Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1419336 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.

Frank Sinatra

New York, NY

#1080651 Feb 15, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish, the liar in chief promised to fix everything, including the demorat authored mortgage meltdown that put us where we are today, Bush had the economy going great with his tax cuts until it hit.
Once again, where are the jobs BO promised?
You know... if someone were to slip that ugly dog a meatball filled with anti-freeze it'd die wracked in spasms of pain and throwing up on the floor, trying to scream, which it's too stupid to do. Why would god allow such a thing to happen? The mind wanders from time to time.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1080658 Feb 16, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Every one of you right whiners drag out the same sh*t.
I have news. We have a tax code.
Say a company paid $50K in taxes. If the government gave that company $10K in cash , you would say it is a subsidy or handing that company money.
If that company owes $50K in taxes but a special tax break says they only pay $40K in taxes, you claim it is not a subsidy.
In both cases, the company has $10K more that it did with either action.
Its like you claiming their s a difference between a 10% discount & a 10% instant rebate.
And again, the idea I don't want the government to hand out money to corporations making billions in profits does not mean anything beyond that.
It does't mean I hate profits. It does't mean I resent anyone that is successful. It doesn't mean I think the government should tax at 100%.
It means I think oil subsidies are ridiculous & stupid - just like you trying to justify them.
If the company payed 50K and got 10K in cash, it would be a subsidy. If provisions in the tax code reduced their tax bill by 10K, they would pay 40K. They would be keeping 10K that never belonged to the government in the first place. It's what the tax code says they owe, not what would have been owed if the tax code was different.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1080659 Feb 16, 2014
JOHN GOTTI wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes me hard as a preacher''s whatsis when you go all biblical baby!
Well John, are you all settled in?
angel

Boise, ID

#1080661 Feb 16, 2014
killtaker wrote:
In a war of survival Progressives choose a minnow over a man...
"Californians lose 800,000 acre-feet of water to 305 minnows"
http://westernfarmpress.com/blog/californians...
Nothing better to do then relentlessly scouring the Right Wing Inter-Nut blogs for Liberal outrages real and imagined then running to Topix to howl about them!LMAO!
You ever consider going outside and taking a walk or something Chicken Little?Too funny.
angel

Boise, ID

#1080662 Feb 16, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
More of your insipid lies, has anyone, anywhere, at anytime ever believed anything you've posted?
Id beleive him over am fawning management Boot-Licker like yourself .
Keep it up maybe the Bosses will make you 'Head-Boy' and give you a plastic Go-Cup with the Company emblem on it! Sweet!
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1080663 Feb 16, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
unreasonable delay during review is denial......
no group can risk acting until their status is resolved......
And yet they all operated as though they had that status.
You're an idiot Galt.
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1080664 Feb 16, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is - and always has been - most liberals refuse to acknowledge the flaws in human nature. Some people actually don't have any scruples and would gladly settle for less to take advantage of government subsidies at the expense of others if it meant having to work less.
Yes, it sounds all nice and good on the surface, but it's what's underneath the surface that harbors the real potential dangers.
Do you really think that if people work less to get more government subsidies, it's going to help anyone else but themselves? The middle class have no choice but to continue working full-time just to get by. Many will be forced to pay the higher premiums because of it.
Is this what you call fair?
You're making some very broad assumptions here Carol, and you're blowing the whole thing out of proportion.
“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.”[CBO, 8/1/2010]
This is going to consist primarily of those choosing to retire early and those jobs will be filled by others reducing the unemployment rate. Others will use the opportunity to expand their education, care for family or even take the risk of starting their own business.
Additionally, individuals living with pre-existing conditions may no longer have to work two jobs in order to have access to health insurance.
At the same time, CBO projects that the Affordable Care Act could remove some disincentives for Medicaid beneficiaries to work.
“In contrast, another feature of the Medicaid expansion removes an existing disincentive to work for many low-income individuals…The health care legislation will allow parents to work and still qualify for Medicaid until their income exceeds 138 percent of the FPL.Moreover, parents whose income exceeds the new, higher threshold may be able to work and receive the tax credits and cost-sharing reductions for insurance purchased through the exchanges.”[CBO, 8/1/2010]
In a letter to the House Education and Workforce Committee, prominent economists and distinguished scholars argue that,“leaving in place the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 will significantly strengthen our nation’s economy over the long haul and promote more rapid economic recovery in the immediate years ahead. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would cause needless economic harm and would set back efforts to create a more disciplined and more effective health care system.”[Letter to EW, 1/26/2011]
So Carol your allegations are, as usual, totally baseless and there's no evidence that premiums are going to go up.

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1080665 Feb 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
If the company payed 50K and got 10K in cash, it would be a subsidy. If provisions in the tax code reduced their tax bill by 10K, they would pay 40K. They would be keeping 10K that never belonged to the government in the first place. It's what the tax code says they owe, not what would have been owed if the tax code was different.
Wow, you really are that GD stupid.
angel

Boise, ID

#1080666 Feb 16, 2014
I find Lois' notion that "Liberals refuse to acknowledge the flaws in human nature" untrue and offensive..
Ive ALWAYS been more then willing to acknowledge the flaws in Teabaggers and Republicans on nearly a daily basis.
I not only acknowledge them Ive put a lot of effort into cataloging them and rubbing them into Conservative's faces.
As do many others here on Topix.
What more does she want from us?

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1080667 Feb 16, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you silly little man, a tax code, put in force by both parties, including tax breaks for certain aspects of the oil business, thx for admitting it.
Another defender of oil industry subsidies.
Obviously, subsidies through the tax code is done by Congress. The idea you seem surprised shows just how uninformed you are.
I suppose I should expect as much from those that think Mitt Romney needs a subsidy.

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1080668 Feb 16, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish, the liar in chief promised to fix everything, including the demorat authored mortgage meltdown that put us where we are today, Bush had the economy going great with his tax cuts until it hit.
Once again, where are the jobs BO promised?
Why did Obama have to fix anything? Did someone break something? If so, why aren't you b*tching to those that broke it.
BONO

Marion, OH

#1080669 Feb 16, 2014
Who is this guy
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1080670 Feb 16, 2014
A 47-year-old software developer was convicted Saturday of attempted murder for shooting into a carful of teenagers after an argument over what he called their "thug music," but jurors couldn't agree on the most serious charge of first-degree murder.

After more than 30 hours of jury deliberations over four days, a mistrial was declared on the murder charge that Michael Dunn faced in the fatal shooting of one of the black teens. The 12 jurors found him guilty of three counts of attempted second-degree murder and a count of firing into an occupied car.

Dunn was charged with fatally shooting 17-year-old Jordan Davis, of Marietta, Ga., in 2012 after the argument over loud music coming from the SUV occupied by Davis and three friends outside a Jacksonville convenience store. Dunn, who is white, had described the music to his fiancee as "thug music."

Dunn showed no emotion as the verdicts were read. Each attempted second-degree murder charge carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, while the fourth charge he was convicted on carries a maximum of 15. A sentencing date will be set at a hearing next month.

Davis' parents each left the courtroom in tears, and afterward his mother, Lucia McBath, expressed gratitude for the verdict. Sunday would have been the teen's 19th birthday.

"We are so grateful for the charges that have been brought against him," McBath said of Dunn. "We are so grateful for the truth. We are so grateful that the jurors were able to understand the common sense of it all."

On Dunn's potentially lengthy sentence, Davis' father, Ron Davis, said: "He's going to learn that he must be remorseful for the killing of my son, that it was not just another day at the office."

State Attorney Angela Corey said her office planned to retry Dunn on a first-degree murder charge, and she hoped jurors would come forward and tell prosecutors where they questioned their case. Jurors declined to talk to the media.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/15/mich...

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1080671 Feb 16, 2014
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You're great at making excuses for yourself son.
You must be proud!
oh yes! just like that black mayor Nagin, who blamed everyone but his own stupid self: Mr Nagin portrayed himself as a patsy for witnesses who agreed to testify against him in exchange for the promise of leniency. But the jury didn’t buy it, not least because the prosecution’s case was corroborated by several witnesses who had no motive to preserve themselves. His sentencing is months away, but a stiff one is likely. Mr Nagin blamed his lawyers, his accountants, his secretaries and even his sons; but the jury blamed him. Liberals use blacks for their own profit. Fact.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1080672 Feb 16, 2014
Ted Cruz Violates The First Amendment With Anti-Gay Marriage Senate Bill

The Constitution’s framers spent a reasonable amount of time debating on how the young nation should be governed, and they were intelligent enough to put in place basic, and frankly quite simple to comprehend, statutes that would stand the test of time and ensure the “general welfare of the people” is of paramount importance. Conservatives have not quite figured out the basic rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to all Americans equally, and embrace absurd interpretations that serve their bastardized vision of America the Founders never imagined. For example, free speech is fine and dandy for hatemongers like Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin, but speech is restricted for Americans who condemn hate-inspired “free speech,” or if they verbalize their objection to state-imposed religious edicts; then it is a violation of the hatemongers’ religious freedom.

First, it cannot be overstated that Republicans’ predilection to enacting biblical laws will not create jobs, rein in the deficit, provide for the common defense, or promote the general welfare of the United States, and yet there is a concerted effort by Republicans to claim their religious liberty gives them the right to force biblical edicts “down the throat” of every American. Naturally, Republicans assign blame for their so-called “loss of religious liberty” to President Obama as part of their phony “war on Christianity,” but the real culprit is the Christian right witnessing Americans reject their Dark Age mindset that is on pace to become a 21st century crusade and inquisition. No-one contests the religious right’s assertion that they have religious freedom to follow their bastardized form of Christianity, but their “religious liberty” does not, and never has, included imposing their religion on the rest of the population. One Supreme Court Justice had the courage to put it in stark terms a first-grader could comprehend.

As much as this column criticizes and derides Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative fanatic gets the Constitution’s meaning of religious liberty Republicans have made their raison d’être since courts began striking down state bans on same-sex marriage. In the Supreme Court ruling in the Employment Division v. Smith case, Scalia opined on an extremists’ viewpoint of what they claimed their “religious freedom” entailed. Scalia said that “such an exaggerated view of religious freedom serves to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Indeed, Scalia’s words are precisely what several rulings on the unconstitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage should have said, but there is an unspoken commandment that “no American shall condemn the rush toward theocracy.”

Now that another district court has struck down a same-sex marriage ban in Virginia as patently unconstitutional, teabagger Ted Cruz introduced legislation in the Senate to reinstate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with an anti-gay-marriage bill. Besides wasting taxpayer time, money, and violating the First Amendment’s prohibition that Congress shall “make no law respecting the establishment of religion,” it is an extreme case of conservative hypocrisy. Republicans preach keeping government out of people’s personal lives is their primary purpose for serving in Congress, except when they claim religious liberty empowers them to control Americans’ personal relationships, their bodies, and their private affairs.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/15/ted-cr...

seems Ted is very good at wasting taxpayer money.

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1080673 Feb 16, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you really are that GD stupid.
Frankly I think that the price of gas should be so high that only rich are able to afford it. That would enslave the people some more. That's what you liberals are looking for isn't it? That and my shares of XOM would be worth a hellava lot more. They pay the worst dividend because they are always putting money back into exploration-I just don't understand why they need to do that:).

Since: May 11

Carlisle, PA

#1080674 Feb 16, 2014
fetch almighty wrote:
<quoted text>oh yes! just like that black mayor Nagin, who blamed everyone but his own stupid self: Mr Nagin portrayed himself as a patsy for witnesses who agreed to testify against him in exchange for the promise of leniency. But the jury didn’t buy it, not least because the prosecution’s case was corroborated by several witnesses who had no motive to preserve themselves. His sentencing is months away, but a stiff one is likely. Mr Nagin blamed his lawyers, his accountants, his secretaries and even his sons; but the jury blamed him. Liberals use blacks for their own profit. Fact.
Let's talk about the former Governor of Virginia.

Do Right whiners take advantage of the religious right white people for profit? Or are you just another right whiner racist f*ck?

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1080675 Feb 16, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
Ted Cruz Violates The First Amendment With Anti-Gay Marriage Senate Bill
The Constitution’s framers spent a reasonable amount of time debating on how the young nation should be governed, and they were intelligent enough to put in place basic, and frankly quite simple to comprehend, statutes that would stand the test of time and ensure the “general welfare of the people” is of paramount importance. Conservatives have not quite figured out the basic rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to all Americans equally, and embrace absurd interpretations that serve their bastardized vision of America the Founders never imagined. For example, free speech is fine and dandy for hatemongers like Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin, but speech is restricted for Americans who condemn hate-inspired “free speech,” or if they verbalize their objection to state-imposed religious edicts; then it is a violation of the hatemongers’ religious freedom.
First, it cannot be overstated that Republicans’ predilection to enacting biblical laws will not create jobs, rein in the deficit, provide for the common defense, or promote the general welfare of the United States, and yet there is a concerted effort by Republicans to claim their religious liberty gives them the right to force biblical edicts “down the throat” of every American. Naturally, Republicans assign blame for their so-called “loss of religious liberty” to President Obama as part of their phony “war on Christianity,” but the real culprit is the Christian right witnessing Americans reject their Dark Age mindset that is on pace to become a 21st century crusade and inquisition. No-one contests the religious right’s assertion that they have religious freedom to follow their bastardized form of Christianity, but their “religious liberty” does not, and never has, included imposing their religion on the rest of the population. One Supreme Court Justice had the courage to put it in stark terms a first-grader could comprehend.
As much as this column criticizes and derides Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative fanatic gets the Constitution’s meaning of religious liberty Republicans have made their raison d’être since courts began striking down state bans on same-sex marriage. In the Supreme Court ruling in the Employment Division v. Smith case, Scalia opined on an extremists’ viewpoint of what they claimed their “religious freedom” entailed. Scalia said that “such an exaggerated view of religious freedom serves to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Indeed, Scalia’s words are precisely what several rulings on the unconstitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage should have said, but there is an unspoken commandment that “no American shall condemn the rush toward theocracy.”
Now that another district court has struck down a same-sex marriage ban in Virginia as patently unconstitutional, teabagger Ted Cruz introduced legislation in the Senate to reinstate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with an anti-gay-marriage bill. Besides wasting taxpayer time, money, and violating the First Amendment’s prohibition that Congress shall “make no law respecting the establishment of religion,” it is an extreme case of conservative hypocrisy. Republicans preach keeping government out of people’s personal lives is their primary purpose for serving in Congress, except when they claim religious liberty empowers them to control Americans’ personal relationships, their bodies, and their private affairs.

seems Ted is very good at wasting taxpayer money.
We are a government of the people, by the people. Put the homosexual bill on the ballot and let the people vote-that's is what our founders set our government up to do. Don't you agree. By the people sonic--our laws are supposed to be made by the people. Let's vote!

“Bill Clinton could have ”

Since: May 10

Prevented this

#1080676 Feb 16, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's talk about the former Governor of Virginia.
Do Right whiners take advantage of the religious right white people for profit? Or are you just another right whiner racist f*ck?
Sure let's talk about him--what was the former Governor of Virginia convicted of?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1080677 Feb 16, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
bullshit...
legalization of drugs will obviously increase drug abuse.....
no, in fact it hasn't where it's been done. use stayed the same and abuse dropped. and then the funds wasted on drug wars could be used to treat abusers at less cost.

read about how it worked in Portugal.

the real world is fun!

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
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 13 min Red_Forman 1,939
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 53 min Red_Forman 3,041
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 54 min Red_Forman 9,388
last post wins! (Dec '10) 54 min Red_Forman 2,426
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dr Guru 222,606
Marxiosocialist Double Speak 3 hr Jerkt toff 15
here we go - now i suppose we will see full cou... 4 hr !!! 2

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages