Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1278102 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.

discordia

Denver, CO

#846520 Jan 24, 2013
Homer 2016 wrote:
Rightwingers are dumb.
You are dumber.
Lincoln

United States

#846521 Jan 24, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're one of the nuts that believe Bush was one of the conspirators behind the 9/11(2001) attack....
Obama is ending them by surrendering to the Arab terrorist jihad.
There is a topix birth certificate thread with this kind of nonsense.
Bush did Not plan 9-11,
in retrospect it might have been prevented...
this a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking.
discordia

Denver, CO

#846522 Jan 24, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever we have a war it should be funded by an itemized, nationwide sales tax so that every time you make a purchase you know exactly what its costing us.
How about we do that with all expenditures? Including the hundreds of billions in give aways? POS dems in the senate won't even pass a budget and you think we can do what you propose?
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#846523 Jan 24, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution defines our government as a civillian government.
Show us the text in the Constitution where two sets of rights are defined: one set of rights for the civillians in government; and a different set of rights for the civillians not in government.
Show it to us or STFU.
LOL

so how many times have you been married? and i bet the divorce was never your fault.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#846524 Jan 24, 2013
OldRaider wrote:
QUOTE who="DBWriter"
2003 Democrats support the war in Iraq in exchange from the Republicans no effective oversight of their Marxist subprime housing loan program.
........
Please verify that you claim that Democrats made a deal with Republicans to support a phony unprovoked war in exchange for Republican support of phony loans. I want to show this to a friend of mine to illustrate the bizarre reasoning of right wing lunatics on this site.
don't get in a hurry.
discordia

Denver, CO

#846525 Jan 24, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are all these "babies" you're referring to, I don't know about any mass baby killings.
Fetuses are only babies when the mother is murdered or killed and then the fetus becomes a baby. Ever noticed that?
dem

Chicago, IL

#846526 Jan 24, 2013
discordia wrote:
<quoted text>
How about we do that with all expenditures? Including the hundreds of billions in give aways? POS dems in the senate won't even pass a budget and you think we can do what you propose?
watch your language, ma'am.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#846527 Jan 24, 2013
Bushism Killed Reaganism

Tom Ricks is partly right when he writes this:

I don’t think Obama killed the Reagan revolution. I think it was getting old — it had lasted nearly three decades. But I think the Reagan influence effectively was killed by President Bush’s lengthy Iraq war, which proved so expensive that it was no longer possible to transfer wealth to the rich at the Reagan-era rate without running up huge deficits.

What Ricks gets right here is that Bush was responsible for bringing an end to the era of national conservative and Republican political ascendancy that began with Reagan. The Iraq war was a large part of why that ascendancy ended, but it was not the only cause. As I mentioned in the post yesterday, the Bush-era GOP failed and was seen to have failed across the board. Reagan’s policies came to be associated with economic recovery and overall foreign policy competence, and on both counts Bush’s policies trashed his party’s reputation as trustworthy stewards.

The Iraq war was expensive in many ways, but the expense of that unnecessary war by itself was not what wrecked Bush’s presidency or the GOP’s political fortunes. What made the expense and the casualties so outrageous was that there had been no good reason for the war, the official justifications for the war were all bogus, the management of the war was so inept, and Republican boosters of the war remained oblivious to all of this for years. The Iraq war did so much damage to the Republican reputation for competence on matters of national security and foreign policy because it inflicted serious damage to U.S. interests rather than advancing them. The war represented a significant departure from the conduct of previous Republican administrations, it went horribly wrong, and to this day many Republican leaders still imagine that it was a success. If there was one thing that Republicans were supposed to be good at, it was in the effective and careful stewardship of U.S. foreign policy, and Bush threw all of that away in a few years while his supporters cheered him on.

Bushism was not simply the reckless and aggressive foreign policy that most people identify with it. It was also supposed to represent a “reform” of Reaganism comparable to what Clinton had done for the Democrats and Blair had done for Labour, and it was defined by the Republican embrace of government intervention and the expansion of the size and role of the federal government into areas that Republicans had previously considered unacceptable. Bushism was intended as a modernization of Reaganism, but it mainly succeeded only in copying the least desirable features of Reagan’s tenure, such as exploding deficits and increased military spending. As a final blow, Bush presided over the beginning of a huge financial and economic calamity.

As Bushism replaced and in some respects repudiated Reaganism, it also destroyed the public’s confidence in Republican governance. The truth is that Bushism had killed Reaganism years before Obama started his first presidential campaign. When Bushism tried to replace Reaganism as the glue of a new political coalition, it ended up shattering the old coalition instead.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...
discordia

Denver, CO

#846528 Jan 24, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, what does that have to do with what I posted. Is that just another retarded assumption? If you'll consider how long occupation and intervention is going on it goes back through nearly every post-war presidency.
You mentioned wars and intervention in other countries, retardo, I mentioned the man in charge for the last 4 years. I believe the president, on his own, has the authority to bring every single soldier overseas home right now.

I also asked where Code Pink was these days, you avoided answering because they have disappeared now that the AA president is in charge.

You also avoided answering where the anti war Hollywood celebrities are now that Bush is no longer in charge.

What that tells me is that the issue is not wars, interventions and American deaths, the issue for the left is what party is in charge.

Hypocrisy is the issue.
discordia

Denver, CO

#846529 Jan 24, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Its obvious he just doesn't like women, maybe he prefers men?
It's obvious you and Lily are dumbasses. Lily is an ignoramus who knows zero about the military, like you, who likely never served. I see you hate gays too.

How would the girls have fared on Omaha Beach? The Belleau Woods? The road to Stalingrad? Gettysburg?

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#846530 Jan 24, 2013
Actually, your argument is with Flake, who denies majority rule!!

But, as you were dumb enough to post more lies, I must correct you...again;

"The framers of the United States Constitution understood the difficult relationship between majority rule and minority rights. One problem the framers prepared for is that minorities can be exploited by the majority. In response to this difficulty the framers thoughtfully designed a government that restricted the majority's ability to interfere with or violate the rights of the minority. This included guaranteed rights and protections granted to all peoples which cannot be taken away no matter what the opinion of the majority might be. The Amendments to the US Constitution contain many or the principles upon which majority rule must function and the rules which must be observed in order to preserve and respect minority rights."

----------

I'm really enjoying your display of ignorance.

Now tell us what Article 1 Section 7 says.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The only rights specified in the Constitution are individual rights, idiot. There is no such thing as "minority rights".
discordia

Denver, CO

#846531 Jan 24, 2013
Homer 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>You know it's common knowledge that 85% of rightwing households are run like a Wahabist Arab Dictatorship(WAD). Of course I cannot provide a link for this, but I am pretty sure I read this somewhere.
Ditto, for 99% of people named Homer being child molesters.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#846532 Jan 24, 2013
Kerry just stuck it up Johnson's azz by asking one simple question, one that he already knew the answer to. Hah!

The TeaParty elected are even dumber than the TeaParty voters.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#846533 Jan 24, 2013
I was hoping you could elaborate on why the stock market should not be considered in evaluating the performance of the economy.

With your running away from the issue, I realize you were just blowing smoke up your own ass..........as usual.

Obama has saved the economy from the madmen of the Republiclown Party.

As much as that pisses you off, it's true!!
TSM wrote:
<quoted text>
Mcfly there was no reason to respond…. Look I've made efforts to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my A**!!
RUSH10ME

Gloucester, VA

#846534 Jan 24, 2013
Homer 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly you've been to Pennsylvania.
Her fat ass has about as much chance of fitting in Pennsylvania as you have filling up a condom old man, and remember if you dont see the serial numbers on the condom you ain't rolling it out far enough .

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#846535 Jan 24, 2013
They would have sustained the same level of casualties, bled the same color red, and wore the same uniforms.

They also would have displayed the same bravery, ability to fight, and resourcefulness, perhaps more.

I see you backed down from your claim about women in the Israeli Military, where women are 51% of all officers!! Smart move~!!

But you're a woman hater. Likely you've never been with one, so you hate them all.

You're a sissy.
discordia wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious you and Lily are dumbasses. Lily is an ignoramus who knows zero about the military, like you, who likely never served. I see you hate gays too.
How would the girls have fared on Omaha Beach? The Belleau Woods? The road to Stalingrad? Gettysburg?
discordia

Denver, CO

#846536 Jan 24, 2013
This is what women in the military begets:

Air Force chief: Scope of the Lackland sex scandal is 'stunning'

Full story: The Hill

The scope of the sexual misconduct scandal at Lackland Air Force Base was "stunning," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#846537 Jan 24, 2013
No, only Dictators can do that.

Obama can do nothing without Congress, as proven by his attempt to shut down Gitmo.

Talk to Dweeb about who controls the pursestrings.

Congress wouldn't authorize the funding to close Gitmo. DUH

Keep saying stupid things. We thrive on right wing ignorance.
discordia wrote:
<quoted text>
You mentioned wars and intervention in other countries, retardo, I mentioned the man in charge for the last 4 years. I believe the president, on his own, has the authority to bring every single soldier overseas home right now.
skock a lack-a

Chicago, IL

#846540 Jan 24, 2013
Realtime wrote:
Kerry just stuck it up Johnson's azz by asking one simple question, one that he already knew the answer to. Hah!
The TeaParty elected are even dumber than the TeaParty voters.
Look at us idiots in Illinois- we just keep voting "D" or get shot.
discordia

Denver, CO

#846541 Jan 24, 2013
Realtime wrote:
Kerry just stuck it up Johnson's azz by asking one simple question, one that he already knew the answer to. Hah!
The TeaParty elected are even dumber than the TeaParty voters.
How did the lying, traitorous coward Kerry get out of Nam early?

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 18 min Into The Night 54,594
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 21 min Rogue Scholar 05 197,070
News Should prostitution be less illegal-or more? 25 min beastman 2
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr RACE 6,442
abby9-3-15 3 hr Kuuipo 9
abby9-2-15 3 hr boundary painter 6
amy 9-3-15 3 hr boundary painter 8
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr RACE 100,672
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages