Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1782646 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.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1078784 Feb 12, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
It's almost getting to the point when you have to bury your money in the back yard to keep the government from stealing it.
That won't work either because by the time they are done it will take a wheelbarrow full of the stuff to buy a loaf of bread.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1078788 Feb 12, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>According to a recent World Net Daily piece, congress has authorized DaBammy to use Martial Law any time he chooses.
I guess that one slipped right past you eh?
Well, what about invasion?(interesting topic. Does Obama opening the border for a flood of illegal aliens constitute an invasion?)

Martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority.
Obama has to guarantee every state a Republican form of government. Kind of difficult to do that with martial law... well, impossible, really.
But, he can suspend writs of habaes corpus.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Rebellion? That means rebelling agains the constitutional republic, doesn't it.
If the federal government goes rogue and attempts to make the population subjects of an unconstitutional government, and the people object and defend the Constitution, who is rebelling?
Obviously, it is the government gone rogue that is rebelling.

No, Congress does not have the authority to add to the Constitution any authority to them not already written into the Constitution.

Now, how can the states protect themselves from a government gone rogue?
The founders thought of that one, too.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Period. End of statement. End of discussion. Any further discussion on the matter will be with guns.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1078789 Feb 12, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you were talking of the middle of africa. aren't deltas near the ocean?
"central" Africa, moron. That would be the part of Africa from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean proximal to the Equator.
The middle of Africa would be where the villages were that I sometimes had to go to.

Take notes, please.
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1078791 Feb 12, 2014
flack wrote:
95% of Climate Models Wrong: "Warming isn't as bad as was predicted."
As climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer reminds us,“the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.” But just how bad are they? Dr. Spencer reviewed 90 different climate models and discovered “95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979.” That record isn't exactly a hot streak.“Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn't as bad as was predicted,” he adds.“That should have major policy implications … assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.” And that's the point: Environmental policy is not based on objective findings, and as a result, we're left paying a huge price – literally.
http://patriotpost.us/posts/23312
Dang Flacko, I thought that you'd finally put up something worthwhile__something by a real scientist and Roy Spencer is that and more.

Problem is:

He's an intelligent design guy Flack__a Ph.D who buys into the evangelical line of ID.

Ya got anything on vapor trails today pal?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1078792 Feb 12, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>are you aware there is no one stopping you from moving to another country where they tax you less?
Are you aware there's no one stopping you from moving to a country like Cuba or North Korea where they have the kind of government you want here?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1078793 Feb 12, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
"central" Africa, moron. That would be the part of Africa from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean proximal to the Equator.
The middle of Africa would be where the villages were that I sometimes had to go to.
Take notes, please.
you clearly said the middle of africa many many times...

do try to keep up with your own bullshit.

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1078794 Feb 12, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Let me know how that works for you when they come for your 401(k) and IRA's too.
Wow, Flacktard falls for yet another one of those e-mails. "OMG OMG Obama will take our IRAs OMG OMG OMG"

That lie started in 2008 & has been debunked over & over yet it still survives in right whiner la-la land.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1078797 Feb 12, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Dang Flacko, I thought that you'd finally put up something worthwhile__something by a real scientist and Roy Spencer is that and more.
Problem is:
He's an intelligent design guy Flack__a Ph.D who buys into the evangelical line of ID.
Ya got anything on vapor trails today pal?
Chemtrails versus Contrails: Do Conspiracy Theories Make Sense?
Several times a month I get an email about chemtrails: the belief by some folks that white lines in the sky are the result of a secret U.S. government program to alter the climate of the planet (also know as geoengineering). They suggest that the lines are the result of noxious chemicals being deposited by aircraft and that they pose a dire threat to mankind. This is a classic conspiracy theory, but it does offer an educational opportunity.
Most of you are aware of contrails (short for condensation trails): clouds that form behind jets flying high in the troposphere or in the lowest stratosphere. The picture below shows a typical example.
Contrails occur because combustion in jet engines produce a substantial amount of water vapor and when the vapor escapes into the cold upper atmosphere it condenses rapidly into little water droplets that rapidly freeze, thus producing an ice cloud. Why does the water vapor condense? Because the upper atmosphere is cold and cold air can "hold" less water vapor than warm air. Thus, if you inject water vapor into very cold air, it will rapidly condense, particularly if the air is already close to saturation. This condensation is aided by the small particles produces by combustion that serve as condensation nuclei to aid the process.
Most of you already are pretty expert in producing clouds in cold air: it happens during very cold days--you can see your breath! These clouds are generally made of cloud drops.
Human contrail?
Contrails can be produced by both jet aircraft and high-flying propeller driven planes. Contrails were first observed in the 1920s and was a great concern in WWII, since they allowed the enemy to see high-flying bombers. Also contrails could make it difficult for such bombers to stay in formation!
Sometimes contrails are hard to see, while other times they fill the sky as shown in the figure below. Why? The chemtrail folks think this is due to enhanced military or geoengineering activity. The truth is that it all depends on how close the atmosphere is to saturation (100% relative humidity). Sometimes the upper atmosphere is very dry, thus you need to add a lot of moisture from aircraft to
get saturation. Other times there is sinking motion. Both are bad for cloud formation. But in other times, there is rising motion (perhaps due to an approaching weather system) and this brings the atmosphere close to or to saturation. How can you tell the upper atmosphere is at saturation? You see lots of thin cirrus clouds (see below). If the atmosphere is near saturation, then the addition of moisture readily produces clouds (contrails). If the atmosphere is at saturation, the extra moisture makes thicker clouds.
A sky with a lot of cirrus clouds is a good sign there is upward motion and an upper atmosphere at saturation.
If you have a situation where the atmosphere is at or near saturation and a region with a lot of aircraft flying in the upper troposphere, you can have HUGE numbers of contrails. Here is an example from the NASA MODIS satellite. Look carefully and you can see the cirrus clouds as well--just as one might expect.
In such situations (where the upper atmosphere is moist) the contrails can not only spread across the sky, but they can persist for hours. The longevity of contrails is a big deal to the chemtrails folks...they think it is proof of the "chemicals" be inserted by the top secret project.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1078798 Feb 12, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you aware there's no one stopping you from moving to a country like Cuba or North Korea where they have the kind of government you want here?
that is nothing like i want.

i would like fellow citizens to have at least a basic knowledge of their own nation. unlike you...

why is it you don't move to a lower taxed country? can't find one worth living in? what do you think your puny little brain should take away from that fact? that we really are not taxed that much? that we need taxes to make a country worth living in?

most likely you will process this to mean that Obama is from jupiter...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1078799 Feb 12, 2014
Contrails, as most clouds, have a noticeable effect on the radiation balance of the planet. On one hand they reflect solar radiation and thus cool. On the other, they absorb and re-emit infrared radiaton, both upwards and downwards. This tends to cause warming. Right now the best estimates are that the warming effect will dominate and thus contrails will heat the planet by a small amount. This fact shows why the chemtrails idea of U.S. government geoengineering to stop global warming is such nonsense---contrails warm the planet and thus would NOT be something you would enhance to stop global warming.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1078801 Feb 12, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what about invasion?(interesting topic. Does Obama opening the border for a flood of illegal aliens constitute an invasion?)
Martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority.
Obama has to guarantee every state a Republican form of government. Kind of difficult to do that with martial law... well, impossible, really.
But, he can suspend writs of habaes corpus.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Rebellion? That means rebelling agains the constitutional republic, doesn't it.
If the federal government goes rogue and attempts to make the population subjects of an unconstitutional government, and the people object and defend the Constitution, who is rebelling?
Obviously, it is the government gone rogue that is rebelling.
No, Congress does not have the authority to add to the Constitution any authority to them not already written into the Constitution.
Now, how can the states protect themselves from a government gone rogue?
The founders thought of that one, too.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Period. End of statement. End of discussion. Any further discussion on the matter will be with guns.
obama hasn't opened the border at all...

try to deal in the real world, fool.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1078802 Feb 12, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
We need courts because, moron, humans are not machines programmed with the Constitution. We need courts to enforce the Constitution. That's why every federal judge takes an oath to the Constitution, idiot.
and we don't taxes for those courts to run, huh?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1078803 Feb 12, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, Flacktard falls for yet another one of those e-mails. "OMG OMG Obama will take our IRAs OMG OMG OMG"
That lie started in 2008 & has been debunked over & over yet it still survives in right whiner la-la land.
Debunked!!! LMAO!!!!
FakeDave

Satellite Beach, FL

#1078804 Feb 12, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, Flacktard falls for yet another one of those e-mails. "OMG OMG Obama will take our IRAs OMG OMG OMG"
That lie started in 2008 & has been debunked over & over yet it still survives in right whiner la-la land.
"lie"? Did you say, "lie"?... LOL ... Barack Hussein Obama: "Lie of the Year" ... LOL

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1078806 Feb 12, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, Flacktard falls for yet another one of those e-mails. "OMG OMG Obama will take our IRAs OMG OMG OMG"
That lie started in 2008 & has been debunked over & over yet it still survives in right whiner la-la land.
Watch Out: Your 401(k) Is Being Targeted

While attending a terrific symposium recently on the retirement challenges women face, I came away with a stark realization: Washington has a bull’s-eye on every American’s 401(k).

The Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement (known as WISER), a nonprofit dedicated to improve the long-term financial security of women, had brought together administration officials, the savviest Capitol Hill insiders and retirement analysts working at financial services firms and think tanks.

Ignoring the Retirement Crisis

Speaker after speaker described how so many Americans – women in particular – lack the financial resources needed to retire, what Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, called “one of the most underreported crises” in America. We heard scary statistics, including that 48 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 in savings.

(MORE: The Likely Way Social Security Benefits Will Be Cut)

You might think this would be a moment when Washington would look for ways to encourage Americans to save. But “it’s not a good time to talk about incentives for savings when everyone is trying to cut spending,” Sen. Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, said at the retirement symposium.

The recurring underlying theme was this: Don’t be surprised if Congress and President Barack Obama make it harder to save for retirement starting in 2014.
NuculurNUTsurpri Zed

Satellite Beach, FL

#1078808 Feb 12, 2014
Not Surprized wrote:
<quoted text>
I am so poor, poor, poor.!! I'm always down in the "dumps," where I rightfully belong, which is why I can't post my embarrassing hidden location!
Not Surprized! LOL

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1078809 Feb 12, 2014
Nutty, isn’t it?

Why would Congress and the president target retirement savings plans? Especially when they’re so highly valued by the American public. In a new Wells Fargo/Gallup Investor and Retirement Optimism Index survey of 1,024 adults with investable assets of $10,000 or more, 69 percent said it was extremely or very important that the president and Congress find ways to financially encourage every company to offer a 401(k) savings option and to financially encourage all Americans to participate in their employer’s 401(k) savings option. Similarly, 67 percent of those surveyed said it was important that leaders seek ways to enhance the role of the 401(k) as a retirement savings investment.

The answer, to paraphrase bank robber Willie Sutton, is because that’s where the money is.

Trimming Retirement Plans to Shrink the Deficit

The tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement savings plans add up to $100 billion a year and will cost the government an estimated $429 billion from 2013 to 2017. That’s more than the mortgage interest deduction.

These plans are also tempting targets politically, because 80 percent of their benefits go to the top 20 percent of earners, according to the Tax Policy Center. That’s why liberal-leaning groups, like the Pension Rights Center, say the plans’ tax breaks should be trimmed.

(MORE: Obama’s Second Term and Older Americans)

Andrea Coombes, the retirement columnist for The Wall Street Journal’s Marketwatch site, recently wrote:“Some say it’s inevitable lawmakers will at least look at limiting the tax benefits of such plans.” Certain employers may stop offering 401(k)s if benefits are cut for higher-earning employees, she added.

It’s a little early to say exactly how 401(k)s might be squeezed for their tax juice, but one proposal gaining ground is what’s known as the 20/20 plan. It was one of the deficit reduction proposals from the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan commission of 2010 and a recommendation of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force.

A Proposal That’s Gaining Steam

Here’s how 20/20 would work:

Under current law, employees will be allowed to contribute up to $17,500 in their 401(k) plans in 2013; up to $23,000 for people 50 and older. But under 20/20, you and your employer together would be permitted to contribute up to $20,000 or 20 percent of your salary, whichever was less, to your account; that figure includes your employer’s match.
Brett Goldstein, director of retirement planning for American Investment Planners, a financial advisory firm in Jericho, N.Y., says this could reduce contributions by 65.21 percent for someone over 50 earning $50,000 a year.(The math is complex, but trust me, Goldstein’s right).
NuculurNUTsurpri Zed

Satellite Beach, FL

#1078810 Feb 12, 2014
Not Surprized wrote:
My posts are dropping like flies. Every other post of mine is being rejected and deleted. Such a shame; you know it's my whole life!
Not Surprized! LOL
new yawk

East Amherst, NY

#1078811 Feb 12, 2014
Though all of your replies have been to a fake new yawk ( Yes, I have a doppelganger pest )
And she also wrote this post that you've replied to, I'll answer:( Since she aka debil, the nitwit most likely doesn't know ):

Malcolm X discovered Elijah Muhammad to be a fraud.
A not practicing what he was preaching charlatan.
And the rest .... You already know.

Yeah, good ol Louie ....
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
So, why do you think Elijah Muhammad ordered Louis Farrakhan to assassinate Malcolm X?

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1078813 Feb 12, 2014
flack wrote:
95% of Climate Models Wrong: "Warming isn't as bad as was predicted."
As climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer reminds us,“the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.” But just how bad are they? Dr. Spencer reviewed 90 different climate models and discovered “95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979.” That record isn't exactly a hot streak.“Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn't as bad as was predicted,” he adds.“That should have major policy implications … assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.” And that's the point: Environmental policy is not based on objective findings, and as a result, we're left paying a huge price – literally.
http://patriotpost.us/posts/23312
If your buddy Roy is wrong, what happens?

Here is what others said about Roy's study: "

"Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet” to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m.(He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate.... while Spencer’s latest effort doesn’t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder."

I love how you right whiners ignore the vast majority of climatologists to cling to a few deniers.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 9 min Estelle 346,246
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 57 min Trojan 36,106
News Racers' Stark opting for NBA opportunity Wed Opting phartse 2
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Jun 10 hojo 12,419
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jun 5 Public Accommodation 201,480
do you need a loan (Sep '13) May 30 zan 5
News Carlisle's Fitzgerald signs to play at Norfolk ... May '18 Go phartse 4