Barack Obama, our next President

Full story: Hampton Roads Daily Press

"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 ...
Comments
750,921 - 750,940 of 1,095,504 Comments Last updated 26 min ago

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812234
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

Mike R wrote:
<quoted text>Since President Obama's re-election, attitudes and antics like yours prove the truth of the old aphorism that there's no one angrier than a liberal who loses -- except one who wins.
Aside from the profoundly unfortunate fact that the election means another four years of Obama-style decline for the United States, perhaps the worst result of their 2012 victory is the reinforcement it has provided for the low and ugly kind of politics that secured Barack Obama's reelection against the odds.
Certainly, the tone has been set at the top; can anyone recall any other president winning re-election and then taking a gratuitous shot at his defeated opponent weeks later? Maybe Michael Dukakis was on to something when he stated that a fish rots from the head down.
The race card first played by Senator Obama during the 2008 campaign seems now to have become a permanent feature of American life -- at least when it can be used to paint Republicans as racists (apparently, even the vilest attacks on conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Allen West are A-OK). EVEN THE PRESS HAS GOTTEN IN ON THE ACTION, no surprise there.
Appeals to principle will not change the behavior of the Democrats, it seems. But perhaps an appeal to self-interest will.
Has it occurred to anyone there -- trying so hard to divide Americans among race, gender and class lines -- that the party most reliant on identity politics stands to lose a lot if the other side decides to exploit the natural divisions that will exist among any interest groups?
What if someday -- sick of being perpetually victimized by the left's selective use of identity politics -- someone started systematically to discuss UNION'S HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM?
Or noted that allowing an uninterrupted flow of UNEDUCATED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (essentially a "RESERVE ARMY OF THE UNEMPLOYED") might serve the Democrat Party's political needs and Big Business's cheap labor needs, but hurts black and Latino efforts to reach middle-class status by keeping wages artificially low? What if someone pointed out to Asian Americans that they're the ones paying the price for liberals' embrace of affirmative action for other minority groups?
I am not advocating that the GOP follow in the Democrats' divisive footsteps. I believe in Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of an America where people are evaluated based -- not on the color of their skin (or gender or any other immutable characteristic)-- but on the content of their character, and where politics are conducted in accordance with that principle.
My only point is that the more Democrats legitimize the promiscuous exploitation of group identity for political gain, the more likely it is that the technique will boomerang on them at some point.
My God, you have to steal the words of others.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau...

Yet another right whiner you regurgitates the garbage written by other right whiners.

What's next Limbaugh? Beck?
TheIndependentMa jority

East Bernstadt, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812235
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

Homer wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, fck em, they can get a second, 3rd job, he doesn't care if they never see their kids, they never should have had them in the first place. Doesn't matter if their job was shipped overseas they should have anticipated that.
"....are there no prisons, are there no workhouses? Let them die and decrease the surplus population..."
well since you're going all dark age and commieticish Homer-yew forgot the debtors prisons!
TheIndependentMa jority

East Bernstadt, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812236
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama's plan to avoid the fiscal cliff:
Let the Bush tax cuts that apply to income over $200,000 expire. The top two tax rates - currently 33% and 35%- would increase next year to 36% and 39.6%.
Investment tax rates on the rich would increase to 20% for capital gains and to one's top income tax rate for dividends. Both are currently taxed at 15%.
This would amount to $1 trillion over a decade...(government spending amounts to that much in a year.)
Limiting the value of deductions and exclusions that high-income households enjoy...(proposed by Republicans and makes the most sense).
Calling for taxing carried interest as ordinary income. Managers of private equity, venture capital and hedge funds those managers would pay more than double the rate they currently pay.
Impose millionaire minimum tax: "Buffett Rule". Those making more than $1 million pay at least 30% of their income in taxes...
(Buffett has done an about face recently - wants only "minimal" tax increases on the wealthy)...A bill from Senate Democrats modeled on the Buffett Rule was estimated to raise $47 billion over 10 years...(government spends $47 billion in two days).
Enact business tax proposals: A host of smaller tax changes.
...So where are the spending cuts? Increasing taxes across the board seems to be the only Obama plan.
Hey Carol-

Let's drive the liberal illiterate lunaTics really insane today with some figurative literal "biblical" type links lol....

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/27...
carol

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812238
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

10

RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the evil Democrats say no to cutting help for those in need while the Republicans say no to increases taxes on the wealthy.
Now that suns it up.
Republicans would trample the needy to give money to rich people.
Democrats say the wealthy an afford it & don't take it out on poor people.
The welfare system and the entitlement programs are broken.

There is more waste and duplication that we can even imagine.

There is more manipulation of the system than liberals want to accept.

Maintaining the status quo while strangling small businesses from hiring at the same time is not the answer.

Reform is an absolute must. Democrats worry more about votes than having the courage to do what they know has to be done.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812239
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

Mike R wrote:
<quoted text>Since President Obama's re-election, attitudes and antics like yours prove the truth of the old aphorism that there's no one angrier than a liberal who loses -- except one who wins.
Aside from the profoundly unfortunate fact that the election means another four years of Obama-style decline for the United States, perhaps the worst result of their 2012 victory is the reinforcement it has provided for the low and ugly kind of politics that secured Barack Obama's reelection against the odds.
Certainly, the tone has been set at the top; can anyone recall any other president winning re-election and then taking a gratuitous shot at his defeated opponent weeks later? Maybe Michael Dukakis was on to something when he stated that a fish rots from the head down.
The race card first played by Senator Obama during the 2008 campaign seems now to have become a permanent feature of American life -- at least when it can be used to paint Republicans as racists (apparently, even the vilest attacks on conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Allen West are A-OK). EVEN THE PRESS HAS GOTTEN IN ON THE ACTION, no surprise there.
Appeals to principle will not change the behavior of the Democrats, it seems. But perhaps an appeal to self-interest will.
Has it occurred to anyone there -- trying so hard to divide Americans among race, gender and class lines -- that the party most reliant on identity politics stands to lose a lot if the other side decides to exploit the natural divisions that will exist among any interest groups?
What if someday -- sick of being perpetually victimized by the left's selective use of identity politics -- someone started systematically to discuss UNION'S HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM?
Or noted that allowing an uninterrupted flow of UNEDUCATED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (essentially a "RESERVE ARMY OF THE UNEMPLOYED") might serve the Democrat Party's political needs and Big Business's cheap labor needs, but hurts black and Latino efforts to reach middle-class status by keeping wages artificially low? What if someone pointed out to Asian Americans that they're the ones paying the price for liberals' embrace of affirmative action for other minority groups?
I am not advocating that the GOP follow in the Democrats' divisive footsteps. I believe in Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of an America where people are evaluated based -- not on the color of their skin (or gender or any other immutable characteristic)-- but on the content of their character, and where politics are conducted in accordance with that principle.
My only point is that the more Democrats legitimize the promiscuous exploitation of group identity for political gain, the more likely it is that the technique will boomerang on them at some point.
Pretty full of ourselves aren't we?

I could find that same screed on any far right wing loony site in a heartbeat. Nothing new in it in any way, shape, or form. It's also extremely easy to refute most of it. I should know.

And BTW....any idea when Mitt will quit taking shots at the folks who didn't vote for him? IOKIYAR? Or just a sore loser?

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812240
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
RealDave I thought your arguments has been that Republicans didn’t care about America!! My solution or suggestion was that Republicans should do the Right thing and just get out of the Way let the Liberal agenda move forth…do you not agree?
They should act to help us recover through honest negotiation with the best interest of our country in mind.

If they are unable (like the past 4 years) then yes, they should just let Democrats do it.
carol

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812241
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

12

11

11

Homer wrote:
Walmart is the second worst thing to happen to America with Bush being first.
Homer only going back 10 years, don't even get me started on Reagan.
So, Wal-Mart hires 2.1 million employees. All these people would find other employment...where?

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812242
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

Mike R wrote:
<quoted text>Those employers will have to shift to the one size fits all expensive government plan.
If you are uninsured because you can’t afford it, help may be on the way. But if you are one of the 250 million Americans with coverage, there are big problems ahead.
If you get your health insurance through a job, you might lose it as of Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the new “employer mandate” kicks in, requiring employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide the government-designed health plan or pay a fine. The government plan is so expensive, it adds $1.79 per hour to the cost of a full-time employee. That’s incidental if you're hiring neurosurgeons but a hefty increase for hiring busboys and sales clerks.
Currently, employers in retail and fast-food industries pay less than half that to cover their workers.To avoid thecostly mandate,some employers will push workers into part-time status. Other employers will opt for the fine. Either way, workers lose their on-the-job coverage.
Worse, they risk losing their jobs. Even the fine adds 98 cents an hour to the cost of labor, enough to make some employers cut back on their workforce.
As many as a third of employers are considering canceling coverage, according to McKinsey & Co. management consultants. But that doesn’t mean you’ll be uninsured; you won’t have that choice.
When you file your taxes, you will have to show proof that you are enrolled in the one-size-fits-all plan approved by the federal government. It’s mandatory, starting Jan. 1, 2014, or the IRS will withhold your refund. If you’ve been going without insurance, or your employer drops coverage, your options will be enrolling in Medicaid (if you’re eligible) or buying a government-approved health plan on your state health exchange.
What’s an insurance exchange? It’s like a supermarket that only sells cereal. The exchange will sell only the government-designed plan. In most states, exchanges will be an 800 number, a Web site and a government office, like the DMV. People with household incomes up to $92,200 will be eligible for a subsidy.
The NY Post opinion piece is your source?

Sealing other's words yet again.

This is really pathetic.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812243
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

Alloramadai wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG. That sickens me. Hard to remain objective, wondering what was/is going on in her world/head.
You looked?

;)

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812244
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

Obama 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>True for the most part, but I still find "Married With Children" pretty inspirational.
That's like saying Jerry Springer was your life's mentor.
carol

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812245
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Starbucks, Target, Home Depot, UPS, Whole Foods, Costco, Lands End:
all provide healthcare benefits to parttime workers who work 20 hours.
The government is subsidizing your precious Walleyworld! You are paying their employees healthcare!
And, you call me nuts.
$420,000 per store.
All those store chains will cut back many of their employees to less than 20 hours by getting on the same bandwagon of other store chains who have already done that and will also probably be the first to drop their employees' health benefits in 2014.

Wait and see.

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812246
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Davey Boy, you never explained what an 'unfunded tax cut' was? Is that another of your oximorons??
Really, I've explained it a dozen times.

Back when the continuation of the payroll tax break was being argue in Congress, both parties wanted to extend it.

They were arguing about something.

I wonder what it was.

Ummmm. Let me think.......

Could it be how to PAY for it. How to FUND it?

Where the f*ck were you during this? Having your head stuck up Glenn Beck's butt?????

You fund a tax cut bu=y either increasing revenue elsewhere or cutting spending. Otherwise it just adds to the debt.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812250
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Mike R wrote:
<quoted text>Since President Obama's re-election, attitudes and antics like yours prove the truth of the old aphorism that there's no one angrier than a liberal who loses -- except one who wins.
Aside from the profoundly unfortunate fact that the election means another four years of Obama-style decline for the United States, perhaps the worst result of their 2012 victory is the reinforcement it has provided for the low and ugly kind of politics that secured Barack Obama's reelection against the odds.
Certainly, the tone has been set at the top; can anyone recall any other president winning re-election and then taking a gratuitous shot at his defeated opponent weeks later? Maybe Michael Dukakis was on to something when he stated that a fish rots from the head down.
The race card first played by Senator Obama during the 2008 campaign seems now to have become a permanent feature of American life -- at least when it can be used to paint Republicans as racists (apparently, even the vilest attacks on conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Allen West are A-OK). EVEN THE PRESS HAS GOTTEN IN ON THE ACTION, no surprise there.
Appeals to principle will not change the behavior of the Democrats, it seems. But perhaps an appeal to self-interest will.
Has it occurred to anyone there -- trying so hard to divide Americans among race, gender and class lines -- that the party most reliant on identity politics stands to lose a lot if the other side decides to exploit the natural divisions that will exist among any interest groups?
What if someday -- sick of being perpetually victimized by the left's selective use of identity politics -- someone started systematically to discuss UNION'S HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM?
Or noted that allowing an uninterrupted flow of UNEDUCATED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (essentially a "RESERVE ARMY OF THE UNEMPLOYED") might serve the Democrat Party's political needs and Big Business's cheap labor needs, but hurts black and Latino efforts to reach middle-class status by keeping wages artificially low? What if someone pointed out to Asian Americans that they're the ones paying the price for liberals' embrace of affirmative action for other minority groups?
I am not advocating that the GOP follow in the Democrats' divisive footsteps. I believe in Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of an America where people are evaluated based -- not on the color of their skin (or gender or any other immutable characteristic)-- but on the content of their character, and where politics are conducted in accordance with that principle.
My only point is that the more Democrats legitimize the promiscuous exploitation of group identity for political gain, the more likely it is that the technique will boomerang on them at some point.
Very well said.
carol

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812251
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Alloramadai wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly question, but of course.
Do you know who they are? Liberals on here who believe it's wise to live within their means?

They all voted for Obama and he doesn't. He likes government spending. He thinks taking more of people's money will fix it. He thinks we can spend our way out of massive debt by creating more massive debt.

Names would be appreciated.
Jimmy

Newington, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812252
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

COLONEL ANGUS wrote:
<quoted text>
NOWHERE IS WHERE, YOU USELESS PORKY SMOKING DIABETIC EATER WITH OXYGEN TUBES UP HER NOSE. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN SUGGESTING ALL ALONG. YOU'LL BE OUT IN THE STREETS BEGGING FOR SOMEBODY'S HALF-EATEN HAPPY MEAL. ENJOY, FATTY. THINK OF IT AS COERCED DIETING, AND IT WILL BE LESS UNPLEASANT. IT WON'T BE QUITE AS BAD IN FLORIDA IN THE WINTER AS, SAY MICHIGAN, BUT BAD ENOUGH ...
AND JUST THINK, YOU NEVER ONCE IN YOUR MISERABLE, USELESS EXISTENCE EXPERIENCED THE JOKERS AND THE CLOWNS AS THEY ALL DID *TRICKS* FOR YOU, BUT I THINK YOU'RE STARTING TO REALIZE THAT IT AIN'T NO GOOD TO LET OTHER PEOPLE GET THEIR KICKS FOR YOU ...
/jc
Got issues? Don't worry. Your Messiah will fix you. Is it working yet?

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812253
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

carol wrote:
<quoted text>
The welfare system and the entitlement programs are broken.
There is more waste and duplication that we can even imagine.
There is more manipulation of the system than liberals want to accept.
Maintaining the status quo while strangling small businesses from hiring at the same time is not the answer.
Reform is an absolute must. Democrats worry more about votes than having the courage to do what they know has to be done.
Entitlements include SS, Medicare,Medicaid, Veterans benefits, etc.

They are not talking about cutting fraud & efficiencies.

There is no Strangling of small business Carol. Really.

Obama saved 716 billion in Medicare & you right whiners ran screaming through the streets how he gutted Medicare. Now you want savings. Why would any politician save money when assholes like you will claim how they "gutted" a program?

You are bitching about yourself & your own party.

Obama never gutted medicare, his planned saved money from it. You might not like what he did with the savings but the savings were legitimate reforms that saved money while increasing benefits.

Two states came to Obama for ideas how to get more people off welfare. Their planned called for relaxing the work requirement in some instances. Obama said that if they can show how this works, they would agree to relaxing that requirement but if they did not prove it within two years, it would go back.

Your dream, Carol. Improve Welfare. What did you & your cohorts do? Run screaming through the streets how Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare.

So here you are are saying how we need improvements but when these were made you lied & had a fit. Now you call politicians chicken. Because of assholes like you who ran screaming through the streets calling their actions gutting programs because Democrats did them.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812254
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

Obama tries to corner GOP over tax rates

President Obama and Democrats are trying to back the GOP into a corner over tax hikes just as they did on the payroll tax fight a year ago.

The president and his party are arguing that Republicans should agree to extend the George W. Bush-era tax rates immediately on families earning up to $250,000 a year, and not dig in their heels to prevent rates from rising for higher-income earners.

The argument attempts to cast Republicans as opponents of economic growth and as out of touch with the middle class, a theme the White House used successfully in the end-of-2011 vote to extend the payroll tax holiday.

Republicans agreed to extend that tax holiday on Dec. 23 amid intense public pressure, and a similar vote near Christmas Eve could be coming this year.

The GOP is worried, fearing Obama could jam them into a last-minute agreement as the nation approaches what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has dubbed a “fiscal cliff.” If Congress does nothing, all taxpayers will see higher bills next year.

“The White House positions itself as the party in favor of tax cuts, just tax cuts for the middle class,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.“This puts Republicans in the awkward position of opposing tax cuts even if they are actually calling for even broader tax cuts. Given the polls, the White House wins if this strategy works.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/26...

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812255
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

9

THE DEBIL wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU IMPLIED IT. TO THE MEN AND WOMEN IN THE STREETS THE DIFFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. IT'S OK THAT YOU THINK WE BETTER THAN "WE" ACTUALLY ARE, DEBIL UNDERSTAND THIS. BUT THE FACT IS: WE ARE A WEAK NATION. WE TREAT OUR SERVANTS LIKE SHIT.
"We"? You are the one who keeps the thermostat so high that your servants have to run around naked.

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazuzu" ;

Not to mention making poor Pazuzu a social pariah by giving him a penis that women want to take a garden rake to. Poor Pazuzu, all that power and no willing consorts to soothe that fire down below.

Whassa mattah? Couldn't take the competition?
Jimmy

Newington, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812256
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

11

11

11

carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama's plan to avoid the fiscal cliff:
Let the Bush tax cuts that apply to income over $200,000 expire. The top two tax rates - currently 33% and 35%- would increase next year to 36% and 39.6%.
Investment tax rates on the rich would increase to 20% for capital gains and to one's top income tax rate for dividends. Both are currently taxed at 15%.
This would amount to $1 trillion over a decade...(government spending amounts to that much in a year.)
Limiting the value of deductions and exclusions that high-income households enjoy...(proposed by Republicans and makes the most sense).
Calling for taxing carried interest as ordinary income. Managers of private equity, venture capital and hedge funds those managers would pay more than double the rate they currently pay.
Impose millionaire minimum tax: "Buffett Rule". Those making more than $1 million pay at least 30% of their income in taxes...
(Buffett has done an about face recently - wants only "minimal" tax increases on the wealthy)...A bill from Senate Democrats modeled on the Buffett Rule was estimated to raise $47 billion over 10 years...(government spends $47 billion in two days).
Enact business tax proposals: A host of smaller tax changes.
...So where are the spending cuts? Increasing taxes across the board seems to be the only Obama plan.
Good post Carol. Obama doesn't have a plan, unless us becoming Greece is a "plan". His elimination of the tax cuts will pay for 8 days so obviously this is not a plan. We are in for another abysmal four years thanks to irrosponsible people who call themselves Democrats.
carol

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#812257
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

10

TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Carol-
Let's drive the liberal illiterate lunaTics really insane today with some figurative literal "biblical" type links lol....
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/27...
Pretty bizarre. Probably just a phenonmenon. Seems to be happening a lot lately.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••