Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1657507 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.

Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1034327 Dec 3, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
At the end of the day, though we remember the words “tear down this wall” as the speech’s most influential element, the message and goal of the speech is what formulated Reagan’s greatest legacy as a true influencer and communicator. Instead of intimidating Gorbachev like most other leaders would have done to tear down the Berlin Wall, Reagan peacefully tests Gorbachev’s intentions and compliments him on his goals for Perestroika and Glasnost during his speech. With his peaceful delivery of the speech, Reagan earns Gorbachev's trust and gained his inspiration to decide on the Berlin Wall’s fate.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,...
See...Reagan got a communist leader to come over to his side. Obama promised to join the communist side after getting reelected.
I remember bushie boy standing under a sign saying 'Mission Accomplished' as he's talking about the achievements he made.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1034328 Dec 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! I notice you have a problem with facts in general son!
Did or did not Obama supply funding and military fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

Believe that's a fact.

Did or did not Obama bail out GM and was or was not his stimulus a failure?

Believe both are facts.

Did or did not Obama blame a video after ducking his responsibility to protect an embassy after repeated requests?

Believe that's a fact.

Did or did not Obama increase the deficit by $7 trillion in just one term?

Believe that's a fact.

Is or is not more people on welfare under this administration?

Believe that's a fact.

You just won't hear about these things from Obama's media sweethearts.

So...what wasn't a fact?
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1034329 Dec 3, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's going to be a huge issue," Halperin said. "And that's something else about which the President was not fully forthcoming or straight-forward."
"So, you believe there will be rationing, a.k.a 'death panels'?" host Steve Malzberg asked Halperin, the co-author of the 2012 election chronicle "Double Down."
"It's built into the plan. It's not like a guess or like a judgment. That's going to be part of how costs are controlled," Halperin said..."
Debunked__by Halperin himself__sonic linked the tweet this morning.

It's not built into the plan__there are no death panels!!!
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1034330 Dec 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! I notice you have a problem with facts in general son!
Lois Lame has so much respect for the truth and facts that she never uses either.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#1034331 Dec 3, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
from your article (you should have learned by now to quit quoting think progress)
"The flyers, which are being sent out at taxpayer expense, are also directing residents to “CoveringHealthCareCA.com,” a domain that closely resembles the official marketplace website for Covered California ( CoveredCA.com )"
neither the website or domain are remotely similar.
Republican members of the California Assembly are distributing seemingly innocuous guides about the coverage options available under the Affordable Care Act that downplay the law’s benefits and misinform voters.

The flyers, which are being sent out at taxpayer expense, are also directing residents to “CoveringHealthCareCA.com,” a domain that closely resembles the official marketplace website for Covered California ( CoveredCA.com ) But rather than helping Californians enroll in coverage, this site appears to be the creation of the Republican party: it warns senior citizens about health care rationing and “provisions that have driven up insurance costs”. The site is designed to look like a non-partisan guide, but actually mirrors Republican talking points and criticisms of the law:....

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/03/30...

so i'd say you're right about the 2 being nothing alike.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1034332 Dec 3, 2013
Well, anyway, just hope we've all come to our senses by this time next year...and one month earlier preferably.

Later.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#1034333 Dec 3, 2013
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you asking a stupid question again?
Never learn...
yes, that was stupid question considering i already know the answer, but it was nice of you to confirm it.

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#1034334 Dec 3, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's going to be a huge issue," Halperin said. "And that's something else about which the President was not fully forthcoming or straight-forward."
"So, you believe there will be rationing, a.k.a 'death panels'?" host Steve Malzberg asked Halperin, the co-author of the 2012 election chronicle "Double Down."
"It's built into the plan. It's not like a guess or like a judgment. That's going to be part of how costs are controlled," Halperin said..."
The ACA prohibits the board from rationing healthcare. You people are dumber than sh*t.

What Mark Halperin actually said & meant:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/mark...
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#1034336 Dec 3, 2013
A Cheney Vet Takes Aim for the Next War

John Hannah here argues that Saudi fear and loathing of Iran destroys the case for negotiating with Tehran. He proposes that we walk the Saudis “back from the ledge” by promising to bomb Iran if Tehran doesn’t surrender virtually entirely its nuclear enrichment program. Inadvertently, he provides a textbook example of a superpower being led around by its “allies”—if we don’t do what they want, they will destabilize the region, find other partners, acquire their own nuclear weapons, etc.

Perhaps here one should recall a salient part of Hannah’s biography: he is one of several low profile but highly placed Bush and Cheney aides who worked to set the stage for the Iraq invasion. Hannah was instrumental in channeling (“stovepiping” is the term of art) false information from an anti-Saddam Iraqi exile group into the White House, circumventing regular US intelligence vetting. He wrote the original draft of Colin Powell’s famous pre-invasion U.N. speech, in which Powell made a false but tragically effective presentation about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. So we aren’t speaking here of a random neocon bloviating about Neville Chamberlin; Hannah is a man with an actual track record in making wars happen, one who understands that facts, or “false facts,” can acquire a life of their own within a complex government bureaucracy if you know how to insert them and get them repeated in the right places. It is a process somewhat analogous to money laundering, a sort of information laundering: if you get a lie reported as fact in New York Times, you can then uses it as source, and perhaps get Colin Powell to repeat it before a global audience. And the lie (Saddam’s nuclear weapons program) assumes a life of its own.

You might think that a record like this would be detrimental to one’s career. Not really. In Washington, a neoconservative hawk never has to say he’s sorry. After his “government service” as a Cheney aide, Hannah was snapped up by the Sheldon Adelson-financed Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, where he now works to set the stage for a war with Iran.(It should be pointed out that the Saudis vociferously opposed the Iraq invasion. What did Hannah think about Saudi concerns back then?)

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-chen...

The Foreign Policy comments following Hannah’s article are caustic and often illuminating. There is clearly an informed public that won’t get fooled again. One wishes one could say the same for elected Republicans.
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1034337 Dec 3, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did or did not Obama supply funding and military fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?
Believe that's a fact.
Did or did not Obama bail out GM and was or was not his stimulus a failure?
Believe both are facts.
Did or did not Obama blame a video after ducking his responsibility to protect an embassy after repeated requests?
Believe that's a fact.
Did or did not Obama increase the deficit by $7 trillion in just one term?
Believe that's a fact.
Is or is not more people on welfare under this administration?
Believe that's a fact.
You just won't hear about these things from Obama's media sweethearts.
So...what wasn't a fact?
Another hysterical historical rewrite by the threads liar in chief.
lilys children

Satellite Beach, FL

#1034338 Dec 3, 2013
lilys children wrote:
<quoted text> "Oh, mama! All that liquor you wash it out with is obviously not working!"
"But mama! You're embarrassing us again!"
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1034339 Dec 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I remember bushie boy standing under a sign saying 'Mission Accomplished' as he's talking about the achievements he made.
Was he wearing a flight suit?

Do you recall the ruckus surrounding how that "mission accomplished" banner just happened to be displayed on that carrier sitting just off San Diego?

That fkn administration was reminiscent of the "Three Stooges" with W in the role of Shemp.

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#1034340 Dec 3, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Debunked__by Halperin himself__sonic linked the tweet this morning.
It's not built into the plan__there are no death panels!!!
debunked my ass.

"the point I was trying to make and which I did make, what there is in the law is something that is intended to lower health care costs, which will produce rationing, whether you think rationing is a good idea or bad idea," Halperin continued."

only a scumbag like you calls that debunking. Stupid fck.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1034341 Dec 3, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Now faced with just one of the eight, you come up with the lie that a subsidy is money given & not a tax break.
Wow, how desperate you get when proven to be a liar.
"Definition of 'Subsidy'( Investopdeia)
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public."
" Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to...."
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/...
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has a broader definition of subsidies. It considers a subsidy to be any financial benefit provided by a government that gives an unfair advantage to a specific industry, business or even individual. The WTO mentions five types of subsidies:
Cash subsidies, such as the grants mentioned already.
Tax concessions, such as exemptions, credits or deferrals.
Assumption of risk, such as loan guarantees.
Government procurement policies that give more than the free-market price.
Stock purchases that keep the company's stock price higher than market levels.
... idiots.

sub·si·dy
/&#712;s&#601;bsid &#275;/
noun
A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business.

A subsidy is money given.
A "tax break" is money not taken. There's a difference.
So, still, to this day, you cannot find any evidence any subsidy to any oil company exists. All you have done is prove that you can't even define the word "subsidy".
Now, let's go over this again. There is no such thing as subsidies to oil companies. Subsidies to oil companies is an urban legend. They don't exist in the United States.
By the way, tell us what other industries get that same type of tax break.
TSM

United States

#1034342 Dec 3, 2013
Healthcare.gov is a High Security Risk!!

Signing up would be like getting into a car knowing you’re going to be in a fatal accident, you wouldn’t so why would anyone sign up for Obamacare knowing the Risk?

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1034343 Dec 3, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Another hysterical historical rewrite by the threads liar in chief.
You only have yourself to blame for not keeping up with what's going on in the real world.

Don't blame me for that.

“Often imitated”

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#1034344 Dec 3, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Republican members of the California Assembly are distributing seemingly innocuous guides about the coverage options available under the Affordable Care Act that downplay the law’s benefits and misinform voters.
The flyers, which are being sent out at taxpayer expense, are also directing residents to “CoveringHealthCareCA.com,” a domain that closely resembles the official marketplace website for Covered California ( CoveredCA.com ) But rather than helping Californians enroll in coverage, this site appears to be the creation of the Republican party: it warns senior citizens about health care rationing and “provisions that have driven up insurance costs”. The site is designed to look like a non-partisan guide, but actually mirrors Republican talking points and criticisms of the law:....
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/03/30...
so i'd say you're right about the 2 being nothing alike.
that article was nothing but bs. Your smarter than that.

“My Life Is A Shell Game”

Since: May 07

Lapeer, MI

#1034345 Dec 3, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, that was stupid question considering i already know the answer, but it was nice of you to confirm it.
But I didn't confirm it.
Therein lies the source of your problem: a predilection for fantasy over reality.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1034346 Dec 3, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
A Cheney Vet Takes Aim for the Next War
John Hannah here argues that Saudi fear and loathing of Iran destroys the case for negotiating with Tehran. He proposes that we walk the Saudis “back from the ledge” by promising to bomb Iran if Tehran doesn’t surrender virtually entirely its nuclear enrichment program. Inadvertently, he provides a textbook example of a superpower being led around by its “allies”—if we don’t do what they want, they will destabilize the region, find other partners, acquire their own nuclear weapons, etc.
Perhaps here one should recall a salient part of Hannah’s biography: he is one of several low profile but highly placed Bush and Cheney aides who worked to set the stage for the Iraq invasion. Hannah was instrumental in channeling (“stovepiping” is the term of art) false information from an anti-Saddam Iraqi exile group into the White House, circumventing regular US intelligence vetting. He wrote the original draft of Colin Powell’s famous pre-invasion U.N. speech, in which Powell made a false but tragically effective presentation about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. So we aren’t speaking here of a random neocon bloviating about Neville Chamberlin; Hannah is a man with an actual track record in making wars happen, one who understands that facts, or “false facts,” can acquire a life of their own within a complex government bureaucracy if you know how to insert them and get them repeated in the right places. It is a process somewhat analogous to money laundering, a sort of information laundering: if you get a lie reported as fact in New York Times, you can then uses it as source, and perhaps get Colin Powell to repeat it before a global audience. And the lie (Saddam’s nuclear weapons program) assumes a life of its own.
You might think that a record like this would be detrimental to one’s career. Not really. In Washington, a neoconservative hawk never has to say he’s sorry. After his “government service” as a Cheney aide, Hannah was snapped up by the Sheldon Adelson-financed Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, where he now works to set the stage for a war with Iran.(It should be pointed out that the Saudis vociferously opposed the Iraq invasion. What did Hannah think about Saudi concerns back then?)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-chen...
The Foreign Policy comments following Hannah’s article are caustic and often illuminating. There is clearly an informed public that won’t get fooled again. One wishes one could say the same for elected Republicans.
... goddam morons.

If the Shi'ites get a nuclear bomb, the Sunis have to get a nuclear bomb, you fucking moron.
If you don't stop Iran from getting a bomb, then a nuclear arms race will be certain in the Arab world.
You do remember that the Arabs are responsible for starting the last war, don't you? You do remember that the Arabs are responsible for the terrorist threat in the world, don't you?

So, if the terrorists get a nuclear bomb, what kind of an idiot are you to think they won't use it?
What you are doing is assisting the most medieval backward culture in the world today in their effort to acquire nuclear weapons.
Thanks to Obama, the United States has lost all credibility in the world today. We have as much influence on the situation as.. oh, say... some alien species living in a galaxy a billion light years from Earth.

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1034347 Dec 3, 2013
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Lois Lame has so much respect for the truth and facts that she never uses either.
Obama supplied funding and military fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Obama bailed out GM and his stimulus was a failure.
Obama blamed a video after ducking his responsibility to protect an embassy after repeated requests for more security.
Obama increased the deficit by $7 trillion in one term.
More people are on welfare under this administration.

It's you who can't deal with facts. Stop blaming others for your own failings. You're starting to emulate Obama.

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
Trump is A 9 min Rose of Tralee 172
last post wins! (Apr '13) 9 min They cannot kill ... 2,674
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 39 min what a russsh 11,571
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr NAME 64,308
US Media Humiliated, all in 1 day. 1 hr US Media is Malig... 6
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr WelbyMD 243,091
99% of abusers are democrat. 1 hr DemsRMalignant 8

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages