louisburg, NC

#1021752 Nov 11, 2013


Senators vote U.N. Control of America --TREASON!!!!

I want to thank all the veterans that have Fought
for my Freedom!

Only Two Defining Forces Have Ever Died For You : Jesus The Christ Who Died For Your Soul And The Revolutionary Soldier Who Died For Your Freedom. After The Revolutionary War, Our Soldiers, Have Been Peddled By The Rothschild Banks!

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/10/24/only-...
LCNLin

United States

#1021753 Nov 11, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, Eed, You know that you are the one actually on a government program. Right?
The Insurance companies pay the providers you stupid sh*t.
My God, are all you right whiners as dumb as Mr Eed?
Republicans seem entitled to winning elections which galt vs carol posts explain?
LCNLin

United States

#1021754 Nov 11, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
The USS Gerald R Ford.
I can think of so many better names for an aircraft carrier in the United States Navy. I cannot imagine what motivated naming a carrier after the first unelected president of the United States who's tenure was most noted by the unilateral world-wide retreat of the United States during the Cold War, which continued until Ronald Reagan became president.
A ship in the US Navy has a name assigned very early in its program. I can guarantee the original name for that aircraft carrier wasn't the Gerald R Ford.
Now, just why would this administration change the name to that of what every Democrat called the most inept president in US history?
Hillary Clinton commissioned it. Can you imagine Hillary commissioning the USS Ronald Reagan? Just because of the name, she'd never do it. That's how much she actually respects the Armed Forces... if her complicity in the murder of a US ambassador and 3 other Americans in Benghazi wasn't enough to convince you of that.
so you have a GED education in History?
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1021755 Nov 11, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Carol, at least John Galt is honest about who he is, an Ayn Randian, self centered sociopath who doesn't care about anyone but himself. You're pretty much the same but try to hide it under a paper thin veneer of Christianity, totally ignoring the fact that the crux of the Gospels is about social justice.
Bill Maher recently had a message for hypocrites like you;
And finally New Rule, it's okay if you don't want to feed the hungry, or heal the sick, or house the homeless. Just don't say you're doing it for their own good. Don't say you'd like to help people, but your hands are tied, because if you did it would cause the culture of dependency, or go against the Bible, or worst of all, rob them of their freedom.... to be sick and hungry.
Just admit you're selfish and based on how little your beliefs mirror the actual teachings of Jesus, you might as well claim to worship Despicable Me.[…]
Now, I am sure there are millions of Christians who try to actually follow Jesus, but you've got to admit, conservatives always seem to have a reason why they would love to give but they just can't. We would love to help the unemployed, but it would discourage working. I believe in charity, just not for people who need it. Of course we'd like it if everyone could see a doctor. We're not monsters, but if the government does it, it will destroy our way of life. Plus the web site is glitchy which leads to Stalinism.
Oh sure, we'd like to help people who are starving, but what if they used the strength from not starving, to take drugs? Yes, there's always a good, moral, Christian reason to tell everyone you meet to f**k off and die.
Bravo!!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021756 Nov 11, 2013
THANKS VETERANS wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =xmmp24ze-ZsXX
Senators vote U.N. Control of America --TREASON!!!!
I want to thank all the veterans that have Fought
for my Freedom!
Only Two Defining Forces Have Ever Died For You : Jesus The Christ Who Died For Your Soul And The Revolutionary Soldier Who Died For Your Freedom. After The Revolutionary War, Our Soldiers, Have Been Peddled By The Rothschild Banks!
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/10/24/only-...
The United States of America is government by the Constitution. Period. End of statement. End of discussion.
For that to change, the constitutional republic of the United States has to be eliminated.
Period. End of statement. End of discussion.
Any further discussion on this matter will be with guns.
LCNLin

United States

#1021757 Nov 11, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Bravo!!
Anne Rand was on Medicare would have signed up for the ACA
LCNLin

United States

#1021758 Nov 11, 2013
Lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
We must be grateful,, they will make it easy for Hillary to become the next President.
Possibly,

Enjoying the Republican circular firing squad

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021759 Nov 11, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
so you have a GED education in History?
Perhaps you can use your indepth knowledge of history to clarify the points in the post. Here is the post again in case you decide to put some content into your post:

The USS Gerald R Ford.
I can think of so many better names for an aircraft carrier in the United States Navy. I cannot imagine what motivated naming a carrier after the first unelected president of the United States who's tenure was most noted by the unilateral world-wide retreat of the United States during the Cold War, which continued until Ronald Reagan became president.
A ship in the US Navy has a name assigned very early in its program. I can guarantee the original name for that aircraft carrier wasn't the Gerald R Ford.
Now, just why would this administration change the name to that of what every Democrat called the most inept president in US history?
Hillary Clinton commissioned it. Can you imagine Hillary commissioning the USS Ronald Reagan? Just because of the name, she'd never do it. That's how much she actually respects the Armed Forces... if her complicity in the murder of a US ambassador and 3 other Americans in Benghazi wasn't enough to convince you of that.
LCNLin

United States

#1021760 Nov 11, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The United States of America is government by the Constitution. Period. End of statement. End of discussion.
For that to change, the constitutional republic of the United States has to be eliminated.
Period. End of statement. End of discussion.
Any further discussion on this matter will be with guns.
..and the Court decisions interpreting the Constitutio

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1021761 Nov 11, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Bravo!!
It really looks like you want to answer this post:

I suppose your indocrtrinated propaganda never educated you on the base principle of Ayn Rand's idealistic plots. The more people who achieve individual success, the better it is for EVERYONE else. Otherwise, we'll be subjected to the same poverty-stricken living conditions that were evident in every communist country that ever existed in history.
THANKS VETERANS

Louisburg, NC

#1021762 Nov 11, 2013
The United States Marine Corps turns 238 years old today. While the Marine Corps Hymn speaks of Marines fighting “From the Halls of Montezuma, To the shores of Tripoli,” Marines first fought from the rolling decks of American warships, and in amphibious assaults, during the American Revolution, fighting for Independence and Liberty.

“On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress approved the resolution to establish two battalions of Marines able to fight for independence at sea and on shore. This date marks the official formation of the Continental Marines.”– 1st Commandant, Major Samuel Nicholas (1775-1783)

You can read the Continental Congress Resolution here.

Samuel Nicholas was the first “Captain of Marines”commissioned by Congress (and also the first officer to receive a naval commission from the Continental Congress), and promptly established the first Marine recruiting headquarters at Tun Tavern, Philadelphia (obviously Captain Nicholas, like most Marines since, appreciated a good beer!). And he knew that is where he could find good fighting men. In fact, as the Marines.com history page puts it:“one of his first recruits was popular patriot and [Tun] tavern owner Robert Mullan.” Another interesting fact about Captain Nicholas is that, much like “The Fighting Quaker” Smedley Butler (aka “Old Gimlet Eye”), Nicholas also came from a Quaker family in Pennsylvania. So, you could say that Captain Nicholas, the first Marine, was also a “fighting Quaker.”

Samuel_Nicholas

Captain Samuel Nicholas: The First “Fighting Quaker”

Slammin’ Brews and Kickin’ Ass Since 1775

The Marines’ baptism of fire was during the battle of Nassau, when Continental Navy Commodore Esek Hopkins lead a successful Naval and amphibious assault on Nassau, March 3-4, 1776. The official standard flying over Commodore Hopkins Flagship during the battle was the Gadsden flag. Colonel Christopher Gadsden represented South Carolina in the Continental Congress and was one of the seven members of the Marine Committee outfitting that first naval mission, and presented the coiled rattlesnake flag to Commodore Hopkins before he departed for the Bahamas, to serve as distinctive personal standard for his flagship, and was displayed on the mainmast. Gadsden also presented a copy of this flag to the Congress of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. This was recorded in the South Carolina congressional journals on February 9, 1776:

Col. Gadsden presented to the Congress an elegant standard, such as is to be used by the commander in chief of the American Navy; being a yellow field, with a lively representation of a rattlesnake in the middle in the attitude of going to strike and these words underneath,“Don’t tread on me.”

So, Marines, NEVER FORGET that your Marine brothers and ancestors first went into battle with this waving overhead:

Gadsden_flag.svg

The First Marine Battle Flag: Striking Terror Into the Hearts of Tyrants and Wanna-be Tyrants from 1776 to 2013

Gee, we wonder why that is not mentioned on the official Marine Corps history and heritage page at Marines.com . Sadly, the oath-breaking “powers that be” currently controlling the United States government see that flag as a threat to their power and do not want you to know that it is one of our first battle flags, and that Marine blood was spilled beneath it while fighting a desperate Revolution against tyrant King George. And the spinners of lies and deceit at DHS, and at SPLC want modern Americans to forget that history, and to instead think of this flag as a symbol of “hate”,“extremism”, and “racism.” No, it is an American symbol of liberty, and the resolve to be “first to fight for freedom” against domestic enemies of liberty and the Constitution. Marines, never forget your own legacy, heritage, and history, even if the “official” history passed down by the DOD is erasing it.http://oathkeepers.org/oath /2013/11/10/happy-birthday-mar ines-semper-fi-since-1775/

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 BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min Zippohead 237,668
15 Chicago School Principals 2 B Arrested 1 hr Trump is the man 2
News 15th Chicago Flamenco Festival Announces Lineup... 1 hr Trump is the man 1
Johnny Murray a/k/a Johnny's Marine 1 hr Johnny Mac 39
News More And More Chicago Restaurants Are Joining T... 1 hr Trump is the man 1
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Ize Found 71,395
last post wins! (Dec '10) 2 hr honeymylove 3,021

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages