Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1458125 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.

TheInderpendentM ajority

Manchester, KY

#866972 Mar 2, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
"The two budgets"????
You right whiners should get the facts straight.
Obama as submitted a budget for every year he was supposed to submit one. The 2014 is due out this month.
Not just two
My God, can you people ever quit lying?
And STILL, pointy tin foil hat Duh Avey...'Merica has NO actual buhdget.

Lotsa ppl think just "spending" is a BuhDUHget these days-and therefore-they just suck at that kind of stuff. Kinda like what this nation has been dealing with for the past four plus years now.

Better hid yer little silver monopoly shoe, or duh bill cowector and/or vultures of gweed and no-constraint, will be making yew sellz it!!

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#866973 Mar 2, 2013
Carol,

You're an ignorant woman who is too clueless to create a new screen profile on Topix and instead continues to engage in a stupid battle of wits, not realizing she's unarmed and merely encouraging her personal troll.

We've got the Waxturd crew doing the same to the entire thread, yet Carol tries to play the victim, as if her troll is the only one here.

You're only here for the attention, at least your troll gives you something to talk about.

How do you know it's a man?? Could be anyone, likely Nobraina.

Change your name, get registered, or STFU, drama queen!!
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
An insecure man steals women's identities and hides behind them while throwing grenades.
Much like cowards fighting for the wrong side for the wrong reasons.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
TheInderpendentM ajority

Manchester, KY

#866974 Mar 2, 2013
Florida wrote:
I don't know which is worse?
Clinton's Y2K scam, planes falling out of the sky, the world shutting down or Obama's Sequestration Cut lie, bad things will happen signed by Obama to get re-elected?
That Y2K scam was some nasty stuff! Rough on the membranes from head to toe!!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#866975 Mar 2, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
The crisis started during the Clinton administration when Fannie and Freddie were "let loose" with very little oversight.
The two budgets Obama proposed was rejected unanimously in the Senate by every single Democrat. If they had voted for even more spending, they might lose their comfy seats in the Senate.
If the Senate refuses to even bring up any bills passed by the House, they become culpable of obstruction.
But thanks for trying.
so the crisis started with Clinton and continued unabated for the 6 years Congress was ruled by Republicans.

what is it about that 6 years that just has to be ignored by FOXbots? please explain.

and....

Fox News host Megyn Kelly repeatedly pushed the false narrative that President Obama's 2013 budget proposal received zero votes in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. In reality, the Senate did not vote on Obama's real budget, but on shell legislation introduced by Republicans in order to "embarrass" Democrats.

Discussing current budget negotiations on America Live, Kelly claimed President Obama's budget proposal received zero votes when the Senate voted on it earlier this year. Kelly said, "The Democrats in the Senate didn't have the courage to pass it. What makes you think the Republicans would?" and concluded, "A proposal's meaningless unless you [have] support for it. He can't even get support from his own party."

Kelly's assertion is a deceptive revision of history. In May, the Senate did vote 99-0 against a nonbinding budget resolution, but this was not Obama's full budget. Instead, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions introduced his own, much shorter version of Obama's plan, which included the same figures as Obama's plan for spending, revenue, and deficits, but none of his specific policy proposals. As ABC's Jake Tapper reported, "The Sessions legislation was 56 pages long; actual budgets are closer to 2,000 pages long."

Republicans then forced the Senate to vote on Sessions' version of Obama's plan to "embarrass Democrats and the White House," as the Associated Press put it.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/30/memo-...

thanks for not trying.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Florida

Miami, FL

#866976 Mar 2, 2013
WILL OBAMA LIE AGAIN wrote:
In an effort to remove the hot-potato issue of excessive government spending from the 2012 presidential campaign, and calling the bluff of congressional Republicans who always seem to favor domestic spending cuts but increased military spending, President Obama suggested the concept of "sequester" in late 2011.
His idea was to reduce the rate of increased spending by 2 percent across the board—on domestic and military spending. To his surprise, the Republicans went along with this. They did so either because they lacked the political fortitude and the political will to designate specifically the unconstitutional and pork barrel federal spending projects to be cut, or because they thought that with the debt of the federal government then approaching $15 trillion (it is now $16.6 trillion and growing), any reductions in spending money the government doesn't have are preferred to no reductions. So, instead of enacting a budget, and instead of recognizing that much of its spending is simply not authorized by the Constitution, Congress enacted the so-called sequester legislation, and the president signed it into law.
The reductions the sequesters require are reductions in the rate of increased spending from those originally planned by Obama and authorized by Congress. Since the federal government has not had a budget in four years, even though federal law requires it to have one every year, these are planned expenditures, not budgetary items, on which the president wants to spend more money. Congress does not feel bound to obey the laws it has written; hence it has disregarded the legal requirement of a budget. Without a budget, the president has great leeway as to how to allocate funds within each department of the executive branch of the federal government.
Nevertheless, even if these sequesters do kick in, the feds will spend more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. That's because the sequesters are not cuts to spending; rather, they are reductions in planned increases in spending. The reductions amount to about two cents for every planned dollar of increased spending for every federal department.
The question remains: What part of each federal department (Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, etc.) will suffer these reduced increases? Here is where this sequester experiment gets dicey.
The president—who once championed the idea of sequesters and even threatened to veto any congressional effort to dismantle them—now has decided he can't live without that additional 2 percent to spend. So, he has gone about the country trying to scare the daylights out of people: Prisoners will be released from federal prisons, soldiers won't have enough bullets in their weapons, we will need to endure five-hour waiting lines at the airports, Social Security checks will be late, and similar nonsense.
Your eyes are useless when your mind is blind with copy & paste..

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#866977 Mar 2, 2013
Yet he's won two terms in office, and you're still so angry about it that you can't even compose a two sentence ad hominem attack properly!!

I'm lovin' it!!

BTW, where's Mitt the Twit, Mr. Landslide??

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
TSM wrote:
Obama is the prodigy of Liberal Parents!! This president wouldn’t know the Truth if it Slap Him in the Face!!
Florida

Miami, FL

#866978 Mar 2, 2013
Liberalism Ugodly People wrote:
How Are The Liberals Re-writing History And Teaching Lies To Our Children?
How can we know anything about anything? That's the real question
div>Liberals today are trying to change the history of America by leaving God out of it, but the truth is, God has been a part of this nation, since the beginning. He still wants to be.
When I was in college, I started taking history classes thinking that I would surely see the hand of God in History. I never saw the hand of God in history the way that they presented history at the university. Years later, I did see many patterns in history, patterns that showed that God is working in the lives of men. The history that was taught in those college classrooms was scoured of any evidence of God, though. Even the great events of history such as the crusades have been distorted to give a false impression of what took place. The vision given to Christopher Columbus by God had already been carefully scrubbed from the history texts when I was a boy in the 1950s. One of the patterns in the crusades, the war against terror, the second world war and many other historical events seems to be that when anti-Christian leaders command their followers to attack the innocent, terrible things happen.
Liberal minds have a problem when it comes to truth, because a true liberal doesn't believe in truth or lie, only in winning or losing. Bill Clinton brought it down to this: It depends what you mean when you say, "is." A liberal politician who got caught harassing a man who worked for him with repeated unwanted romantic advances said that each person must find his or her own reality. They used to be more subtle, but now we are hearing the bold claim that, "What actually happened makes no real difference." Liberals have a high respect for skilled liars. Liars who are not as smooth but not to the same high degree.
At the same time that liberals will accept almost anything as "proof" of liberal principles, they will reject even the most compelling proof anything that is not liberal.
Truth, from the standpoint of a liberal, has little meaning other than to that particular liberal. This is why liberals don't require any internal consistency of their politicians and heroes. Liberals Are Fine Without Truth. They are making up their morality as they go along.
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level preschool day care or large state university." [SIC]
Your eyes are useless when your mind is blind with copy & paste..
TheInderpendentM ajority

Manchester, KY

#866979 Mar 2, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
FloriDUH here is just too stupid to realize that the racism was in the SOUTH, not with a political party.
But hey, what more should we expect from an uneducated, uninformed right whiner like FloriDUH?
ANyone would think after 200 years, they'd be over it already.

Someone read to them from the Roger Williams storybook of chattell slavery.

The Pequots should be standing in line in frunt of duh white house-telling dem nothing but whiney speshull entitleMental slackertic seekers, get the hell to the back uf duh line--they was here first and have the REAL rightful dibs on demanding THREE hundred year old reparations.

Damn oboticnutcase fweeloading type whiner slackertics.
Florida

Miami, FL

#866980 Mar 2, 2013
TheInderpendentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
That Y2K scam was some nasty stuff! Rough on the membranes from head to toe!!!
You are a very special kind of deranged stupid aren't you?
TheInderpendentM ajority

Manchester, KY

#866981 Mar 2, 2013
Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who wish to sing...always find a worthless song you moron.
You need to do me a favor-Kin you wub muh feet? LOL
Florida

Miami, FL

#866982 Mar 2, 2013
TheInderpendentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
And STILL, pointy tin foil hat Duh Avey...'Merica has NO actual buhdget.
Lotsa ppl think just "spending" is a BuhDUHget these days-and therefore-they just suck at that kind of stuff. Kinda like what this nation has been dealing with for the past four plus years now.
Better hid yer little silver monopoly shoe, or duh bill cowector and/or vultures of gweed and no-constraint, will be making yew sellz it!!
Those who wish to sing...always find a song.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#866983 Mar 2, 2013
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
The 55% are still holding out for free stuff and like being controlled.
In this economy that this president doesn't seem to have on his "to-do" list to fix, who can blame them?
When Obamacare kicks in next year and more money is taken out of the already diminishing take-home pay of those fortunate enough to still have jobs and the 55% find out free medical care isn't all it was cracked up to be, that number will change very quickly.
RomneyCare has worked out great for Massachusetts. There is no reason to believe it will not do the same for America.
.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8311.p...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#866984 Mar 2, 2013
Senate rejects Obama budget in 99-0 vote

The GOP forced the votes and believes they showcase the party's ability to produce plans that eventually balance the budget with the lack of a Democratic alternative.

...But the GOP push was blunted a bit when the House Republican budget from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) faced Republican defections in a 41-58 vote.

The "no" votes included five Republicans: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Scott Brown (Mass.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Dean Heller (Nev.). Heller and Brown are both in competitive reelection battles this fall.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) initially voted against Ryan's budget but then changed her vote to "yes." She had voted against Ryan's budget last year.

In a statement, she said said she voted for Ryan's budget now that he had altered the Medicare proposals to make private insurance only an option.

Heller explained his no vote by saying the votes staged by his own leadership were a sham he would not endorse.

“Today was about political posturing. The American people are tired of it, and so am I,” he said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/...
Follow us:@thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Florida

Miami, FL

#866985 Mar 2, 2013
TheInderpendentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to do me a favor-Kin you wub muh feet? LOL
LOL.. I'd love to have a 'battle of wits' with you...but you do appear unarmed?
TSM

United States

#866986 Mar 2, 2013
They say California is the Trend Setter… California Weighs Redefining Who Qualifies as a 'Doctor' to Cope with Obamacare's Shortages, Florida follows!! Donna Brazile ‘why did my Health Care premiums go up!’
Liberals today complaining about Voter Suppression just think when Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014; Liberals will be in the Streets complaining about the like of access to Doctors blaming Republicans for another Fail Liberal Idea!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#866987 Mar 2, 2013
House and Senate Unanimously Reject Obama Budgets — Or Do They?

“This is the president’s budget,” said the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad of South Dakota, indicating the voluminous budget proposal President Obama offered.“This is what Sen. Sessions has presented as being the president’s budget,” he said, indicating the much slimmer document.

“I think it’s readily apparent there is a big difference between the president’s budget, which I hold in my hands, and what Sen. Sessions has presented as being the president’s budget. This is not the president’s budget. So, of course, we’re not going to support it. It’s not what the president proposed.”

The White House official said the Sessions and Mulvaney’s bills were mere GOP stunts to get Democrats on record opposing ‘the President’s budget’” as well as distracting from what the House Republican budget would do, which the official described as “protect(ing) massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires while making the middle class and seniors pay.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/...
TheInderpendentM ajority

Manchester, KY

#866988 Mar 2, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
How the aging of America is hurting the Republican Party
"Even beyond the Ryan plan, the Tea Party championed causes dear to the hearts of retirees and near-retirees. Remember, the issue that launched the Tea Party in the summer of 2009 was…opposition to Medicare cuts for current beneficiaries. That’s a strange rallying cry for a purportedly limited government movement. Once you begin to think of the Tea Party as a vehicle for advancing the economic interests of the old against the young, though, a lot of otherwise mysterious behaviors suddenly begin to make sense."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...
TEA party: Leave the old people's contributions alone --and don't touch the NEXT generations EARNED and contributed to funds either!

Buncha Ozombiuebobbleheadslackertic moochers.

Since: Jul 08

We will not go gentle

#866989 Mar 2, 2013
(TSM wrote:
Obama is the prodigy of Liberal Parents!! This president wouldn’t know the Truth if it Slap Him in the Face!!}

Terribly Stupid Mofo say what? By "prodigy" I suppose you meant progeny and by "it slap him in the face" you meant...well, something that would have made sense. Obama is the POTUS. The Grumpy Old Pricks are losers. Live with it...or at least stop whining in gibberish.
Florida

Miami, FL

#866990 Mar 2, 2013
TSM wrote:
They say California is the Trend Setter… California Weighs Redefining Who Qualifies as a 'Doctor' to Cope with Obamacare's Shortages, Florida follows!! Donna Brazile ‘why did my Health Care premiums go up!’
Liberals today complaining about Voter Suppression just think when Obamacare is fully implemented in 2014; Liberals will be in the Streets complaining about the like of access to Doctors blaming Republicans for another Fail Liberal Idea!!
LOL.. You're still alone, sick and old, but happy. We never realized how boring your life is until someone asks what you do for fun. Sometimes in the winds of change one finds their crayons and making an idiot of yourself.
TheInderpendentM ajority

Manchester, KY

#866991 Mar 2, 2013
Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who wish to sing...always find a song.
Is that a yes answer? With old tyme peppermint footbalm?
"lalalalalalala...." .

:-)

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) 4 min Dr Guru 231,006
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 12 min YIM 7,942
Why does Chicago want to harbor illegal criminals 34 min YIM 14
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 51 min Mothra 62,312
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Susanm 9,842
Should TRUMP use this? 6 hr ITs TRUE--YES 4 SURE 8
The Color of Crime in Chicago. 7 hr PALADIN 13
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 hr CrunchyBacon 104,503

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages