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
Florida

Miami, FL

#867383 Mar 3, 2013
loose cannon wrote:
DuPont,
Your brain is water-logged and you are truly delusional if you think today's real estate market is in a "seller's" fluctuation.
You will never make par above moron, hillbilly or ghetto idiot.
-
It's the culture...
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#867384 Mar 3, 2013
CPAC, the Border Guard

As the borders of the conservative movement shrink, CPAC should be acting instead more like a tourist board.

....The sociology of CPAC is hard to describe to people outside the conservative movement. In a sense, itís the Comic-Con of conservatism, overflowing with stalls and barkers like a Middle Eastern bazaar. It also serves as a de facto political convention for the ideological base of the Republican Party.

And thatís why CPACís decision to not invite Christie was probably a mistake. Iíve enjoyed my visits to CPAC.(Heck, I was named its conservative journalist of the year in 2011.)

The problem is that CPAC is the first bottleneck in the Republican presidential pipeline, and at precisely the moment the party should be making every effort to be ó or at least seem!ó as open as possible to differing points of view, itís chosen to exclude the most popular governor in the country.(He has a 74 percent approval rating in deep-blue New Jersey.) Why? Because, a source familiar with CPACís internal deliberations told National Review Online, Christie has a ďlimited futureĒ in the Republican party because of his position on gun control.

Címon, really? The man is going to be reelected as a Republican. Thatís a little future right there. Also, CPAC is chockablock with speakers who have a limited future ó or even a limited past ó in the Republican party.

But most important, since when is CPAC an organ of the Republican party? Christieís future in the GOP is up to Republican voters. I happen to hew closer to CPACís apparently official position on gun control than to Christieís. But Iíd love to hear him talk about school reform and his battle with public-sector unions. Iíd love to see him debate someone on gun control or on how to cut government spending in a climate where people like Christie are so quick to demagogue crisis-exploiting spending.

Heck, Iíd like to hear debates on pretty much any and every issue dividing factions on the right, including gay rights. But CPAC has declared that gay groups canít even set up a booth this year. Itís one thing to hold firm to your principles on traditional marriage; itís quite another to say that dissenting gay groups ó that is, conservative gay groups ó canít officially hand out fliers on the premises (as they were allowed to in the past).

Some will no doubt see this as CPAC bravely holding the line. But it reads to many in the public as a knee-jerk and insecure retreat at precisely the moment conservatives should be sending the opposite message. Maybe the near third of young Republicans who support gay marriage are wrong, but CPAC wonít convince them ó never mind other young voters ó of that by fueling the storyline that conservatives are scared of gays.

Itís not CPACís fault that the borders of conservatism are shrinking, but it would be nice if at this moment it acted less like a border guard keeping all but the exquisitely credentialed out and more like a tourist board, explaining why itís such a great place to visit ó and live.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341939...

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
OldRaidCan

Pompano Beach, FL

#867385 Mar 3, 2013
OldRaider wrote:
<quoted text>
Print out this series of posts and bring them with you to your therapist.
Is that what you do in the Obama-worshipping mental institution in which you reside?

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#867386 Mar 3, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again an idiot right winger who can't mount a fact and logic based response.
Ever get the feeling you're too dumb to pour piss out your boot, then it's fitting you're a democrat - conservatives know it and the dem leadership knows it.

"Ideologies aren't that important. What's important is psychology. The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That's why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make lots of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd."

- James Carville
OldRaidCan

Pompano Beach, FL

#867387 Mar 3, 2013
Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
You will never make par above moron, hillbilly or ghetto idiot.
-
It's the culture...
The culture of Hollywood and Chicago, where leeches such as you are comfortable
Florida

Miami, FL

#867388 Mar 3, 2013
OldRaidCan wrote:
<quoted text> Is that what you do in the Obama-worshipping mental institution in which you reside?
He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own eye.
OldRaidCan

Pompano Beach, FL

#867390 Mar 3, 2013
Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own eye.
That's why you have been enjoying your blindness during the last 4 years of Obama incompetence and have blinders on for your and his next 4 years of failure.
Florida

Miami, FL

#867391 Mar 3, 2013
OldRaidCan wrote:
<quoted text> The culture of Hollywood and Chicago, where leeches such as you are comfortable
Your double-minded approach seems to help keep you irresponsible and unaccountable stupid and drunk on your own ignorance, forever enslaved to idiot... you loser...
OldRaidCan

Pompano Beach, FL

#867392 Mar 3, 2013
Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
Your double-minded approach seems to help keep you irresponsible and unaccountable stupid and drunk on your own ignorance, forever enslaved to idiot... you loser...
It is true that you remain a slave to Obama, an ignorant idiot who is not only drunk and stupid, but irresponsible and without a mind capable of comprehending the difference between Obama's fantasies and his snakeoil lies and incompetence. Pray to Obama for magic hopey-changey. "It can happen". LOL
Florida

Miami, FL

#867393 Mar 3, 2013
OldRaidCan wrote:
<quoted text> That's why you have been enjoying your blindness during the last 4 years of Obama incompetence and have blinders on for your and his next 4 years of failure.
Your perverted parents must have given you gaseous trolls to play with or fed you rat shit, telling you they were Raisins or some shit, poison or something when you were growing up...
OldRaidCan

Pompano Beach, FL

#867394 Mar 3, 2013
Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
Your perverted parents must have given you gaseous trolls to play with or fed you rat shit, telling you they were Raisins or some shit, poison or something when you were growing up...
That would be you, the disgusting little Obama-worshipping welfare and foodstamp sucking leech. LOL
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#867395 Mar 3, 2013
Imagine a plot to undermine the government of the United States, to destroy much of its capacity to do the public's business, and to sow distrust among the population.

Imagine further that the plotters infiltrate Congress and state governments, reshape their districts to give them disproportionate influence in Washington, and use the media to spread big lies about the government.

Finally, imagine they not only paralyze the government but are on the verge of dismantling pieces of it.

Far-fetched? Perhaps. But take a look at what's been happening in Washington and many state capitals since Tea Party fanatics gained effective control of the Republican Party, and you'd be forgiven if you see parallels.

Tea Party Republicans are crowing about the "sequestration" cuts beginning today (Friday). "This will be the first significant tea party victory in that we got what we set out to do in changing Washington," says Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Kan.), a Tea Partier who was first elected in 2010.

.....What is the President's response? He still wants a so-called "grand bargain" of "balanced" spending cuts (including cuts in the projected growth of Social Security and Medicare) combined with tax increases on the wealthy. So far, though, he has agreed to a gross imbalance --$1.5 trillion in cuts to Republicans'$600 billion in tax increases on the rich.

The President apparently believes Republicans are serious about deficit reduction, when in fact the Tea Partiers now running the GOP are serious only about dismembering the government.

And he seems to accept that the budget deficit is the largest economic problem facing the nation, when in reality the largest problem is continuing high unemployment (some 20 million Americans unemployed or under-employed), declining real wages, and widening inequality. Deficit reduction now or in the near-term will only make these worse.

Besides, the deficit is now down to about 5 percent of GDP -- where it was when Bill Clinton took office. It is projected to mushroom in later years mainly because healthcare costs are expected to rise faster than the economy is expected to grow, and the American population is aging. These trends have little or nothing to do with government programs. In fact, Medicare is far more efficient than private health insurance.

I suggest the President forget about a "grand bargain." In fact, he should stop talking about the budget deficit and start talking about jobs and wages, and widening inequality - as he did in the campaign. And he should give up all hope of making a deal with the Tea Partiers who now run the Republican Party.

Instead, the President should let the public see the Tea Partiers for who they are -- a small, radical minority intent on dismantling the government of the United States. As long as they are allowed to dictate the terms of public debate they will continue to hold the rest of us hostage to their extremism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/se...
Cway

United States

#867396 Mar 3, 2013
Rezco Obama Real Estate wrote:
<quoted text>
The vote was 70/30 (close) in favor of the war, and included ďyesĒ votes from Senate Democrats such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and Harry Reid. While the liberals claim that it was Bush who solely brought us into the war, they dodge the simple fact that authorization could have easily been denied!
The Democrats held a majority of 51-49 in the Senate, and could have simply blocked the vote. However, they stood with President Bush and overwhelmingly supported the war 3-1. If liberals are so anti-War, how come they never share blame for starting the Iraq War?
BITE ME!
Oh, I'll bite you, all right. Like a black mamba going after a rat.

In your exhuberance to mislead, what you deliberately left out was the steady drumbeat of propaganda by Bush and Cheney, repeating over and over that Sadam had resurrected his nuclear weapons program and had the missiles to deliver them.

Those lies achieved Bush and Cheney's goal of stampeding Democrats in an atmosphere of panic. The WMDs were non-existant. But you can't blame Democrats for taking Bush at his word at that moment.

As for the breakdown of the Iraq Resolution vote:

In the House:

Democrats YEA 82 No 126
Republicans YEA 215 No 6

In the Senate:

Democrats YEA 28 No 21
Republicans YEA 48 No 1

Tally up the YEAs and the total for Democrats was 110 versus 263 for Republicans.

Hence, your side supplied over 2/3 of the pro-war vote.

Now go *suck* an egg, fuk-weasel.
Florida

Miami, FL

#867397 Mar 3, 2013
OldRaidCan wrote:
<quoted text> That would be you, the disgusting little Obama-worshipping welfare and foodstamp sucking leech. LOL
You're not a complete idiot -- Some parts are just missing....
-
It's the culture...
Cway

United States

#867398 Mar 3, 2013
R-12 Freon wrote:
<quoted text>
They were forced to a point from passing legislation making it discrimatory to deny a minority, who doesn't meet the (then) standard qualification for a home loan and refuse him.
It did let low income whites in on it, but was written specific for "minorities" haa but with a equal result and outcome for both.
*feeling like a non minority yet?*
Those financial wizards saw the profit in that and took advantage.
With it being sold to the people as some feel good thing for those unfortunate struggling minorities who just can't quite afford a house of their own and need just a little help, lol,yeah and to right some wrongs, can't forget that.
That makes it almost perfect, what Senator or President would stop the predatory lending that, yes..targeted those that...well couldn't really afford a house to begin with. Oh not very likely.
But I could see one person standing up and saying " we have to raise the bar back up to who qualifies for the home loans or risk the collapse of the whole market.
And somebody else drowning him out with accusations of the hate and racism against minorities because it will disqualify so many.
Taking it to a emotional level instead of a rational thought based level.
Maybe that's what makes the smart people among us.....and the stupid ones too.
How's it going R-12, aka Shiny Electric Moron.

A lot of gobble-de-gook in your post.

Allow me to repeat. Republicans controlled Congress and the White House. No danger of banks being targeted for discrimination. You would have us believe the Democrat minority had the power to do this. Well, they didn't and on that note your entire argument collapses.

Banks made predatory loans because it was profitable and the "free market" Republicans who held the Congressional majority were inclined to smile and look the other way.

But eventually, there was a glut of homes on the market and a shortage of buyers. Prices went south and the greedy banks found themselves with a lot of overpriced preperty they couldn't unload. Serves 'em right.
Cway

United States

#867399 Mar 3, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Imagine a plot to undermine the government of the United States, to destroy much of its capacity to do the public's business, and to sow distrust among the population.
Imagine further that the plotters infiltrate Congress and state governments, reshape their districts to give them disproportionate influence in Washington, and use the media to spread big lies about the government.
Finally, imagine they not only paralyze the government but are on the verge of dismantling pieces of it.
Very credible.

They want to gut the budget so badly, there will only be funding for the military.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#867400 Mar 3, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah and a majority of Republicans voted for it. The GOP and nitwits like you have been calling for cuts for years and here they are.
The differences between the Democratic and GOP plans is where cuts are to be made. Democrats want to cut tax loopholes that many large corporations use to avoid taxes and the GOP want cuts in programs that help the poor and middle class.
The majority of Americans are in favor of Obama's balanced approach rather than the GOP slash and burn policies that would ultimately crash the economy.
The GOP has been trying to destroy the opposition for four years now stupid and they've failed.
Tax increases are not spending reductions.

Obama already forced huge tax increases in Obamacare and January 1 of this year.

Hooray for the sequester: finally some spending cuts.

Here's hoping you get furloughed.

Judged:

12

12

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
carol

Orlando, FL

#867401 Mar 3, 2013
There was too much greed in this country before the crisis. I was convinced it would be our undoing. As it turns out, I was right.

The golden opportunity to reprioritize our values came and went. Instead the pendulum swung completely in the opposite direction.

If greed is one end of the spectrum, then lack of incentive is the other which is just as dangerous.

There is a happy medium. We can only hope we find it before we go too far the other way.

(Sermonette for the day.)
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#867402 Mar 3, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
Banks were forced to quit discriminating against minorities.
They lost in court because they would give loans to whites and not to blacks even though they had equivalent financials.
"Equivalent financials" does not necessarily correlate to equivalent credit risks, not so much with respect to the race of the borrower, but to the location of the property. The fact is that properties in minority neighborhoods are more likely to suffer declines in value and therefore represent significantly higher credit risks.

Judged:

11

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
OldRaidCan

Pompano Beach, FL

#867403 Mar 3, 2013
Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not a complete idiot -- Some parts are just missing....
-
It's the culture...
Wish I could say the same for you, but you are the complete idiot...all parts are missing, which is why you continue to cast your vote for the most incompetent president since Jimma Carter. LOL

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 24 min Jacques Ottawa 181,747
Deat Abby 12-16 35 min cheluzal 71
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 37 min cheluzal 98,834
Abby 12-18 1 hr RACE 6
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Uzi 68,879
Why do some cover for obumbler? 2 hr HolderjakdMyCock 1
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr auntiesemite 70,992
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 12:26 pm PST

NFL12:26PM
Trestman on Cutler benching: I think we need a spark
Yahoo! Sports12:48 PM
Jay Cutler wants to stay in Chicago, but will the Bears keep him?
NBC Sports 1:35 PM
Jimmy Clausen: 'Gained knowledge' since last start in 2010
NBC Sports 1:50 PM
Marc Trestman: 'I think we need a lift at quarterback'
ESPN 2:17 PM
Cutler: 'Crossed my mind' Bears tenure over