Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1498176 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.

Jane Says

New York, NY

#775219 Oct 17, 2012
In the real world, it's the Obama administration, not Republicans, who have actively presided over and promoted a drop in cancer screenings for both men and women over the past four years. You can thank Democratic crusaders for health care rationing in the White House. They want all the glory of championing socialized medicine, but cut and run from the consequences at election time.

Under Obamacare, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) will be empowered to determine which health care services are "medically appropriate." For nearly three decades, the federal panel of primary care physicians and epidemiologists has issued nonbinding guidelines and A-F ratings of recommended medical procedures. But as Forbes columnist Dr. Paul Hsieh explains:

"ObamaCare links insurance coverage of preventive medical services to their USPSTF rating....(U)nder ObamaCare, Medicare payment decisions will become increasingly controlled by the new Independent Payment Advisory Board, explicitly created to reduce Medicare spending.... To reduce costs, many private insurers will likely drop coverage for "C" and "D" rated services. Hence under ObamaCare, the USPSTF guidelines will likely become the de facto standards for both government and private health insurance coverage."

And that means dropping coverage for the very services Scar-Jo and her femme friends are accusing the GOP of threatening.

Note: The USPSTF is the same review panel that advised cutting back on routine ovarian cancer screenings last month, recommended fewer prostate cancer screening tests in May 2012, and proposed mammogram restrictions for women over age 50 in 2009.

In fact, the Mayo Clinic reported this summer that mammogram screenings for women in their 40s have declined nearly 6 percent since the Obama panel announced its decision in 2009. "Comparing mammography rates before and after publication of the new guidelines," the Mayo Clinic wrote, "researchers found that the recommendations were associated with a 5.72 percent decrease in the mammography rate for women ages 40-49. Over a year, nearly 54,000 fewer mammograms were performed in this age group."

It's no surprise the Hollywood "cancer screening" horror ad script was written by left-wing actor/director Rob Reiner of "All in the Family" and Archie Bunker fame. These Obama-promoting meatheads and their hysterical handmaidens inhabit a manufactured world impervious to facts and fiscal realities.
Jane Says

New York, NY

#775220 Oct 17, 2012
Hollywood's Hysterical "Cancer Screening" Lie for Obama

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#775221 Oct 17, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Democrats had a super majority in the Senate and dominant control of the House for two goddam years. If you didn't like the tax rate then, why didn't the Democrats change it then? Seems like you frauds thought it was fair then. Why do you think it's unfair now?
Uninformed. How are you so uninformed?

Democrats did not get a super majority until July of 2009 when Al Franken was sworn in.

They lost it August when Ted Kennedy dies.

They got it back in late September when Paul Kirk was sworn on.

They then lost it when Scott Brown was sworn in Feb 4th, 2010.

So Democrats held a super majority for 6 months, not 2 GD years.

You really need to get better informed because you keep making a jackass out yourself every GD day.
And so it goes

Scottsbluff, NE

#775222 Oct 17, 2012
We have reached the point where the left now says "ignore the polls." When the right did this, the media ridiculed them.

Orlando, FL

#775224 Oct 17, 2012
Alloramadai wrote:
<quoted text>
Love it
Perhaps you and Lily need to join the 21st century.

Women are running for president now. Women own corporations now. Women are astronauts and in military combat now.

Equal pay for women is so 70s.

Who doesn't support that in this day and time?
Jane Says

New York, NY

#775225 Oct 17, 2012
My theory as to why President Barack Obama fell flat during the first debate: He looked at the crowd and the cameras and thought:

"I've been saying this stuff for five years, and I don't believe myself anymore. I don't have a strong plan to jump-start the moribund economy. Come on, everyone knows that presidents aren't responsible for private-sector job creation. I don't really want to cut the deficit. This isn't fun anymore."

In the second presidential debate with Mitt Romney on Tuesday night, Obama brought more energy, but he couldn't rustle up a stronger economy, and he couldn't give much hope to his erstwhile fans. Undecided voter Michael Jones, for example, told the president he voted for him in 2008 but no longer felt optimistic about four more years under this administration.

Obama's policies haven't delivered as promised. The president keeps talking up "energy of the future," and he says that he wants more oil, natural gas and renewable fuels, but he stopped the Keystone XL pipeline, bankrolled the failed Solyndra solar venture and appointed an energy secretary who doesn't even try to lower prices at the pump.

"I know what it takes to make an economy work," Romney pressed. Obama means well, but his policies hurt job creation.

The president promised voters that his health care program would save families $2,500 per year. Problem: Premiums are almost $2,000 higher than they were when Obama signed the Affordable Care Act.

And, Romney argued, small-business owners tell him the Obamacare mandates keep them from hiring new workers.

Romney hit Obama hard on the president's failure to deliver on his promise to push for a comprehensive immigration bill in his first year in office. In fact, Obama did not push for said legislation during his first two years in office, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate.(Congress didn't vote on an immigration bill until the Republicans retook the House.)

It would have been nice if moderator Candy Crowley had corrected the president when he claimed otherwise.

Crowley did correct Romney when he said the president did not attribute the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, this year to terrorism. Obama countered that he mentioned terrorism during remarks he made in the Rose Garden the following day.(Actually, the president said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." Obama also suggested that efforts to "denigrate" Islam had a role in the attack -- the phony video scenario.)

Milford, CT

#775226 Oct 17, 2012
CunningLinguist wrote:
Poor Mittens, caught lying and chastised by Obama.
1. The inerrant bible trumps the constitution
2. Evolution and Global warming are a hoax
3. College students and those seeking education are snobs
4. Gay Americans are an abomination
5. Poor people deserve to be poor
6. Union workers are socialists
7. The unemployed are lazy parasites unwilling to work
8. 50% of Latinos are illegal until proven otherwise
9. Women using birth control are sluts
10. Corporations are people
GALLUP: Romney 51, Obama 45.

UPDATE: Undecided former Obama voters overwhelmingly chose Romney after last night’s debate.“I was not undecided between Obama and Romney. I was undecided between Romney and not voting.”

Indianapolis, IN

#775227 Oct 17, 2012
Will the Foreign Policy Debate Sink Romney?

Bill Kristol thinks that Romney’s performance in the last debate on foreign policy could determine whether Romney wins or loses the election:

Foreign policy isn’t Romney’s natural subject. It’s not his comfort zone. And it’s always more difficult for the challenger. Good. Romney will have to rise to the occasion.

This has remained one of Romney’s biggest weaknesses for a few reasons, the most important of which is that he simply hasn’t spent enough time or paid enough attention to these issues to be as well-versed in them as he should be. There are many things that aren’t Romney’s “natural” subjects, but he doesn’t struggle with any other kind of policy as much as he struggles with this one. As a former governor, it is understandable that he prefers talking about domestic policy issues, but favoring this preference has caused him to neglect foreign policy to a remarkable degree for someone who has been running for president since 2006. Until now, most voters likely haven’t noticed the result of this neglect, but they will see it in Monday’s debate.

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#775228 Oct 17, 2012
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you shouting?
It's a matter of style for the Debil; you would never understand...besides, as many times as you keep repeating the same old nonsense, we thought you were probably deaf.

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#775229 Oct 17, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The purpose of a budget is to set guidelines on spending & compare it to revenues. That is it.
Would you please tell that to the democrats because with the financial state this country is in, we need "guidelines"

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#775230 Oct 17, 2012
"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...,but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

And now, any of those who refuse, or are unable to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."

Ben Stein

"Stuff's gettin better"

Milford, CT

#775231 Oct 17, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Uninformed. How are you so uninformed?
Democrats did not get a super majority until July of 2009 when Al Franken was sworn in.
They lost it August when Ted Kennedy dies.
They got it back in late September when Paul Kirk was sworn on.
They then lost it when Scott Brown was sworn in Feb 4th, 2010.
So Democrats held a super majority for 6 months, not 2 GD years.
You really need to get better informed because you keep making a jackass out yourself every GD day.
So the Kenyan and Reid couldn't sway one Republican senate vote between 2009 and 2010?

What horrible leaders. America deserves better.

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#775232 Oct 17, 2012
flack wrote:
Must be a libtard talking points meeting going on.
Where ole where did the libtards go
Where ole where can they be?
Hasn't been this quiet on here since the mid-term elections. LOL!
I think the best part of the debate last night was when it was over and the candidates were "mingling" with the audience. Look at the stark difference in facial expression between the 2. Obama was PISSED! LOL

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#775233 Oct 17, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
The purpose of a budget is to set guidelines on spending & compare it to revenues. That is it.
It is not some magical entity that balances budgets.
I've been on Hospital board where every monthly meeting sat through the finance guy going department by department saying how x-ray was over budget because they did more x-rays than budgeted. Spent more took in more.
The State of Massachusetts was ranked number one in debt under Mitt Romney. Look up the numbers yourself. I mean certainly you have them, right? Or are you just talking out your butt again.
Romney did not improve the employment situation. Over his tenure, MA lost 40,000 jobs.
And really, you don't know Romney signed the Norquist pledge? Then STFU until you find out. How can you be for a candidate & be so uninformed.
If Romney had signed & kept that pledge prior to being governor, he never would have come close to balancing any budget. Romney Closed loopholes ( A norquist tax increase) & Increased Fees ( A norquist ta increase).
As President, Romney can not close a loophole to increase revenues unless he cuts revenues someplace else.
Romney was 47th in Job creation every year he was Gov.
So, What good is Romney's "solutions" he brags about in MA,when he can't employ them as President.
If you don't have a budget, you don't have a plan.... or a plan you want the American people to know about.
We haven't had a budget since Obama took office.

Give us the number for the debt of Mass before and after Romney. You obviously don't have the numbers and don't know what you're talking about. Talk about someone talking through their ass.... You talk, but you don't say anything.

I do recall while Mitt Romney was governor, my brother-in-law had to go to Boston to work construction because there wasn't enough people there to do the work that needed to be done. That just doesn't fit with what you claim.

What's wrong with not raising taxes?
.... well??????

So, what you're saying is, Romney balanced revenue with expenditure, right?
Isn't that the way government should be run?

What does closing a loophole have to do with cutting revenue? You're reaching here. Just babble there.

So, you're saying we don't even have any guidelines for spending and comparing that to revenue, right? Wouldn't you call that disfunctional?
Please tell us why we haven't even had a budget since Obama took office.
Please tell us why Obama submitted only 2 budgets to Congress in the 4 years he was supposed to submit a budget.
Please tell us why the sum total of Obama's only two budget proposals in the four years he's been golfing around the White House got a sum total of ZERO votes in Congress.

And, kindly explain to us how the government will be able to control spending if it is so disfunctional it can't even generate a budget when the president has a super majority in the Senate and a dominant majority in the House.

And you're trying to convince the country we need four more years of that....

Milford, CT

#775234 Oct 17, 2012
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>There are already fast-tracks to citizenship out there for those who enlist...I personally know a couple for who became citizens posthumously.
fred knows. The unrestrained Kenyan will rule as a communist African dictator and unleash his hoodie mau muas to terrorize America

MEGAN MCARDLE: What Exactly Would Barack Obama Do With a Second Term? The president has done shockingly little to lay out his second term agenda.“
new yawk

Tonawanda, NY

#775235 Oct 17, 2012
Think I stated it for Creative Accolades?

I stated it because it's The Truth. I wouldn't choose to "go back" on The Truth.

Been riding alone for quite some time now, as you know.

I don't hitch my horse to anybody's wagon, but I will unite to fight a good cause.

People are like investments. They're either assests or liabilities. When they become the latter, drop 'em.

Please tell Frank:
Great Loving is like a Good Fight:
It should be like a small play but, played seriously and with passion.

TIA ... Until then, keep it ridin' on the razor's edge.
THE DEBIL wrote:
<quoted text>

Indianapolis, IN

#775236 Oct 17, 2012
Bill Kristol: "...if Romney can't win the foreign policy debate, he probably won't win...."

Bournemouth, UK

#775237 Oct 17, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Uninformed. How are you so uninformed?
Democrats did not get a super majority until July of 2009 when Al Franken was sworn in.
They lost it August when Ted Kennedy dies.
They got it back in late September when Paul Kirk was sworn on.
They then lost it when Scott Brown was sworn in Feb 4th, 2010.
So Democrats held a super majority for 6 months, not 2 GD years.
You really need to get better informed because you keep making a jackass out yourself every GD day.
How many house Democrats have voted "For" an Obama budget in the past 3 years?

Answer 0. Not even his own party backs his vision for the future.

No record to run on and no future to speak of, so all that's left is to falsely slander his opponent.

Some commander in chief! Only one choice this election season.

Romney/Ryan 2012

Orlando, FL

#775238 Oct 17, 2012
By the way, Obama's crowing about the Lilly Ledbetter Act is just another of a long list of liberal ruses.

On his first day in office, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. The administration coined it the “Equal Pay for Equal Work” bill.

However, the law does not give fair pay for equal work, but rather extends the period of time that women are able to file a claim of wage discrimination. With each new paycheck, the six-month time frame for filing a lawsuit resets.

The Republican members opposed the bill primarily because of how it affects employers — and therefore job creation — and on the belief that, as a result of the new legislation, gender discrimination — and hence, not hiring — in the workplace would likely increase because employers would fear lawsuits from female workers.

The Obama Administration cites that full-time working American women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns and claim this is the ‘wage gap.’

HOWEVER...the statistic does not account for the number of hours per week women and men
work on average. To a considerable degree, the ‘gender wage gap’ is more a ‘gender hours gap.’

Men are more likely to work more hours while women are more likely to work less than 35 hours per week. In 2009, 66.6 percent of American workers working less than 35-hour workweeks were women.

The wage gap depends on the labor-force participation rate by women, which is a function of a number of variables, both personal and societal.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act provides a forum to air grievances that may or may not be related to wage differentials. However, it obscures the fact that differentials are due to choices.

As a piece of social legislation designed to improve women’s wages in comparison to men, THE LILLY LEDBETTER ACT IS MORE LIKELY TO RESULT IN FEWER EMPLOYED FEMALES because firms fear potential litigation, adverse publicity from such cases, and the amount of resources they would have to devote to defending themselves against such claims.

There's your liberal agenda at work again - causing more problems than solutions.

Looks like Republicans were on the right side of the issue - as usual.

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#775239 Oct 17, 2012
Romney - "Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?"

Obama - ""You know, I haven't looked at my pension."

WTF? And he wants 4 more years? Who doesn't look at their pension?

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) 32 min Tuffet t 237,814
News Man, 23, fatally shot in Douglas Park (Jan '08) 1 hr Alyesse Morris 3
News Hundreds rally, march for transgender rights in... 1 hr Dr. Q 4
Nancy Pelosi (our demented gal). 2 hr Well Well 9
Obama 3 hr Chi Town 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Mothra 63,400
last post wins! (Apr '13) 4 hr They cannot kill ... 2,317

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages