Barack Obama, our next President

"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 ... Full Story
the_rac_on_teur

Oklahoma City, OK

#813574 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
A dictator of what, a destroyed country?
Our way of live is slowly being killed by the growing gap between the wealthy & the poorer as we travel the road of a shrinking middle class.
That is not America. That's a third world country. That s what the Republicans want with their policies that consistently favor the wealthy while expecting the rest to pay for it.
Gotta protect those tax cuts for the wealthy while paying for it through reductions to the entitlements.
How does Obama stealing a middle class investors capital gains help you?
yawkie

United States

#813575 Nov 29, 2012
flack wrote:
<quoted text>Not yet. People coming over for the Vikings-Packers game Sunday. Or is it the Vikings-Bears? I think the first.
I love football.
I once shot a nerf football out of my vagina for a field goal.
the_rac_on_teur

Oklahoma City, OK

#813576 Nov 29, 2012
Bill CLinton and his Trayvon Hoodie...

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/11/29/report-bil...
yawkie

United States

#813580 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Says wrote:
<quoted text>Looney Lily marches lock-step with other liberals who want freedom of speech only if the speech is politically correct and they agree with it. it has been happening in so-called enlightened countries like Canada and is happening at liberal American universities:

'things have been turned around to give campus communities the expectation that if someone's feelings are hurt by something that is said, the university will protect that person. As soon as you allow something as vague as Big Brother protecting your feelings, anything and everything can be punished."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788...
I'm from New York too.
We should hook up play lickalottapuss.

Since: Nov 12

United States

#813582 Nov 29, 2012
Jeebuss wrote:
Yep.
People don't care. They just wanted a black president. Period.
You're right, they have no one to blame but themselves when taxes skyrocket and the military becomes downsized, leaving us vulnerable to attacks.
They are actually happy that they have put this country in danger.
Obama is not black. He is mulatto. So he is only half racist.
the_rac_on_teur

Oklahoma City, OK

#813585 Nov 29, 2012
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#813586 Nov 29, 2012
Lily Boca Raton Fl wrote:
<quoted text>
So, do you tie the bacon on strings and hang it from the ceiling? Like fly paper? Make yer kids jump Fer bacon?
Absolutely not, not in the humane world. We save that type of ghetto gutter, givverment worshipping loser stuff just for the ignorant ones, like you.

Losertic.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#813587 Nov 29, 2012
Realtime wrote:
It's being reported that Syrian rebels are receiving shoulder fired surface to air missiles from Qatar and that at least one Syrian military helicopter and one fighter jet have been shot down this week.
When Assad falls, and he will, these SAM's can easily end up in the hands of terrorists and used to bring down commercial aircraft.
Weird is that Qatar is a US ally which hosted US military support bases during the war against Iraq.
We have a large Naval base there too. Housing the 7th fleet? 5th fleet? I think the Atlantic fleet is the 5th so the 7th. I'd look it up but I'm eating hot wings and I don't want them to get cold..
Jane Says

New York, NY

#813590 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
A dictator of what, a destroyed country?
Our way of live is slowly being killed by the growing gap between the wealthy & the poorer as we travel the road of a shrinking middle class.
That is not America. That's a third world country. That s what the Republicans want with their policies that consistently favor the wealthy while expecting the rest to pay for it.
Gotta protect those tax cuts for the wealthy while paying for it through reductions to the entitlements.
why should anyone have more than anyone else? it isn't "fair."

'Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.

The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.

In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.

All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau’s old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.

Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.

Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston,$39,500; in New York,$37,900.

Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.

While the old poverty measure counted absolute purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy), the new measure counts comparative purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy RELATIVE to other people.)

This means it will be difficult to reduce poverty in America no matter how much the living conditions of the poor actually improve. Imagine a sprinter in a race where the finish line is moved back four feet every time the runner takes a step.

Look at it this way: If the real income of every single American were to double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty-income thresholds also would double. Under this new definition, we can reduce poverty only if the incomes of the “poor” rise much faster than those of everyone else.

The goal of fighting poverty is no longer about meeting physical needs; instead it has been covertly shifted to equalizing incomes, or “spreading the wealth.”

Divorced from actual living conditions, the new government report on “poverty” is merely an advertising tool for expanding the welfare state.

Read more:‘Poverty’ like we’ve never seen it - NYPOST.com http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolu...
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#813592 Nov 29, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
To pave the way for a dictatorship and radical redistribution of wealth.
To hell with that-that crap's for losers, and sorry asses.

GOD Bless America, our Families, our troops, the Constitution and TERM LIMITS on the office of POTUS (the BEST prevention from the toxic plague of libuhrulTICS and their inane insanity to live in dictatorships and communism!)

Oh, and Get Well wishes to former POTUS Mr G Bush Sr., bless his American made heart, and Mrs Bush's too-oh heck, bless 'em all.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#813593 Nov 29, 2012
dem wrote:
You seem like an intelligent conservative.
I only have a double digit IQ.
Uncle Joe goes to a new COSTCO today!

Enjoying the CHRISTmas season!

GO Uncle Joe!!!! lol.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#813594 Nov 29, 2012
Writing in The American Spectator, Daniel Allott argues that in the wake of its recent loss, the GOP should think more soberly about the importance of empathy in democratic politics. Excerpt:

Empathy is essential for any president. Bill Clinton told unemployed Americans that he felt their pain, and George W. Bush got elected by stressing a compassionate conservatism that combined personal responsibility with government spending for social programs.

Republicans don’t need to revert to the big government policies of the Bush era. But as they begin to plan their comeback, they must first acknowledge the crucial role empathy plays in politics, and the crucial role empathy can play in making others feel welcome in their party.

This is just common sense. In his piece, Allott is clear to separate policy from politics. He’s not saying that GOP policies necessarily (important word!) have to change, only that Republicans shouldn’t be surprised if many voters don’t even want to listen to Republicans, given that Republicans dismiss empathy as a rhetorical strategy. I don’t see why this is even controversial — but if you read the comments section under the article, you would think that Stuart Smalley had written the piece. For example:

Teflon93 | 11.29.12 @ 7:43AM

These Blue State pundits sure are big on men acting like women.

Save the empathy. America’s going off the tracks because of the Nanny State; the people are going to need a party steeped in self-reliance and cold, hard logic soon enough.

This is what you call missing the freaking point! As the reader of this blog who sent me the link to the Allott piece writes:

This is a case study in what is becoming the public face of the GOP and conservatism. Yes, this profile is willingly abetted by what many call the mainstream media, but the mainstream media have such a target-rich environment that it’s rather like putting on your camo and going out to shoot your neighbor’s cow.

The comment thread following this article is what too many conservatives sound like. This is actually conservatives talking.

Completely agree. And by the way, I think I can say without compromising this reader’s identity that he is in a senior position at a Washington-based organization representing an industry that Republicans particularly favor. I don’t know what his politics are, but it’s pretty safe to say that it is in his professional interest to see more Republicans elected to national office.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher...
TSM

El Paso, TX

#813595 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>

I smell a tad of your racism in your last statement. Are you a racist f*ck like some of your buddies here on Topix?
RealDave your reaction to this Paragraph (You've been sold a pig in a poke and now it's too late to take it back to market. You didn't get a pig you got a skunk) charging someone as a racist speaks volume so do you believe Obama to be a Muslim?

Since: Nov 12

United States

#813596 Nov 29, 2012
Obama is not the first 'black' president. He is the first mulatto president. So does this mean he is only half racist?

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#813597 Nov 29, 2012
the_rac_on_teur wrote:
<quoted text>
How does Obama stealing a middle class investors capital gains help you?
There are few middle class Americans who are effected by capital gains taxes. The vast majority is by those making over $250K.

The tax cut on capital gains heavily favored the wealthy.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#813599 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Says wrote:
<quoted text>why should anyone have more than anyone else? it isn't "fair."
'Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau’s old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston,$39,500; in New York,$37,900.
Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
While the old poverty measure counted absolute purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy), the new measure counts comparative purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy RELATIVE to other people.)
This means it will be difficult to reduce poverty in America no matter how much the living conditions of the poor actually improve. Imagine a sprinter in a race where the finish line is moved back four feet every time the runner takes a step.
Look at it this way: If the real income of every single American were to double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty-income thresholds also would double. Under this new definition, we can reduce poverty only if the incomes of the “poor” rise much faster than those of everyone else.
The goal of fighting poverty is no longer about meeting physical needs; instead it has been covertly shifted to equalizing incomes, or “spreading the wealth.”
Divorced from actual living conditions, the new government report on “poverty” is merely an advertising tool for expanding the welfare state.
Read more:‘Poverty’ like we’ve never seen it - NYPOST.com http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolu...
Oh they are going to all over you for this one! That last part sounds like the plan,right?

Since: May 11

Loysville, PA

#813600 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Says wrote:
<quoted text>why should anyone have more than anyone else? it isn't "fair."
'Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.
The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.
In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.
All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau’s old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.
Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.
Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston,$39,500; in New York,$37,900.
Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.
While the old poverty measure counted absolute purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy), the new measure counts comparative purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy RELATIVE to other people.)
This means it will be difficult to reduce poverty in America no matter how much the living conditions of the poor actually improve. Imagine a sprinter in a race where the finish line is moved back four feet every time the runner takes a step.
Look at it this way: If the real income of every single American were to double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty-income thresholds also would double. Under this new definition, we can reduce poverty only if the incomes of the “poor” rise much faster than those of everyone else.
The goal of fighting poverty is no longer about meeting physical needs; instead it has been covertly shifted to equalizing incomes, or “spreading the wealth.”
Divorced from actual living conditions, the new government report on “poverty” is merely an advertising tool for expanding the welfare state.
Read more:‘Poverty’ like we’ve never seen it - NYPOST.com http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolu...
If living in poverty is such a blast, why don't you try it?

And really, I have been to auctions where you could buy a used AC window unit for $25, a big screen TV for $30, and used computers for $5.00. Heck, I bought a used laptop for $5,.00 last year at a yard sale.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#813603 Nov 29, 2012
Voters in key three swing states preferred President Barack Obama to Mitt Romney on gun control issues, and overwhelmingly support a number of gun control measures, according to a poll released Thursday from an advocacy group.

The survey of voters in Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado found 45 percent of voters trusted Obama on gun issues, compared with only 40 percent who trusted Romney.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/poll-sw...
ra_con_teur

Oklahoma City, OK

#813605 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
There are few middle class Americans who are effected by capital gains taxes. The vast majority is by those making over $250K.
The tax cut on capital gains heavily favored the wealthy.
You crazy....
>...only 54 percent of Americans said they own "individual stock, a stock mutual fund or in a self-directed 401(k) or IRA." ....<

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/stoc...

thats 170 million...?....RICH PEOPLE DAVEY??????????

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#813606 Nov 29, 2012
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
There are few middle class Americans who are effected by capital gains taxes. The vast majority is by those making over $250K.
The tax cut on capital gains heavily favored the wealthy.
You are seriously clueless. There are a lot of middle class people who live off capital gains and dividends.i know several people who buy stocks in the spring and fall when the price is low and sell in the winter and fall when the price is high. T is capital gains twice a year. They will pay double on that cutting the liveable earnings in half. All of them receive dividends too. That too will be taxed at a higher rate. again cutting their liveable income. Because you don't do it doesn't mean a lot others don't. A few have told me they are going back to their old line of work and just let it ride till this shitstorm is over. So you won't get any new revenue from them. In fact you will lose some.

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 24 min KiMerde 50,063
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 39 min Mister Tonka 98,373
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 40 min Kristy 47,065
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr WelbyMD 178,617
Group of thieves hit Bentley Gold Coast store 1 hr Go Blue Forever 4
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr HughBe 69,541
Jesus Christ, the Son of God 3 hr Son of God 1
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]