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
756,161 - 756,180 of 1,100,230 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818461 Dec 8, 2012
If President Obama honestly wants to negotiate an agreement with Republicans before the year-end fiscal deadline, he must be deeply frustrated. And if he doesn't really want to negotiate with them, then he should be delighted, for the same reason: Their latest "offer" laid before him by House Speaker John Boehner demonstrates again their refusal to reveal their true intentions ó and their inability to do simple arithmetic.

http://www.creators.com/liberal/joe-conason/a...

FOXbot math.
carol

Orlando, FL

#818463 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! This coming from the idiot who can't show the Declaration of War for Iraq he claims exists?
Boy chica, you sure are stupid!
In case the poster, Chicago, hasn't said this yet.

The Senate voted to approve The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq with the support of large bipartisan majorities on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush administration with a legal basis for the U.S. invasion under U.S. law.

It cited the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution signed by former President Clinton, that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818464 Dec 8, 2012
In the wake of unexpected losses last month, Republicans are going through the classic stages of grief. Some are denying that conservatism was their downfall. Most are depressed at the prospect of another four years of an Obama administration. A few, including some pollsters who missed the mark badly, are bargaining to keep their jobs. All are angry ó at the results, at the fact that they didn't see it coming, and at the position in which the party now finds itself: badly trailing Democrats when it comes to the technological and political savvy required to run and win campaigns.

Many Republicans say that there is a skills gap between the two parties, based on neglect within their own ranks and advances on the Democratic side. Acceptance, and adapting to overcome the deficit, will be critical to rebuilding the Grand Old Party.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the...

Grand OLD Party.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#818465 Dec 8, 2012
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
Romney was born with a silver spoon in his azz.
And he is very stupid.
Kinda like John Fn Kerry, only he marries the 'silver spoon', and it's hand is there!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818466 Dec 8, 2012
Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed

The failure of Republicans to deliver on their promise that tax cuts would be mostly self-financing is a large factor in the deterioration in our long-run fiscal outlook, and it is putting considerable pressure on programs such as Social Security. In fact, the Bush tax cuts can be thought of as a loan from the Social Security Trust Fund that was supposed to be paid back with the revenues from higher economic growth, a loan that is presently in default.....

Despite their failed promises, the Republican Party is asking that we extend the tax cuts for the wealthy, and some are even calling for further reductions in tax rates. However, if the Republican Party is truly the party of business, then surely it will understand that no responsible financial institution would continue to invest in a business that failed meet, or even come close to the growth and revenue projections that justified the investment in the first place. The payoffs from tax cuts that were promised during the Bush years have not been realized, and the failed promises about growth and revenue have damaged the health, education, and retirement programs the working class depends upon in our increasingly globalized economy.

A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions. Which description fits best? Many Republicans still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy enhance economic growth despite the evidence to the contrary, but itís rare to hear a Republican admit that these supply-side policies have failed.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12...
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#818467 Dec 8, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Kinda like John Fn Kerry, only he marries the 'silver spoon', and it's hand is there!!
lol! Just like your last presidential hopeful, eh Chica? Couldn't even figure out how many cars he had!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#818470 Dec 8, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Kinda like John Fn Kerry, only he marries the 'silver spoon', and it's hand is there!!
John Heinz the 3rd is Rolling in his grave too.
GhostofRaygun

Russellville, KY

#818471 Dec 8, 2012
After only one month from Papa John opening his mouth about ObamaCare and his plans to cut workers, his business has seen one of the largest drop offs in its history. Of course is he back tracking now.
.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/201212...
carol

Orlando, FL

#818472 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! This coming from the idiot who can't show the Declaration of War for Iraq he claims exists?
Boy chica, you sure are stupid!
And this is the ongoing enigma with Democrats.

Even though every prominent Democrat on Capital Hill - including President Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - said Saddam had to go, President Clinton then said in 2002:

"As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future....I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die."

That's like saying going after Hitler in WWII would mean "innocent people will die."

The fact that even more innocent people would die in gas chambers, massacres, scientific experiments and would suffer unimaginable deaths simply can't be grasped by Democrats.

Is dying to end evil atrocities worse than dying because of them?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#818473 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
In case the poster, Chicago, hasn't said this yet.
The Senate voted to approve The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq with the support of large bipartisan majorities on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush administration with a legal basis for the U.S. invasion under U.S. law.
It cited the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution signed by former President Clinton, that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
lol! You people are talking apples and oranges and you don't even know it.

His point was Congress declared war. And the Congressional records "prove" it. I simply asked for them.

You're still not smart enough to know the AUMF AUTHORIZED the president to use military force at HIS DISCRETION. They know who the commander in chief is... you clearly don't.

Con stupidity can be so appalling... and then I bust out laughing at how comical it is!
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#818474 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
May I add an unfounded and irrational hatred that goes way beyond politics? Where did that come from, by the way? Didn't used to be like this.
Politics has always been a blood sport__what do you know anyway, you were never interested in politics until Reagan. At least that's what you've been saying for four years.

Maybe you were lying eh?
carol

Orlando, FL

#818475 Dec 8, 2012
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
In what context?
And who declared it?
A poster wrote just a few minutes ago that the schools in his area took out God and inferred saying the Pledge of Allegience to Obama instead.

Try and keep up.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#818476 Dec 8, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Kinda like John Fn Kerry, only he marries the 'silver spoon', and it's hand is there!!
McCains wife ain't broke pally and she's got it all tied up in cash and beer. My kinda gal.

If Cindy wasn't married to that azzhole, she'd be a (D), so would her daughters.
carol

Orlando, FL

#818477 Dec 8, 2012
sonicfilter wrote:
Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed
Actually, it was doing just fine under Reagan after Carter's recession and again under Bush after 9/11 all the way up until the housing bubble popped.

The Cold War, 9/11 and the housing market crisis weren't part of Supply-Side economics.

They were just realities that had to be dealt with.

Sure wish you guys could get that through your heads.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#818478 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is the ongoing enigma with Democrats.
Even though every prominent Democrat on Capital Hill - including President Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - said Saddam had to go, President Clinton then said in 2002:
"As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future....I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die."
That's like saying going after Hitler in WWII would mean "innocent people will die."
The fact that even more innocent people would die in gas chambers, massacres, scientific experiments and would suffer unimaginable deaths simply can't be grasped by Democrats.
Is dying to end evil atrocities worse than dying because of them?
IT DOESN'T MATTER, SON!

You keep trying to spread the blame to everyone, but nowhere in any document was bushie ever FORCED to invade a sovereign country like iraq.

That was his personal decision.

And if you want to push your point about "killing," then you'll have to explain why bushie didn't go after his "Axis of Evil," son.

You keep posting only a tiny part of events because it's politically convenient. You refuse to post where the authority was assigned. And that's too bad since you want to avoid actual facts!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#818479 Dec 8, 2012
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>McCains wife ain't broke pally and she's got it all tied up in cash and beer. My kinda gal.
If Cindy wasn't married to that azzhole, she'd be a (D), so would her daughters.
lol! And keep in mind McCain went after her while still married.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#818480 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
In case the poster, Chicago, hasn't said this yet.
The Senate voted to approve The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq with the support of large bipartisan majorities on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush administration with a legal basis for the U.S. invasion under U.S. law.
It cited the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution signed by former President Clinton, that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Thank you, Miss Carol, It slips right passed them, Like 'see no evil, hear no evil'...
dem

Chicago, IL

#818481 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
A poster wrote just a few minutes ago that the schools in his area took out God and inferred saying the Pledge of Allegience to Obama instead.
Try and keep up.
oh so you're scared of what topix posters write.
interesting
carol

Orlando, FL

#818482 Dec 8, 2012
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Politics has always been a blood sport__what do you know anyway, you were never interested in politics until Reagan. At least that's what you've been saying for four years.
Maybe you were lying eh?
I rooted for Nixon in 1968 in high school but then turned against him when he accelerated and then delayed ending the war until after he won his second election. I was happy Carter won in 1977 but didn't become a registered voter until 1980 when Reagan ran again (he lost the first time around) and when it became clear Democrats didn't have a clue what they were doing.

It was never the kind of blood sport with so much hatred and distrust towards fellow Americans during either Carter's or Reagan's presidencies. Neither Bush Sr.'s and even Clinton's - until he screwed the pooch in his second term, so to speak.

So, basically, Clinton's gross lack of character and democrats defending it is where it all started. Just answered my own question.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#818483 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is the ongoing enigma with Democrats.
Even though every prominent Democrat on Capital Hill - including President Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - said Saddam had to go, President Clinton then said in 2002:
"As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future....I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die."
That's like saying going after Hitler in WWII would mean "innocent people will die."
The fact that even more innocent people would die in gas chambers, massacres, scientific experiments and would suffer unimaginable deaths simply can't be grasped by Democrats.
Is dying to end evil atrocities worse than dying because of them?
there are ways to bring about regime change without invading a country.....take Egypt , Tunisia and Libya for example. Eve President George H.W. Bush knew invading Iraq and ousting Saddam would be/was a big mistake

President Dumbya Bush will go down as the worst President in history who made the greatest foreign policy disaster by invading Iraq. Iran and Al Qaeda were the biggest beneficiaries of that war

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 Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 min lmao 46,315
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 50 min SLY WEST 299
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 50 min edogxxx 97,934
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 53 min SLY WEST 7,749
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr SLY WEST 570
Abby 8-29 2 hr pde 11
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 2 hr andet1987 1,452
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr wojar 177,384
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••