Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1274169 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.

sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#901871 May 13, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a pretty offensive faux paus in referencing a major political gaff of Failed foreign policy!
i'm pretty sure that same phrase was used when Bush was pushing the failed Iraq surge that tried to fix the failed Iraq war.
Grey Ghost

Partlow, VA

#901872 May 13, 2013
waxywaxturd wrote:
Hoping that all my "opponents" so far today are enjoying my deranged comments and senseless, useless, mindless attacks against them!!!!!!!!!!
You must admit my sockpuppet "Old Crazy Goober" excels when it comes to that. Show him some TOPIX love!!! He is truly my favorite and by far one of the most demented of all my sockpuppets so far. I am hoping "Jimmy" or "Fenris" may come forth today as well. I am channeling them from my wheelchair as I sit in front of my computer today in a fresh pair of industrial strength depends repeating over and over:
"I'M GOOD ENOUGH. I'M SMART ENOUGH. AND DOGGONE IT, PEOPLE LIKE ME.!!!!!!!!!
Please my friends, if thhe make an appearance show them some LOVE!!!!!!
If anyone wants to hook up with me please leave your number in my personal topix mailbox!! The days are long and lonely on the psych ward where I have been condemned to live out the rest of my useless and delusional life.
Call me, please!!!!
Warmest and desperate regards: NWaxman
Please...Waxman must you be psychotic even in your confessions? Remove that enema hose along with the bag,pull the respirator, teaput down the dildo you been sucking on for years and replace it with a 357 trust me it's all for the better. Anything would be better than your current existence.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#901873 May 13, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday defended the Obama administration over its handling of the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya against a growing chorus of critics.
Gates, a Republican who was originally nominated to head the Pentagon by former President George W. Bush before being retained by President Barack Obama, backed the administration's response to the attack that left four Americans dead.
"Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were," Gates said during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation." "We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."
Gates also dismissed the notion that the U.S. could have deployed a fighter jet to Libya in an effort to thwart the attackers, saying he would not have "approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."
"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces," Gates said. "The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time to do that."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/r...
he did.
Drones ready to roll nearby, laden with tear gas would've been helpful.

Especially with big, black, flags already apparent PRIOR.

Just more Failed foreign policy, contributing to more failed renegade statehoodie-ism anarchy.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#901874 May 13, 2013
Stop Seeing Benghazi Through the 2016 Campaign Lens

A thorough account of everyone’s actions that night may leave Clinton looking awful, or the facts may reveal she did the best she could in difficult circumstances. The point is that we don’t really know right now....

Let the facts of this investigation lead us to the conclusion, not the other way around.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/3...
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#901875 May 13, 2013
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
Please...Waxman must you be psychotic even in your confessions? Remove that enema hose along with the bag,pull the respirator, teaput down the dildo you been sucking on for years and replace it with a 357 trust me it's all for the better. Anything would be better than your current existence.
Stop being mean and disgusting ghost. There's already enough of that type of wretchedness in the world with out adding to it!
Peppy

Greensboro, NC

#901876 May 13, 2013
Good morning honorable citizens and liberal dirt bags. Beautiful day isn't it?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#901877 May 13, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm pretty sure that same phrase was used when Bush was pushing the failed Iraq surge that tried to fix the failed Iraq war.
Probably.

What a pathetic idiom though.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#901878 May 13, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Drones ready to roll nearby, laden with tear gas would've been helpful.
Especially with big, black, flags already apparent PRIOR.
Just more Failed foreign policy, contributing to more failed renegade statehoodie-ism anarchy.
ready to roll?

like fighter jets that could have shot down passenger jets before they flew into very tall buildings?

just more failed renegade fascist anarchy?

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#901879 May 13, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on Carol, You know Bush gave up looking. He called Bin Laden irrelevant. He abandoned Afghanistan to invade Iraq.
They knew a name of a courier. So why didn't they get Bin Laden in 2007???? Was it because they lacked so much more?
You are so pathetic that you can't even give a crap that Bush called the murderer of 3000 Americans irrelevant & so pathetic you can't give President Obama credit to putting in the effort & getting him.
Torture (water Boarding) had nothing o do with getting Bin Laden.
Well, if that's what Bush REALLY said, you might have an axe to grind.

Kerry accused Bush of saying 'I'm not that concerned' about the al Qaida leader when asked where bin Laden was. The context, though, was misstated. Bush was saying bin Laden could not elude U.S. forces forever and also said at the time: "He's the one who needs to be worried."

When asked another time, Bush said: "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure...I know he is on the run...I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country...I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban."

In other words, even more dangerous Taliban leaders had taken bin Laden's place, some of whom were captured or killed, and Bush was more concerned about the ones who were now calling the shots. He was also fighting two wars, and there were elistist force groups looking for bin Laden since 9/11.
Jimmy

Newington, CT

#901880 May 13, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
"Robert Gates Calls Benghazi Critics ‘The’
Take one word Gates said and make it a headline.
Sonicscatterbrain only knows how to post propaganda. Most of us ignore it and take it for what it is. Spam.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#901881 May 13, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sonicscatterbrain only knows how to post propaganda. Most of us ignore it and take it for what it is. Spam.
somehow different from FOXbots posting FOX wishful thinking.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#901882 May 13, 2013
Consider me as confused as Terrence Jeffries. The voluble conservative gadfly let it slip on Sean Hannity's radio program today that he really doesn't know what possible motivation the Obama administration would have for altering talking points about the Benghazi terrorist attack, or in forcing Hillary Clinton to go along with a conspiracy to somehow cover up something having to do with the death of four American diplomats and intelligence officers.

A few seconds earlier, Jeffries had described a statement that went out from the U.S. embassy in Egypt attempting to calm passions amid the firefight.(He directly attributed the statement to Hillary Clinton, but hey, why let facts get in the way?) Said Jeffries: "They need to explain that Sean. They haven't done it yet. The root of it is Hillary Clinton."

Hannity isn't quite ready to move on. "I think Hillary was running interference for Obama but I'm convinced that the talking points had to go through the re-election campaign that was located in the White House."

But Jeffries must make sure that the blame lies with Hillary Clinton; the buck must stop with her, because she's going to run for president in 2016, and Jeffries needs to raise money off of her, and he needs to begin to draw a caricature of her as uncaring, unfeeling, and willing to let four Americans die rather than face up to the fact of an al Qaeda renaissance.

"I don't know the motive for why they covered up," he admitted, after Hannity tried to shift the focus back to Obama's National Security Council.

http://theweek.com/article/index/243922/yes-t...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#901883 May 13, 2013
One of the reasons why Americans aren't outraged about Benghazi is that the event is a series of tragedies in search of a unifying explanation, and one that "Obama is evil" doesn't cover. Because really, to suggest that the Pentagon or the White House would deliberately — and yes, this is EXACTLY what Republicans are suggesting — prevent special operations forces from rescuing American diplomats BECAUSE they worried about the potential political blowback because they KNEW exactly who was behind it (al Qaeda) is —well, it is to suggest that Barack Obama is simply and utterly evil.

The umbrage that State Department officials who were in Libya take at the response of the bureaucracy is well-grounded. But I wonder what it feels like to have their understandable ire, their mourning and grief and anger, be harnessed to a partisan political gladiator fight that's aimed at a person who isn't even running for president yet.

So here's another absurdity. There is no way on God's warming earth that the White House could have possibly "covered up" the fact of al Qaeda involvement had it been established early on and presented as a fact by the intelligence community. Republicans got briefings, classified briefings, attesting to the evidence that al Qeada-linked militants were ready to strike. The sources for that intelligence were sensitive at the time. But no matter: The briefings were accurate. Republicans knew. And indeed, they began to speak out almost immediately. And the White House, whatever it did and didn't do, was forced to clarify very quickly what it was able to say about the incident. Where is the means and opportunity for a cover-up?

Has anyone in the intelligence community blown the whistle on anyone in the administration for pushing back against the possible al Qaeda nexus because they were worried that people would think Obama was lying about having defeated and dismantled core al Qaeda?(By the way: He did do that, and Benghazi, and Boston, aren't evidence that he didn't. He never claimed that every single person ever influenced by or given money by core al Qaeda was dead and would forever be dead. In fact, he always made sure to say the opposite. But, again, facts. I mean, they just get in the way.)

There are plenty of intelligent criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. Today's Benghazi debate is the classic example of an unintelligent, fairly easy way out of actually engaging.

http://theweek.com/article/index/243922/yes-t...

Since: Apr 13

Orlando, FL

#901884 May 13, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. That evil Katie trapped Palin by asking what she read. We all knew right whiners are too stupid to read. Katie should not have embarrassed Palin by asking a question that we ll knew she couldn't answer.
That was the most deliberate condescending question ever asked in any interview I'd ever seen.

Did Curic think Alaska was on another planet?

Palin should have, without missing a beat, turned the question back on Curic and said, "Oh, I don't know, the list is too long. Which ones do you read to stay current?"

Palin later said she bristled at the implication of the question and dodged it on purpose but that she should have just answered the question at the time.

I bristled and I wasn't even asked the question.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#901885 May 13, 2013
The Coming Attempt to Impeach Obama

The idea of impeaching Obama is industrial-strength insane.

Republicans do their base’s bidding, not America’s. How many times do you need to see them do this before you accept that it is the reality?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05...
Jimmy

Newington, CT

#901886 May 13, 2013
Scatterbrain propaganda/spam alert!
sonicfilter wrote:
Consider me as confused as Terrence Jeffries. The voluble conservative gadfly let it slip on Sean Hannity's radio program today that he really doesn't know what possible motivation the Obama administration would have for altering talking points about the Benghazi terrorist attack, or in forcing Hillary Clinton to go along with a conspiracy to somehow cover up something having to do with the death of four American diplomats and intelligence officers.
A few seconds earlier, Jeffries had described a statement that went out from the U.S. embassy in Egypt attempting to calm passions amid the firefight.(He directly attributed the statement to Hillary Clinton, but hey, why let facts get in the way?) Said Jeffries: "They need to explain that Sean. They haven't done it yet. The root of it is Hillary Clinton."
Hannity isn't quite ready to move on. "I think Hillary was running interference for Obama but I'm convinced that the talking points had to go through the re-election campaign that was located in the White House."
But Jeffries must make sure that the blame lies with Hillary Clinton; the buck must stop with her, because she's going to run for president in 2016, and Jeffries needs to raise money off of her, and he needs to begin to draw a caricature of her as uncaring, unfeeling, and willing to let four Americans die rather than face up to the fact of an al Qaeda renaissance.
"I don't know the motive for why they covered up," he admitted, after Hannity tried to shift the focus back to Obama's National Security Council.
http://theweek.com/article/index/243922/yes-t...
Jimmy

Newington, CT

#901887 May 13, 2013
Scatterbrain propaganda/spam alert!
sonicfilter wrote:
One of the reasons why Americans aren't outraged about Benghazi is that the event is a series of tragedies in search of a unifying explanation, and one that "Obama is evil" doesn't cover. Because really, to suggest that the Pentagon or the White House would deliberately — and yes, this is EXACTLY what Republicans are suggesting — prevent special operations forces from rescuing American diplomats BECAUSE they worried about the potential political blowback because they KNEW exactly who was behind it (al Qaeda) is —well, it is to suggest that Barack Obama is simply and utterly evil.
The umbrage that State Department officials who were in Libya take at the response of the bureaucracy is well-grounded. But I wonder what it feels like to have their understandable ire, their mourning and grief and anger, be harnessed to a partisan political gladiator fight that's aimed at a person who isn't even running for president yet.
So here's another absurdity. There is no way on God's warming earth that the White House could have possibly "covered up" the fact of al Qaeda involvement had it been established early on and presented as a fact by the intelligence community. Republicans got briefings, classified briefings, attesting to the evidence that al Qeada-linked militants were ready to strike. The sources for that intelligence were sensitive at the time. But no matter: The briefings were accurate. Republicans knew. And indeed, they began to speak out almost immediately. And the White House, whatever it did and didn't do, was forced to clarify very quickly what it was able to say about the incident. Where is the means and opportunity for a cover-up?
Has anyone in the intelligence community blown the whistle on anyone in the administration for pushing back against the possible al Qaeda nexus because they were worried that people would think Obama was lying about having defeated and dismantled core al Qaeda?(By the way: He did do that, and Benghazi, and Boston, aren't evidence that he didn't. He never claimed that every single person ever influenced by or given money by core al Qaeda was dead and would forever be dead. In fact, he always made sure to say the opposite. But, again, facts. I mean, they just get in the way.)
There are plenty of intelligent criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. Today's Benghazi debate is the classic example of an unintelligent, fairly easy way out of actually engaging.
http://theweek.com/article/index/243922/yes-t...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#901888 May 13, 2013
What’s interesting, though, is that Americans aren’t, so far, eating up the #BENGHAZI scandal. There is some proof that months of conspiratorial coverage have made people aware that #BENGHAZI is a thing. There was a Fox poll with some very leading questions that found that 46 percent of registered voters think the Obama administration is “covering up” what happened in Benghazi. In December, a less leadingly worded CNN poll found that 56 percent of Americans think the administration didn’t deliberately mislead the public after the attacks. But on the whole, the majority of the public that doesn’t consume right-wing media hasn’t been hugely concerned. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both still broadly popular. In the Clinton era, I can’t help but feel, this would’ve been much huger, with the help of the non-partisan press.

The high-profile hearing might’ve changed things. More people probably believe in some form of the #BENGHAZI conspiracy today than did on Tuesday. But the mainstream press is basically aware of what the right is trying to do. Mike Huckabee gave the game away when he predicted that #BENGHAZI would lead to Obama’s impeachment. When Clinton was president, the right screamed and threw tantrums until he was impeached. They are not quite certain why that has not yet happened with Obama, but they are working on it.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/gop_successfu...
Jimmy

Newington, CT

#901889 May 13, 2013
Oh Lookie here! The senile old sockpuppet is back.
Grey Ghost wrote:
<quoted text>
Just listening to the daily misery from the un-American twisted righties warms my heart. What a pathetic band of twisted misfits.
Jimmy

Newington, CT

#901890 May 13, 2013
Scatterbrain propaganda/spam alert!
sonicfilter wrote:
The Coming Attempt to Impeach Obama
The idea of impeaching Obama is industrial-strength insane.
Republicans do their base’s bidding, not America’s. How many times do you need to see them do this before you accept that it is the reality?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05...

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) 3 min JRB 196,805
Get an online store. Earn $$$$ (Jun '13) 6 min Shaiilesh 2
abby8-27-15 39 min tiredofit 12
Florida sheriff is similar to Sheriff Apairo. 56 min Hahaha Good 1
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 58 min RACE 6,392
Song Title Game (Dec '11) 1 hr boundary painter 1,208
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 1 hr boundary painter 464
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr RACE 100,626
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages