Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1618221 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.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1131607 May 5, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
how many civilians died in Iraq?
150,000.
Maybe the Islamist jihad should have thought about the consequences of starting a war with the United States, ya think? They brough tit on themselves. What idiot thinks you can kill 3000 Americans and not start a war?
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1131608 May 5, 2014
Why on Earth would anyone not trust a scientist?????

Scientists DELIBERATELY infect children with Hepatitis....

1955....

"A subset of these children were then deliberately infected with
hepatitis virus (obtained from sick children). Those who had received protective antibodies but were not deliberately infected served as the controls. The children in this experiment were housed in a well-
equipped and well-staffed facility where they could
be given special care and be kept away from the other
types of infections at the institution. "

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/...
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1131609 May 5, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
medical marijuana.
I have completely destroyed your myth about 'medical' marijuana....

and you know it...

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#1131610 May 5, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The killers aren't difficult to find. Disguise yourself as any western news network journalist and walk around Tripoli and Tunis. They will find you. CNN did a studio interview with the terrorist who planned and executed that attack.
If everybody in the world can find them, why can't Obama find them?
The only concern? Because I live in the United States of America, my first concern would be why the President and Secretary of State are blatantly lying to me. My first suspicion would be they are part of the Islamist terrorist network, and that is why they are lying to cover up the Al Qaeda attack no the United States in Benghazi.
I would condemn dupes like you that attempt to divert everyone's attention away from the truth.
So, now that we have emails proving the White House and State Department were involved in a conspiracy to lie to cover up the Al Qaeda attack on the United States in Benghazi...
How did CNN know exactly what the Obama lie would be before the attack began?
That is the most interesting question right now. That means the Obama lie existed before the attack. You do know what that means, don't you? That means the White House could have been part of the Al Qaeda plan to kill a US ambassador. The White House lying for two weeks covering up the Al Qaeda attack in Benghazi doesn't do anything to disuade that conclusion, dupe.
Bullshit. Obama has found some of the attackers and won't rest until he's found them all. You are the one "diverting" from what the correct response to Benghazi should be. Emphasis should be on finding and punishing attackers and preventing another Benghazi. You morons are focusing attention on how the attack was described. "What difference does it make?"
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1131612 May 5, 2014
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Would there be a need for the hearings if there wasn't a cover up?
The cover up appears to only exist in the Republican minds. There is no answer acceptable to their witch hunt..Their agenda is obvious to all but the ones that they need to support them and they prove that over and over. The Republicans could tell their base [Limbaugh Fox] that Hillary conspired with the terrorist and like clock work it would be on here as gospel.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#1131613 May 5, 2014
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Were any of them covered up during a reelection campaign boasting about Al Qaeda being on the run?
So the truth comes out. You could care less about the dead Americans, this is all about what political advantage it prevented teabaggers from using to defeat Obama.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1131614 May 5, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe the Islamist jihad should have thought about the consequences of starting a war with the United States, ya think? They brough tit on themselves. What idiot thinks you can kill 3000 Americans and not start a war?
Obama thinks that. You wanna bet he doesn't eat pork?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1131615 May 5, 2014
GOP’s demented “Benghazi!” disease: Why conservatives so desperately need a scandal

National security is one of the right's best organizing principles. But first they need a controversy

The Republicans may be terrible at governance and they may even be awful at politics. But if there’s one thing they know how to do it’s stoke a scandal. In fact, it’s their very special gift and one to which they can always turn to rile up the rubes and make the Democrats dance on the head of a pin.

I won’t go into the details of the latest alleged “revelation” that supposedly prompted the new investigation (that they’ve obviously been planning for a while). You can read all the charges, countercharges and explanations all over the Internet. But the truth is that while it’s important for journalists and officials to produce the straight story, the substance of the story is not the winner the GOP seems convinced it has.

....Benghazi!™ is about portraying the Obama administration as being wimpy on terrorism, of course. But think about that for a minute. The Obama administration is the one that killed bin Laden and is taking down terrorists — and anyone who might accidentally look like one, which is a whole other story — with drone strikes all over the Middle East and Africa.(It’s true that he’s failed to invade a random country just to prove America’s manhood, but he’s still got a couple of years.) The sad truth is that the Obama administration has made not one single move on terrorism with which the right would normally quarrel. But they simply cannot admit that this or one of their most important organizing principles is off the table: National security is as fundamental to them as low taxes and gun rights. If Democrats are not lily-livered cowards hiding beneath the camo-costumes of Real Americans, then they are missing a huge piece of their argument. So they’re doing what it takes: They’re making a national security scandal up out of whole cloth.

But this isn’t about Obama, not really. They have another Clinton to kick around and her involvement in Benghazi!™ as secretary of state gave them a perfect opportunity to dust off the old scandal sheet music and brush up on those old songs. They’re hoping that the mere sound of it will set off a Pavlovian reaction in independent voters and older Democrats who cringe at the prospect of a replay of the ’90s. And if the worst should happen and Clinton does get the nod, it’s the gift that keeps on giving. They will very likely control the House and we can expect to see many more “select committees” to investigate Republican hallucinations.

It beats governing. And by that time nearly half the country will already believe that Hillary Clinton ordered the attack on Benghazi in order to cover up her involvement in something even worse. They won’t know exactly what that is, but where there’s smoke there’s fire and this just doesn’t pass the smell test. No doubt Dick Morris will write a book about it.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/05/gops_benghazi...

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1131616 May 5, 2014
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the idiot that made the blanket statement
"The only restrictions to any right are specified in the Constitution. Any freedom or liberty that can have a restriction applied by a law is a privilege."
now you are qualifying that statement.
simple questions:
can you walk into a crowded movie theater and yell fire without facing legal consequences?
Its a simple question, either yes or no?
Can you tell publish lies about someone and infringe on their integrity/reputation without facing legal consequences?
Can you divulge state secrets without facing legal consequences?
again DB, try and concentrate, they are all simple yes or no questions?
Are there legal restrictions to freedom of speech?
yes or no?
Did the Republican party restrict protests to certain areas blocks away from the 2004 Republican convention?
Do muncipalities require protesters to get permits before protesting?
again DB, its a simple question, yes or no?
Let's try and be honest here DB. You made a statement which I have shown to be false.
You obviously have a severe problem reading and comprehending the written English language. You cannot use a right to infringe on another person's rights. Thus, you can't fraudulently yell "fire" in a crowded theater, moron.

You, also, cannot define what a constitutional republic is. The entire rest of your post is based on the United States not being a constitutional republic.
Try again, dupe.

Permits... go back to the fact that you can't use any right to restrict anyone else's rights. You have the right to peacefully assemble. There is no restriction to you peacefully joining any Republican peaceful assembly, moron. However, there is a restriction to you intervering with their peaceful assembly. You cannot use a right to interfere with anyone else's rights.
Just what is so difficult to understand about that?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1131617 May 5, 2014
Any attempt by Republicans to embarrass the Obama administration over the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, could backfire in the mid-term congressional elections, a Republican U.S. senator warned on Sunday.

Some Republicans view the attack, in which militants killed four Americans at the U.S. mission in Benghazi including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, as a political liability that could hurt President Barack Obama's Democrats in November.

Although the issue may resonate with some voters, pushing it too hard is politically risky for Republicans, said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is running for re-election this year.

"If we're playing politics with Benghazi, we'll get burned," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/04/lind...
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1131618 May 5, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe the Islamist jihad should have thought about the consequences of starting a war with the United States, ya think? They brough tit on themselves. What idiot thinks you can kill 3000 Americans and not start a war?
Perhaps The bigger idiot that starts a war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 911.

Since: Jan 11

Hackettstown, NJ

#1131619 May 5, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
time to move the senior citizens with non-service related problems out of the VA and into Medicare where they belong.....
Medicare is available in certain areas of coverage to vets that use the VA system.

Things like hearing aids which could be service related are not covered by Medicare.

http://www.medicareinteractive.org/page2.php...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1131620 May 5, 2014
forks_make_us_fat wrote:
<quoted text>
I have completely destroyed your myth about 'medical' marijuana....
and you know it...
LOL

Medical marijuana seen to have dramatic effect on symptom relief

http://articles.philly.com/2014-05-04/news/49...

all day long.

Since: May 11

Gardners, PA

#1131621 May 5, 2014
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Were any of them covered up during a reelection campaign boasting about Al Qaeda being on the run?
The election was two months away.

There is no proof the attack was done by Al Qaeda.

You are dumber that sh*t.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1131622 May 5, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe the Islamist jihad should have thought about the consequences of starting a war with the United States, ya think? They brough tit on themselves. What idiot thinks you can kill 3000 Americans and not start a war?
an idiot with no ties to Iraq?

Since: Jan 11

Hackettstown, NJ

#1131623 May 5, 2014
Emeem wrote:
<quoted text>
So the truth comes out. You could care less about the dead Americans, this is all about what political advantage it prevented teabaggers from using to defeat Obama.
It seems to me those deaths were discarded in order to get reelected. To me, Obama couldn't be boasting about Bin Laden being dead and Al Qaeda being on the run during a campaign and have an Al Qaeda related attack on his hands. The cover up was politically motivated then and is now politically motivated to bury Hillary. Your federal government at work for you.

Since: May 11

Gardners, PA

#1131624 May 5, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
idiot dumbass Dave still thinks it was the video.....
Galt is full of sh*t. I never said it was the video.

I said that in the immediate aftermath that until an investigation said otherwise, it should be considered.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#1131626 May 5, 2014
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
The cover up appears to only exist in the Republican minds. There is no answer acceptable to their witch hunt..Their agenda is obvious to all but the ones that they need to support them and they prove that over and over. The Republicans could tell their base [Limbaugh Fox] that Hillary conspired with the terrorist and like clock work it would be on here as gospel.
The "cover up" exists in your mind too just for the fact that you have acknowledged that there was one. You libs make this Freudian slip all of the time and it is a dead giveaway that even you realize this as a "cover up". Plain and simple.
Babe TRuth

Palm Coast, FL

#1131627 May 5, 2014
Babe TRuth wrote:
<quoted text> "hypocrisy"? Did you say, "hypocrisy"?... LOL ... Barack Hussein Obama: "Lie of the Year" ... LOL
He earned it, and you earned it by supporting the fraud... Suck it up, Obamabots!
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1131628 May 5, 2014
Science!

you can always trust a scientist....

and....

'...The Cave Men Who Never Existed'

" On the July 16, 1971, NBC Nightly News, David Brinkley announced a stunning discovery:

"The outside world, after maybe a thousand years, has discovered a small tribe of people living in a remote jungle in the Philippines. Until now, the outside world didn't know they existed… and they didn't know the outside world existed. Their way of living is approximately that of the Stone Age."

http://www.livescience.com/4972-savage-hoax-c...

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
Benghazi, the REAL story. 50 min DeadCryingOut 4
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 5 hr They cannot kill ... 11,425
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr loose cannon 242,768
Jon Trott of JPUSA protects child molestors 8 hr John Trott 9
Film on Sex Crimes at Jesus People USA 8 hr John Trott 11
Child Molestation at Chicago Cult 8 hr John Trott 44
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 8 hr RACE 105,302

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages