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
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#866248 Feb 28, 2013
ooooooooouuuuuuhhhhhhhhwwwwwee eeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

The sequester is almost here democrats!!!!

Quick! Run to the fallout shelter!!!

Oooohhhhhh Nooooooooooo!!!!

Democrats are panicking!!!!

Baaawwwaaaaahhhhhhh!!!

Judged:

15

15

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#866249 Feb 28, 2013
Shakalaka wrote:
<quoted text>
You might be a Republican if ...
You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch "lives in a trash can because he is lazy and doesn't want to contribute to society."
When you blame other people for the things that go wrong in your miserable life, remember this moron..... Things will continue to go wrong in your miserable life.

You can fake your smiles and laughter Shakalaka, but can never fake your stupid and ignorance.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#866250 Feb 28, 2013
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama: I Will Veto Attempts To Get Rid Of Automatic Spending Cuts.
Obama Sequestration Cuts Signed into Law by Obama to get re-elected. LOL..Where's Bush when you need him?
I know. Obama is so full of shit.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#866251 Feb 28, 2013
Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. Obama is so full of shit.
The hardest thing obama has had to learn is which bridge to cross and which -- To burn.

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
carol

Orlando, FL

#866252 Feb 28, 2013
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama: I Will Veto Attempts To Get Rid Of Automatic Spending Cuts.
Obama Sequestration Cuts Signed into Law by Obama to get re-elected. LOL..Where's Bush when you need him?
Astonishing really. This president came up with the idea of sequestration, signed it into law and then scares the phooey out of people when it's about to happen because he won't come to the table to cut spending responsibly and says it's all the republicans' fault.

This president claims transparency but it's the people who can't see the only transparency is the transparency of hypocrisy seems like we're in a bad B-rated movie.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#866253 Feb 28, 2013
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
Bless you, my son.
Is it the blizzard that's energizing you this week, or the moon?

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#866254 Feb 28, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Astonishing really. This president came up with the idea of sequestration, signed it into law and then scares the phooey out of people when it's about to happen because he won't come to the table to cut spending responsibly and says it's all the republicans' fault.
This president claims transparency but it's the people who can't see the only transparency is the transparency of hypocrisy seems like we're in a bad B-rated movie.
Obama's second term will not be as easy as his first. The lame stream media will sooner or later, eventually throw obama under the bus.

Judged:

13

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#866255 Feb 28, 2013
NYT David Brooks on his Sequestration Column:'I probably went a bit too far'

After being called out by the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, New York Times' conservative columnist David Brooks added a "postscript" to his column on the sequester to admit that one of his points wasn't "fair to suggest."

Klein published a Q & A with Brooks this past week in which he challenged Brooks' opinion column, claiming

"The president hasn’t actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration, let alone one that is politically plausible."

Klein argued that there have been "various budgets and plans to replace the sequester" and Brooks admitted that he "probably went a bit too far" with his claim. Brooks told Klein:

"First, the column was a bit of an over-the-top lampooning column about dance moves. I probably went a bit too far when saying the president didn’t have a response to the sequester save to raise taxes on the rich. In the cool light of day, I can say that’s over the top. There’s chained CPI and $400 billion in health proposals. So I should say I was unfair. I’m going to attach a note to the column, if it’s not up already."

The now-attached "postscript" reads in full:

"The above column was written in a mood of justified frustration over the fiscal idiocy that is about to envelop the nation. But in at least one respect I let my frustration get the better of me. It is true, as the director of the Congressional Budget Office has testified, that the administration has not proposed a specific anti-sequester proposal that can be scored or passed into law. It is not fair to suggest, as I did, that tax hikes for the rich is the sole content of the president’s approach. The White House has proposed various constructive changes to spending levels and entitlement programs. These changes are not nearly adequate in my view, but they do exist, and I should have acknowledged the balanced and tough-minded elements in the president’s approach."

http://www.imediaethics.org/News/3776/Nyt_dav...

"various constructive changes to spending levels and entitlement programs"

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#866256 Feb 28, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
NYT David Brooks on his Sequestration Column:'I probably went a bit too far'
After being called out by the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, New York Times' conservative columnist David Brooks added a "postscript" to his column on the sequester to admit that one of his points wasn't "fair to suggest."
Klein published a Q & A with Brooks this past week in which he challenged Brooks' opinion column, claiming
"The president hasn’t actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration, let alone one that is politically plausible."
Klein argued that there have been "various budgets and plans to replace the sequester" and Brooks admitted that he "probably went a bit too far" with his claim. Brooks told Klein:
"First, the column was a bit of an over-the-top lampooning column about dance moves. I probably went a bit too far when saying the president didn’t have a response to the sequester save to raise taxes on the rich. In the cool light of day, I can say that’s over the top. There’s chained CPI and $400 billion in health proposals. So I should say I was unfair. I’m going to attach a note to the column, if it’s not up already."
The now-attached "postscript" reads in full:
"The above column was written in a mood of justified frustration over the fiscal idiocy that is about to envelop the nation. But in at least one respect I let my frustration get the better of me. It is true, as the director of the Congressional Budget Office has testified, that the administration has not proposed a specific anti-sequester proposal that can be scored or passed into law. It is not fair to suggest, as I did, that tax hikes for the rich is the sole content of the president’s approach. The White House has proposed various constructive changes to spending levels and entitlement programs. These changes are not nearly adequate in my view, but they do exist, and I should have acknowledged the balanced and tough-minded elements in the president’s approach."
http://www.imediaethics.org/News/3776/Nyt_dav...
"various constructive changes to spending levels and entitlement programs"
"Learn to Read" isn't it? LMAO!!! puppet!

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#866257 Feb 28, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
NYT David Brooks on his Sequestration Column:'I probably went a bit too far'
After being called out by the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, New York Times' conservative columnist David Brooks added a "postscript" to his column on the sequester to admit that one of his points wasn't "fair to suggest."
Klein published a Q & A with Brooks this past week in which he challenged Brooks' opinion column, claiming
"The president hasn’t actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration, let alone one that is politically plausible."
Klein argued that there have been "various budgets and plans to replace the sequester" and Brooks admitted that he "probably went a bit too far" with his claim. Brooks told Klein:
"First, the column was a bit of an over-the-top lampooning column about dance moves. I probably went a bit too far when saying the president didn’t have a response to the sequester save to raise taxes on the rich. In the cool light of day, I can say that’s over the top. There’s chained CPI and $400 billion in health proposals. So I should say I was unfair. I’m going to attach a note to the column, if it’s not up already."
The now-attached "postscript" reads in full:
"The above column was written in a mood of justified frustration over the fiscal idiocy that is about to envelop the nation. But in at least one respect I let my frustration get the better of me. It is true, as the director of the Congressional Budget Office has testified, that the administration has not proposed a specific anti-sequester proposal that can be scored or passed into law. It is not fair to suggest, as I did, that tax hikes for the rich is the sole content of the president’s approach. The White House has proposed various constructive changes to spending levels and entitlement programs. These changes are not nearly adequate in my view, but they do exist, and I should have acknowledged the balanced and tough-minded elements in the president’s approach."
http://www.imediaethics.org/News/3776/Nyt_dav...
"various constructive changes to spending levels and entitlement programs"
Spare the spam above...

sonicfilter is not lazy, his deranged mind enjoys doing nothing, cut-n-paste, blaming others.

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
carol

Orlando, FL

#866258 Feb 28, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Is it the blizzard that's energizing you this week, or the moon?
"I'll take the moon for $600, Alex."
"And the answer is, "It's round and white, covered with impact craters, and almost devoid of gravity.""
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#866259 Feb 28, 2013
Bob Woodward trolled us (and we got played)

Twitter exploded last night, after Bob Woodward revealed that White House official had warned him he would “regret” saying Obama had moved the goal posts on sequestration.

Predictably, conservatives latched onto this, as it confirmed our suspicion about the Obama Administration’s “Chicago-style” of politics. A lot of mainstream journalists bought into this, too — reflexively believing anything the great Bob Woodward says.

Of course, Woodward (who was expert at trolling for publicity before the internet even existed), benefits greatly from the publicity (nothing sells books like controversy).

Make no mistake. This was no accident. As Politico reported last night,

“Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat.“‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said.“I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say,‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”

But today, things look different. P0litico has posted the exclusive email from Gene Sperling to Woodward. It begins,“I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today.”

(Frightening, I know!)

Sperling’s email eventually does say,“I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim.” But this is clearly not a veiled threat of retaliation, but rather a warning that the reporter was about to get the story wrong.

When Woodward tells of being warned he would “regret” challenging Obama, it sounds ominous. But if Politico’s reporting today is correct, it seems much more innocuous than that.

Looks like we were played.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodwar...
carol

Orlando, FL

#866260 Feb 28, 2013
NIKE FU wrote:
http://www.trackmobilecrusher. org/concasseur
dear:
the better opportunity for you.
if you like, please leave a message to me.smithberry11@gmail.com
A message? Ok, if you'll blow me I promise I'll test-drive a KIA this weekend. Better bring along a few friends, ten minutes after I get blown by Koreans I'm hard again.
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#866261 Feb 28, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
"Learn to Read" isn't it? LMAO!!! puppet!
A deranged rumor goes in sonicfilter's ear, then Polly Parrot, out of his mouth.
Forum

Lovington, NM

#866262 Feb 28, 2013
+Thank you Pope Benedict.
We love you.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#866263 Feb 28, 2013
FOX over hype.....

Former Clinton aide, columnist joins Woodward in claiming White House threat

Davis said that a "senior Obama White House official" once called his editor at the Times and said that if the paper continued to run his columns, "his reporters would lose their credentials."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/wh...

scary. very.

heck, a FOX talking head would consider that a badge of honor.
carol

Orlando, FL

#866264 Feb 28, 2013
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>Obama's second term will not be as easy as his first. The lame stream media will sooner or later, eventually throw obama under the bus.
Bob Woodward might be the first crack in the seemingly indestructable solidarity of the liberal media.

Woodward is considered a journalist among journalists in their eyes. And if he's blowing the whistle, there has to be some serious soul searching and self-reflection about blind loyalty among some in the liberal media about now.
carol

Orlando, FL

#866265 Feb 28, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't me - but thanks for the nice words anyway.
Thought this was an interesting take though written by someone else about men who feel they have to intimidate women who happen to have a strong point of view because of their own insecurity.
"A man who doesn't know his manhood or hasn't reached it yet can't do anything with a feminite twist without bugging out; can't work under a female; they are very intimidated by a strong woman that they can't take advantage of; they feel the need to constantly highlight their manly strongpoints; they feel the need to show out in small situations where their manliness is tested to prove to people that they're a man and not a coward; they always feel the need to prove themselves; and lots of times these men are secretly gay."
Just thought my own intimidator had traits that fit this profile.
'Intimidator?' What, did I scare into a misspelling? And you a teecher... It's my cock isn't it? I'm sorry, honey, but it's who I am. If you looked like Angelina Jolie you'd be out there floppin' your tits around in a bathing suit, so don't act so high and mighty. Besides, sweetie, you can ask half the women on Topix and they'll confirm I don't have the slightest problem working under a woman, I'm undermining you right now.
Forum

Lovington, NM

#866266 Feb 28, 2013
Waxman wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. Obama is so full of shit.
No one wants to be President.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#866267 Feb 28, 2013
Woodward As Washington Icon

Glenn Greenwald says Bob Woodward’s attack on Obama for only deploying one carrier to the Persian Gulf because, thanks to the sequester, there’s no money to deploy two, epitomizes Washington’s dysfunctional culture. Excerpt:

That the Obama administration might actually honor the budget cuts mandated by a law enacted by Congress and signed by Obama infuriates Bob Woodward, Washington’s most celebrated journalist. He appeared this week on the “Morning Joe” program to excoriate Obama for withholding a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, saying:

“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’ Or George W Bush saying,‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying,‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president, because of some budget document.

“Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”

As Brian Beutler points out:“the obscure type of budget document Woodward’s referring to is called a duly enacted law — passed by Congress, signed by the President — and the only ways around it are for Congress to change it.... or for Obama to break it.” But that’s exactly what Woodward is demanding: that Obama trumpet his status as Commander-in-Chief in order to simply ignore – i.e. break – the law, just like those wonderful men before him would have done. Woodward derides the law as some petty, trivial annoyance (“this piece of paper”) and thus mocks Obama’s weakness for the crime of suggesting that the law is something he actually has to obey.

Greenwald doesn’t for one second believe that Obama is doing this out of law-abiding principle, given the president’s belief that he has the power to assassinate others. Still:

But whatever Obama’s motives might be, the fact is that what we call “law” really does require some cuts in military spending. To refuse to do so would be to assert powers not even most monarchs have: to break the law at will. Woodward is right about one point: not only would prior presidents have been willing to do this, this is exactly what they did. Indeed, George Bush’s entire presidency was explicitly predicated on the theory that the president has the power to break the law at will whenever he deems that doing so promotes national security. That America’s most celebrated journalist not only supports this, but demands that all presidents follow this model of lawlessness, is telling indeed.

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

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 36 min scirocco 70,993
Obama pardons 2 Illinoisans, including former M... 37 min barefoot2626 5
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr edogxxx 98,835
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Rogue Scholar 05 181,753
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr TRD 68,880
Deat Abby 12-16 2 hr cheluzal 71
Abby 12-18 3 hr RACE 6
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:17 pm PST

ESPN 2:17PM
Cutler: 'Crossed my mind' Bears tenure over
NBC Sports 3:13 PM
Colts hope to avoid distractions of Dallas stadium - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 3:25 PM
Bears clearly looking to move in another direction
NBC Sports 3:44 PM
Lions preparing for the cold - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 3:47 PM
Cutler's Benching Too Little, Too Late for Bears