Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1346852 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.

Since: May 11

Gettysburg, PA

#986452 Sep 20, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> It's a welfare ponzi scheme that will collapse under it's own weight. It will destroy medical care in this country. It will also destroy the insurance industry also.
Ponzi scheme? Evidently you have no clue what a Ponzi Scheme is.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#986453 Sep 20, 2013
forks_make_us_fat wrote:
<quoted text>
"5 Other Fake Indians Besides Elizabeth Warren"
http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/09/5-fake-...
you wouldn't know an Indian from an Indian.

you probably think Miss America is an Arab Muslim.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#986454 Sep 20, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
prove that Baugh is a liberal.
'But Bill said....!'
Poor judgment + Political correctness = Liberal judge
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#986455 Sep 20, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
be patient...
Watergate took 2.5 years to unravel.
ok, where are they hiding the tapes.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#986457 Sep 20, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Turn around is fair play, you grungy old p***y...
"gash" "slit" "p***y", why do rightwingers hate women so much?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#986458 Sep 20, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Only peasants and New Jersey guidos lack appreciation for fine wine....
The Williamsburg Winery makes some good choices.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#986459 Sep 20, 2013
John Galt wrote:
Allan Brauer, the communications chair for the Democratic Party of Sacramento, Calif., told an aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tex.) on Friday that he hoped her children “die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.”
What is the aide's name?
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#986460 Sep 20, 2013
Emeem wrote:
<quoted text>
Only a complete moron would try to make the case that Tim McVeigh was a liberal Democrat.
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you're a complete moron.
'complete moron' I see you've met every rightwinger posting on this thread.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#986461 Sep 20, 2013
John Galt wrote:
Allan Brauer, the communications chair for the Democratic Party of Sacramento, Calif., told an aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tex.) on Friday that he hoped her children “die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.”
Of course he did. No surprise there. Anything new?

But here's this:

1.Economy: Approve 39%- Disapprove 59%
2.Taxes: Approve 41%- Disapprove 54%
3.Health Care: Approve 40%- Disapprove 57%
4.Immigration: Approve 29%- Disapprove 62%
5.Federal Budget: Approve 31%- Disapprove 64%
6.Situation in Iraq: Approve 41%- Disapprove 53%
7.Situation in Afghanistan: Approve 36%- Disapprove 57%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Dail...

That MSNBC Ed Show guy almost blew a vein ranting about Obama's low approval numbers and why everyone doesn't love him just because he's black....
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#986462 Sep 20, 2013
John Galt wrote:
Allan Brauer, the communications chair for the Democratic Party of Sacramento, Calif., told an aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tex.) on Friday that he hoped her children “die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases.”
Are you sure?
No Surprize

Seminole, FL

#986464 Sep 20, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You're free to support your opinion with something other than your opinion.
You're a beck disciple, aren't you son?
Yeah Gilligan always bent over getting punked by Carol..

If it's ghetto, It's liberal..

It's the culture...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#986465 Sep 20, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Ponzi scheme? Evidently you have no clue what a Ponzi Scheme is.
Apparent you don't either. But you're right. A ponzi scheme means you have to take money from new suckers to pay the old suckers. There are just suckers in this scheme. It's just a scam. There is no way enough money will be raised to pay for it.
Annie

New York, NY

#986466 Sep 20, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> That's bullshit and you know it. If those babies were dying because of that (not like before they are born) it would be on the front page every day. Just like children starving to death.
For many years, newborns with serious health issues that would not be covered by private insurers were declared "independent" by the state and enrolled in Medicaid. No babies were left to die.

However, ObamaCare architects hold the belief that treatment should be based on social value by age. The very young and the elderly are not considered valuable.

"Nat Hentoff — a civil libertarian about as far to the left as the socialist Noam Chomsky — wrote the following:

I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking.

But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama’s desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model)— as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill — decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It’s already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question.

For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to “Dr. Obama,” particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that “allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination.”(The Lancet, January 2009)

He calls this form of rationing — which is fundamental to Obamacare goals —“the complete lives system.” You see, at 65 or older, you’ve had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.
TSM

El Paso, TX

#986467 Sep 20, 2013
Republicans pass legislation to defund Obamacare and fund government on a Bi-Partisan vote now it’s up to Reid/President whether the Government Shuts Down!!
Messiah Obama

Kingston, PA

#986468 Sep 20, 2013
Quit being cynics, you cynics! Obama came forth from the murky depths of American politics, offering a solution! And you want to drag him back down? Doesn't this seem awfully familiar? Think about it. The same thing happened to Jesus, only much more brutal. It's proof that folks DON'T want change. They would rather our country stagnate and die. In a democracy, a President is only as good as the people who elect him/her. Well, I'm telling you right now, cynics --I WANT CHANGE. Who's with me?
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#986469 Sep 20, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor judgment + Political correctness = Liberal judge
so you can't prove it.
Annie

New York, NY

#986470 Sep 20, 2013
An ObamaCare architect and:

Emanuel, has written much literature on how to solve the costs of health care. One such piece is what he calls "The Complete lives System"

This system incorporates five principles:
Youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value.

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.

As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice:“individual human lives, rather than individual experiences,[are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.”1,75,76 Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants.

Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life.

Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.77 As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues,“It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does”;78 this argument is supported by empirical surveys.41,79

Importantly, the prioritization of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo.

Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones, even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice.

The complete lives system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life.

Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients, and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving.34,80

Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle.
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure).78

It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.

Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.

Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption.
Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents.
Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.58,59..........

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years."

-Lancet, Vol 373 June 31, 2009
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#986471 Sep 20, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>The only thing you need to know about the Zimmerman case is that our state's (R) governor and (TPR) attorney general very quickly benched the (R) Seminole-Brevard states attorney in favor of the (R) Duval states attorney.
Someone fkd up (read lied) early on.
Additionally, the Sanford police chief was fired, the PIO fired and the lead investigator reassigned to road patrol.
The thin blue line turned a vibrant shade of sht brown!
still no evidence and no case...
Annie

New York, NY

#986472 Sep 20, 2013
Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle.
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure).7

Yep. There's no such thing as Death Panels.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#986473 Sep 20, 2013
Homer wrote:
<quoted text>Obama didn't write the bill. Republicans refused to get involved and wanted no part of healthcare reform.
answer the question, homeboy...

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min Earthling-1 57,273
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Dr Guru 207,546
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 5 hr They cannot kill ... 7,299
last post wins! (Apr '13) 5 hr They cannot kill ... 609
last post wins! (Dec '10) 5 hr They cannot kill ... 1,582
Word (Dec '08) 12 hr Red_Forman 5,642
NO corkscrew, open win bottle. 13 hr POS Gone 9
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages