Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1483372 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.

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#772410 Oct 15, 2012
FACT: The National Debt increased by 189% under Reagan, 55% under George H.W. Bush and 86% under George W. Bush who left our country bankrupt.

Now, compare that to the increase of 37% under Clinton and the current 35% under Obama. Anyone concerned about the debt should know better than to put a Republican in charge. Romney will be no different. He has already stated that he will not address the issue of the national debt in his first four years in office. Wake up!!!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#772411 Oct 15, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Bush fed Congress cherry picked intel to et thewar he wanted.
Killed over 4000 soldiers & tens of thousands of civilians & cost 800 billion or so - a war of choice based on lies. All unfunded.
Bush just repeated everything Clinton ever said about Saddam Hussein, you ignorant buffoon.

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing."
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
FIRE THE GOP

Lillington, NC

#772412 Oct 15, 2012
Who was talking to you?

You offtopic spammer nuts clueless idiot.

The topic was a racist weekend comment from glenn69.

Try to keep up! DOOOOOOOOOOOOFUS!

Oh yeah: Ryan: today: we can't disclose the facts behind our rich guy tax cuts! There is an election going on.

Huh?

R's are dumb!
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
You been monitering th jr high school kiddie crowd?
Sounds exactly like the stuffof their (clueless) comprehension levels!!!
KEYSTONE? LOCKHEED? LIBYA?
ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#772413 Oct 15, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he built the roads that brought people to his business and educated the people who work for him.
He is the government. So are you, Homer. So am I. Our taxes pay for everything the government does.
Maybe that's what's confusing him, you and Obama.
You red states now claim to pay for something? You're occasionally good for a laugh, carol.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#772414 Oct 15, 2012
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait... Isn't Big Bird Obama's current economic advisor?
Elmo is National Security Advisor...
Cookie Monster the Attorney General?
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772415 Oct 15, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you support taxing a group of people that it's been proven don't even have enough money to pay for the government the Democrats created if you taxed them at 100 percent and made them destitute, thus creating a situation where the government is continually insolvent until the reality becomes that it will be impossible for the government to pay the debt, right?
Or, tell us from whom Obama will get the money he needs for the government the Democrats created.
.... well?
Who will pay more taxes to pay for Obama's government?
We were well on the road to solvency until Bush took over, then 8 years of growing government, adding to entitlements, cutting taxes on the rich while starting a couple of unfunded wars ruined all that. But you go ahead and keep blaming Obama.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#772416 Oct 15, 2012
leosnana wrote:
FACT: The National Debt increased by 189% under Reagan, 55% under George H.W. Bush and 86% under George W. Bush who left our country bankrupt.
Now, compare that to the increase of 37% under Clinton and the current 35% under Obama. Anyone concerned about the debt should know better than to put a Republican in charge. Romney will be no different. He has already stated that he will not address the issue of the national debt in his first four years in office. Wake up!!!
Just like Obama should do, you should read the Constitution at least once in your life.
Congress controls all the purse strings of the government.
The Republicans gave to the Democrats a declining 0.16 (that's zero point one six) trillion dollar deficit in January, 2007.
What have the Democrats done to that deficit since? Did you say increase it by ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT?
The Republicans gave to the Democrats a 5 trillion dollar debt in January, 2007.
What have the Democrats done to that debt since? Did you say they more than tripled it to the 16 trillion dollars it is today?

And why hasn't the government been able to budget itself since Obama took office? Do you think the Democrats' inability to budget a government is related to the ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT increase of the deficit and tripling of the total debt?
Only an idiot would think not.

And another inconvenient fact:
The Democrats took over full oversight of the financial industry in January, 2007.(I hope we don't have to post the constant string of lies from Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank for you here.) After about 2 years of Democrat oversight, the very institutions that gave Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama a fortune in bribes caused the economy to collapse.
Do you think this fortune in bribes to Dodd and Obama were related to those same institutions causing the economic collapse?
Given those facts, if you din't know anything else, wouldn't it be wise to revoke that piece of legislation Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank wrote to "fix" the problem they were instrumental in creating?

Like Saul Alinsky instructs:
The (organizing element, in this case Democrats) must first create the situation (the economic collapse).
Then, this rule applies:
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing."

That sounds a lot like your arguments....
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772417 Oct 15, 2012
leosnana wrote:
FACT: The National Debt increased by 189% under Reagan, 55% under George H.W. Bush and 86% under George W. Bush who left our country bankrupt.
Now, compare that to the increase of 37% under Clinton and the current 35% under Obama. Anyone concerned about the debt should know better than to put a Republican in charge. Romney will be no different. He has already stated that he will not address the issue of the national debt in his first four years in office. Wake up!!!
The Republicans pile up the debt and leave the Democrats holding the bag and then have the audacity to blame the Democrats for all the debt and spending woes.
Gunner

Middletown, CT

#772418 Oct 15, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Bush fed Congress cherry picked intel to et thewar he wanted.
I'm sure if Romney wins you'll still believe everything the government feeds you - you know, like you do now.
Cool Hand Luke

Bangkok, Thailand

#772419 Oct 15, 2012
Obama: my administration is most pro-gay in history

Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:53 EST

Comments (22)Tags: obama, sexual orientation
President Obama greets attendees at a gay pride event at the White House in 2009.
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 12, 2011 – President Barack Obama again vowed his fidelity to the homosexual lobby at a White House reception in honor of LGBT pride month, boasting that his administration has done more than any other president to advance their cause.

“This administration, under my direction has consistently said we cannot discriminate as a country against people on the basis of sexual orientation, and we have done more in the two-and-a-half years I have been in here than the previous 43 presidents to uphold that principle,” said Obama at a news conference June 29, the day of the reception, according to the Christian Post.

Nonetheless, the president performed an awkward tightrope walk for gay rights supporters at the White House, as he praised their efforts, while coyly acknowledging their frustration with his public stance against federal imposition of same-sex “marriage.”

“There are going to be times where you’re still frustrated with me. I know there are going to be times where you’re still frustrated at the pace of change. I understand that. I know I can count on you to let me know,” said Obama to laughter and cheers from the raucous crowd.

Earlier in his remarks, Obama lauded “folks who are standing up against discrimination, and for the rights of parents and children and partners and students,” to which he added “and spouses” at the prompting of the audience. The president faced a similar reaction at an LGBT fundraiser in Manhattan days earlier, where the crowd chanted “marriage” at him in playful protest.

The president pointed to his accomplishments so far, including eradicating the military ban on open homosexuals serving and refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as a reminder of his “commitment” to their cause, which he compared to the cause of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

“It was here, in the East Room, at our first Pride reception, on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, a few months after I took office, that I made a pledge, I made a commitment. I said that I would never counsel patience; it wasn’t right for me to tell you to be patient any more than it was right for folks to tell African Americans to be patient in terms of their freedoms,” said the president.“I said it might take time to get everything we wanted done. But I also expected to be judged not by the promises I made, but the promises I kept.”

.
dim wrote:
Why is Obama losing?

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#772420 Oct 15, 2012
Oh, look, the closeted gay bashing hydra-head is back with the reams (pun intended) of pre-packaged spam...time to be elsewhere. What a bunch of morans!

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#772421 Oct 15, 2012
dem wrote:
Six geriatric azzholes attacking lily.
Hope you guys don't mind if I treat your mother carol like you treat lily.
You're many adolescent reprobates making fools of yourselves. I only wish I could 'treat' you like you deserve.
Gunner

Middletown, CT

#772422 Oct 15, 2012
FIRE THE GOP wrote:
Who was talking to you?
You offtopic spammer nuts clueless idiot.
The topic was a racist weekend comment from glenn69.
Try to keep up! DOOOOOOOOOOOOFUS!
Oh yeah: Ryan: today: we can't disclose the facts behind our rich guy tax cuts! There is an election going on.
Huh?
R's are dumb!
<quoted text>
Obama sucks. Try to keep up, azzhole.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772423 Oct 15, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he built the roads that brought people to his business and educated the people who work for him.
He is the government. So are you, Homer. So am I. Our taxes pay for everything the government does.
Maybe that's what's confusing him, you and Obama.
Great, so you support Obama as well. You're starting to come around.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772424 Oct 15, 2012
Gunner wrote:
<quoted text>
Who are you and this fictional "Mark Olberding" trying to kid? Obama doesn't care about the people who don't support his "vision".
Why do you say he doesn't care?
Gunner

Middletown, CT

#772425 Oct 15, 2012
dim wrote:
Why is Obama losing?
Hey, maybe you didn't get the memo. A Romney lead is really a "statistical dead heat".

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#772426 Oct 15, 2012
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait... Isn't Big Bird Obama's current economic advisor?
Elmo is National Security Advisor...
Oscar the Grouch would be qualified, and certainly an improvement, as head of the RNC.
Cool Hand Luke

Bangkok, Thailand

#772427 Oct 15, 2012
Obama's bad moves on infanticide come back to haunt him

Since former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich pointed out in the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday that President Barack Obama supported infanticide, the media has been in an uproar. Many outlets are wondering where such an accusation could possibly come from.

Unfortunately, during the last presidential campaign cycle, too many outlets were too busy fawning over then presidential candidate Barack Obama and doing political hit jobs on GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to bother to ask Mr. Obama about reports regarding his votes and remarks within the Illinois State Senate concerning the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Additionally, Mr. Obama has done a good job in distorting his position in this area.

First, many Republicans and conservatives alike are referring to a 2003 health and human services committee vote within the Illinois State Senate. Former Washington Times columnist Amanda Carpenter covered this story in great detail in her Town Hall column in 2008:(emphasis is mine)

“We have a smoking gun committee report,” said National Right to Life Committee Legislative Counsel Susan Muskett.

Muskett’s “smoking gun” is a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff. It documents a unanimous 10-0 vote by the 2003 Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time, to amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent “final action” vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority.

This means that, in essence, Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way that Obama has said would have enabled him to support it—before he voted against it. It also puts Obama further to the left of NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to a statement released by the abortion-rights lobby in the run-up to the U.S. Senate’s BAIPA vote in 2002,“NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

For those who may doubt partisan records, the Republican committee report is backed by an Associated Press article that documented the 6-4 vote on the amended version of the bill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercool ...

.

dim wrote:
Why is Obama losing?
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#772428 Oct 15, 2012
What Will They Call the Romney Stimulus?(Part III)

One of my pet speculations for the last year has involved one certainty — a Romney administration would engage in short-term Keynesian stimulus — and one question: What will they call it?

In his provocative feature on what both Obama and Romney might try to accomplish as early as January 2013, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait suggests that nomenclature isn’t the key point. Rather, it’s that, with Romney in the White House, Republicans could tie short-term stimulus to what they’re really after (rate reductions on the wealthy). He paints the following scenario:

A plan that increases deficits in the short run allows him to offer a political olive branch to Democrats without breaking faith with his own base. They’ve been calling for more stimulus since 2009, haven’t they? Well, here’s their chance! This was the approach Republicans used during George W. Bush’s first term to Shanghai Democrats into voting for their tax cuts. They would attach the short-term stimulative tax cuts Democrats demand (focused more on the middle class) to long-term tax cuts for the rich, and dare Democrats to mock their own constituents’ economic pain by opposing it.

This seems plausible.

To answer the question I’ve been asking all along, the Romney administration will pass a stimulus package in 2013 — and they will call it Compromise.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/what-w...
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#772429 Oct 15, 2012
leosnana wrote:
FACT: The National Debt increased by 189% under Reagan, 55% under George H.W. Bush and 86% under George W. Bush who left our country bankrupt.
Now, compare that to the increase of 37% under Clinton and the current 35% under Obama. Anyone concerned about the debt should know better than to put a Republican in charge. Romney will be no different. He has already stated that he will not address the issue of the national debt in his first four years in office. Wake up!!!
Reagan was a BIGGGG spender but he wore a flag on his lapel and said all the right things so nobody noticed. Well, Homer noticed.

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) 5 min Dr Guru 234,558
Are democrats destroyed? 13 min Go Blue Forever 264
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 14 min Go Blue Forever 104,734
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 30 min mdbuilder 62,982
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 36 min SweLL GirL 10,103
abby1-23-17 1 hr RACE 1
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr RACE 2,393

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages