Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1382554 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: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024216 Nov 15, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Carol we don't except when the right wing religious faction decides to use their power in some state legislatures to restrict what is a legal procedure.
Again, would Jesus have looked the other way when the Roman government condoned sexual misconduct so creating a life to kill it was justified - because it was a "legal procedure"?

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#1024217 Nov 15, 2013
It is the Inhofe's of the world who are the epitome of bad taste, not I.
Laney F

Jamaica, NY

#1024218 Nov 15, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Carol we don't except when the right wing religious faction decides to use their power in some state legislatures to restrict what is a legal procedure.
Can you imagine if a few Germans had done that about some of their "legal procedures" in the 1930s?

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024219 Nov 15, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Carol we don't except when the right wing religious faction decides to use their power in some state legislatures to restrict what is a legal procedure.
By the way, am I the only one you respond to on here? Seems like I'm your pet conservative target even if you have to dig up posts from the forgotten past. Just curious.
Laney F

Jamaica, NY

#1024220 Nov 15, 2013
Obammy Confusion or is it a delusion?

To the tune of...its a bird, it's a plane, it's Super-Clueless:

He knows everything. And yet he seems to know nothing.

He’s passionate about the details of domestic policy but wasn’t privy to the details of his own legacy law.

He’s an academic with a command of every issue at once but seemingly only finds out what his administration is doing in news reports.

He’s so brilliant every normal endeavor he’s tried has bored him, but he couldn’t bother to entertain himself with more than one monthly meeting on the make-or-break program of his presidency.

He’s the captain of the Culture of Competency who has overseen the most incompetent rollout of an entitlement program in history.

I was struck by a moment in President Obama’s press conference yesterday where this paradox was on full display.

The president floated, throughout the press conference, from:

profession of utter ignorance
to confident declaration and directive.

It was noted that Obama distanced himself from the website’s problems by saying he was never informed of its problems.

He knew nothing.

New title: Barack Obama, our Know Nothing President
Laney F

Jamaica, NY

#1024221 Nov 15, 2013
PRESIDENT OBAMA:

"OK. On the website, I was not informed directly that the website would not be working as — the way it was supposed to. Has I been informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, boy, this is going to be great.

You know, I’m accused of a lot of things, but I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity, a week before the website opens, if I thought that it wasn’t going to work.

So, clearly, we and I did not have enough awareness about the problems in the website. Even a week into it, the thinking was that these were some glitches that would be fixed with patches, as opposed to some broader systemic problems that took much longer to fix and we’re still working on them."

Neat how his ignorance is proof of his smarts.“I don’t think I’m stupid enough…”

But he later explained how cumbersome and problematic federal IT procurement is, and that he knew that before the website build started, yet inexplicably did not act on this knowledge:

"What is true is that, as I said before, our IT systems, how we purchase technology in the federal government is cumbersome, complicated and outdated."

[OH YEAH, AND THE IT PROJECTS GO TO OBAMMY'S CAMPAIGN DONORS.]

"And so this isn’t a situation where — on my campaign, I could simply say, who are the best folks out there, let’s get them around a table, let’s figure out what we’re doing and we’re just going to continue to improve it and refine it and work on our goals.

If you’re doing it at the federal government level, you know, you’re going through, you know, 40 pages of specs and this and that and the other and there’s all kinds of law involved. And it makes it more difficult — it’s part of the reason why chronically federal IT programs are overbudget, behind schedule.

And one of the — you know, when I do some Monday morning quarterbacking on myself, one of the things that I do recognize is since I know that the federal government has not been good at this stuff in the past, two years ago as we were thinking about this, you know, we might have done more to make sure that we were breaking the mold on how we were going to be setting this up. But that doesn’t help us now. We got to move forward."

Ya think?! HOW ABOUT MORE TIME SPENT DEALING WITH A PROBLEM YOU CLAIM YOU KNEW ABOUT LESS TIME SPENT SMEARING THE PEOPLE WHO POINTED OUT THIS PROBLEM would have been productive.

So, in this instance, Obama knew the federal government’s bad track record with IT but did nothing to correct the problem. AND THE SAME POLITICAL CRONY DONOR WHO MESSED UP THE OBAMMYCARE WEBSITE IS FIXING IT.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024222 Nov 15, 2013
forks_make_us_fat wrote:
<quoted text>
'DupedAndOnPot'
Using the ole 'my boogey man issue is more important than your boogey man' issue argument!
PDupont seems to have forgotten slavery was a "legal" institution and women being treated as second-class citizens and denied the right to vote was also "legal" at one time.

Many amendments no longer make something "legal". It's why we have amendments - to change wrongs that were once considered right based on a mutual consensus of conscience and society changing for the betterment of the nation.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024223 Nov 15, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
i'll address question #1.
Republicans Take America Back (To the 19th Century) By Cutting Education and Paved Roads
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/22/republ...
so i think you see how the rest of it will go.
The so-called "progressives" are responsible for the education system we have today, the most expensive in the world that generates the most ignorant workforce in the industrialized world. This proves money isn't the problem. The so-called "progressives" are the problem.
So, since it's obvious money isn't the problem, why in hell do you even mention such ludicrous notions as "cutting education"?
Paved roads... I seem to recall the "Porkulus" bull... sorry, bill... that had all those "shovel-ready" jobs waiting to be done, and after a mountain of money was given to a bunch of thieves, there wasn't any infrastructure work done. So, where did that money go, and what idiot do you expect to give you more money?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024224 Nov 15, 2013
Giving more money to Democrats is the same as giving more heroin to a heroin addict. The only thing you'll get is more lies and excuses why you have to give them more heroin/money.

It's time for some cold turkey. Obviously, intervention and logical reasoning doesn't work with Democrats.

NO MORE DEBT. NOT FOR ANY REASON.

Now, let's see if we can get the government to do the simplest things, like generate a budget, something the government hasn't been able to do since Obama was named the president.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024225 Nov 15, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, i'm not really sure what the Bush officials are thinking. Obama's poll numbers are nowhere near 22%.
They were probably referring to an August 2013 Rasmussen poll where only 22% said they Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 40% Strongly Disapprove.

Or a Gallup poll on 11/8/2013 saying 22% of uninsured Americans say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges when previous Gallup polls found 44% of uninsured Americans planned to get insurance through an exchange.

Either way, the numbers are rapidly going down - not up.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024226 Nov 15, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
House Republicans Want To Impeach Eric Holder For Refusing To Defend Unconstitutional Law
A fringe group of House Republicans announced this week they will try to make Attorney General Eric Holder the first cabinet official to be impeached since the reconstruction era. One of the reasons? He didn't defend an unconstitutional law.
One of the articles of impeachment against Holder backed by a small group of House Republicans, including Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Ted Yoho (Fla.) and Pete Olson (Texas), involves the Justice Department's decision not to defend key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. The Supreme Court, of course, agreed with the Obama administration's conclusion that the federal law recognizing only opposite-sex marriages was unconstitutional, and it struck down a portion of the law over the summer.
The Republicans also targeted Holder's decision not to sue Washington and Colorado for deciding to regulate rather than criminalize marijuana, arguing that he's not enforcing the Controlled Substances Act.
There are no signs that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will act on the resolution, Politico reports, and his office is referring calls elsewhere. House Republicans previously voted to find Holder in contempt of Congress because the Justice Department refused to turn over certain documents related to the botched ATF operation known as Fast and Furious. Holder said earlier this year the vote didn't have a big impact on him because he had no respect for anyone who voted to hold him in contempt.
During a visit to St. Louis on Thursday as part of his Smart on Crime push, Holder criticized the "meaningless partisan" impeachment effort and said the resolution included "factually incorrect" allegations.
“I have serious things, serious things that I have to engage in," Holder said. "That is how I’m going to be spending my time and I’m not going to be devoting much attention to those kinds of things."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/eric...
Tell us when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that law was unconstitutional.
I'm assuming Eric Holder has read the Constitution at least once in his life.(It would help greatly if we could say the same thing about Obama.)
If the Supreme Court never ruled that law unconstitutional, on what f**k**g grounds does Eric Holder assume the authority to make that ruling as a member of the cabinet in the Executive Branch of government?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024227 Nov 15, 2013
Here is another case where the RINOs are sabotaging the Republican Party. In the impeachment of Eric Holder, instead of impeaching him for lying to Congress, a felony that gets you sent to prison, the RINOs agree to go along with impeachment under the conditions that Eric Holder not be impeached for a felony, but for non enforcement of a law that has a political bias and most people are not concerned about.

RINOs are Democrats engaged in sabotage. The Republicans need to get rid of them.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1024228 Nov 15, 2013
Where did all the libtards go?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1024229 Nov 15, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The so-called "progressives" are responsible for the education system we have today, the most expensive in the world that generates the most ignorant workforce in the industrialized world. This proves money isn't the problem. The so-called "progressives" are the problem.
So, since it's obvious money isn't the problem, why in hell do you even mention such ludicrous notions as "cutting education"?
Paved roads... I seem to recall the "Porkulus" bull... sorry, bill... that had all those "shovel-ready" jobs waiting to be done, and after a mountain of money was given to a bunch of thieves, there wasn't any infrastructure work done. So, where did that money go, and what idiot do you expect to give you more money?
States With The Fewest College Degree Holders

1. Arkansas
2. West Virginia
3. Nevada
4. New Mexico
5. Oklahoma
6. Alaska
7. Arizona
8. Texas
9. Tennessee
10. Mississippi

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/11/stat...

it would be nice if you could on occasion cite your right wing nonsense.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1024230 Nov 15, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that law was unconstitutional.
I'm assuming Eric Holder has read the Constitution at least once in his life.(It would help greatly if we could say the same thing about Obama.)
If the Supreme Court never ruled that law unconstitutional, on what f**k**g grounds does Eric Holder assume the authority to make that ruling as a member of the cabinet in the Executive Branch of government?
The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supr...

doesn't matter when. the Court decision proved that Holder's actions were correct.

now let's talk about who read what.
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1024232 Nov 15, 2013
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Carol we don't except when the right wing religious faction decides to use their power in some state legislatures to restrict what is a legal procedure.
Hey SIMPLETON!

Was what Dr. Gosnell did legal? You may not like it, but states have the rights to create & pass laws too, fascist. If you don't like it, don't go to those states, idiot!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024233 Nov 15, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
They were probably referring to an August 2013 Rasmussen poll where only 22% said they Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 40% Strongly Disapprove.
Or a Gallup poll on 11/8/2013 saying 22% of uninsured Americans say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges when previous Gallup polls found 44% of uninsured Americans planned to get insurance through an exchange.
Either way, the numbers are rapidly going down - not up.
That 44% number was before everyone figured out Obama is a pathological liar and was lying about what the cost of the insurance would be through the exchanges. After everyone saw the proof that Obama is a liar and doesn't have a clue about what is written on the teleprompter he reads from, that 44% number was cut in half.
Given that the Democrats can rely on 35 percent of the population to pretend to believe their lies regardless of anything else, that 22 percent number is incredibly horrible news for them.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024234 Nov 15, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats the whole IDEA with universal health coverage, it's dragging all those healthy 20 somethings into coverage while the unhealthy 60+'s drag on the costs.
You sound like Obama always contradicting himself.

Why would healthy 20 somethings want to be dragged into a system paying more for the unhealthy 60 somethings in the first place?

That's the whole idea behind Obamacare too.

Doesn't lowering the costs of health care and making it more affordable for everyone by starting over and leaving in the few good things in Obamacare sound like a much better solution than Obama's one-year "fix" that fixes nothing?

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1024235 Nov 15, 2013
flack wrote:
Where did all the libtards go?
They're off screaming into their pillows somewhere.

Morning, flack.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1024236 Nov 15, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supr...
doesn't matter when. the Court decision proved that Holder's actions were correct.
now let's talk about who read what.
No, dumbass.
Here's the ruling:

"Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit," Roberts wrote.

You have a problem sticking to the facts, typical of Democrats.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, does not directly overturn the same-sex marriage ban California voters approved in 2008. Instead, Roberts, writing for an unusual coalition of justices, sent the question back to a federal district court in California, which had barred state officials from enforcing the law, known as Proposition 8.

This means the federal government has no authority on the matter. What this means is, the DOMA law was not relevant to the case and is still the law of the land, dumbass.

Now, why would the RINOs agree to impeach Eric Holder on the issue of a law with a political bias and only radical social engineers are passionate about, and ignore Eric Holder committing a felony when he lied to Congress?

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) 32 min Dr Guru 214,300
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 59,461
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr SweLL GirL 8,386
What nation is this? 3 hr Could B America 14
We need such a smart woman. 3 hr Futures Trader 1
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 5 hr Raydot 1,498
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr CrunchyBacon 101,938
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages