Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1277606 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.

Anthony W

New York, NY

#959624 Aug 5, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>So let's get this straight. After four and a half years in office with the unemployment rate at 7.4 percent and the economy continuing to stagnate, the president's master plan is to raise the minimum wage and provide community college job training? Holy hell O'bama.
Really... do we as Americans deserve an idiot like this?
And now they're saying the fearmongering where they are shutting embassies because of a potential terrorist attack is to take attention away from Obama's failures with the economy and many scandals. If this was Bush, we Democrats would be calling the raised alerts fearmongering. How does that go, wag the tail as they say? Oh, I typed tail and feel I must take a special picture to share. The little Weiner is asleep, Huma is out getting a mani-pedi with Bill and Hill, so I have time.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#959625 Aug 5, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
No Doc loans had nothing to do with the CRA.
Actually, yes they did. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised them. At the behest of HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie promised to buy $2 trillion of “affordable” mortgages. The government was intentionally decreasing the risks to the original lenders in order to increase loans to low-income borrowers, and minorities in particular. Alright, so let's blame the 'minoritites' for signing a piece of paper--hell, if you don't want to blame CRA, let's blame the ignorant who thought they were getting something for nothing, a democrats' Utopia. Low income and no income dwellers, lower-income neighborhoods, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This suggests that the kind of low income borrowers targeted by the CRA are likely to be responsible for the majority of subprime foreclosures. O'bama and his community organizing antics sure did a lot of damage in Chicago. I am sure Detroit had the same community agitating problems.



“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#959626 Aug 5, 2013
Anthony W wrote:
<quoted text>And now they're saying the fearmongering where they are shutting embassies because of a potential terrorist attack is to take attention away from Obama's failures with the economy and many scandals. If this was Bush, we Democrats would be calling the raised alerts fearmongering. How does that go, wag the tail as they say? Oh, I typed tail and feel I must take a special picture to share. The little Weiner is asleep, Huma is out getting a mani-pedi with Bill and Hill, so I have time.
I do not believe there were any threats. If there was as much chatter as there was before 9-11 something, somewhere would have been blown up. And closing embassies? what ever happened to:
"These colors never run."
O'bama shows the world what a liberal coward looks like. There were no threats-just another game played by O'bama.
GetYouMetalarmor Out

Somerset, KY

#959627 Aug 5, 2013
It raining BOOKS!!!!

Ooooooooooooooooooooo ...hep hep us mazzer-dem BOOKS is scarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#959628 Aug 5, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>From your political source? I don't think you've provided much more than political claims.
You keep telling me how democrats made it bad. And that's where your 'proof' ends.... short of your right wing political sources.
Clinton didn't force banks to make bad loans. Even the enforcement arm says the same thing.
And if you're right, they should still be 'forced' to make bad loans. So I've asked you to 'prove' that bad loans are still being made, or that the law has been rescinded.
Unfortunately, all you've offered is silence and your continued claims.
Sorry. The reality of the situation and the supporting actual facts just don't match to your continued claims. So I'll have to go with what I can see versus your political ideology.
you just posted another fabricated twist & spin made up story with no regards to the facts which is obvious and the facts were thrown out the window & discarded in the name of Pseudo Liberalism and I am starting to believe you are part of the entitlement society that depends on those Pseudo Liberal Democrats economically just like those in Detroit and that is what happened to Detroit, Michigan and that was the epicenter of the New Left Pseudo Liberal Democrats and just look at the results of the Great Society Utopia implemented there which proved the Pseudo Liberal Democrats economical policy is a economical & social failure because it depends on other peoples money and that is what is wrong with Pseudo Liberalism and Democrats that align with that Ideology and again those Pseudo Liberals in Detroit proved that and the only ones left.
Anthony W

New York, NY

#959630 Aug 5, 2013
If I can't be Mayor, I want to be in Congress so I can keep my bestest healthcare ever. We Democrats that love Obama and Obamacare shouldn't have to suffer just because we pass legislation for the little people.

We Democrats are the official Ruling Class and it is no longer being hidden or denied. Obama and the Congress have just decided that we don’t want to play by the same rules as the rest the minion sheeple. Big surprise that the Office of Personnel Management has said the Obamas, the Bidens and Congress will issue a ruling that states government can keep making contributions to the health care premiums of members of Congress and their aides. In other words, the “serfs” will be paying for us and our staff to keep our “Cadillac health plans” and subsidies while the hard-working taxpayer lose theirs or face enormous premium hikes.

Here is another example of how this administration and Congress randomly decide which laws they like and which ones they don’t. For those of us paying attention we a ROTTEN REPUBLICAN Sen. Chuck Grassley,(R-Iowa) added a clause into the original text of the Affordable Care Act that said members of Congress and their aides MUST be covered by plans created by the law or offered through an exchange.

Before Obamacare, Congress and their staff were covered by a health care plan that was considered “golden”. This was being paid for by the taxpayers. Under Obamacare and Grassley’s provision, Congress and staff would be subject to the exact same treatment as the rest of ORDINARY TAXPAYERS. In other words, if government payments stopped, lawmakers and their aides would have been looking at thousands of dollars in additional premium payments.(Just like the rest the peons.) Before Obamacare, the government contributed almost 75% to their premium payments.

When they finally got around to “finding out what was in the bill”, Capitol Hill started wringing their hands and hyperventilating. With Grassley’s provision in there, that would mean that, gasp, we would have to live by the same rules as the rest of Americans and we just could not let that happen.

Long live ObamaCare for the rest of them but not for us!

“we dem boyz”

Since: Jan 13

Same

#959631 Aug 5, 2013
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>Due to recent Obama sequestration cuts, the light at the end of your deranged tunnel will be turned off.
Everyone has a right to be stupid, you just abuse the privilege you loser..
It's the culture...
It's the American culture to be fat, lazy and stupid you are correct.
Dave Barry quote - Everyone has a right to be stupid. Some just abuse the privilege.
Dave, is that you??!!
Bet you got the fat and lazy down pat as well.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#959632 Aug 5, 2013
Anthony W wrote:
<quoted text>I hate when people say Obama hasn't created jobs. Like he could actually, really do something. And they don't give him credit for all the flexibility the new part-timers have or all the leisure time those who have completely given up looking have.
And I hate when they say things like
Falling down on the jobs
Barack Obama just can't crack the unemployment problem
The latest abysmal report on the American workplace makes clear that President Obama hasn’t a prayer of talking his way to robust job creation. He’ll have to do a whole lot more than give speeches.
Thud, the government’s numbers went Friday.
The economy added just 162,000 jobs in July, the lowest monthly total since January, and the counts for the previous two months were revised downward. At this pace, the U.S. would languish for more than a decade before returning to pre-Great Recession employment levels.
And the news was worse than that. Hidden in the statistics was the fact that America has gotten most proficient at creating part-time rather than full-time jobs. This helped put a falsely happy face on an ever so slight decline in the unemployment rate to 7.4%.
Fully 8.25 million Americans who would rather have full-time work are now part-timers. And another 1.2 million are marginally attached to the labor force.
In July, the average work week and average hourly earnings fell. The number of people officially in the workforce dropped, by some 40,000. The labor participation rate is at a 34-year low.
Obama has begun to talk about some of the wreckage — kind of.
After running a reelection campaign in which he purported to see progress in the comeback from the collapse he inherited in 2008, the President is delivering addresses aimed, he says, at pushing Washington to move on a job-creation agenda.
Despite the economy’s persistent, debilitating weakness, he asks the country to accept the premise that “we’ve started to lay a new foundation for a stronger, more durable America” and then he says that, of course, more must be done.
Never does he squarely assess the emergency, an evasion that undermines a sense of urgency while sparing him from having to defend his failure to deliver more for the U.S. worker.
Although he has put constructive ideas on the table — including corporate tax reform and infrastructure spending — the President has heated his pitch with populist appeals on income inequality and attacks on congressional Republicans. None of which will get Obama any closer to a job-creation program than he got to gun control.
Like it or not, if he is going to remedy the declining standard of living of America’s working and middle classes, Obama must partner more constructively with his GOP adversaries.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, he signaled that he might head in that direction, saying:“I want to make sure that all of us in Washington are investing as much time, as much energy, as much debate on how we grow the economy and grow the middle class as we’ve spent over the last two to three years arguing about how we reduce the deficits.” Then he was asked about his legacy should America remain stalled. He answered:
“I think if I’m arguing for entirely different policies and Congress ends up pursuing policies that I think don’t make sense and we get a bad result, it’s hard to argue that’d be my legacy.”
He was wrong. His legacy would be a two-term President who just couldn’t get things done, but played the most golf and wifey had the best vacations.
And the number of people Employed is STILL DOWN LOWER than at the "height" of the recession-DOWN from 61 percent, to 57.8.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#959633 Aug 5, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
And whose fault is that you clueless twit? The GOP controlled House has blocked any job creation proposals from the White House. Have they proposed anything that would create jobs, repair our crumbling infrastructure and bring manufacturing jobs back from overseas? No, instead we got 40 useless going nowhere votes to repeal Obamacare at a total cost of 60 million wasted taxpayer dollars.
You're an idiot Carol.
The stimulus repaired our 'crumbling' infrastructure...remember?
This is leading up to the stimulus, which he would put in place a few months later.

OBAMA: There will be a two-year nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges.

February 17th, 2009, O'bama was in Denver at the Museum of Nature and Science.

OBAMA: Because of this investment, nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our faulty dams and levees, bringing critical broadband connections to businesses and homes in nearly every community in America, upgrading mass transit, building high-speed rail lines that will improve travel and commerce throughout our nation.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#959634 Aug 5, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, yes they did. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised them. At the behest of HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie promised to buy $2 trillion of “affordable” mortgages. The government was intentionally decreasing the risks to the original lenders in order to increase loans to low-income borrowers, and minorities in particular. Alright, so let's blame the 'minoritites' for signing a piece of paper--hell, if you don't want to blame CRA, let's blame the ignorant who thought they were getting something for nothing, a democrats' Utopia. Low income and no income dwellers, lower-income neighborhoods, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This suggests that the kind of low income borrowers targeted by the CRA are likely to be responsible for the majority of subprime foreclosures. O'bama and his community organizing antics sure did a lot of damage in Chicago. I am sure Detroit had the same community agitating problems.
"this suggests"

will facts ever trump opinions in wingnut-land?

no.

will opinions ever appear in a college economics textbook?

no.

was Bush so bad that those who voted for him will keep making excuses for him until there's another (R) in the WH?

yes.

and maybe you've forgotten....Bush was all about minorities owning a home. even those who didn't qualify for a loan. as long as he could buy some votes the consequences of what he wanted were of no concern.

Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's first chief economic adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Bush meet housing goals.

"No one wanted to stop that bubble," Lindsay said. "It would have conflicted with the president's own policies."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/wo...

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#959635 Aug 5, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
In January we were still on a growing trend of increasing job losses losing 750,000 jobs. It took just 8 months for Obama to stop that trend thanks to his stimulus bill.
If you go back, that stimulus is what got all of this O'bama fraud started.
Anthony W

New York, NY

#959636 Aug 5, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>I do not believe there were any threats. If there was as much chatter as there was before 9-11 something, somewhere would have been blown up. And closing embassies? what ever happened to:
"These colors never run."
O'bama shows the world what a liberal coward looks like. There were no threats-just another game played by O'bama.
You know I have a problem when they say Obama is an Appeaser. I mean before the election when he thought the microphone was off he told the Russians he'd be flexible and damn if he isn't living up to at least 1 campaign promise by being a doormat now.

But I wish they'd stop calling him worse than Jimmy Carter. Even Chuckie Schumer is telling Obama to man up and I think he's got a lot of nerve. I might send him a special picture to show him what that nerve looks like.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#959637 Aug 5, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>I do not believe there were any threats. If there was as much chatter as there was before 9-11 something, somewhere would have been blown up. And closing embassies? what ever happened to:
"These colors never run."
O'bama shows the world what a liberal coward looks like. There were no threats-just another game played by O'bama.
Maybe everone whut supposeter celebrate he birfday?

Glad they didn't. We certainly areN'T SUPPOSED to be WhiteHouseing duh leader of duh whole world.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#959638 Aug 5, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Is the GOP self-destructing?
The Republicans can't seem to agree on anything.
We've all grown used to a Congress locked in bitter warfare between two parties, producing gridlock on federal spending and other pressing issues. But the Congress that left Washington last week hit a new high in another category: gridlock among Republicans.
Take last week's unremarkable proposal by President Obama for a deal to combine corporate tax cuts (an idea Republicans love) with an increase in spending on roads and other public works (an idea only some Republicans love).
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has emerged as Obama's chief partner in trying to negotiate bipartisan deals, praised the idea as "a good start." Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Senate Republican leader, denounced it as a trick to boost government spending. Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a leader of the up-and-coming tea party faction, said Republicans should stop talking about any deals and threaten to shut down the federal government instead.
And that was only in the Senate. In the House, where Republicans run the chamber, the chaos was even worse. When House leaders tried to pass exactly the sort of deep cuts in transportation and housing programs they've been calling for, they suddenly discovered that they didn't have a majority; some GOP members thought the cuts were too deep, and others thought they weren't deep enough.
How divided are Republicans in Congress? So divided, one conservative joked, that it shouldn't be called a civil war: "It's not organized enough for that."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentar...
Democrat party had already self destructed years ago in the 1960's with those New Left Democrats as they called themselve tookover the party and LBJ was there leader who was a racist.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#959639 Aug 5, 2013
No Surprize wrote:
Embassy, consulate closures = Al Qaeda 'on steroids' since Benghazi attack...
One Year ago Obama said al-Qaida on run and now WE are on run...
It's the culture...
Of NO and/or flip FLOPPED Failed Foreign Policy.

Good article-

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/04...

Since: May 11

Hustontown, PA

#959640 Aug 5, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>The stimulus repaired our 'crumbling' infrastructure...remember?
This is leading up to the stimulus, which he would put in place a few months later.
OBAMA: There will be a two-year nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges.
February 17th, 2009, O'bama was in Denver at the Museum of Nature and Science.
OBAMA: Because of this investment, nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our faulty dams and levees, bringing critical broadband connections to businesses and homes in nearly every community in America, upgrading mass transit, building high-speed rail lines that will improve travel and commerce throughout our nation.
Repairing our infrastructure is not repairing all of it. You're ridiculous..

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#959641 Aug 5, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
"this suggests"
will facts ever trump opinions in wingnut-land?
no.
will opinions ever appear in a college economics textbook?
no.
was Bush so bad that those who voted for him will keep making excuses for him until there's another (R) in the WH?
yes.
and maybe you've forgotten....Bush was all about minorities owning a home. even those who didn't qualify for a loan. as long as he could buy some votes the consequences of what he wanted were of no concern.
Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's first chief economic adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Bush meet housing goals.
"No one wanted to stop that bubble," Lindsay said. "It would have conflicted with the president's own policies."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/wo...
I thought Bush was a racist, now you are saying the Republicans loved the minorities. You can't have it both ways Sososupporter.

Since: May 11

Hustontown, PA

#959642 Aug 5, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>If you go back, that stimulus is what got all of this O'bama fraud started.
What fraud is that? You mean the fraud put forth by the Republicans as this was their start of obstructionism putting their poor excuse of a Party ahead of our country's interests? That Fraud?
LCN Llin

United States

#959643 Aug 5, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Republicans Against Reality
Last week House Republicans voted for the 40th time to repeal Obamacare. Like the previous 39 votes, this action will have no effect whatsoever. But it was a stand-in for what Republicans really want to do: repeal reality, and the laws of arithmetic in particular. The sad truth is that the modern G.O.P. is lost in fantasy, unable to participate in actual governing.
Just to be clear, I’m not talking about policy substance. I may believe that Republicans have their priorities all wrong, but that’s not the issue here. Instead, I’m talking about their apparent inability to accept very basic reality constraints, like the fact that you can’t cut overall spending without cutting spending on particular programs, or the fact that voting to repeal legislation doesn’t change the law when the other party controls the Senate and the White House.
Am I exaggerating? Consider what went down in Congress last week.
First, House leaders had to cancel planned voting on a transportation bill, because not enough representatives were willing to vote for the bill’s steep spending cuts. Now, just a few months ago House Republicans approved an extreme austerity budget, mandating severe overall cuts in federal spending — and each specific bill will have to involve large cuts in order to meet that target. But it turned out that a significant number of representatives, while willing to vote for huge spending cuts as long as there weren’t any specifics, balked at the details. Don’t cut you, don’t cut me, cut that fellow behind the tree.
Then House leaders announced plans to hold a vote cutting spending on food stamps in half — a demand that is likely to sink the already struggling effort to agree with the Senate on a farm bill.
Then they held the pointless vote on Obamacare, apparently just to make themselves feel better.(It’s curious how comforting they find the idea of denying health care to millions of Americans.) And then they went home for recess, even though the end of the fiscal year is looming and hardly any of the legislation needed to run the federal government has passed.
In other words, Republicans, confronted with the responsibilities of governing, essentially threw a tantrum, then ran off to sulk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/opinion/kru...
Republicans have abandoned "he was born in Kenya" and taken up serious infighting which may destroy the party?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#959644 Aug 5, 2013
White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Mr. Bush chose to oversee them — an old prep school buddy — pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21...

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) 6 min Rogue Scholar 05 197,006
News Doctor disciplined for allegedly chastising Chi... (Jul '09) 36 min thenose 162
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 53 min Patriot AKA Bozo 54,570
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Ferrerman unplugg... 100,661
"Slave clothes" My New, Original Work by Patric... 2 hr Patricia_McGurk 1
Ask amy 9-2-15 4 hr Kuuipo 13
How to get into the USA. 6 hr New Beach Boys Song 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages