Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1785002 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.

forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1043286 Dec 17, 2013
You will know them by their ethics , why the US is doomed, and evil white greedy corporations

'A former New Jersey Transit police officer who retired on an estimated $2 million life disability pension after a staple to his finger supposedly left him unable to easily fire a weapon has been caught on video firing at a gun range.'

http://www.absoluterights.com/the-great-disab...
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1043287 Dec 17, 2013
Keeping up appearances...

{Sebelius Seeks Firm to Help HHS Not Appear 'Ignorant and Unaware'}

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...
No Surprize

Saint Petersburg, FL

#1043288 Dec 17, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
so you've got nothing but the usual.
boring.
Typical response we have come to expect from a boring empty headed dumbass sonicmoron... Cut-N-Paste......

It's the culture...
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1043289 Dec 17, 2013
Get Ready to Tread on Some Tea Party Snakes

Isaac Asimov wrote that,“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” The tea party is bending over backward to prove Asimov right. We’ve seen how both egregious dishonesty and government shut down have failed to prevent over a million people enrolling for Obamacare. The economy, despite their best efforts, continues to improve. Efforts to disenfranchise the Democratic electorate has failed in two presidential elections and women – if not tea partiers – continue to vote their self-interest.

What’s a hater to do?

Unable to win an election, unable to sustain any reasonable level of popularity among the people they claim to represent, and increasingly disliked by so-called “establishment” Republicans, the tea party has become increasingly shrill, its rhetoric more violent, and now, at the eleventh hour, comes the treason we all knew was coming: the calls for armed insurrection against the twice constitutionally-elected president of the United States.

I suppose they figure if they can’t get the votes, they can use the bullets – their vaunted and much-talked about Second Amendment remedies. Their problem, however, remains the same, and glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention: the grim calculus of treason is that there are more loyal Americans than there are treasonous low-life’s who like to wave Confederate flags and AR-15s- and those people don’t like the tea party much.

This basic fact does not seem to trouble iconic tea party darling Larry Klayman in the least, but then, Larry Klayman mistook a few dozen people for a million; But let’s not discount his buddy William Gheen, president of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) who said Sunday if tea party bigots don’t get their way there will be a “violent revolution”; And there is New Hampshire Rep. J.R. Hoell, who really does not approve of Scott Brown, and who sees a day coming when real Americans will vote with bullets; and Jim Garrow thinks some sort of anti-Obama guerilla war is about to begin.

You find yourself almost wishing they could try, except that innocent people would die as a result of their reckless hatred and deplorable math skills.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/17/tread-...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1043290 Dec 17, 2013
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2013 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.0


Inside Politics Tools: Save | Print | E-mail | Most Popular |
Obama declares he's running for president
POSTED: 1:32 p.m. EDT, May 2, 2007

• Sen. Obama addressed thousands in town square of Springfield, Illinois
• Listed poor schools, economic hardships, oil dependence and Iraq as priorities
• "Failure of leadership" to blame for not meeting nation's challenges, Obama says
• Before politics, practiced civil rights law, taught at U. of Chicago Law School
Adjust font size:Decrease fontEnlarge font
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (CNN)-- Sen. Barack Obama stood before a cheering crowd in his home state Saturday and announced he will seek the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.

Invoking the memory of fellow Illinoisan and the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, the first-term senator addressed thousands packed into the Springfield, Illinois, town square on a chilly day in America's heartland.

To chants of "Obama! Obama!," he told the crowd: "It was here, in Springfield, where North, South, East and West come together that I was reminded of the essential decency of the American people -- where I came to believe that through this decency, we can build a more hopeful America."

Here you go! What two things happen in May 2007?

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#1043291 Dec 17, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed you buried your answers in the post. Let's go over your answers:
Did Obama lie when he claimed to have been born in Kenya? Or, did Obama lie when he claimed to have been born in Hawaii?
(You have to tell us which time Obama lied to answer this question.)
Me and most sane Americans believe he told the truth about being born in Hawaii.
The question is did Obama lie when he claimed...
An answer to this question is "Obama lied when he claimed...."
So, tell us which time Obama lied. Did he lie when he said he was born in Kenya? Or, did he lie when he said he was born in Hawaii?
Or, another question you run away from with your tail between your legs:
Why did Obama lie for two weeks covering up the Al Qaeda attack on the United States in Benghazi?
(You have to tell us why Obama lied covering up the Al Qaeda attack on the United States in Benghazi to answer this question)
Probably to win the election or maybe that's what he was led to believe. Doesn't matter.
Led to believe? The videos proving him a liar were available to him to view any time he chose. The battle was being watched real-time in the White House. Since you are promoting the notion Obama is an incompetent fool, being led to believe an obvious lie, who is responsible for the lie Obama spewed for two weeks? The entire world recognized it as a lie within days. How was Obama so stupid he didn't realize what the entire world realized?
Obama will lie to protect Al Qaeda, and it doesn't matter? The President of the United States commits treason and helps the enemy of the United States, and it doesn't matter?
Or, yet another question you run away from with your tail between your legs:
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?
(You have to identify a source of money the government will tax to answer this question.)
Your pocket and mine.
So, why don't you be the first to answer these questions.
I believe my pocket. I think you're in that half of the population that doesn't pay income taxes. That's why you're always in favor of spending more of my money.
To sum it up, you haven't answered the first question.
The answer to the second question is the president can commit treason and it doesn't matter.
The answer to the third question is a lie. You don't pay taxes.
In the real world we empower certain bodies to make determinations of fact and judgement then we accept the decision and move on with our lives, from refs making foul calls to Supreme Court decisions. You refuse to acknowledge any decision making body has the authority to make any determination of fact other than yourself. This defines all your questions as rhetorical and therefore its pointless to respond.
I'll bet you're one of those whiners that blamed sports officials for all your losses just like you blame government for your pathetic life.

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#1043292 Dec 17, 2013
Buroc Millhouse Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dumb Dave!
Did ted Cruz filibuster the UCA?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Ted Cruz filibustered the spending bill to fund the federal government at the start of the new fiscal year. He was not in the Senate when the ACA was passed.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1043294 Dec 17, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
btw.....Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit
In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt.
But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).
It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor. That is where critics should be focusing their attention.
http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bus...
The article is clear in pointing out that Obama cannot be blamed for the 2009 deficit - but ONLY the 2009 deficit.

The last paragraph:

"The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor."

Congress and both sides are to blame for the big spending. Congress and both sides are to blame for neglecting to avoid the housing market collapse when there was still time. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007 to 2010, so the blame cannot be solely directed at Republicans and Bush.

Jobs and the economy should have been the first priority. The priority was passing Obamacare.

Obama is to blame for putting his legacy over country with the help of Pelosi and Reid.
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

#1043295 Dec 17, 2013
EasyEed wrote:
<quoted text>
"silly"
Your above is a lie in part. I have never expected a woman to take care of me. I was lucky, my wife and I made a good choice, we take care of, support and love one another and have for nearly 50 years. My son's in laws do not expect their mates to take care of them. My son's in law are two different people, one married a woman who was a stay at home mom, a mom who in her spare time had a home based business so she could be with her daughters. The other married a lady, my daughter who is also a good mom, she is in the real estate business, she earns 6 figures a year. Does that make her a bad mom, no damn way. Her daughter has a full time job, and is a junior in college.
You know what is amazing, my wife and I and both are kids families do not hire people to clean and cook. Could we/they? Sure, but it is not our nature.
Peace
KMA
Who said this was about you? Nobody. weirdo.

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#1043296 Dec 17, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text>(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.
It is now over $17.2 trillion. Projected to be over $20 trillion by the time Obama leaves office. Most likely closer to $22 trillion. That ,sir, is doubling the debt.
So, has it tripled? T R I P L E D. That is what your butt buddy said.

Come on Flacktard that was the GD question.

As for questions, the surge in debt was the direct result of the BUSH recession.

When the f*ck will you losers stand up & admit it for once in your pathetic little lives.

Flack: "OMG MG OMG Obama's debt OMG OMG OMG"

PATHETIC.

DO ya think that the Bush starting with a BALANCED BUDGET and Obama starting with a trillion dollar deficit might have something to do with it.

My God, Flack, get a brain

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#1043297 Dec 17, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Spending adds to the debt, moron.
To stop the debt from growing, spending needs to be cut.
Where is the plan from the Democrats to cut spending?
So you admit that cutting taxes alone , as in the Bush tax cuts, adds to the debt.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1043298 Dec 17, 2013
Douglas Holtz-Eakin
Douglas Holtz-EakinPresident, American Action Forum
GET UPDATES FROM DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN


The Mythology of the Minimum Wage
Posted: 11/25/2013 6:27 pm

Raise the minimum wage and combat poverty! That sounds like a great idea, but... not so fast. As it turns out, increasing the minimum wage actually hurts the working poor, is a windfall for affluent families, and raises the barriers facing the unemployed. There is growing evidence that increasing the minimum wage hampers employment for low-skilled workers who need the most help and experience.

According to the Employment Policy Institute's Michael Saltsman, the majority of minimum wage employers are not large corporations with thousands of employees. Instead, the majority of minimum wage earners work for a local small business, with 40 percent having fewer than 50 employees. Most of these employees work part time--so they can take classes, take care of their families or supplement other income. Take the restaurant industry as an example, nearly 80 percent of restaurant workers that earn the federal minimum wage work part-time.

When faced with higher labor costs per hour, these small businesses have to make tough choices, and the decision to comply tends to impact low-skilled employees the most. In a recent study, Sabia, Burkhauser, and Hansen (2012) conclude that New York State's minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $6.75 in 2006 reduced employment by over 20 percent for the least skilled and least educated people in the workforce. The very audience that could use a raise will ultimately be put out of work entirely.

The minimum wage also impedes job creation, as demonstrated by a recent American Action Forum analysis. Employers forced to pay more per hour for labor, makes it impossible for them to expand their workforce and make new hires. California's recent minimum wage increase to $10 per hour will result in a loss of almost 200,000 new jobs. If every state followed suit, more than 2.3 million jobs could disappear nationwide. With 11.3 million unemployed people currently looking for work, driving a wedge between no paycheck and any paycheck is irresponsible.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1043299 Dec 17, 2013
Who exactly does the minimum wage help? Those who need help the least. According to Current Population Survey data, 80 percent of minimum wage earners are not in poverty. In addition, teens and young adults make up 46.3 percent of all minimum wage earners. Unfortunately, for those who still live with their parents (more than one-third of all minimum wage earners), their average family incomes are over $100,000. It's hard to see how increasing the minimum wage would combat income inequality when close to half of the beneficiaries are in the top 20 percent of earners.

Meanwhile, the working poor remain left behind. Since so few people in poverty actually earn at or near the minimum wage, very few would benefit from an increase. For instance, only 6.3 percent of all wage and salary workers in poverty earned the minimum age in 2011. As a result, economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser (2010) conclude that only 10.5 percent of the net benefits of a federal minimum wage increase to $9.50 would go to those in poverty.

A more effective way to help those in need is for policymakers to work on improving programs that have a track record of success, such as the earned income tax credit (EITC). The EITC has proven to be very effective at moving Americans from out of work to having a job. The EITC is also more effective at targeting those in poor households because it is based on income and not just wages. In the end, the EITC benefits 56.1 percent of workers in poverty.

A strong social safety net is one of the most important things a nation can provide its people, but an increase in the minimum wage should not be part of the strategy. Redistributing income from those who need it the most--the job seekers--to those who need it the least-- job holders in high income households expands the income divide and is a counterproductive anti-poverty policy.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1043300 Dec 17, 2013
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text><SPAM>
PoliticusUSA was founded in February of 2008 by Jason Easley. Jason had a vision of a liberal opinion and essay....
Whois: Domain Name: POLITICUSUSA.COM
Creation Date: 2008-01-31 18:58:55Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-01-31 18:58:55Z
Registrar: ENOM, INC.
Registrant Name: JASON EASLEY
Registrant Organization: POLITICUSUSA LLC
Registrant Street: 131 N 5TH ST
Registrant Street: APT # 2
Registrant City: INDIANA
Registrant State/Province: PA
Registrant Postal Code: 15701
Registrant Country: US
The fool posts from his apartment #2 and has an email with YAHOO.COM
Losers and crybaby you sonicmoron......
It's the culture...
i wish i could do that for all of your 'sources', but i have no clue as to where you're getting your right wing myths.

Since: May 11

Newville, PA

#1043301 Dec 17, 2013
No Surprize wrote:
<quoted text>Who said anything about out anything being under anything you stupid dumabsss?? Learn to you ignorant asshat..
... Meanwhile, the U.S. National Park Service, also 'PART OF' the U.S. Dept of Agriculture, asks us "Please do not feed the animals" as the animals may become dependent on handouts and not learn to take care of themselves. Yes dumbass Dave and liberals are that stupid.
It's the culture,....
The National Park Service is NOT part of the Department of Agriculture

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1043302 Dec 17, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Get Ready to Tread on Some Tea Party Snakes
Isaac Asimov wrote that,“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” The tea party is bending over backward to prove Asimov right. We’ve seen how both egregious dishonesty and government shut down have failed to prevent over a million people enrolling for Obamacare. The economy, despite their best efforts, continues to improve. Efforts to disenfranchise the Democratic electorate has failed in two presidential elections and women – if not tea partiers – continue to vote their self-interest.
What’s a hater to do?
Unable to win an election, unable to sustain any reasonable level of popularity among the people they claim to represent, and increasingly disliked by so-called “establishment” Republicans, the tea party has become increasingly shrill, its rhetoric more violent, and now, at the eleventh hour, comes the treason we all knew was coming: the calls for armed insurrection against the twice constitutionally-elected president of the United States.
I suppose they figure if they can’t get the votes, they can use the bullets – their vaunted and much-talked about Second Amendment remedies. Their problem, however, remains the same, and glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention: the grim calculus of treason is that there are more loyal Americans than there are treasonous low-life’s who like to wave Confederate flags and AR-15s- and those people don’t like the tea party much.
This basic fact does not seem to trouble iconic tea party darling Larry Klayman in the least, but then, Larry Klayman mistook a few dozen people for a million; But let’s not discount his buddy William Gheen, president of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) who said Sunday if tea party bigots don’t get their way there will be a “violent revolution”; And there is New Hampshire Rep. J.R. Hoell, who really does not approve of Scott Brown, and who sees a day coming when real Americans will vote with bullets; and Jim Garrow thinks some sort of anti-Obama guerilla war is about to begin.
You find yourself almost wishing they could try, except that innocent people would die as a result of their reckless hatred and deplorable math skills.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/17/tread-...
King George III and the Redcoats thought the Patriots during the pre-Revolutionary War were being "shrill" in their "rhetoric" too.

Loyalists to King George III would have written an article entitled "Get Ready to Tread on some Tea Party Snakes" after the first act of revolt in Boston too.

Loyalists after the Revolution were sent back to England. There's no place to send present-day loyalists who want their own king in the White House.
Whatever

Scottsbluff, NE

#1043303 Dec 17, 2013
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Ray is anther right whiner denier. Ray, the party you support & the candidates you support voted to cut revenues at the time of war.
Just admit it. You re embarrassing yourself yet again.
You have whined several posts about people you disagreed with....WHINER!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1043304 Dec 17, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
The article is clear in pointing out that Obama cannot be blamed for the 2009 deficit - but ONLY the 2009 deficit.
The last paragraph:
"The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor."
Congress and both sides are to blame for the big spending. Congress and both sides are to blame for neglecting to avoid the housing market collapse when there was still time. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007 to 2010, so the blame cannot be solely directed at Republicans and Bush.
Jobs and the economy should have been the first priority. The priority was passing Obamacare.
Obama is to blame for putting his legacy over country with the help of Pelosi and Reid.
so you agree that Bush was a big spender who hurt the economy more than he helped?

you can try as much as you want with your right wing myths, but Bush is more responsible for the state of the economy than Obama. and it seems to me that the GOP wants to keep it that way. espousing failed policies as the only way to go is not helping the economy any more than when they were failing.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1043305 Dec 17, 2013
Needs repeating: When faced with higher labor costs per hour, these small businesses have to make tough choices, and the decision to comply tends to impact low-skilled employees the most. In a recent study, Sabia, Burkhauser, and Hansen (2012) conclude that New York State's minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $6.75 in 2006 reduced employment by over 20 percent for the least skilled and least educated people in the workforce. The very audience that could use a raise will ultimately be put out of work entirely.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1043306 Dec 17, 2013
Also needs repeated: The minimum wage also impedes job creation, as demonstrated by a recent American Action Forum analysis. Employers forced to pay more per hour for labor, makes it impossible for them to expand their workforce and make new hires. California's recent minimum wage increase to $10 per hour will result in a loss of almost 200,000 new jobs. If every state followed suit, more than 2.3 million jobs could disappear nationwide. With 11.3 million unemployed people currently looking for work, driving a wedge between no paycheck and any paycheck is irresponsible.

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 Slowik: Blue Island mayor faces intense critici... 34 min To Be Determined 136
Worthwhile Stuff regarding...OH Well. 1 hr The crowd went RED 2
Whadayahear Whadayaknow? 1 hr I Accept the Truth 2
Trump is A (Oct '17) 1 hr Caring Loveable Guy 891
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr The real Rudy 2,673
Homeowner Defends Home 2 hr CARRY CONCEALED 11
SCUMBAG FASCISTs-NAZIs RUN THIS SITE. 2 hr SCUMBAGfukinFASCISTs 2

Chicago Jobs

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages