Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1762493 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.

In The Right

United States

#1159371 Jul 1, 2014
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You should make your dreams come true and move then son.
No need to dream, ma'am. The 22nd Amendment guarantees our nation will rid itself of the stench.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1159372 Jul 1, 2014
ReadyForHillary wrote:
<quoted text> Because Texas is cheaper to operate bussineses there. And they flew those states because owners are conservative owned like Toyota for example who moved their headquarters to Dallas.
yeah, those Japanese are religious rightwingers.....

one of the reasons for the Toyota move was to be closer to their assembly plants.....

but mainly to be able to attract employees with affordable living conditions.....
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1159373 Jul 1, 2014
ReadyForHillary wrote:
<quoted text>. And when was the last time you heard the term recession on Obama's second turn? No, you haven't, George W. Bush gave us just that for 8 years!!
yes, six years of Obama economic stagnation and a shrinking workforce is just wonderful......

and recession may be just around the corner....
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1159374 Jul 1, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Those like Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson don't represent the majority of Christians and those who criticize them aren't necessarily communists you clueless twit.
It's these right wing Faux Christians like you that have been cultivating intolerance against those not like you. You can believe what you want Carol but you can't force your narrow beliefs on the rest of the population or base laws on those beliefs.
Earth to Dupie......Jerry Falwell died seven years ago.....

so he doesn't represent anyone....

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1159375 Jul 1, 2014
RoxLo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, poor Dave. Her suggesting someone be audit who had yet to do anything wrong shows she was being irrational.
One more time Dave. She assumed--Grassley would come; she assumed his wife would come and get a free airplane ticket, and she assume that Grassley would not declare this....so he needed audit.
There was nothing rational about her suggestion that this warranted an audit. The person in charge of audits flatly told her so. Audits can only be triggered if there is reason to believe someone LIED on a tax return--NOT on they MAY.
.
Lerner saw something that is commonly ignored on federal income taxes. Its called being vigilant.

Evidently you think she should have waited until the income taxes were filed to ask about it? Why?

Lerner said this warranted an audit??

Law enforcement takes all sorts of actions based on "Could" or "may".

“Stop Child Soldiers”

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#1159376 Jul 1, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the ruling on the Hobby Lobby case was based on a misreading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and would likely open the door to a host of unintended consequences.
“Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood – combined with its other errors in construing RFRA – invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith,” she wrote.
The court ruled 5-4 Monday that the government cannot compel closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage for its employees.
In a scathing, 35-page dissent, Ginsberg concluded that the contraception mandate did not impose a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Specialties — and therefore did not violate the RFRA.
She said the Affordable Care Act required employers to direct money into undifferentiated funds to pay for a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans, and Ginsberg said employees were not obligated to use contraception coverage.
“Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and women’s well being,” Ginsberg wrote.“Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence.”
While the court has recognized First Amendment protections for churches and other nonprofit religion-based organizations, Ginsberg noted that no previous court decisions had ever recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for religious exemption from any laws.
“The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities,” she wrote.
She said religious organizations exist to foster the interests of people who believe in the same faith principles, but that’s not the case among for-profit corporations – and she said that distinction had been clear for centuries prior to the establishment of the Internal Revenue Service.
“Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community,” Ginsberg pointed out.“Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/30/justice...
She feared the Supreme Court had “ventured into a minefield” with its ruling.
“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude,” Ginsberg wrote.
No wonder this opinion did not receive majority support.

She failed miserably to address the issue--does religious freedom ends when one opens a business.

She noticeably avoids claiming this because there is no constitutional support for this claim.

She also, while claiming there was NO previous decisions supporting recognizing a for-profit organization for religious exemption, fails to point out any decision that supports not recognizing them. Neither can be claimed as a precedent.

The fact that the workers choose to work for a company that is religious does not disqualify the personal beliefs of the owners

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1159377 Jul 1, 2014
RoxLo wrote:
<quoted text>
You might as well admit numbers are hard for you.
1. I picked a soft number to compare the current poverty rate to. I used the 2008 mid-recession number. I could have picked a number prior to the recession-Skippy--but used a softer comparison. Mid-recession refers to the chronological mid-point. Really? I had to explain this to you.
2. The recession ended in June 2009
3. The poverty rate has gone up since the official end of the recession from 14.3% to 15%
4. Five years after the official end of the recession we still find ourselves at a 15% poverty rate.
5. The public would think even going back to the poverty rate mid-recession would be a sign of recovery.
You can whine all you want about what happened in 2009, but that does not for one second change the current poverty rate five years later.
If you don't get it this time then you are being belligerent or extremely slow.
You used June of 2008 & compared it to May of 2014 & claimed it indicated that there is no recovery.

You said it.

Quit running away from it.

June 2008 is not mid recession. It certainly not mid recession in job losses.

I know it's a shock but job losses are tied to poverty.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1159378 Jul 1, 2014
five reasons why Hillary won’t run

(1) she’s just not very good at politics;

(2) there’s no “fire in the tummy”;

(3) who wants to clean up after Barack Obama, any way;

(4) the country wants real change; and

(5) another round of “Clinton, Bush, Clinton” with children of both families waiting in the wings, is thrilling nobody.

“Stop Child Soldiers”

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#1159379 Jul 1, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The government receives the money, not Hamas.
I guess you think paying federal income tax is funding the Republican Party.
Dave thinks if a terrorist group forms a government than they are no longer a terrorist group or something.

Using this logic, we have ISIS forming its' own state in Iraq. Using your logic we could pay funds to this group because....you know...they are a government.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#1159380 Jul 1, 2014
Robin Pinetree wrote:
<quoted text> Your religious cult is Obamaism; you're not fooling anyone but your silly self.
The trollsht is getting deep in here today, how many names are you using this week? Were's Floriduh?

Could it be the culture?
Donnie

United States

#1159381 Jul 1, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>dude, i helped take a non- union shop in one of the heaviest unionized industries from large to THE largest...don't talk to me about right to work, i live that freakin' walk every day of my life...
Good for you and I agree with your stance on that particular subject no one should be forced into a club or organization they do not wish to belong too period.

My beef with forced union participation is they require dues from everyone but instead of giving union money toward which ever candidate the union members prefer they lump everyone into one democrat donation without giving the member any voice in how their dues are spent. Hardly representing their clients the union members themselves.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#1159382 Jul 1, 2014
RoxLo wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder this opinion did not receive majority support.
She failed miserably to address the issue--does religious freedom ends when one opens a business.
She noticeably avoids claiming this because there is no constitutional support for this claim.
She also, while claiming there was NO previous decisions supporting recognizing a for-profit organization for religious exemption, fails to point out any decision that supports not recognizing them. Neither can be claimed as a precedent.
The fact that the workers choose to work for a company that is religious does not disqualify the personal beliefs of the owners
Yes, religious dogma ends at the door of the business. You do not have freedom to impose your cult practices on the public.

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1159383 Jul 1, 2014
RoxLo wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder this opinion did not receive majority support.
She failed miserably to address the issue--does religious freedom ends when one opens a business.
She noticeably avoids claiming this because there is no constitutional support for this claim.
She also, while claiming there was NO previous decisions supporting recognizing a for-profit organization for religious exemption, fails to point out any decision that supports not recognizing them. Neither can be claimed as a precedent.
The fact that the workers choose to work for a company that is religious does not disqualify the personal beliefs of the owners
Corporations are regulated by a system of laws.

The religion of the owners should be irrelevant.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1159384 Jul 1, 2014
RoxLo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, SCOTUS has the final say on interpreting laws. SCOTUS ruled that the religious exemption provided for in the Obamacare law did not apply to just non-profits. That "closely-held" businesses--those who are mostly owned by a group of family members --cannot be excluded because they are for-profit.
Now let's look at the over reach in responding to this ruling.
The claim that this somehow bans birth control
Nope, there is absolutely nothing in the ruling that even suggests this
The claim that Hobby Lobby refuses to offer birth control
No, Hobby Lobby offers 16 methods of birth control
That this is limiting assess to birth control
Women 3 years ago were purchasing birth control. They are still free to purchase birth control
The only thing Obamacare changed is that they are now free.
Is assess to free birth control a constitutional right? Nope.
you are correct in all these points, but how does this ruling not way religious cult beliefs trump US law? this a bad precedent to set.

“Stop Child Soldiers”

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#1159385 Jul 1, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Lerner saw something that is commonly ignored on federal income taxes. Its called being vigilant.
Evidently you think she should have waited until the income taxes were filed to ask about it? Why?
Lerner said this warranted an audit??
Law enforcement takes all sorts of actions based on "Could" or "may".
An audit is done on a tax return.

That's it Dave. The guy she referred this to told her she was wrong.
Donnie

United States

#1159386 Jul 1, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The government receives the money, not Hamas.
I guess you think paying federal income tax is funding the Republican Party.
ROFLMAO....Hamas is part of the government!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1159387 Jul 1, 2014
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. He had a high draft number after his church commitments were completed.
http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statemen...
More like a Rush Limbaugh then...
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1159388 Jul 1, 2014
In The Right wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the time the leftists hate the 1st Amendment. We know they hate the 2nd. The 14th is one of their favorites.
Watch how the fickle fools will mock and disparage soccer as soon as the U.S. loses.
wow. it's a good thing we have conservatives to tell us. otherwise, no one would know what you're thinking!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1159389 Jul 1, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Corporations are regulated by a system of laws.
The religion of the owners should be irrelevant.
perhaps we should stop taxing corporations like people and they will stop thinking of themselves as people? hmmm?
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1159390 Jul 1, 2014
In The Right wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said that, your buddy the Straw Man?
Are you 'right' again son?

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
Trump says Kids Over Medicated 2 hr MAGA 5
84 shootings in May 2 hr MAGA 3
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr INTO FARTS 64,687
Change one letter in the word (Apr '12) 11 hr The real Rudy 91
Change one letter in the word (Mar '12) 11 hr The real Rudy 109
Kennedy Lied and People Died and were enslaved. 16 hr Includes Bobby Ke... 31
Maddow exposed, Fusion paid her for fake news s... 16 hr Wimpy 2

Chicago Jobs

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages