Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1432747 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.

Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#971064 Aug 27, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>You forgot to add that Israel bombed the Al Safirah facility weeks ago.
That's not so liar pos.
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#971065 Aug 27, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
Mainstream media won't ask, "Where did Syria get WMDs".
Anyone know where Syria got WMDs?
Well lQQkie here__speaking of lying scumbags here comes the queen bee with her first stupid post for the day.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#971066 Aug 27, 2013
OBAMA WORSE THAN BUSH wrote:
From Russia’s view, President Barack Obama is just another Middle East war-loving George W. Bush.
A senior Russian lawmaker said Sunday that Obama was a George W.“clone”.
“Obama is restlessly heading towards war in Syria like Bush was heading towards war in Iraq. Like in Iraq, this war would be illegitimate and Obama will become Bush’s clone,” Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian lower house’s international committee, said on Twitter.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/08...
i actually think Obama is more conservative than Bush was.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Level 1

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#971067 Aug 27, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>That's not so liar pos.
April 30, 2013 it was reported and again on May 4, 2013.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#971068 Aug 27, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
Mainstream media won't ask, "Where did Syria get WMDs".
Anyone know where Syria got WMDs?
No, Syria Doesn’t Have Saddam’s Chemical Weapons

As if warped by some giant conspiratorial black hole, any discussion of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons inevitably bends back in time and space to Iraq in 2003. Remember the meme that Saddam Hussein transferred his deadly weapons to Syria ahead of the U.S. invasion? If not, you can bet you’ll hear it if Bashar Assad follows through on his threat to use chemical weapons against a foreign incursion. But this retroactive justification for the Iraq invasion will be just as bogus as every other time it’s come up in the last 10 years.

I’ve already debunked one of the rumors about Iraq’s WMD. I’m not buying this one. Here’s why.

First: Think about it for a second. Strategically and militarily, it made no sense for Saddam to transfer his weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Saddam worked on acquiring WMD for a reason: to stave off an invasion and hold on to power.

Just listen to a defeated Saddam for a second. In a post-invasion interview, Saddam admitted that he had been bluffing about his WMD. This is actually case-closed for the conspiracy theories about his weapons transfers.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/syria...
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#971069 Aug 27, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's just a chuggin' back up again now...I'm finding it kind of interesting to watch.
CBO agrees with you as I do…
The Congressional Budget Office said the 2013 fiscal deficit would fall to about $642 billion, or 4 percent of G.D.P., about $200 billion less than it estimated just three months ago.
WASHINGTON — Since the recession ended four years ago, the federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion every year. But now the government’s annual deficit is shrinking far faster than anyone in Washington expected, and perhaps even faster than many economists think is advisable for the health of the economy.
The agency forecast that the deficit, which topped 10 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, could shrink to as little as 2.1 percent of gross domestic product by 2015 — a level that most analysts say would be easily sustainable over the long run — before beginning to climb gradually through the rest of the decade.
"Revenues have been strong as the economy has outperformed a bit," said Joel Prakken, a founder of Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm based in St. Louis.
Over all, the figures demonstrate how the economic recovery has begun to refill the government’s coffers. At the same time, Washington, despite its republican political paralysis.
Republicans say perhaps too successful. Given that the economy continues to perform well below its potential and that unemployment has so far failed to fall below 7.5 percent, many economists are cautioning that the deficit is coming down too fast, too soon.
“It’s good news for the budget deficit and bad news for the jobs deficit,” said Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.{R}
“I’m more worried about the latter.” OOOHHH scary..
Now Obama is showing his democratic colors of success in financials. With the government running a hefty $113 billion surplus in the tax payment month of April, according to the Treasury, analysts now do not expect the country to run out of room under its debt ceiling.
The $200 billion reduction to the estimated deficit comes not from the $85 billion in mandatory cuts known as sequestration, nor from the package of tax increases that Congress passed this winter to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. The office had already incorporated those policy changes in its February forecast.
Republicans want Congress to agree for this year to serving as a partial brake on the recovery, cutting government jobs and preventing growth from accelerating to a more robust pace, many economists have warned. The International Monetary Fund has called the country’s pace of deficit reduction “overly strong,” arguing that Washington should delay some of its budget cuts while adopting a longer-term strategy to hold down future deficits.{R} Typical, small minds for small growth..
CBO is revising its estimates for the current year, the budget office also cut its projections of the 10-year cumulative deficit by $618 billion. Those longer-term adjustments are mostly a result of smaller projected outlays for the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, as well as smaller interest payments on the debt. The C.B.O. has quietly erased hundreds of billions of dollars in projected government health spending over the last few years.
It did so again on Tuesday. In February, the budget office projected that the United States would spend about $8.1 trillion on Medicare and $4.4 trillion on Medicaid over the next 10 fiscal years. It now projects it will spend $7.9 trillion on Medicare and $4.3 trillion on Medicaid.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Level 1

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#971070 Aug 27, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
i actually think Obama is more conservative than Bush was.
I was under the impression that the election of Obama in 2008 permanently ended war, oppression and religious intolerance. I mean, they gave the guy the Nobel Peace Prize without a shred of collateral, maybe just because he looked like a black guy.
O'bama’s idea of hopey, changey, peace and improving America’s standing in the eyes of the world is laughable.

“Peace on Earth”

Level 4

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#971073 Aug 27, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Republicans ALREADY proposed a budget.
Stop watching MSNBC.
The poster did not say that Republicans had not proposed a budget. What Republicans have done, after claiming for months that the Senate was stalling by not passing a budget, is "refused to meet with the Democrats to begin negotiations on a single, unified, budget."

No longer can Republicans "pass bills with little chance of bipartisan support through the House and make it appear that they were hard at work while the Senate dithered." Now, the shoe is on the other foot and the Republicans are exposed as the hypocrites that we all know them to be.

Besides, Ryan's farcical budget which increases defense spending above post-sequester levels at the expense of all else is, just like him, borderline delusional.

Republican mantra: Our way or no way.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/37589/2014-...
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#971074 Aug 27, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
Mainstream media won't ask, "Where did Syria get WMDs".
Anyone know where Syria got WMDs?
Well, your basic rightwinger is going to say Iraq even though there is no proof of this. So go ahead with 'Iraq'. What's O'Reilly/Fox News telling you?
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#971075 Aug 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
And you believe Obama.
When's the last time you heard anything even resembling the truth come out of Obama's mouth?
Yes I can see a pattern; Is it conspiracy?
Capture of Osama without archaic torture tactics.{Mathematical algorithms} No invasion of Pakistan with hundreds of $Billions for the military industrialist.
Libya’s war, without one American solider dying in its entire operation and objective. Completed within months.
Obtains a water downed Health Care system for our nation in spite of the most dysfunctional congress in our nations history.
Returned economic stability in record time, from the brink of the abysses of a Great Depression. Faster than Clinton, Reagan and F.D.R.
Seeking to expand our ruined higher education of which we are no longer the “best in the world”.
I have a dream that some day our nation will discover the benefits of Universal Education. Some Western Industrious Nations have, for years, proven its necessity and its benefits that return to their industrious nation to progress.

Since: Nov 11

United States

#971076 Aug 27, 2013
OBAMA WORSE THAN BUSH wrote:
From Russia’s view, President Barack Obama is just another Middle East war-loving George W. Bush.

A senior Russian lawmaker said Sunday that Obama was a George W.“clone”.

“Obama is restlessly heading towards war in Syria like Bush was heading towards war in Iraq. Like in Iraq, this war would be illegitimate and Obama will become Bush’s clone,” Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian lower house’s international committee, said on Twitter.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/08...
But Obama got a Nobel Peace Price for doing nothing just promising peace in a speech.

See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites easy to fool by MSNBC.

Since: Nov 11

United States

#971077 Aug 27, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Syria has a large chemical weapons facility located near Al Safirah which lies just to the Southeast of Aleppo. CNN did a special report on the facility last year with satellite images, a reporter on the ground and interviews with persons familiar with the site.

Syria didn't need or want Saddam's poorly made and improperly stored crap as it has a far superior facility along with guidance from long time ally Russia.

The born of stupidity right wing myth has been debunked over and over yet the crazies here persist with the nonsense.
They got it from Saddam Hussein!

Bush was right but Liberals had been brainwashed into there was no WMD in Iraq even not facts in the ground prove them wrong.

Liberals are always wrong.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#971078 Aug 27, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>We are in the middle of an international crisis and you want to talk about Bush. How about you talk about your 'dum dum' president puffing his chest out and pissing his pants at the same time. And really Kerry aside...he may fall off his yacht during this crisis and demand a Purple Heart.
Calm down boobie. Fox has got you all worked up. Get up and get ready and go to work.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#971079 Aug 27, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text> I was under the impression that the election of Obama in 2008 permanently ended war, oppression and religious intolerance. I mean, they gave the guy the Nobel Peace Prize without a shred of collateral, maybe just because he looked like a black guy.
O'bama’s idea of hopey, changey, peace and improving America’s standing in the eyes of the world is laughable.
i have to agree.

no one can dig us out of the foreign policy hole that Bush put us in.

Bolton/McCain 2016!

Since: Nov 11

United States

#971080 Aug 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>The other option is Al Qaeda.
Are you people complete idiots?
What you are proposing is helping Al Qaeda take over a country, you morons.

Have you given any thought as to what Al Qaeda will do with the chemical weapons when they take possession of them?

If Assad sinks an American aircraft carrier with the Russian anti-ship missiles, the Arab world cheers. We already know the Arab world cheered on 9/11(2001).

It's a now-win situation for the US.

How about we let Europe take the lead on this. Europe helps whomever they desire, and we stand behind Europe. The Europeans are probably helping the secular rebels, whereas Obama is arming the Al Qaeda terrorist insurgents.
If Europe takes the lead, there is a chance a secular government will be installed, like in Libya. If Obama takes the lead, Al Qaeda will take control of Syria.

Now, who here is in favor of putting chemical weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda?

Still, it isn't certain Assad used chemical weapons. It could very well be the so-called "rebels" (who are actually Al Qaeda insurgents - Syria is being invaded) used them to assist the US involvement.

It's a trap. An idiot can see it. Obama is Putin's bitch. And Putin will spank Obama's sycophant ass once more.
Obama's friend are the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood's friend is Al Queda.

In summary: Al Queda are friend of Muslim Brotherhood, where the Brotherhood is the political face and Al Queda the military face.

Obama, the Liberal incompetent idiot, promised to continue to help the Muslim Brotherhood.

Why?

Because all Liberals are brain dead hypocrites.

Since: Nov 11

United States

#971081 Aug 27, 2013
SUCK IT UP OBAMA SMOKERS wrote:
Smokers could face sticker shock when shopping for individual or small-group health insurance in the new state health marketplaces scheduled to open this fall, due to a controversial clause in the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, that allows insurers to penalize smokers by continuing to charge higher rates to tobacco users.

President Barack Obama's landmark health insurance reform legislation ends decades of advantageous underwriting practices by barring insurers from, among other things, limiting lifetime benefits and denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

But the law widely known as Obamacare also aims to discourage tobacco use, the nation's largest preventable health hazard, which kills some 443,000 Americans each year at an annual cost to the nation of $193 billion in medical care and lost productivity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

How do you combat tobacco use without discriminating against smokers? The ACA attempts this balancing act by allowing insurers to continue their practice of charging tobacco users a so-called "smoker surcharge" but limiting it to 50 percent above the rates they charge nontobacco users, beginning in 2014.http://finance.yahoo.com/ news/obamacare-penalty-kicks-s mokers-ash-100000795.html
In the mean time Obama himself smokes and had federally banned all networks from printing pictures of him smoking.

In the mean time, also, Liberals really believe he stopped smoking because MSNBC had not shown pic of him smoking!

See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites already fooled by MSNBC.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#971082 Aug 27, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text> I was under the impression that the election of Obama in 2008 permanently ended war, oppression and religious intolerance. I mean, they gave the guy the Nobel Peace Prize without a shred of collateral, maybe just because he looked like a black guy.
O'bama’s idea of hopey, changey, peace and improving America’s standing in the eyes of the world is laughable.
The soils that nourish the tree of liberty is fed by the martyrs for democracy. International Free Trade Markets will be the sculpture of the new government that arises from this Egyptian and Syrian revolting chaos. Addressing the inequality of Egypt’s and Syrian’s economics, will determine their security.
Which ever of these forces survive, will stand to be tested, to see if they abide by these two ideologies. Failure of either, and the revolution will continue.
Right wing austerity polices for inequality will be no longer fine safe haven in the harbors of the impoverished.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Level 1

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#971083 Aug 27, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Syria Doesn’t Have Saddam’s Chemical Weapons
As if warped by some giant conspiratorial black hole, any discussion of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons inevitably bends back in time and space to Iraq in 2003. Remember the meme that Saddam Hussein transferred his deadly weapons to Syria ahead of the U.S. invasion? If not, you can bet you’ll hear it if Bashar Assad follows through on his threat to use chemical weapons against a foreign incursion. But this retroactive justification for the Iraq invasion will be just as bogus as every other time it’s come up in the last 10 years.
I’ve already debunked one of the rumors about Iraq’s WMD. I’m not buying this one. Here’s why.
First: Think about it for a second. Strategically and militarily, it made no sense for Saddam to transfer his weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Saddam worked on acquiring WMD for a reason: to stave off an invasion and hold on to power.
Just listen to a defeated Saddam for a second. In a post-invasion interview, Saddam admitted that he had been bluffing about his WMD. This is actually case-closed for the conspiracy theories about his weapons transfers.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/syria...
an undated CIA report estimated that the Iraqis had improved their sarin stocks by increasing the purity of the chemical components and building binary weapons. In binary weapons, the components of the nerve agent are not combined until the weapon is ready to be used. This could make the shelf life of the weapon “irrelevant” and allow it to be stored for years before use. This means that if Iraqi stockpiles were transferred to Syria prior to 2003 they could still be lethal. Saddam had secretly moved much of his WMD material to Syria before the U.S.-led invasion under the cover of providing relief to Syrian earthquake victims. Military documents released by Wikileaks revealed the discovery of many small caches of chemical weapons by coalition forces during the occupation of Iraq. Syria was complicit in helping Saddam subvert UN sanctions on Iraq prior to the 2003 war. Congress estimated in 2004 that Syrian-Iraqi smuggling was worth more than $3 billion.

And here answers your question sonic: A second question is why Saddam did not admit to transferring the weapons when he was interrogated. Apparently Saddam did not take U.S. threats seriously and was more concerned about Iran. Transferring weapons to Syria would have prevented their discovery by UN inspectors, but would have left them available in the event of an Iranian attack. Not confessing as he faced death may have been as simple as going to his death knowing that he had the last laugh on his tormenters.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#971084 Aug 27, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Syria Doesn’t Have Saddam’s Chemical Weapons
As if warped by some giant conspiratorial black hole, any discussion of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons inevitably bends back in time and space to Iraq in 2003. Remember the meme that Saddam Hussein transferred his deadly weapons to Syria ahead of the U.S. invasion? If not, you can bet you’ll hear it if Bashar Assad follows through on his threat to use chemical weapons against a foreign incursion. But this retroactive justification for the Iraq invasion will be just as bogus as every other time it’s come up in the last 10 years.
I’ve already debunked one of the rumors about Iraq’s WMD. I’m not buying this one. Here’s why.
First: Think about it for a second. Strategically and militarily, it made no sense for Saddam to transfer his weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Saddam worked on acquiring WMD for a reason: to stave off an invasion and hold on to power.
Just listen to a defeated Saddam for a second. In a post-invasion interview, Saddam admitted that he had been bluffing about his WMD. This is actually case-closed for the conspiracy theories about his weapons transfers.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/syria...
Bah, rightwingers will cling to Saddam had WMD's until the day they die, it is the last justification for invading Iraq.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Level 1

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#971085 Aug 27, 2013
Homer wrote:
<quoted text>Calm down boobie. Fox has got you all worked up. Get up and get ready and go to work.
I have been at work for three hours. Maybe you can just get up...bed head.

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.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MSNBC: Trump won 3 min White and Forever 80
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 7 min Mike 48,860
Arch of Baal in NYC and London 16 min Hebrew Supremacist 2
News Hillary Clinton Charges Racism 23 min valerie 675
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 25 min valerie 1,373
Rise in Satanism 26 min Hebrew Supremacist 2
IR at the walmart 33 min Mick 75
Why did they Nuked Japan but not Germany??? 56 min Michel Montvert 275
More from around the web