Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1684597 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.

sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1077983 Feb 11, 2014
Why Is Rand Paul Talking About Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?

There isn't much political logic to dredging the old scandal up—except as a move to shore up his credibility with social conservatives skeptical of libertarianism.

It doesn’t take long to grasp the flaws in Paul’s strategy. For starters, Clinton’s infidelities didn’t hurt his popularity at the time. Between January 1998, when the Lewinsky scandal broke, and February 1999, when the senate voted not to impeach him, Clinton registered the highest approval ratings of his presidency:....

And women backed him at higher rates than men. Hillary Clinton, who many consider Paul’s real target, registered her highest popularity during that same period:....

Once the impeachment circus ended, Bill Clinton’s popularity did dip, leading some to suggest—as they continued too throughout the 2000 campaign—that the country was suffering “Clinton fatigue.” But the problem for Paul is that these days, Americans seem fatigued with the fatigue. A July 2012 Gallup poll found Clinton’s approval at an impressive 66 percent, higher than it had been since he left office. Among women, Clinton’s approval rating was 63 percent. It was 44 percent among Republicans. By comparison, President Obama’s most recent approval ratings are 43 percent among women and 12 percent among Republicans. Which helps explain why Paul is the only prominent figure in today’s GOP spending as much time attacking the last Democratic president as the current one.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...

'Paul can’t exactly crusade against gay marriage or the legalization of pot. Bashing Bill Clinton provides a politically safer way to champion moralism.'

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1077984 Feb 11, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
OK...
Obama is an incompetent dictator, a worthless tyrant, the worst President in the history of the U.S......
lol

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1077985 Feb 11, 2014
It's no wonder we're screwed. Obama's narcissism won't allow anyone smarter than he to run his administration. We are living the results. Every decision they make is wrong. Internationally? I understand gratitude, but handing out Ambassadorships to campaign bundler's? These low-life crooks are now the voice of America in foreign countries. Voices that don't even speak the language or have the least familiarity with the country they'll live in. Kind of reflects Obama's qualification for leadership.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1077986 Feb 11, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
Why Is Rand Paul Talking About Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?
There isn't much political logic to dredging the old scandal up—except as a move to shore up his credibility with social conservatives skeptical of libertarianism.
It doesn’t take long to grasp the flaws in Paul’s strategy. For starters, Clinton’s infidelities didn’t hurt his popularity at the time. Between January 1998, when the Lewinsky scandal broke, and February 1999, when the senate voted not to impeach him, Clinton registered the highest approval ratings of his presidency:....
And women backed him at higher rates than men. Hillary Clinton, who many consider Paul’s real target, registered her highest popularity during that same period:....
Once the impeachment circus ended, Bill Clinton’s popularity did dip, leading some to suggest—as they continued too throughout the 2000 campaign—that the country was suffering “Clinton fatigue.” But the problem for Paul is that these days, Americans seem fatigued with the fatigue. A July 2012 Gallup poll found Clinton’s approval at an impressive 66 percent, higher than it had been since he left office. Among women, Clinton’s approval rating was 63 percent. It was 44 percent among Republicans. By comparison, President Obama’s most recent approval ratings are 43 percent among women and 12 percent among Republicans. Which helps explain why Paul is the only prominent figure in today’s GOP spending as much time attacking the last Democratic president as the current one.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...
'Paul can’t exactly crusade against gay marriage or the legalization of pot. Bashing Bill Clinton provides a politically safer way to champion moralism.'
he didn't learn from Obama that you can't beat Hillary in an election by attacking Bill.

shows he isn't up to the post of president...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1077987 Feb 11, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I was listening to Andrew Napolitano last night talking about the new regulations issued by the IRS. After the CBO reported there will be fewer jobs in the future because of ObamaKare, the IRS issued a regulation stating small businesses must send to the IRS justification for any full time position they eliminate, and the IRS can act on it in accordance with their whim. I'm lookoing for the transcript.
I heard that also. The IRS is basically telling small businesses how to run their companies. Now who will say the government is not taking over?
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1077989 Feb 11, 2014
The Wisconsin Club for Growth is suing to stop a state investigation of the 2011 and 2012 recall elections, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The conservative group and its treasurer, Eric O'Keefe, filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court against the state judge and several prosecutors involved in the secret probe, known as a "John Doe" investigation. According to the Journal Sentinel, the lawsuit claims the investigation violates the Wisconsin Club for Growth's rights to free speech, free assembly, and equal protection under the law. It asks the court to block prosecutors from continuing with the probe, and free the Wisconsin Club for Growth from having to cooperate.

The John Doe investigation currently underway grew out of an earlier John Doe that snared six former aides and associates of Gov. Scott Walker (R). According to the Journal Sentinel, the latest John Doe is looking at whether groups like Wisconsin Club for Growth coordinated illegally with Republican candidates during the recent recall elections in the state.

The Wisconsin Club for Growth's lawsuit contends that the initial John Doe investigation "grew into an ongoing audit of the Walker campaigns, allowing prosecutors an inside track to scrutinize actions of Walker staffers as they were taken, despite that they were unrelated to the original purported purpose of the investigation." John Doe investigations allow prosecutors to require people to give testimony, and often involve gag orders.

The newly filed lawsuit comes a few weeks after the current John Doe investigation hit roadblock. Reserve Judge Gregory Peterson, who is overseeing the probe, issued a secret order quashing subpoenas against conservative groups that supported Walker, according to the Journal Sentinel.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/club-fo...

it seems the IRS was on to something.
Sordid Filter

Satellite Beach, FL

#1077990 Feb 11, 2014
Sordid Filter wrote:
<quoted text> Obamabots cannot face the truth! LOL
You Obamabots still can't handle it! LOL

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1077991 Feb 11, 2014
Networks Give Little Coverage to 'Another Hiccup' for ObamaCare
By Kyle Drennen | February 11, 2014 | 10:20

Between Monday's network evening newscasts and Tuesday's morning shows, NBC, ABC and CBS failed to provide a single full report on President Obama unilaterally issuing another ObamaCare mandate delay for businesses. In addition, only a single sentence on Tuesday's CBS This Morning described the controversial move as the President "rewriting the law."

On Tuesday's NBC Today, Natalie Morales offered a 29-second news brief in which she downplayed the development: "Well, another hiccup this morning on the ObamaCare front." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump] Later in the show, co-host Matt Lauer and weatherman Al Roker found time to air a 2-minute segment they did on unusual outfits at the Sochi Olympic games.

ABC's Good Morning America only managed 18 seconds of coverage to the ObamaCare setback. The morning show offered a 3-minute report on a Hollywood luncheon for Oscar nominees.

CBS This Morning provided the most air time to ObamaCare on Tuesday, 1 minute and 35 seconds. However, compare that to the 3 minutes the show gave to efforts to improve airline food.

The evening newscasts on Monday all included ObamaCare news briefs, but none of coverage cited any Republican criticism of the latest delay or the fact that Obama was once again going around Congress to change the law.

It was for that very reason that Republicans recently delayed immigration reform legislation, citing a lack of trust that the President would properly implement any such law.

Tuesday morning's coverage did include GOP criticism. NBC's Morales noted: "Congressional Republicans criticized the move, saying it is an attempt to sidestep the health care law for political gain." ABC's Josh Elliott explained: "Republicans, such as House Speaker John Boehner, say the President is giving corporations a break but not struggling families."

However, only CBS's Garrett made any reference to Obama actually changing the law: "Now, Republicans contend this change illustrates the law's fundamental flaws, both practical and political. House Speaker John Boehner also cites this and other ObamaCare delays as the White House rewriting the law to fit its political needs on its own terms."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/201...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1077992 Feb 11, 2014
The United Arab Emirates plan on upgrading its government services by using unmanned aerial drones to deliver official papers and packages to its citizens.

Officials in the oil-rich gulf state, which has a population of some 8 million, hope to introduce the drone project across the UAE this year after an initial six-month test run in Dubai.

“This is the first project of its kind in the world,” said Mohammed al-Gergawi, minister of cabinet affairs. The drones will be used for delivering identity cards, driving licenses and other documents, reports Reuters. Engineers behind the project say the drones, measuring about 1-1/2 feet across, will use fingerprint and eye-recognition technology for security.

Engineers will however have a difficult task in overcoming technical issues such as the hot climate and heavy sandstorms. In December online retailer Amazon unveiled plans to introduce drones to deliver goods.

[Reuters]

Read more: Drones Will Deliver Government Mail In United Arab Emirates | TIME.com http://world.time.com/2014/02/10/uae-drones-g...
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1077993 Feb 11, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Ron Paul has many good ideas, but foreign policy is not included.....
lol!.... like most people.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1077994 Feb 11, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I was listening to Andrew Napolitano last night talking about the new regulations issued by the IRS. After the CBO reported there will be fewer jobs in the future because of ObamaKare, the IRS issued a regulation stating small businesses must send to the IRS justification for any full time position they eliminate, and the IRS can act on it in accordance with their whim. I'm lookoing for the transcript.
lol! Good thing you have your word on that!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1077995 Feb 11, 2014
Flowing water may have been found on Mars!!!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1077996 Feb 11, 2014
Fox's Reporting On Medicaid Expansion Absolves The GOP Of Blame For 5 Million Uninsured

Fox News disingenuously blamed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for a "coverage gap" that could leave 5 million low income Americans without health insurance. In doing so, Fox absolved the sins of the Republican governors whose refusal to expand Medicaid is responsible for the gap and will cost states money.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/10/foxs-...
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1077997 Feb 11, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
It's no wonder we're screwed. Obama's narcissism won't allow anyone smarter than he to run his administration. We are living the results. Every decision they make is wrong. Internationally? I understand gratitude, but handing out Ambassadorships to campaign bundler's? These low-life crooks are now the voice of America in foreign countries. Voices that don't even speak the language or have the least familiarity with the country they'll live in. Kind of reflects Obama's qualification for leadership.
lol! Reich wingers need someone smart like Christie.

Right now, it doesn't look like he has much of an administrative staff left under him!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1077998 Feb 11, 2014
( CNSNews.com )– Once again acting without Congress, President Obama has unilaterally changed his signature health insurance law, delaying its employer mandate – the second time he’s done this -- to 2016, after the mid-term elections.
BUT: To be eligible for the additional delay, the Obama administration says an employer “may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees” unless it can justify those reductions to the Internal Revenue Service.

The Affordable Care Act, as passed by Congress, says companies with more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees must provide “minimum essential coverage” starting on Jan. 1, 2014 or pay a fine.

On Monday, the administration issued new regulations saying that employers with 50 to 99 workers don’t need to provide minimum essential coverage until 2016 – two years beyond what’s written in the law.

And large employers (those with 100 or more workers) must provide coverage to only 70 percent of their workers in 2015.

But the regulations also say that effective yesterday, employers may not shed employees or work hours just to get below the 100-employee threshold – and thus avoid Obamacare’s penalties for another full year.

One scholar called the latest changes “Orwellian.”

“So, figure out what that means,” Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute told Fox News’s Megyn Kelly Monday night.“American businesses have to justify their hiring decisions and firing decisions to the IRS. So, if you have 101 employees and you lay off two people (to get into the 50- to 99-employee category), you have to tell Big Brother why you did it. And you have to justify it. I mean, that is Orwellian.”

Thiessen said hiring and layoff decisions are none of the government’s business:

“We have a free market economy, not a command economy. It's not the government's business to tell you.”

Thiessen said under Obamacare,“the government creates a false incentive to lay off workers and then punishes you on pain of perjury, a criminal offense, for doing what the incentive leads to you to do…I mean, it is just insane.”

The regulations say employers that reduce workforce size or overall hours “for bona fide business reasons” are still eligible for the relief, but the changes must be certified with the IRS.

Also, the regulation says there will be no “relief” for employers who fail to maintain their previously offered health coverage during the period beginning Feb. 9, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2015.

Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute called the latest Obamacare delay “an act of desperation.”

“First of all, they've been telling us for years now that all the Obamacare critics who said the employer mandate will lead to lay-offs, some cuts in hours -- that was just a right-wing myth. But now all of a sudden, it looks like they're kind of worried about it. They're kind of worried that millions of people are going to lose their jobs and have their hours cut. And so they're taking these desperation tactics.”

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/c...
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1077999 Feb 11, 2014
flack wrote:
Networks Give Little Coverage to 'Another Hiccup' for ObamaCare
By Kyle Drennen | February 11, 2014 | 10:20
Between Monday's network evening newscasts and Tuesday's morning shows, NBC, ABC and CBS failed to provide a single full report on President Obama unilaterally issuing another ObamaCare mandate delay for businesses. In addition, only a single sentence on Tuesday's CBS This Morning described the controversial move as the President "rewriting the law."
On Tuesday's NBC Today, Natalie Morales offered a 29-second news brief in which she downplayed the development: "Well, another hiccup this morning on the ObamaCare front." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump] Later in the show, co-host Matt Lauer and weatherman Al Roker found time to air a 2-minute segment they did on unusual outfits at the Sochi Olympic games.
ABC's Good Morning America only managed 18 seconds of coverage to the ObamaCare setback. The morning show offered a 3-minute report on a Hollywood luncheon for Oscar nominees.
CBS This Morning provided the most air time to ObamaCare on Tuesday, 1 minute and 35 seconds. However, compare that to the 3 minutes the show gave to efforts to improve airline food.
The evening newscasts on Monday all included ObamaCare news briefs, but none of coverage cited any Republican criticism of the latest delay or the fact that Obama was once again going around Congress to change the law.
It was for that very reason that Republicans recently delayed immigration reform legislation, citing a lack of trust that the President would properly implement any such law.
Tuesday morning's coverage did include GOP criticism. NBC's Morales noted: "Congressional Republicans criticized the move, saying it is an attempt to sidestep the health care law for political gain." ABC's Josh Elliott explained: "Republicans, such as House Speaker John Boehner, say the President is giving corporations a break but not struggling families."
However, only CBS's Garrett made any reference to Obama actually changing the law: "Now, Republicans contend this change illustrates the law's fundamental flaws, both practical and political. House Speaker John Boehner also cites this and other ObamaCare delays as the White House rewriting the law to fit its political needs on its own terms."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/201...
Kyle Brennen, Media Research Center___L Brent Bozell III__Hah ROFLMAO
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1078000 Feb 11, 2014
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Reich wingers need someone smart like Christie.
Right now, it doesn't look like he has much of an administrative staff left under him!
Or helicopter pilots.
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1078002 Feb 11, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Kyle Brennen, Media Research Center___L Brent Bozell III__Hah ROFLMAO
Realtime__Hah ROTFLMAO

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1078003 Feb 11, 2014
Dependency, Not Poverty
February 11, 2014 - 5:02 AM
By Walter E. Williams
There is no material poverty in the U.S Here are a few facts about people whom the Census Bureau labels as poor
Dr. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, in their study "Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor" ( http://tinyurl.com/448flj8 ), report that 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly three-quarters have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. Poor Americans have more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France or the U.K. What we have in our nation are dependency and poverty of the spirit, with people making unwise choices and leading pathological lives aided and abetted by the welfare state
The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 35 percent and among whites at 13 percent. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is 72 percent, and among whites it's 30 percent. A statistic that one doesn't hear much about is that the poverty rate among black married families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8 percent. For married white families, it's 5 percent. Now the politically incorrect questions: Whose fault is it to have children without the benefit of marriage and risk a life of dependency? Do people have free will, or are they governed by instincts?
There may be some pinhead sociologists who blame the weak black family structure on racial discrimination. But why was the black illegitimacy rate only 14 percent in 1940, and why, as Dr. Thomas Sowell reports, do we find that census data "going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery ... showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940"? Is anyone willing to advance the argument that the reason the illegitimacy rate among blacks was lower and marriage rates higher in earlier periods was there was less racial discrimination and greater opportunity?
No one can blame a person if he starts out in life poor, because how one starts out is not his fault. If he stays poor, he is to blame because it is his fault. Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. It turns out that a married couple, each earning the minimum wage, would earn an annual combined income of $30,000. The Census Bureau poverty line for a family of two is $15,500, and for a family of four, it's $23,000. By the way, no adult who starts out earning the minimum wage does so for very long.
Since President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, the nation has spent about $18 trillion at the federal, state and local levels of government on programs justified by the "need" to deal with some aspect of poverty.
In a column of mine in 1995, I pointed out that at that time, the nation had spent $5.4 trillion on the War on Poverty, and with that princely sum, "you could purchase every U.S. factory, all manufacturing equipment, and every office building. With what's left over, one could buy every airline, trucking company and our commercial maritime fleet. If you're still in the shopping mood, you could also buy every television, radio and power company, plus every retail and wholesale store in the entire nation." Today's total of $18 trillion spent on poverty means you could purchase everything produced in our country each year and then some.
There's very little guts in the political arena to address the basic causes of poverty. To do so risks being labeled as racist, sexist, uncaring and insensitive. That means today's dependency is likely to become permanent.
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1078004 Feb 11, 2014
You can keep your current doctor!

Whoops! I lied.

Instead, you need to drive 90 miles and wait 3 months to see one!

You can trust me and my Democrats!

Just ask Nancy Pelosi!

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) 1 hr loose cannon 243,249
Sick of commercials with mix couples 5 hr not my pillow 13
Trump is A 6 hr DemocrapDESTROYER 385
Little Dicky Durbin needs to know this. 6 hr DurbinDicksAmerica 2
maxine waters 6 hr HER pussyStinks 12
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 7 hr Alain Vain 11,779
America is loosing it's HERITAGE and HISTORY. 10 hr Useful Idiots Win... 2

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages