Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1534316 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.


New York, NY

#960947 Aug 7, 2013
Should Hispanic people be able to use the n-word?
THEY SHOULD USE THE WORD ASSOCIATED WITH THEM THEY HAVE THEM CALL YOURSELVES ****,*****k In a recent interview with Power 105′s The Breakfast Club the Latino rapper, Fat Joe says he’s not going to stop using the word because he says he’s “blacker than most black people:”
“By the way, I’m blacker than most black people. For the record. From the Bronx, I grew up 90 percent black people, half my family is black, I love black people, I am pro-Latino, I love Latino. I don’t see the difference. If you a black person or you a Latino, and they got sugar next door, we’re going to your house — I’ve always viewed us as one. Big Pun’s number one hit was ‘Boricua, Morena,’ together. You understand what I’m saying?‘Why Fat Joe say the N-word?’‘Cause I am that n***a. It’s just the bottom line. I hate it when J. Lo said it one time, I know she’s a superstar and she’s like,‘Ahhh.’ I’m like,‘Yo, you’re from the Bronx, you supposed to say, that’s what we say.’ Terms of endearment. We call our cousins that, we call our brothers that. We were just talking about a white guy that says ‘N’ all day and we never looked at him different. Why?‘Cause the first time I met him he was with 20 black dudes and every wife he ever had was black. He ain’t prejudice. He’s just saying it as a term of endearment. It’s not our fault it turned hip-hop.”
Do you think Joe should be using the n-word? hit the flip for the entire interview
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#960948 Aug 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think a 10% tax on tanning booths is gonna raise $50 billion a year in revenue?
Estimated tanning salon revenue is $5 billion per year, with a negative growth rate of 1.1%.

Go figure.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#960949 Aug 7, 2013
Fenris the Big Bad Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
For a guy who claims to be "Libertarian" (LOL), you sure are a slow learner regarding the party's principles:
The best legislation = "NO" legislation.
Its not about what legislation Republicans have been able to advance since the 2010 mid-terms; its about all the retarded legislation from dum dem phags they have been able to defeat.
As for the election itself, your link is fallacious. On a National, regional, and local basis, the 2010 midterms were the biggest azzkicking the dums have ever received.
We got a lotta mo comin your way too......:-)
Only in absolute number of seat changes, not in power shifts.

As for "NO legislation" how does the House shut down Obamacare without legislation?

Indianapolis, IN

#960950 Aug 7, 2013
Buroc Millhouse Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
All the while, you endorse the wiener...

that YOU objective IT speaks volumes.

CPAC much? nothing spells party like a gaggle of gay conservatives.

New York, NY

#960951 Aug 7, 2013
%THE MONKEES got PAID WITH PEANUTS to call themselves YO MY ****** and lyor cohen,JERRY HELLER,gave the monkees PEANUTS lit up a BIG CIGAR AND LAUGHED

Indianapolis, IN

#960952 Aug 7, 2013
Capitol Hill staffers will avoid the financial blow of a Republican-planted provision in Obamacare that was poised to significantly raise their health care costs next year and lead to disruptions in congressional offices.

A rule issued Wednesday by the Office of Personnel Management, which handles congressional compensation, says the federal government may contribute to insurance premiums for lawmakers and congressional staff who are set to be dropped from their federal health plans and must buy policies on the Affordable Care Act exchanges next year.

“These proposed regulations implement the administrative aspects of switching Members of Congress and congressional staff to their new insurance plans — the same plans available to millions of Americans through the new Exchanges,” Jon Foley, OPM’s director of planning and policy, said in a statement Wednesday.

What had been spun as an effort to seek special treatment was, in reality, a response to the provision inserted into the law by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in an attempt to put Democrats in a predicament. If this law is so great, he argued, we should subject ourselves to it. In a surprising move, Democrats embraced the provision and included it in the law.

But the reality was less simple. Under the Grassley amendment, lawmakers and congressional staffers who work for “the official office of a Member of Congress” are the only employees of large organizations in the country who are required to buy insurance from the Obamacare marketplaces. OPM said that because there’s no statutory definition for what constitutes an “official office,” members gets to decide whether committee or leadership staffers qualify.

The Affordable Care Act doesn’t specify whether the government would be allowed to help them pay for the premiums. If not, health care costs for lawmakers and staff would soar, leading to an uneven playing field between them and other employees.

One solution would have been to enact a quick and easy legislative fix. But Republicans immediately took that off the table when the problem became public this spring and was initially portrayed in the media as an attempt by Congress to weasel out of complying with the law.

So Plan B was to push OPM to let Congress help staffers and their bosses pay for insurance on the exchanges. Facing pressure from the White House and Democratic leaders, OPM agreed, leaking word of its ruling last week and making it official Wednesday.

“The proposed regulation,” a White House aide said last week,“will provide for the implementation of the Grassley Amendment, making it clear that these employees will enroll in Marketplace plans, will not qualify for premium tax credits, and, like private sector employees, will not lose their employer contributions for these health plans.… The Administration is focused on making this law work right.”

Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) called it an “outrageous exemption for Congress” when news about the upcoming OPM decision leaked last week.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#960953 Aug 7, 2013
EasyEed wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time you lie. Your specialty. Point out a post where I praised wasteful republican spending votes. Just one. I spoke out against republican lawmakers who voted for nobamakare. Those who voted to bail out GM, Government Motors.
Try being honest. Just once.
You "praise" them for it when it counts: when you vote for them.

Any nonsense you spew on here is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

- Bill S.

Honolulu, HI

#960954 Aug 7, 2013
Death of Tenzing wrote:
<quoted text>
That's only with < 20% down.
So if I understand their reasoning:
Capitalism if > 20% down
Communism if < 20% down
And that doesn't include FHA type financing.

But really, if they are that concerned, they shouldn't use any insured financial institution to conduct their financial transactions. And even then, they shouldn't use any regulated financial institutions in general since they are governed by federal guidelines.

And technically, they shouldn't use nearly every worldwide financial institution or instrument since they are governed at some level by the federal government.

So really, just carrying money around should make these people mad as hell....

... but they're not!

Indianapolis, IN

#960955 Aug 7, 2013
Conservatives Have No Idea What ‘Racist’ Means

A Republican claims Obama's tax on tanning beds is 'racist'—because black people don't need to use them. Jamelle Bouie says it's another example of how the right has warped the word.

If this sounds a little strange, just think about the health implications of sitting under ultraviolet light for hours at a time. Risk for melanoma increases by 75 percent when people begin tanning before the age of 35, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer. One study found that tanning beds cause roughly 170,000 cases of skin cancer each year, and at one point the Food and Drug Administration proposed banning bed use by customers under 18. When it comes to lowering costs in the health-care system, reducing skin cancer incidence by encouraging people not to use tanning beds is low-hanging fruit.

Of course, for every sensible step taken by the Obama administration, there’s at least one Republican who sees it as a sinister plot to rob Americans of their freedom.

In this case, it’s Rep. Ted Yoho of Florida, who recently revived the tired attack against the tax (John McCain and Snooki railed against it back in 2010) with a disturbing new twist.“It’s a racist tax,” Yoho, who is white, recently told a group of constituents, because dark-skinned people don’t need to tan.“I thought I might need to get to a tanning booth so I can come out and say I’ve been disenfranchised, because I got taxed because of the color of my skin.”

If white people were required to use tanning beds as a condition of their citizenship, Yoho might have a point. As it stands, this is stupid; this is a tax on tanning beds, paid by people who purchase them, and felt by people who use them. The only way to describe this as “racist” is to turn the word into a mindless insult.

But this, in fact, is what it’s become among a large number of Republicans. Since Barack Obama entered office, a vocal group of conservatives has been obsessed with proving him the “real racist.” After Obama gave his “race” speech in Philadelphia in 2008 following the controversy over Jeremiah Wright, Rush Limbaugh argued that it was an effort to hide the “other Obama,” who “has been … soaking up all of this hate-mongering racism from [Wright] for over 20 years.” The next year, Glenn Beck called now-President Obama a racist for his handling of the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.“This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture,” Beck said.“I don’t know what it is.”

This echoed a comment from the late Andrew Breitbart, who built his popularity off of claims that Obama was a “race baiter” who sought reparations for African-Americans. On one edition of Fox Business Network’s America’s Nightly Scoreboard, Breitbart excoriated the president for not pursuing the New Black Panthers, and following a “scandal” manufactured by right-wing bloggers like himself. By “letting the [New] Black Panthers off,” he declared, Obama is “defending racists,” which is “virtually the same.”

At no point, in any of this, did the conservative commentators prove racial animus on the part of the president.

Yoho’s comment fits comfortably into this rhetoric, which includes the conservative response to President Obama’s remarks on the George Zimmerman verdict last month, which caused a paroxysm of outrage from right-wing websites, with the Daily Caller blaring,“Obama Goes Full Race-Baiter,” and the National Review going after the comments as another plank in “The Obama Administration’s Race-Baiting Campaign.”

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#960956 Aug 7, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Socialism is production to provide make-work employment, whether the product has demand or not.
it also depends on who's version of Socialism you are using & applying too since Socialism advocates Moderate Government intervention into economical matters and what you said descibes Keynesian Economics and What the New Deal was based on which was Big Government Spending in the US economy and the ones that were against were proven right too.

Keynesian economics

The Keynesian Fraud

August 9, 2011
Anthony W

New York, NY

#960957 Aug 7, 2013
Uh oh...I LOVE BARACK but he is proving he lacks experience again.

Hearing about Obama's international incompetence is just sooooo upsetting to Democrats like me and Huma who wish we could be yellow dogs but were raised in northern cities.

Obama's mishandling of al Qaida raises the larger and obviously more important question about the effect of the weakening of the U.S. position against the terrorist threat that the Obama administration has brought about by not recognizing that we're in a global war on terror and basically trying to argue that the war was basically over.

We're in a much weaker position and that's attributable at the macro level to the incorrectness of Obama's world view, that terrorism really isn't that much of a threat, that you can treat it not as a war against us – which it is – but random, occasional, localized acts of violence.

Ironically, just as we're looking at these events in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Maj. Nidal Hasan is on trial for the Fort Hood shootings, which the administration described as workplace violence by a lone wolf — not really part of the international terrorist threat.

That's also part of Obama's unwillingness to see that the terrorists really do constitute a threat, that they are still at war with us whether we want to be at war or not.

The Obama administration is splitting hairs by differentiating between various al-Qaida factions, and is wrong in trying to portray al-Qaida as just a fragment of its former self.

That aids their narrative, that the war on terror is over. It's a mistake to think that al-Qaida was ever organized like a corporation or a military hierarchy.

In its history it has had central control from the al-Qaida core over its affiliates,and one of al-Qaida's strengths is the "discretion and independence" it has given the al-Qaida groups in Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Maghreb in North Africa. "It means that al-Qaida continues even when, for example, we kill Osama bin Laden.

So trying to imagine that you can redefine al-Qaida to suit your purposes was always a mistake. The terrorist group is "very adaptive" and is a "threat that doesn't go away just because we hope it will and because Obama's middle name is Hussein.

Indianapolis, IN

#960958 Aug 7, 2013
The idea that Obama is a racist reads as baffling to most Americans, but it makes sense if you understand the particular racial beliefs of conservatives. If the liberal perspective on racism is that racial inequality is a genuine fact of contemporary American life—and requires race-specific remedies—then the conservative view can be expressed with a line from Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1:“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

In other words, only the “colorblind” are capable of stopping racism. What’s more, the inverse is also true: if you’re not colorblind, then you are incapable of stopping racism. Which leads to a final conclusion: anyone who treats race as a social reality is a racist. The corollary to this—seen here, for example—is that accusations of racism are more troubling than actual discrimination against minorities.

Because Obama acknowledges race as a force in American life—and because he even suggests that there are racists among us—he becomes the “real racist,” a construction designed to give conservatives moral high ground, while allowing them to insult Obama. After all, for them,“racist” is the worst accusation in American life.

This rhetoric, it should be said, extends beyond the fever swamps of the right wing. In his concurrence to Fisher v. Texas, the recently decided case on racial preferences in higher education, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas likens supporters of affirmative action to slaveholders and segregationists.“Slaveholders argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life,” wrote Thomas.“Segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks.” In this telling, the real racism is using racial preferences to account for past discrimination.

With three years (and some change) left in President Obama’s term, we will see more of this rhetoric. Until then, however, it’s worth giving a quick primer on what racism is. Racism, as The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote last year, is the “broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others.” It’s both the miasma of beliefs and assumptions about blacks and other minorities, and the policies passed in response to those beliefs and assumptions. It’s the white supremacist heritage of this country and the ways in which it continues to shape individual lives. It’s “cantaloupe calves,”“stop and frisk,” and the presumption of black criminality.

What it isn’t, by far, is a black president who talks about race, and tries—whenever possible—to talk about its role in American life.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#960959 Aug 7, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>the WPA has been replaced by more horrific government entities. Not exactly a shining example.
None of which happen to come to mind?

Is that it?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#960960 Aug 7, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>EPA. The state sponsered Eco terrorists do just that. I would call taxes communist when they extend beyond what they were originally intended for. And when they keep increasing to fund communist programs.
You mean what the US Constitution originally intended income taxes to be for?

Have fun with that one.
Anthony W

New York, NY

#960961 Aug 7, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Estimated tanning salon revenue is $5 billion per year, with a negative growth rate of 1.1%.
Go figure.
Because tanning salons are the best place to tan all your parts before a special photo shoot on Twitter. I once tried to get an even color by exposing myself in the front seat of my convertible and all of a sudden it went from sunny to rain. I sent that picture to Hillary but she tweeted back stop it Joe. LOL, she thought it was the funny uncle VP at it again.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#960962 Aug 7, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not have Lincoln-Douglas style debates where the candidates actually debate each other instead of making mini-speeches in response to often puerile questions?
That'd be a lot more fun to watch.

Honolulu, HI

#960963 Aug 7, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Or Newtered?
IMO Newt and Ron Paul each made an azzhole out of Romney, setting him up for eventual failure. That Willard had never set on a toilet without blue water didn't help his chances either.
The problem for any GOP candidate is how to play to all sides of their party. They change their stripes depending on the audience.

That much, they're consistent.

Candidates who tried to hold their radically conservative lines exited early.

Romney ended up being the sacrificial lamb by default. Newt was there to show how low they were willing to go.

United States

#960965 Aug 7, 2013
Obama to snub Putin at the G-20 while Kerry/Hagel will speak to Russia’s counterparts concerning Snowden ‘Laughable ‘ his action to snub Putin is a child trying to act macho Obama, Kerry, Hagel reminds me of the Three Stooges!!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#960966 Aug 7, 2013
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>It would appear that O'bama is going to be wanted by the United States government--he should be executed according to Diane Feinstein. O'bama leaked all the information about the terrorists threats to the public in order to damage America and help the terrorists and of course to make himself look good.-why would O'bama leak all this information? Why would he help the terrorists? they know now not to use that frequency. O'bama is a traitor.
"I think it's an act of treason,” the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told reporters.
The California lawmaker went on to say that he had violated his oath to defend the Constitution.
“He violated the oath, he violated the law. It's treason.”
Y'all are so pathetic, here's the actual quote:

The California lawmaker went on to say that Snowden had violated his oath to defend the Constitution.
“He violated the oath, he violated the law. It’s treason.”

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#960967 Aug 7, 2013
John Galt wrote:
Putin reportedly suicidal over Obama rejection.
LOL-you are a funny man.:) O'bama is showing what a baby he is in the world of international affairs. This temper tantrum will is being laughed at by those in power. I suggest O'stupid, does what he said he was going to do, and go talk to Iran without any preconditions.

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) 12 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 240,794
Bottomless wife? 2 hr Earl 4
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr They cannot kill ... 10,686
Mass media's war on police leads to more crime. 3 hr actorvet 1
Deporting Seniors 8 hr But brain works 3
Apartment (May '07) 9 hr Earl 3
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 10 hr RACE 105,185

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages