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

Since: Mar 14

Orlando, FL

#1092935 Mar 7, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm guessing that to a bigot like you, the idea of equal rights is not very compelling.
If a bakery owned by a Muslim or an Indian refused to provide services for gay weddings, would you still want to force them to do so?

Answer the question.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1092936 Mar 7, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text> Waxtroll
If you have a foreign passport why not move to Russia to be with your commie friends.
You seem to hate America
I have...to cold in the winter....
dem

United States

#1092937 Mar 7, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>Just pointing out how a federal law already protects the religious freedoms of business owners.

Would you force a bakery to cater a polygamist's wedding? Don't they have the right to marry multiple women if they want to in spite of how anyone else feels?

Answer the question.
And after you deny the rights of the polygamists then you can chase off those blacks too. Right?
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1092938 Mar 7, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
"What a Friend You have in Anne Rand .."
Your PC secular materialism get old
LOL
So you are one of those who votes for stuff as opposed to saving up the money on your own?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1092939 Mar 7, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Just pointing out how a federal law already protects the religious freedoms of business owners.
Would you force a bakery to cater a polygamist's wedding? Don't they have the right to marry multiple women if they want to in spite of how anyone else feels?
Answer the question.
you misunderstood what you read in that law. it in no ways gives anyone the right to supercede US or state law because of their religious cult beliefs.

the law you cited only states that no law shall prevent people from practicing their religion in their house of worship. when in the real world, the real world laws apply.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1092940 Mar 7, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Could you possibly cite any stupider or more ridiculous examples??? It's no wonder you can't comprehend what you read__you're a fn simpleton.
BTW one of the largest catering companies in Central Florida is Jewish owned and will happily serve whatever it's customers order.
Mr Peabody the key word there is kosher. Not Jewish restaurant. Good Grief!!!!!
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1092941 Mar 7, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the US electorate voted him in on the ticket of reforming health care and its astronomical cost increases.
i don't think he did a good job o it with the ACA, but it was the US electorate the asked the gov't to step in on this issue.
so try to keep up, dear.
And if a fwee flux capacitor for every computer was on the ballot the idiots would vote YES...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1092942 Mar 7, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me just ask you. Should a Jewish kosher restaurant be forced to cater food that goes against their religion?
Doesn't matter if you or I don't think kosher food is the only food they should serve. If the restaurant refused to service our tastes, would you sue based on discrimination?
Wouldn't you just find another restaurant?
If a bakery owned by a Muslim or an Indian refused to provide services for gay weddings, would you still want to force them to do so?
Please answer the questions.
that has absolutely nothing fusing service to on religious grounds...

yes, people should not be able to deny service based on discrimination due to sexual orientation. we do not live in the stone age...religion is part of the stone age. it has no place in our laws or rational, modern life. keep it in your tax subsidized church. if you cult freaks keep pushing, that tax subsidy will be taken away, and your churches will fold like the house of cards they are...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1092943 Mar 7, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Entering the US using a forged passport is not illegal?
entering the US illegally by any means is illegal....

and yet Obama is doing nothing about the millions of criminals who have done just that.....

except to give them welfare benefits, drivers licenses, etc....
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#1092944 Mar 7, 2014
Boots and pants and boots and pants.

Hello rightwing morons and normal people.

Quick bite for lunch, what's the latest?
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#1092945 Mar 7, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Just pointing out how a federal law already protects the religious freedoms of business owners.
Would you force a bakery to cater a polygamist's wedding? Don't they have the right to marry multiple women if they want to in spite of how anyone else feels?
Answer the question.
Your analogies get stupider by the second doll.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1092946 Mar 7, 2014
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
And after you deny the rights of the polygamists then you can chase off those blacks too. Right?
What rights are blacks lacking?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1092947 Mar 7, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Corruption with a capital "C".
Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi."
"Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?" asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.
"There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta replied.
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/pres...
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/pres...
Scroll down to III in the "Findings".
(Be careful who you call stupid.)
That doesn't change the fact that Ham and Dempsey testified that it wasn't until the attack on the CIA annex they quickly came to the conclusion that this was more than a civilian uprising...the attackers were too well armed. Now, remember, the attack on the CIA annex came AFTER the initial meeting with the president.

When Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, was asked, "In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?" Ham testified that there was some "peripheral" discussion of this subject, but added "at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr.[Sean] Smith, unaccounted for." Gen. Ham had many meetings with Dempsey and Panetta AFTER the initial meeting with the President.

Your problem is...you listen to FOX. In one of their reports, Fox reported..."Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately -- from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts -- that the incident was a terrorist attack." Now, since the surveillance video was not viewed until September 18th and "eyewitness" accounts weren't taken until after September 12th, these "Senior State Department Officials" could not possibly know "immediately" that this was a terrorist attack.

FACT: You can NEVER rely on FOX for honest reporting.

FACTS: "The Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Analysis Office at CIA wrote an internal email, dated September 16, 2012, that mentioned "protestors that preceded the violence." It wasn't until September 18, 2012, when the FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that they were positive there were no protests prior to the attacks and, according to the Senate hearing, they "changed their assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks."

From the Senate Intelligence Report:

"It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning."

Only an idiot relies on Fox news for their facts.

Since: Mar 14

Orlando, FL

#1092948 Mar 7, 2014
M Stein wrote:
written by Mitt Romney in 2010--before Obama Obozo the Clown made EVEN MORE SERIOUS MISTAKES:
...Hence, to preserve the treaty's restrictions on Russia, America must effectively get Russia's permission for any missile defense expansion.
Moscow's vehemence over our modest plans in Eastern Europe demonstrate that such permission would be extremely unlikely.
The treaty empowers a Bilateral Consultative Commission with broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific reference to missile defense.
New START does something the American public would never countenance and the Senate should never permit: It jeopardizes our missile defense system.
THE TREATY ALSO GIVES FAR MORE TO THE RUSSIANS THAN TO THE UNITED STATES.
As drafted, it lets Russia escape the limit on its number of strategic nuclear warheads. Loopholes and lapses -- presumably carefully crafted by Moscow -- provide a path to entirely avoid the advertised warhead-reduction targets. For example, rail-based ICBMs and launchers are not mentioned. Similarly, multiple nuclear warheads that are mounted on bombers are effectively not counted. Unlike past treaty restrictions, ICBMs are not prohibited from bombers. This means that Russia is free to mount a nearly unlimited number of ICBMs on bombers -- including MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) or multiple warheads -- without tripping the treaty's limits. These omissions would be consistent with Russia's plans for a new heavy bomber and reports of growing interest in rail-mobile ICBMs.
Under New START, the United States must drastically reduce our number of launchers but Russia will not -- it already has fewer launchers than the treaty limits.
Put another way: WE GIVE, RUSSIA GETS.
And more troubling, the treaty fails to apply the MIRV limits that were part of the prior START treaty. Again, it may not be coincidental that Russia is developing a new heavy-load -- meaning MIRV-capable -- ICBM.
NEW-START GIVES RUSSIA A MASSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPON ADVANTAGE OVER THE UNITED STATES.
The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1.
Obama heralds a reduction in strategic weapons from approximately 2,200 to 1,550 but fails to mention that Russia will retain more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that are categorized as tactical because they are mounted on missiles that cannot reach the United States. But surely they can reach our allies, nations that depend on us for a nuclear umbrella. And who can know how those tactical nuclear warheads might be reconfigured?
Astonishingly, while excusing tactical nukes from the treaty, the OBAMA administration BOWS TO RUSSIA's insistence that conventional weapons mounted on ICBMs are counted under the treaty's warhead and launcher limits.
By all indications, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN BADLY OUT-NEGOTIATED.
Perhaps the president's eagerness for global disarmament led his team to accede to Russia's demands, or perhaps it led to a document that was less than carefully drafted.
Whatever the reason for the treaty's failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake.
The only responsible course is for the Senate to demand and scrutinize the full diplomatic record underlying the treaty. Then it must insist that any linkage between the treaty and our missile defense system be eliminated. In a world where nuclear weapons are proliferating, America's missile defense shield must not be compromised. As currently drafted, New START is a non-starter.
This was Obama's - and also Hillary's - grand "reset" strategy toward Russia. Kiss their communist butts, essentially, and just hope they like us again. Nevermind those countries who were disenfranchised by all their smooching.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1092949 Mar 7, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
entering the US illegally by any means is illegal....
and yet Obama is doing nothing about the millions of criminals who have done just that.....
except to give them welfare benefits, drivers licenses, etc....
just another bald-faced lie...in fact, Obama has made illegal immigration a front and center issue...it is the Us electorate that is doing nothing to stop it...
Lily Boca Raton FL

Boca Raton, FL

#1092950 Mar 7, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to the age-old description of marriage and the family unit consisting of both a mother and a father as a contributing stabilizing factor in society, I do not believe gays have the "right" to own that description.
They have the same civil rights as anyone else in this country. They just can't redefine marriage. Sorry. Just as polygamists can't either, by the way.
Says who? You? Who are you to think anyone needs your approval for anything? Why is that you so called Christians only bond together in ganging up on people?
Why don't you mind your own damn business and leave people the fk alone?
Patrick

United States

#1092951 Mar 7, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it was reported by those who actually report the news before the 2008 elections.
In a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM, Obama said these words:
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK....basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. it DIDN'T BREAK FREE from the ESSENTIAL ..........AL GOVERNMENT OR ST to his radical vision of redistribution of wealth and government-run health care through single payer.
yada yada yada

On Aprill 3, 2012, Obama had secured the 2778 convention delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.

At the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, former President Bill Clinton formally nominated Obama and Joe Biden as the Democratic Party candidates for president and vice president in the general election, in which their main opponents were Republicans Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

On November 6, 2012, Obama won 332 electoral votes, exceeding the 270 required for him to be re-elected as president. With more than 51% of the popular vote, Obama became the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to twice win the majority of the popular vote.President Obama addressed supporters and volunteers at Chicago's McCormick Place after his reelection and said: "Tonight you voted for action, not politics as usual. You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties."
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#1092952 Mar 7, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Mr Peabody the key word there is kosher. Not Jewish restaurant. Good Grief!!!!!
You're as stupid as Carol is, Kosher restaurants sell kosher food, if you want Chinese you're sht out of luck just as you'd be if you expected to find kosher at an Asian buffet or if you walked into a DQ and ordered prime rib with a baked potato and a bottle of wine.

Try to keep it real eh?
Lily Boca Raton FL

Boca Raton, FL

#1092953 Mar 7, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Your analogies get stupider by the second doll.
I frankly don't give a rats azz if someone wants to marry multiple people or cousins etc. they're consenting adults; why is it anyone's damn business?
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1092954 Mar 7, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Your analogies get stupider by the second doll.
You sound drunk?

You get angry...it really shows...

That's a weakness that is easily manipulated....

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 41 min KiMare 50,603
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 43 min Frijoles 70,022
$15/hr. for fast food employees..... 46 min joey 2
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Grau 68,643
Lou Holtz nails it! 3 hr GiveLouAShot 13
A General's Point of View. 3 hr Gen_Geo Parton 2
Are you sick of Topix polls or do you vote? 3 hr Interpoll 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 hr Learn to Read 179,283
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]