Why They Hate Obama

There are 12511 comments on the The Daily Beast story from Aug 8, 2013, titled Why They Hate Obama. In it, The Daily Beast reports that:

As the Virginia Flaggers loft their Confederate flag in opposition to the 'tyranny' of 2013, Jamelle Bouie argues that racial bias plays at least some part in Obama's collapse in the South.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Beast.

Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#5187 Jan 3, 2014
Justices and Politicians can marry people, religious dogma surrounding marriage ceremonies isn't a requirement for marrying in America.

If a State, as some have chosen to, doesn't recognize a marriage they are denying American citizens along the clause of equal access ensured in the constitution. Denying recognition of marriage based on the popular opinion of the local mob is denying equal justice and due process. All blatant violations of the U.S Constitution guarantees every citizens is due.

You either believe and respect the Constitution or you're anti-America and don't believe all men are created equal and this government is instituted by all men to guarantee all citizens the protections of the Constitution.

There is no middle ground.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I might say the same for you.
Once again, what state has ever denied anybody marriage? Name just one. And I don't mean not recognizing a marriage, but prohibited a religious union between two people?
Again you sidestepped the question: If it's the SC's order to not deny the "pursuit of happiness" to any two people, then it can apply to any two people, can it not? Father--son, father-daughter, cousins, siblings?
There is nothing in our US Constitution that even mentions marriage. Why should the people of a state be forced something they reject or don't want? My pursuit of happiness is to stay home all day and watch television. Does that mean because I can't do that, my pursuit of happiness is denied by our federal government?
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#5188 Jan 3, 2014
Drug testing for employment by a private organization is unrelated to the mandate on drug testing by a government agency without cause supported by due process,,,,,,, Amendment 4 of the US Constitution.

If a private company requires you to drug test you can decide to end the application process and refuse your application for employment with them.

Transportation license holders present a clear and present danger to American citizen on Government built roads. You can refuse to be tested and, in doing so look for a career in another industry. The decision is yours.

That lowlife welfare individual as a citizens has the same rights as you under the Constitution and thus is equally protected.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Question: if drug tests for welfare queens are a violation of the US Constitution, why is it the federal government makes me take drug tests to work for a living and that's not a violation of the Constitution?
You see, transportation is under strict federal regulation. My employer could care less if I smoke pot every night, just as long as I can work the next day. My employer doesn't want to have these drug tests for his employees, but it's federally mandated that he has these drug tests (just like any other trucking company) to conduct his business.
My employer doesn't want to go through the expense. He has to pay for the service that pulls our name randomly. He has to pay for the tests the clinic provides. He has to pay us for the time we spend at the clinic which is sometimes hours since a good amount of urine is required for a sample and he is not allowed (by federal law) to give us any advanced notice.
In the past, a few of our drivers failed the drug screening. The federal government pulls their medical card which in short means they can't work for six weeks. In that time, the employee has to go through abuse courses that he or she has to pay for on top of their interruption of income.
But for lowlife welfare people, now that's a violation of their Constitutional rights. Give me and my employer a break.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#5189 Jan 3, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. It's taxed at the time of manufacture sales. That tax gets passed on to the medical services and pharmacy customers.
"medical devices prescribed by a Physician are not taxed at either the pharmacy or medical equipment provider"

The cost of the goods to the retailer determines the unit price to the consumer, but under no circumstance at the point of sale are prescriptions subject to sales taxes.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5190 Jan 3, 2014
appears those old time electric cares weren't all they were cracked up to be. And all that toxic lead to be mined and disposed of.

The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650.
Electric vehicles had all but disappeared by 1935. The years following until the 1960s were dead years for electric vehicle development and for their use as personal transportation.

Same problem exists today, slow charge time, too much weight and limited range. Not so hot in wintertime either.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5191 Jan 3, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Justices and Politicians can marry people, religious dogma surrounding marriage ceremonies isn't a requirement for marrying in America.
If a State, as some have chosen to, doesn't recognize a marriage they are denying American citizens along the clause of equal access ensured in the constitution. Denying recognition of marriage based on the popular opinion of the local mob is denying equal justice and due process. All blatant violations of the U.S Constitution guarantees every citizens is due.
You either believe and respect the Constitution or you're anti-America and don't believe all men are created equal and this government is instituted by all men to guarantee all citizens the protections of the Constitution.
There is no middle ground.
<quoted text>
Sounds like that douchebagging liar Obama to me!
benson

Decatur, GA

#5192 Jan 3, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you do give a shyt or you wouldn't bother replying to the post and no Reagan wasnt against the poor or the Middle Class Reagan was against the deadbeats of society that didn't want to work that expected everything for nothing and all the Old Left Liberals felt the same way as Reagan who held to those beliefs besides if FDR was president today these Modern Liberal Democrats would consider FDR political views as to be too Far Right which even majority of Blacks would feel the same way too about the Old Left Liberal Democrats Social & Economical policies and all you have proven is you have problems with Liberalism that you side with which FDR set in motion which you advocate which make you a hypocrite just like Jessie Jackson Sr and Al Sharpton.
Why Did FDR’s New Deal Harm Blacks?
By Jim Powell
December 3, 2003
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/w...
Do you ppl. know anyone else besides Jackson and Sharpto? Those two are not the voice of black America.....far from it. There are many prominent black leaders that you can reference for social comment. I speak againist all you stupid conservatives who love to belittle black America and treat them with contempt. The constant bleating of your voice has grown irritating. Learn boy learn....its not about you kkkrackas.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#5193 Jan 3, 2014
Like most Republican legislation it's a sham policy, of all the drug test in Florida 32 people were found to be dirty, in Michigan the judge would not allow the law to be enacted, and as of the other day the Federal Appeals Judge struck down the law entirely as a violation of the 4 Constitutional Amendment.

This is just one of many Republican Assaults on the Constitution over the years.
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact - 2.6% of those who accepted welfare and went through drug screening were found positive. I've supplied the link - do you need this again?
Fact - Rick Scott transferred ownership of his 63 million dollar investment to his wife - the very company in Florida that performed those tests. Even though the clients are reimbursed from the state for the cost, the company retains its money as "provided services" to the state - thereby costing much more to the taxpayers of Florida. I supplied this information as well - do you need it again?
It was a political sham to enrich himself (Scott) under the guise of "getting all them illegal drug addicted welfare addicts".
Now he looks like the azzhole he always was - and you for some unknown reason still stand by this ludicrous law? It's been proven to be a failure!
How much more proof do you people need?

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5194 Jan 3, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
"medical devices prescribed by a Physician are not taxed at either the pharmacy or medical equipment provider"
The cost of the goods to the retailer determines the unit price to the consumer, but under no circumstance at the point of sale are prescriptions subject to sales taxes.
Consumers pay all the taxes, don't you know anything?
benson

Decatur, GA

#5195 Jan 3, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yeah..just FYI...that's unprecedented, not unpresidented, that is not a word.
as in there is no precedent ( no previous ruling or set standard...) for what you are talking about...
What the hell....its ok granny.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5196 Jan 3, 2014
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it was interesting. I rechecked the dates and it seems there were a lot of model-Ts around by 1920. So, there was a sizable market for alcohol in cars before prohibition. That was Rockefeller's style. He was more of a capitalist than a free marketer.
Cheap gas, a byproduct of refining kerosene, killed the electric car. So, he did effectively kill the electric car also.
Unlikely he didn't do it intentionally, just the free market at work, but who doesn't love a good conspiracy?

Well, time to get out the yellow pages and order a pizza. lol

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#5197 Jan 3, 2014
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe Nixon had the power to take us off the gold standard, did he?
Did any dems support or vote for NAFTA?
It's a fact no repubs voted for Obammykare.
Yes, he did. You did not know this was supposed to be "temporary"?

"Today we celebrate, or, actually, mourn the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s taking America, and the world, off the gold standard, making many promises that were promptly broken.(For instance, President Nixon promised that the dollar would retain its full value. It only is worth about 19 cents today of what it was worth in 1971.)"

Just for you, a Fox site;

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/15/for...

Now hear him in his own words;



Yes, democrats as well as republicans, who began this bill, supported it - that was when I was voting for Ross Perot, who was vehemently against NAFTA;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics...

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#5198 Jan 3, 2014
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably because it's not true.
It's only untrue to morons like you that would rather debate simply because you have nothing better in life to do. Funny how another poster here, who I disagree with at least half the time, would at least look, research, and find the validity in what I've divulged.

Nothing to offer? Then ignore my posts. Easy as that. o buy some legal weed and chill the f'k out!

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#5199 Jan 3, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Like most Republican legislation it's a sham policy, of all the drug test in Florida 32 people were found to be dirty, in Michigan the judge would not allow the law to be enacted, and as of the other day the Federal Appeals Judge struck down the law entirely as a violation of the 4 Constitutional Amendment.
This is just one of many Republican Assaults on the Constitution over the years.
<quoted text>
I know, but talking to these people is tantamount to talking to a rock. Nothing gets through.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5200 Jan 3, 2014
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Like most Republican legislation it's a sham policy, of all the drug test in Florida 32 people were found to be dirty, in Michigan the judge would not allow the law to be enacted, and as of the other day the Federal Appeals Judge struck down the law entirely as a violation of the 4 Constitutional Amendment.
This is just one of many Republican Assaults on the Constitution over the years.
<quoted text>
Harvard study: Medicaid actually increases ER visits

A Harvard University study published Thursday concludes that Medicaid enrollment significantly boosts emergency room visits.

This is in direct contradiction to the Obama administration’s claims that his healthcare reform law would put a dent in costly visits to the ER as a way to cut spending."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/03/harvard-stu...
"

someone once said a lot of Harvard grads were democrats, now who was it..........

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5201 Jan 3, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, but talking to these people is tantamount to talking to a rock. Nothing gets through.
You know I could say the same thing, don't you?

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5202 Jan 3, 2014
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only untrue to morons like you that would rather debate simply because you have nothing better in life to do. Funny how another poster here, who I disagree with at least half the time, would at least look, research, and find the validity in what I've divulged.
Nothing to offer? Then ignore my posts. Easy as that. o buy some legal weed and chill the f'k out!
Why the name calling? Are you frustrated?

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5204 Jan 3, 2014
Oddly, for today only, to make point, we're going to quote Fox News.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5205 Jan 3, 2014
seems there's 2 sides to this story, who would have thunk it?

August 15, 1971: A Date Which Has Lived In Infamy - Forbes
www.forbes.com/.../august-15-1971-a-date-whic... ;
Aug 14, 2011 - Going off gold was a sea-change in human history.... The stuff went from $35 at Nixon's announcement to $800 by 1980.... Roosevelt who took the United States off of the gold standard in 1934, not Richard Nixon in 1971.
Gunner

Kansas City, MO

#5206 Jan 3, 2014
dont snow me wrote:
Oddly, for today only, to make point, we're going to quote Fox News.
Fk you ya dick swinging, black co ck sucking old phaggot

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#5207 Jan 3, 2014
Let's see, douchebag liar of the year Oblama and the Fed pump $85 billion a month to the 20% who own 80% of the stock market, making them fat and sassy and we're supposed to get excited about the gold standard 40 years later?

And BTW produces NO frikking jobs!!!!

Wall Street has found it's boy and his name is Oblama.

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.

Chesterfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
China is Right About Minding Our Own Business May 27 Concerned Citizen 1
News I am a gay Yankee teacher in the South (Aug '15) May 27 Wondering 17
Media calls storms "punishing" May 27 WatchmanOnTheWall 2
Governor May 26 VN Vet 5
Reasons I want to Remain a Man May 24 VN Vet 2
Local sluts May 23 Fedup 1
Review: Golden Goat (Aug '10) May 22 Youranidiot 32
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chesterfield Mortgages