Barack Obama, our next President

Full story: Hampton Roads Daily Press

"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 ...
Comments
865,141 - 865,160 of 1,082,852 Comments Last updated 3 min ago
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941475
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text>No, you're wrong again. Many of the poor were banned from purchasing health insurance because of 'pre-existing conditions' according to prejudicial conditions set by the insurance companies. That is no longer allowed thaks to Obamacare reforms to protect everyone's right to pursue better healthcare for themselves.
And everybody insured will pay higher premiums to cover the high-cost patients.

But not really, because those people will probably never get hired.
WOW

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941476
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

OBAMA IS A FRAUD time for BLACKS TO CALL HIM OUT like in the GOOD OLD days when BLACKS HAD REAL MOVEMENTS A Plan to Sue the NAACP under RICCO

“We’re putting together this class action lawsuit, we’re going to file it under the RICCO Act,” said Rev. Edward Pinkney, the former head of the Benton Harbor, Michigan, NAACP who has been organizing grassroots member protest against the civil rights organization’s national headquarters, in Baltimore.“We’re going to charge them with racketeering” for voiding elections in chapters across the country.“They’re eliminating people who are willing to get out here and fight,” said Pinkney.“They’re goal is that you should never, ever fight until you get permission from the national office.”
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941477
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>Democrats have bigger things to worry about than forcing Americans into a 'medication for the masses' system they don't want. They are looking forward to sending all O'bama supporters to the moon.
Dems pitch national park on the moon
Posted on July 10, 2013
Two House Democrats have proposed legislation that would establish a national historical park on the surface of the moon to mark where the Apollo missions landed between 1969 and 1972.
The bill from Reps. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) would create the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites National Historical Park. The park would be comprised of all artifacts left on the surface of the moon from the Apollo 11 through 17 missions.
Send all liberals and commies to the moon, the world would be much better off. That is a FACT.
and just like Obamacare....some republican thought of it first.

A project of Gingrich-ian proportions

Obviously, two Democratic reps were inspired by the most comically ludicrous aspect of Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/10/thedc-morni...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941478
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

lily boca raton fl wrote:
Koch brothers ready to spend big on Obamacare disinformation
http://www.dailykos.com/
Good.

ObamaKKKare is a cancer that requires radical surgery.
Jane Says

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941479
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
... and that explains why no Democrat in DC or union wants to be anywhere near it.
So, if the whole country loves the law, why is Obama promoting delaying the implementation until after the mid-term elections?
cause O'Blamer would have to take the blame for an even HIGHER unemployment rate right before the elections?

O'Blamer taking the blame...who EVER thought he'd be accountable FOR ANYTHING?

finally.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941480
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
If the people who made it happen don't want any part of it, then it's obvious it will be bad for us.
When you have a disease, keep treating it until it's gone.
there comes a point where the failing doctor gets run out of town.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941481
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
ObamaKKKare is going nowhere because the entire bill is unworkable.
37 times says it's going nowhere.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941482
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text>That's hardly plausible as Republicans have blocked every effort to pass a raise in the minimum wage, and job / education bills that would provide greater opportunity and access of the poor to better paying jobs , and upwardly social mobility. Republicans have also voted to force the closing of women healthcare clinics in Texas and , raising taxes on students and on the working middle class while reducing the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans already far better off than the rest of American citizens. The GOP chose to double-down on its own past failed policies to widen the disparities between the wealthy and poor while shrinking the middle class with stagnant wages and increased private debt that will only lead to another break down in the financial and social order. The Vice President Joe Biden was correct to point out that some of the climate denier, tea party social bigots in the GOP are worse econ-terrorists than al qaida.
Increasing the minimum wage reduces the opportunity for the poor to begin their working careers.

So do efforts to prevent new stores from opening in urban neighborhoods.
Jane Says

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941483
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

ObamaCare: Inconvenient truths

The White House’s decision last week to delay part of its health-care overhaul illustrates 6 truths about the law that its supporters can’t easily acknowledge.

1ST, important parts of it are badly designed. The Obama administration has pulled back on the employer mandate — the part of the law that fines large businesses that don’t offer health insurance — because, among other things, it threatened to depress full-time employment before the next congressional elections.

The mandate isn’t an incidental feature of the law. It’s there because without it some of those large employers would drop coverage and leave their employees to get heavily subsidized policies on the insurance exchanges the law creates. More people on the exchanges would mean higher federal spending — and more disruption to people’s existing coverage — than supporters of the law promised when they were trying to pass it.

2ND, the Affordable Care Act is a standing affront to the rule of law. Unlike past expansions of government assistance — think Social Security or Medicare — much of the health-care law consists of granting discretionary power to the executive branch. That’s how the administration could impose the rule that almost all employers have to cover the morning-after pill, for example, though the law doesn’t explicitly include that rule.

Yet even this vast discretion hasn’t been enough for the administration, which has had to act on the outer limits of its authority — and beyond — to rescue the law from its flaws. Last week’s decision was an example. It isn’t clear that the administration really has the authority to delay the employer fines. Similarly, Obama’s IRS plans to offer tax credits and impose penalties in states that haven’t set up exchanges, another thing the law doesn’t provide for.

3RD, the law is struggling politically. During the debate before ObamaCare was enacted, supporters said it would become popular once it passed, or once its early benefits started flowing. Yet the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll shows that ONLY 35% OF THE PUBLIC HAS A FAVORABLE VIEW OF IT. THAT’S WHY THE ADMINISTRATION IS SO NERVOUS.

4TH, the administration isn’t following previous norms about how to build public support for a new program. Instead, it has adopted a whatever-it-takes mentality to overcome opposition. It will use force or stealth as needed. THE DELAY IN THE EMPLOYER MANDATE SHOULD QUIET BUSINESS OPPOSITION UNTIL AFTER THE 2014 ELECTION.

Unlike most social-policy milestones, this law was jammed through Congress over the opposition of all Republicans, some Democrats and most of the public. The financial crisis had delivered the Democrats such large majorities in 2008 that they could accomplish longstanding ideological goals that had nothing to do with that crisis. Nor did Obama himself have a mandate for the law, having campaigned against some of its most controversial features — for instance, the individual mandate and the new taxes on health insurance — during his 2008 presidential run.

5TH, the law’s problems aren’t simply the result of GOP sabotage, as many supporters say. LAST WEEK, THE ADMINISTRATION SIMPLY FLINCHED FROM THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAW; REPUBLICANS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

6TH, opposition to ObamaCare is reasonable. Democrats have been portraying any disagreement with the law as pathological, a break from the standard practice in which the losing side of a legislative debate reconciles itself to defeat and works with the winners. But the law is itself a break from standard practices in several respects, it remains unpopular and the administration has now effectively conceded that it’s seriously flawed and not set in stone.

There is no reason, then, to give up on replacing this law with something better.

ObamaCare: Inconvenient truths - NYPOST.com http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolu...
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941484
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Good.
ObamaKKKare is a cancer that requires radical surgery.
Galt a big proponent of spreading misinformation. Go figure. How Republican of you.
WOW

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941485
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

WHEN BLACKS WERE not race contious they made greater strides now that the DEMOCRATS have invited them to join the KKK not many gains OBAMA is a GAIN FOR OBAMA not for BLACKS
Jane Says

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941487
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

Some Democrats were also dismayed by the White House’s actions.

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and an author of the health law, questioned whether Mr. Obama had the authority to unilaterally delay the employer mandate.“This was the law. How can they change the law?” he asked.

For its part, the White House continued to look flat-footed on the issue. After an almost surreptitious evening announcement of the delay last week, posted on the Treasury Department’s Web site, the White House is declining to send a representative to a House hearing on the decision that is scheduled for Wednesday.

We'll circle back to Harkin's question in a moment, but take a moment to soak in the White House's in-your-face attitude toward its own power grab.

This administration has never masked its contempt for the other two co-equal branches of government, and this is just the latest middle finger directed at Congress. Hearings? We don't even recognize your damn hearings!

As for Harkin, he's shocked -- shocked!-- that President Obama seems to be issuing decrees from his throne, with little regard for the rule of law. "This was the law. How can they change the law?" he asks, incredulous.

Perhaps the Iowa Senator has SLEEP-WALKED thru the last several years, during which this administration has:

* engaged in selective enforcement of immigration laws,

* ceased defending an on-the-books marriage law in federal court (prior to this decision),

* unlawfully re-wrote historic welfare reforms,

* made "recess" appointments when Congress wasn't in recess,

* and trampled all over the First Amendment -- all to appease various political constituencies.

Welcome to the program, Senator Harkin.
WOW

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941488
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

ONLY DEMOCRATS CAN be BLACK if you dont claim the DEMOCRATIC PARTY YOU CANT be BLACK in AMERICA BLACKS ARE NOT FOR BLACKS THEY ARE for DEMOCRATS BLACKS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO BE DEMOCRATS ITS A ONE PARTY IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY A REAL DICTATORSHIP, IRAQ,SYRIA, EGYPT,LIBYA,etc welcome to BLACK AMERICA coming soon
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941490
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Jane Says wrote:
<quoted text>cause O'Blamer would have to take the blame for an even HIGHER unemployment rate right before the elections?
O'Blamer taking the blame...who EVER thought he'd be accountable FOR ANYTHING?
finally.
Oh hi vile beast from hell; I thought you were the woman who was stabbed to death on the subway last week by a homeless person.
Guess you escaped this time.
Jane Says

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941491
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

meanwhile, a former federal judge endeavors to answer Tom Harkin's question in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Bottom line, Obama can't:

President Obama's decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government.

The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the president on legal and constitutional issues, has repeatedly opined that the president may decline to enforce laws he believes are unconstitutional.

But these opinions have always insisted that the president has no authority, as 1 such memo put it in 1990, to "refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons."

Attorneys general under Presidents Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all agreed on this point.

With the exception of Richard Nixon, whose refusals to spend money appropriated by Congress were struck down by the courts, NO PRIOR PRESIDENT HAS CLAIMED THE POWER TO NEGATE A LAW THAT IS CONCEDEDLY CONSTITUTIONALt.

In 1998, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional grant of line-item veto authority to the president to cancel spending items in appropriations. The reason? The only constitutional power the president has to suspend or repeal statutes is to veto a bill or propose new legislation.

Writing for the court in Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens noted: "There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013."
WOW

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941493
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

HOPEFULLY WE will get a REAL BLACK PRESIDENT to REP FOR BLACK AMERICA BECAUSE WHATS GOOD FOR BLACK AMERICA IS GREAT FOR ALL AMERICA LOOK HOW MANY WHITE FOLKS ON FOOD STAMPS. Cummings was born in Baltimore, the son of Ruth and Robert Cummings.[1] He graduated with honors from Baltimore City College in 1969. He later attended Howard University in Washington, D.C., where he served in the student government as sophomore class president, student government treasurer and later student government president. He became a member of the Phi Beta Kappa Society and graduated in 1973 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science.

Cummings attended law school at the University of Maryland School of Law, graduating in 1976 and entering the Maryland Bar in December 1976. He practiced law for 19 years before first being elected to the House in the 1996 elections.

For 16 years, Cummings served in the Maryland House of Delegates. In the Maryland General Assembly, he served as Chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland and was the first African American in Maryland history to be named Speaker pro Tempore, the second highest position in the House of Delegates.

REP CUMMINGS IS A REAL (BLACK) AMERICAN
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941494
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Why Whites Will Abandon the GOP

As you are certainly aware, the new consensus among most Republicans and conservatives is that they don’t need no stinking Latinos (don’t get huffy on me; this is OK, because it’s a clever movie reference, and in any case it’s aimed not at Latinos, but at stupid Republicans) and will soar to victory on the strength of the white vote. People like me have spent a lot of airtime and ink these past couple of weeks arguing over whether this can work. But what’s interesting is this. There’s an assumption embedded in the argument that no one disputes: namely, that whites will always be as conservative as they are now and will always vote Republican in the same numbers they do now. This assumption is wrong. White people—yep, even working-class white people—are going to get less conservative in coming years, so the Republicans’ hopes of building a white-nationalist party will likely be dashed in the future even by white people themselves.

We already know all about the creative-class white voters, the well-educated and higher-income people who have shifted dramatically to the Democratic column over the past generation. Those voters are increasingly lost to the GOP. True, Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama among college graduates (of all races) 51 percent to 47 percent, but Obama won going away among postgrads. Combine that with a Democratic lock on a huge chunk of a growing minority vote, and that’s why the Democratic Party goes into presidential elections now with a massive presumed Electoral College advantage (in recent elections, Democratic candidates have regularly won states totaling 263 electoral votes, just seven shy of the magic number).

Everyone knows and concedes all this. And everyone counters it by saying that the Republicans will just goose the less-educated white vote. As I noted above, everyone agrees that that vote is theirs for the goosing. But what if it isn’t?

Back in March, the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion Research Institute released a big poll on immigration. Those findings are interesting as far as they go, but the questions and results went beyond that. It’s the first poll I’ve seen that breaks the white working class into four distinct age groups (65-plus, 50 to 64, 30 to 49, 18 to 29) and asks respondents attitudes about a broad range of social issues. And guess what? White working-class millennials are fairly liberal!

Click on the above link, scroll down to page 44, and look at the charts. On most questions, white working-class respondents in all three other age groups yielded results that were pretty similar to one another’s, but the youngest cohort was well to their left.

White working-class young people back gay marriage to the tune of about 74 percent. Another 60 percent say immigrants strengthen the United States (the totals for all three other age groups are below 40 percent). About 56 percent agree that changes immigrants have brought to their communities are a good thing. Nearly 40 percent agree that gays and lesbians are changing America for the better (more than double the percentages in the other three age groups).

They have different views because they’re different people: only 22 percent of white working-class millennials are evangelical, compared with 32 percent as a whole and 42 percent of seniors. And an amazing 38 percent of the group call themselves religiously unaffiliated.

All in all, not your father’s white working class.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07...
Jane Says

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941496
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

"The amendments made by this section SHALL APPLY to months beginning after December 31, 2013."

"Shall apply." Obama's new and illegitimate arrogation of power will surely snake its way through the courts, and by the time the matter's settled, he'll be coasting toward a very comfortable retirement.

In the meantime, liberals' desperation is laid bear.

Matt Yglesias is mindlessly slandering conservatives as racist for having the temerity to point out that THE PRESIDENT HAS A HISTORY OF SELECTIVELY ENFORCING LAWS, while Chuck Todd and Greg Sargent are muttering about Republicans' "sabotage governing."

Sargent cites 2 primary examples, 1 of which he borrows from Todd. The 1ST is the sequester, which somehow hasn't reduced America to a post-apocalyptic dystopia just yet. In fact, things seem pretty stable, and the White House's feverish warnings have been exposed as rank fear-mongering.

Sargent fails to mention that these (admittedly ham-fisted) spending reductions were the White House's idea in the first place, and that the president has threatened to veto legislation that would afford him the flexibility to mitigate the relatively minimal resulting pain.

But their big 'gotcha' is Obamacare, where Todd and Sargent are very upset that Republicans aren't helping Democrats implement a law that was jammed down the country's collective throat, against the public's wishes. Sabotage!

Let's review a few facts: Democrats -- and only Democrats -- crafted, advocated, voted for, and signed this law.

Whether they like it or not, they own every part of it.

If the Left thinks the "Republican obstructionism" card will suddenly become an effective rhetorical tool in the Obamacare fight, they're delusional.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941497
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Homer wrote:
<quoted text>So what are Republicans doing to create jobs for the poor so they can work themselves out of poverty?
Wait, stop, the Republicans hate the poor so as we all know they're not doing anything.
The jobs sare there. The problem is, your "poor" people are "poor" because they don't qualify themselves for these jobs.
But, I've got a solution.
Stop all welfare. Stop paying people to not work.
If you can't find a job, there are 30 million illegal aliens here doing the work the government is paying people to not do. Take one of those jobs.

Work or starve. That's the solution to the so-called "poor" problem.
Get off your ass and get a job.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#941498
Jul 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

frontporchreactionary wrote:
<quoted text>The big Junk Food companies are the real culprits behind the slow starvation of our children. They spend billions on advertising the increased sales of their junk food products that have reduced nutritional value and force children into obesity addictions. Read more about it here-->
http://crywolfproject.org/commentary/junk-foo...
Keep the kids addicted to sugar, then they'll be patients for life.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

89 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 3 min boundary painter 475
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 5 min boundary painter 1,197
Abby 7-29 15 min boundary painter 15
ALLAH ne HAZRAT ayesha rand ki pichese gand mar... (Nov '12) 20 min Shah king 3
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 23 min boundary painter 7,704
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 28 min Terry rigsby 48,976
Am 7-29 29 min boundary painter 9
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Rogue Scholar 05 175,034
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Sublime1 97,573
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••