Barack Obama, our next President

There are 20 comments on the Nov 5, 2008, Hampton Roads Daily Press story 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.

Linda

Edison, NJ

#815694 Dec 3, 2012
new yawk wrote:
My Italian ancestry is being attacked.
FBI says I have a case.
Don't you know? We have freedom of speech in this country. Unless it hurts someone's feelings, but they must be in a politically protected group. Italians probably not. You can say Italians are Mafioso. You can't say Muslims want to impose Sharia Law or don't need to learn to land the planes.

Even today they are talking about the black football player who shot his baby mama. Wondering if it was from a brain trauma from football that the league overlooked.

If he wasn't a famous football player and just a 25 year old black male who had a fight and killed his 21 year old baby mama, it wouldn't even make the news, because it is so routine. But no one is allowed to say that on TV.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#815695 Dec 3, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
Only a fool would think that the same Congress that got us in this mess can get us out of this mess.
The fiscal cliff is the byproduct of multiple congressional compromises to kick several different cans down the road. Now they’ve all landed in the same spot. Both sides are trying to kick multiple cans at one time and are kicking each other instead.
What’s really going on in Washington right now is Republicans are in theater trying to look like the reasonable party. They want back in the good graces of the American public and want to at least save some face when polling says they’ll probably get blamed and their position is unpopular.
They might as well give it up. They’re going to get the blame no matter what happens. They are disjointed with bad spokesmen. One is orange and the other ... well ....
They might as well dive.
http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/30/cliff-divi...
hear that lemmings? off the cliff!
Going over the "fiscal cliff" is the only hope for bringing some sanity to the federal budget. Time to take the bitter medicine.
Linda

Edison, NJ

#815696 Dec 3, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
The revenue from increasing taxes on the "wealthy" would not even cover the storm relief requested by New York. Not to mention relief for New Jersey and other states.
You wouldn't mind tax increases if there was the slightest hope that the money wouldn't be squandered. But it will be, because the government always acts N***** Rich with our money.
THE DEBIL

Luxembourg

#815697 Dec 3, 2012
ra_con_teur

United States

#815698 Dec 3, 2012
Linda wrote:
<quoted text>How much $$ will be squandered on B Hussein Obama's second inauguration? The word out today is that the WH is considering corporate sponsors for all the lavish, gala parties. Taxpayers pick up all the security costs.

I think it interesting that he is willing to take money from the very corporations, the rich corporations that he constantly puts down. Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth again - he wants to punish corporations and capitalism but he wants to use their money to have multiple big parties with??

So, are there going to be Soros banners and ACLU banners, other union banners and banners selling cars!! Oh, and will there be banners for Solyndra and other bankrupt green companies??

The thought of this is disgusting and despicable. This is the kind of fundamental change to the very fabric of America that conservatives don't want to see and liberals SHOULDN'T want to see.

Or, do you supposed the unemployed and 'poor' will be invited to the D.C. festivities?
Hi, Linda.
carol

Orlando, FL

#815699 Dec 3, 2012
GhostofRaygun wrote:
<quoted text>One more time for the slow crowd. The 47% that pay no taxes are those retired over 65 years old, students, deployed military, those in rest homes, long term care hospitals, and those in mental hospitals. Many are those that work full time jobs but at year end receive the Earned Income Tax Credit refund because of their jobs being low paying. You choose. You choose which of the groups are you going to tax. But please don't tax my 86 year old mom. She just gets by on SS.
Even though Romney didn't think through his comment made in private and admitted the next day he was "dead wrong" about lumping the 47% who receive some kind of government subsidy with the much smaller percentage who manipulate the system, the point he was making to the small group of campaign contributors he was addressing - however broad-based - was that the 47% probably wouldn't vote for him because of being afraid of losing whatever government subsidies they receive - for whatever reason.

He obviously went too far lumping them altogether and admitted as such, but the reality of the 47% not voting for him was correct.

We have, in fact, become a nanny state. The problem, of course, is Obama couldn't be happier. The more the merrier. By continuing to stifle the private sector, there will be a lot of merriment in this White House.

"Vicious cycle" couldn't have a more clear meaning.
ra_con_teur

United States

#815700 Dec 3, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>Going over the "fiscal cliff" is the only hope for bringing some sanity to the federal budget. Time to take the bitter medicine.
Wanna get in my barrel?
ra_con_teur

United States

#815701 Dec 3, 2012
Linda wrote:
<quoted text>You wouldn't mind tax increases if there was the slightest hope that the money wouldn't be squandered. But it will be, because the government always acts N***** Rich with our money.
Like wars and tax cuts for the rich.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#815702 Dec 3, 2012
new yawk wrote:
<quoted text>
Even though that makes zero sense I applaud you for deciding to post it.
Do you really believe that if the government votes to spend say $1 billion on highway construction, that $1 billion actually is spent on materials and labor for the construction?
ra_con_teur

Oklahoma City, OK

#815703 Dec 3, 2012
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
You needed help to take the GED when you were 50
Help me! I didn't put any money away...well my trailer is worth half a million, and i need a group to blame....

Yippee! I am a white collar moocher!
THE DEBIL

Luxembourg

#815704 Dec 3, 2012
ra_con_teur wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think of phoney injuns like cherokee cheek bone warren?
WELL, SHE FROM OKLAHOMA, RIGHT? PROLLY NO DIFFERENT THAN A RACCOON TRYIN' TO BE THE DEBIL.
carol

Orlando, FL

#815705 Dec 3, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Democrats should repeal Medicare Part D and solve all the fiscal problems.
They had four years to do it. They didn't. They voted against it under Bush because it wasn't their idea first.

They also knew Medicare Part D looked like chump change compared to Obamacare. They had no leg to stand on.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#815706 Dec 3, 2012
Linda wrote:
<quoted text>How much $$ will be squandered on B Hussein Obama's second inauguration? The word out today is that the WH is considering corporate sponsors for all the lavish, gala parties. Taxpayers pick up all the security costs.
I think it interesting that he is willing to take money from the very corporations, the rich corporations that he constantly puts down. Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth again - he wants to punish corporations and capitalism but he wants to use their money to have multiple big parties with??
So, are there going to be Soros banners and ACLU banners, other union banners and banners selling cars!! Oh, and will there be banners for Solyndra and other bankrupt green companies??
The thought of this is disgusting and despicable. This is the kind of fundamental change to the very fabric of America that conservatives don't want to see and liberals SHOULDN'T want to see.
Or, do you supposed the unemployed and 'poor' will be invited to the D.C. festivities?
The money spent on the inauguration circus is just a diversion to shift the focus from the huge sums wasted by government in its everyday operations.
ra_con_teur

United States

#815707 Dec 3, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>Even though Romney didn't think through his comment made in private and admitted the next day he was "dead wrong" about lumping the 47% who receive some kind of government subsidy with the much smaller percentage who manipulate the system, the point he was making to the small group of campaign contributors he was addressing - however broad-based - was that the 47% probably wouldn't vote for him because of being afraid of losing whatever government subsidies they receive - for whatever reason.

He obviously went too far lumping them altogether and admitted as such, but the reality of the 47% not voting for him was correct.

We have, in fact, become a nanny state. The problem, of course, is Obama couldn't be happier. The more the merrier. By continuing to stifle the private sector, there will be a lot of merriment in this White House.

"Vicious cycle" couldn't have a more clear meaning.
The next day?
The video surfaced four months after he said it.
So it's a lie he renounced it the day after.
kilgore

Oklahoma City, OK

#815708 Dec 3, 2012
ra_con_teur wrote:
<quoted text>
Like wars and tax cuts for the rich.
You don't build million dollar tanks and not use...

Rich? You spend your entire check in walmart then bitch cause it makes him rich?????
ra_con_teur

United States

#815709 Dec 3, 2012
Linda?
How big are your breasts?
ra_con_teur

United States

#815710 Dec 3, 2012
Touch me, Linda!!!!!
ra_con_teur

United States

#815711 Dec 3, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>The money spent on the inauguration circus is just a diversion to shift the focus from the huge sums wasted by government in its everyday operations.
You got a dumb answer for everything.
Is there nothing you aren't clueless about?
c mathews

Oklahoma City, OK

#815712 Dec 3, 2012
lily boca raton fl wrote:
<quoted text>
Kerrrriiist! She's totally, totally "out there"
So, Cucinelli is not against homosexuality, but just against their "acts"!!
Ok, so you can be gay but not have sex because it gives little boy Cucinelli a tingle!
What a nutjob.
Someone mention a tingle??
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#815713 Dec 3, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
They had four years to do it. They didn't. They voted against it under Bush because it wasn't their idea first.
They also knew Medicare Part D looked like chump change compared to Obamacare. They had no leg to stand on.
Where's President Obamas 2008 budget?

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 min JRB 187,319
anybody know Glen Musielak? Glentech? (Mar '13) 35 min Cracker Jack 87
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 43 min TRD 69,700
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 59 min Progressive Democrat 52,858
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Michael Satterfield 99,362
Ask Amy 4-25-15 2 hr mrs gladys kravitz 3
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 6 hr Analog man 5,907
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]