Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1232567 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.

fire

Lillington, NC

#770442 Oct 13, 2012
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>If you were not black, theres a good chance you would believe it too. As it is, you are too racist to see the damage he has already done and that which he will do if he could get the chance.
Hey resident stooge!

Since President Obama won:

GDP UP THE WHOLE TERM! <---- measure of the economy.

EMPLOYMENT POSITIVE JOB GROWTH THE WHOLE TERM!

Let's look at your boys Bush/Cheney:

GDP: WORST PERFORMANCE IN 80 YEARS!

JOBS: LOST 8 MILLION!

search: Mitt Romney Serial Liar
Grampy

South Windsor, CT

#770443 Oct 13, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, like so many other folks who voted for Bush, you all went into cryosleep for 8 years.
Conservatives seem to never be able to admit the guy they voted for screwed the pooch.
I don't know how long it took me to convince you nutjobs Reagan raised taxes 11 times, but it was fun while it lasted.
Taxes have to be monitored and adjusted to make them equitable and not oppressive to economic growth all the time. Clinton saw tax revenues rise per capita from $5800 (1993) to $8,400 (2000). Take seven years of over taxation, add the signing of NAFTA and the granting of permanent normal trade relations to China and you'll get a recession with record unemployment within a decade! Nobody invested in new plants and equipment here. Everything went to China and Mexico. Proof once again that despite what they claim, Democrats can't spend your money better than you can!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#770444 Oct 13, 2012
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>If you were not black, theres a good chance you would believe it too. As it is, you are too racist to see the damage he has already done and that which he will do if he could get the chance.
Just because he's black you just assume he's racist?

Oh no no no, that's not racist.

you fit right in here. you and floriduh will have a high old time denying conservative racism. you know, how everything after 1964 that pertains can never be mentioned.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#770445 Oct 13, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
2% of America?
I'd be downplaying that one if I were you.
30% of Americans watch Fox News-I wouldn't lie so much if I were you. Makes you look bi-polar like Biden.
kuda

Cincinnati, OH

#770446 Oct 13, 2012
Grampy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor do businesses hire employees on vague promises of "Hope and Change" as evidenced by the last four years.
"Forward"? Forward to what,$6 trillion more on the Nat'll Debt? Jobwise, that one won't even add one sweeper to the third shift.
Of course businesses should look for more than vague promises from potential employees before hiring them and employees should offer more than vague promises to hire potential employees. Both parties need to understand the pay structure before employment occurs.

“Hope and change” and “moving forward” are campaign slogans meant to express general themes that are vague indeed.

If you are selling “Hope and change,” you don’t need to back it with any specific plan; there could be lots of plans to help sell it. However, if you’re selling a budget plan, you’re selling a specific plan and it needs be available for inspection, numbers included, to make sense.

I understand that you probably prefer Romney to Obama, but please don’t use faulty reasoning. You could better persuade others to prefer him if your argument were coherent. Reasonable people expect to see a budget when one is promised; if Ryan/Romney has no plan, it would be better not to allude to one as a selling point.

Since: Sep 08

Joliet, Illinois

#770447 Oct 13, 2012
kuda wrote:
<quoted text>
Ryan did not specify the “loopholes” he would close to pay for the deficit, so we have no idea about the dollar values of the specific loopholes. That’s the missing math.
You dum dums still don't get it....

A healthy economy generates more government revenue than a sick one does.

Our economy is sick and the democrat solution is to take us further down the trail that europe has gone. Takre a look at financial news coming out of europe.None of it is good.

The choice is to follow the Obama-Biden leadership and wind up like Greece or Italy or to make the right choices and follow Republican leadership to restore the United States to its former glory.

If you cannot grasp the overall concept of what is happening to the country do the details matter? The details of what Romney and Ryan are talking about need to be legislated in a bipartisan congress. Since the dum dums seem to have some problems with actually passing a budget (one of the legal duties they have as elected officials) it would be very helpful and beneficial is the majority of this bipartisan congres was also Republican.

Since: May 11

Brockton, MA

#770448 Oct 13, 2012
Grampy wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think I want Bill Clinton back in power?
Clinton left with a surplus.

He didn't put through unfunded ta cuts,unfunded wars, unfunded expansions of government, unfunded expansions to Medicare.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#770449 Oct 13, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
It was on foreign policy where Ryan was most obviously outmatched, as I assumed he would be. Especially in the sections of the debate on Afghanistan and Syria, Ryan was stuck defending Romney’s very similar positions on both while trying to argue against administration policy. It wasn’t an enviable task, and Ryan was limited by what he had to work with, but it doesn’t change the fact that Ryan didn’t inspire much confidence that he is prepared to be president if the need arose. It’s not surprising that Ryan didn’t do very well in these sections. He isn’t “fluent” on foreign policy, and that should have been obvious all along. Ryan’s boosters did him a great disservice by pretending that he was.
Ryan’s limited experience on foreign policy was on display all night. Perhaps the most painful moments were when he attacked the administration’s response to the Green movement. This was the clearest example of Ryan’s reliance on standard movement conservative talking points on foreign policy for the entire debate, and it was clear that he thought that everyone was supposed to find this damning so that all he had to do was mention it.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...
ROTFLAMOROTFLAMOROTFLMAOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOSNICKERGRO ANMOANROTHFLAMO--
Who could eve listen to what Ryan was saying when the Joker was sitting beside him making an ass out of himself?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#770450 Oct 13, 2012
Grampy wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes have to be monitored and adjusted to make them equitable and not oppressive to economic growth all the time. Clinton saw tax revenues rise per capita from $5800 (1993) to $8,400 (2000). Take seven years of over taxation, add the signing of NAFTA and the granting of permanent normal trade relations to China and you'll get a recession with record unemployment within a decade! Nobody invested in new plants and equipment here. Everything went to China and Mexico. Proof once again that despite what they claim, Democrats can't spend your money better than you can!
So the Bush economy belongs to Clinton.

Think the economics classes at your local college are teaching the same?

(why is it the 18% think everyone should just buy into the BS?)

Since: May 11

Brockton, MA

#770451 Oct 13, 2012
Grampy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to the crackhead in the White House.
Bsuh is out of office. You elected a man that was a cokehead until the age of 35 & now bitch about a college kid experimenting a little with coke. Yes Bush was a drunk & cokehead. You knew it & still elected him

Since: Sep 08

Joliet, Illinois

#770452 Oct 13, 2012
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
Below is an email from a close friend. He hits the nails good.
"I was impressed with Ryan's ability to stay cool.
Biden 's demeanor is not what I would expect of a guy one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Mary and I watched the whole debate and , yes, I felt Biden was a Son-of a Bitch but unlike LBJ's admonition to an underling , he's not my Son-of-a Bitch!
What is really bothersome to me is the demeanor shown by Biden pretty much exemplifies the Obama cabinet and himself: Full of themselves and convinced they have the answers for us who are IQ deficient and less enlightened.
Arrogance,arrogance.
Remember Al Gore's sighing during the debates with Bush?
Come to think of it Al Gore, Obama and the EU have all won the Nobel Peace Prize!Who am I to complain about them?! The people in Oslo and Stockholm are smarter than me, too! AAAhhhahhhh! I need to take a trip to Mars and visit Curiosity....I'm sure Curiosity is not an arrogant little fellow. Gosh that would be fun.
Curiosity does not lie and does not have perfect dental work. Curiosity knows the facts and does not lose his cool .. he is like Paul Ryan."
Let's go to Mars this weekend!
Has anyone ever been able to figure out what Obama actually "did" to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize or was it awarded for his message of hope and change?

He hasn't done anything to deserve it that is for sure.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#770453 Oct 13, 2012
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>30% of Americans watch Fox News-I wouldn't lie so much if I were you. Makes you look bi-polar like Biden.
30%?????

L0L LOL LOL

Prove it.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#770454 Oct 13, 2012
FIRE THE GOP wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey resident stooge!
Your guys Bush/Cheney LOST 8 MILLION JOBS!
THEY BORROWED .........$5 TRILLION DOLLARS.
REPUBLICANS!
So where are the jobs since these wonder boys?
China!
Vietnam!
Not here!
We have Phd's working at wally world! In the USA.
They could work in a factory in their field of expertise:
BUT REPUBLICAN DOOOUUUCCCCHHHHEEEE BAGGGGS,
MOVED IT TO CHINA!
search: Mitt Romney Lied About Healthcare
According the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus cost more than the Iraq war. The only thing it succeeded in doing was to push the country deeper into the fiscal hole, leaving us stuck with the weakest recovery since World War II. Barack Hussein O'bama promises more of the same in a second term.
Grampy

South Windsor, CT

#770455 Oct 13, 2012
yepperz wrote:
Mitt Romney’s Military Budget Hypocrisy
Romney’s pledge to increase military spending by 4 percent of GDP would add at least $2 trillion to federal spending over 10 years. That invalidates every specific cut he has proposed—and the math doesn’t begin to add up.
This week, Mitt reiterated one of his most expensive and longstanding political panders—a commitment to increase military spending to 4 percent of GDP—adding at least $2 trillion to federal spending over 10 years.
The audacity of the etch-a-sketch meant that this specific budget-busting promise was so big that it almost went unchallenged—and certainly it hasn’t yet reached the level of mainstream, Main Street debate.
It single-handedly invalidates every specific cut he has proposed—which essentially consists of social conservative low-hanging fruit like “eliminating Title X Family Planning Funding”($300 million), reducing foreign aid ($100 million), privatizing Amtrak ($1.6 billion) and reducing “Subsidies For the National Endowments for the Arts And Humanities, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, And the Legal Services Corporation ($600 Million). And of course, we can’t forget the pricetag placed by the Romney campaign on the not yet fully-implemented Obamacare ($95 billion). You do the math.
Even if you believe Mitt on the magically paid for, completely painless $5 trillion tax cut, adding in this specific commitment to spend more than ever before on our military puts us on the path to further future deficits.
The libertarian Cato Institute’s Benjamin Friedman expressed more pointed skepticism:“I don’t view it as a serious policy proposal. It seems like more of a talking point. What Obama said in the debate is true—it would add about $2 trillion in spending over a decade,” Friedman said.“It’s totally unclear where he would get the money to do this…[and] Romney is not going to articulate exactly what he would do to get there, because it would almost certainly be wildly unpopular.”
Maybe there is some cynical sleight of hand that makes all this impossible math work—like letting the Bush tax cuts expire on December 31st and then making the Romney tax cuts begin from that new higher baseline, while simultaneously saving the country from the largest tax cut in history (cue the conquering hero trumpets).
But it has been surreal to see the allegedly fiscal conservative candidate beat up the Democrat for proposing spending cuts. Romney is running instead as a $2 trillion big government Keynesian when it comes to the military industrial complex while proposing comparatively small but devastating cuts to social programs as a sign of what a tough fiscal disciplinarian he’s going to be. It’s absurd.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10...
Defense spending creates American jobs!

Obama's glut of entitlement spending creates increased drug sales, and drug cartel jobs for Mexicans.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#770456 Oct 13, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
It was on foreign policy where Ryan was most obviously outmatched, as I assumed he would be. Especially in the sections of the debate on Afghanistan and Syria, Ryan was stuck defending Romney’s very similar positions on both while trying to argue against administration policy. It wasn’t an enviable task, and Ryan was limited by what he had to work with, but it doesn’t change the fact that Ryan didn’t inspire much confidence that he is prepared to be president if the need arose. It’s not surprising that Ryan didn’t do very well in these sections. He isn’t “fluent” on foreign policy, and that should have been obvious all along. Ryan’s boosters did him a great disservice by pretending that he was.
Ryan’s limited experience on foreign policy was on display all night. Perhaps the most painful moments were when he attacked the administration’s response to the Green movement. This was the clearest example of Ryan’s reliance on standard movement conservative talking points on foreign policy for the entire debate, and it was clear that he thought that everyone was supposed to find this damning so that all he had to do was mention it.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...
You didn't see the same 'debate' I saw? But with your hands over your eyes, and practicing the new song for your teacher, it's no wonder?'Plugs' needed much help, and Ryan didn't want to be perceived as 'Picking on the Elderly'?
fred

Milford, CT

#770457 Oct 13, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton left with a surplus.
He didn't put through unfunded ta cuts,unfunded wars, unfunded expansions of government, unfunded expansions to Medicare.
Another Soros paid communist lie. Deficits exploded under the kenyan

TOM BROKAW SEES THE WRITING ON THE WALL: Tom Brokaw Pans Biden Debate Demeanor: Shouldn’t Be ‘Laughing’ During Discussion Of Iran.

He shouldn’t have been lying about his Iraq and Afghan war votes, either. And the claim about our current financial problems stemming from Bush’s putting those wars that Biden voted for “on the credit card” is an occasion to repost this graphic comparing spending under Bush and Obama once again. Yeah, that part’s basically a lie, too.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/upl...

Since: Sep 08

Joliet, Illinois

#770458 Oct 13, 2012
Romney-R is 4 the rich wrote:
<quoted text>
why would you wanna increase gov revenue ?? Isn't our gov rich enough ?? I though republicans are for small gov yet you want to increase its revenue ?
The only reason I can think of to increase government revenue is to reduce the gigantic deficit generated by the Obama administration.

Increasing revenue the Republican way would accomplish that alog with benefiting every single taxpayer in the nation.

Democrats want to increase government revenues so they can spend more.

Since: Sep 08

Joliet, Illinois

#770459 Oct 13, 2012
Romney-R is 4 the rich wrote:
<quoted text>you also seems to know about other stuff ..
what's a meth or extecy cocaine or heroine??
are you on drugs BOY !?
I watch the news....

I see all of these libtard democrats being arrested for abuseing all of those things.

No, I am not on drugs... Demtards are. I am informed.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#770460 Oct 13, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Birther Bill, if the Republicans did not create the recession, near financial meltdown, housing collapse, people would still be working.
Really Davey, How many people have you hired since Barney & Chris said the was nothing wrong with Fannie & Freddie?

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#770461 Oct 13, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton left with a surplus.
He didn't put through unfunded ta cuts,unfunded wars, unfunded expansions of government, unfunded expansions to Medicare.
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.(Liberal propaganda by Liberal communists is how Clinton achieved his fake surplus)

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998,$123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly,$360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B +$123B +$230B =$422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin...

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
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr FastandFurious 189,824
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr Net Workit 5,997
News 17 shot-2 fatally-in bloody start to Memorial D... 4 hr BLDM 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr OzRitz 53,486
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 5 hr Ratloder 70,018
Amy 5-24-15 6 hr tiredofit 4
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 9 hr Go Blue Forever 99,534
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]