Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1779648 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1095032 Mar 11, 2014
In_Cold_Blood wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, I know not of these ¨reich¨ wingers you write of. Secondly, the ¨no one better¨ is merely your opinion.
You want blind supporters of Obama? Try 3/4 of the leftist posters on this thread. Start with Obama shills Real Dave, Realtime, and USAsince1680.
Then go talk to the ¨25% of all Likely Voters who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president¨ according to Rasmussen. That's a lot of stupid voters.
Funny stuff. If you right whiners would ever tell the truth & admit the failings of your own party, I would not need to post.

How do the Congressional Republicans fare - 22% approval rating. That would include Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul.

Over 70% of Republicans approved of Bush taking our country from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 years, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown, doubling the debt & two quagmire wars.

Now that is really stupid.
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1095033 Mar 11, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most Americans don't know the Arizona bill that was just vetoed is already a federal law signed by former President Bill Clinton. The Arizona bill just clarified a few points in the already existing law to keep government out of one's personal religious beliefs by coercing businesses to provide specific services such as baking a cake or photographing gay weddings.
Gay marriage has just become a loophole for progressive liberals to deny some people their religious freedoms beginning in Arizona even though the protection of religious beliefs is already a federal law.
Ironically, there are cases where atheists have denied services to Christians for religious events. Guess they don't have that freedom anymore either.
Well Carol, as usual you're wrong. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, was in response to a Supreme Court case, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. However, in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA could not be constitutionally applied to state laws. RFRA therefore does not apply to state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Have there been any cases concerning gay marriage in Arizona? No stupid! There haven't even been any cases concerning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The right wing Arizona legislature put forth this law for no other reason than to put an official seal of approval on religious bigotry.
What cases have there been where atheists have denied services to Christians? You just pulled that out of your anal orifice like you always do.
You were a teacher? Seriously? How did you even graduate from college with such sloppy reasoning and lack of factual basis for your positions?
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1095034 Mar 11, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
the only thing that bureaucratic slugs like you and your parasite kid ever do in your entire lives is "shuffling around paper".....
My son helps more people in an hour than you will in your whole miserable self centered life.
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1095035 Mar 11, 2014
M Stein wrote:
<quoted text>He's a laughing stock and a threat the same way Carter was:
Appeasement that combined with wimpiness results in a lack of respect while emboldening enemies.
Appeasement imbecile? Like Bush appeased Putin when he invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008?
You're an idiot!
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1095036 Mar 11, 2014
positronium wrote:
You Obama shills are on the run, I see.
Only in your ignorant delusional mind.

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1095037 Mar 11, 2014
In_Cold_Blood wrote:
America has 50 states with 50 sets of laws. Virginia will never ban hunting, but even if it did, there are 49 other states that won’t. In America, people with unusual hobbies are generally left alone. And power is so devolved that you can more or less choose which rules you want to live under.
If you like low taxes and the death penalty, try Texas. For good public schools and subsidized cycle paths, try Portland, Oregon. Even within states, the rules vary widely. Bath County, Kentucky is dry. Next-door Bourbon County, as the name implies, is not. Nearby Montgomery County is in between: a “moist” county where the sale of alcohol is banned except in one city. Liberal foreign students let it all hang out at Berkeley; those from traditional backgrounds may prefer a campus where there is no peer pressure to drink or fornicate, such as Brigham Young in Utah.
What can each of us do?
The only way to stop the advancement of totalitarian measures is for the grassroots of each state to bravely stand up to the bullying, silencing tactics of out-of-touch, frightened judges, legislators, corporate cronies, and media collaborators, as they lead us down a path of decreased liberty and increased totalitarianism.
Stand up for social issues that you know in your gut to be true. Don't allow yourself to be silenced by political correctness. Stand up for marriage. Stand up for life. Stand up for the right of children to be born and to have both a mom and a dad.
Stand up also for constitutionally limited government and fiscal responsibility.
You have Truth with a capital T on your side. You are right, and they are wrong, so do not be afraid.
Don't make the mistake of remaining quiet until you are certain you have a winning argument. That is not your responsibility, and that is what the totalitarian left is hoping you will do. All you are responsible for is to speak truthfully and to let others know your beliefs. We outnumber them. We can overwhelm them with Truth, if only each of us would open our mouths and proclaim the Truth at every opportunity.
Remember: be not afraid.
If you like segregation & racism, move to Alabama.

If you like pollution from burning coal, move to West Virginia.

If you hate gays, move to a state where bigotry is accepted.

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1095038 Mar 11, 2014
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
Try staying on-topic, azzhole.
You are like sh it trying to ride a greased pig here on Topix.
Take your racist rants down to your neighborhood NAACP office.
For you, the topic is always racial slurs that you can't help but post daily.
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1095039 Mar 11, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
If you like segregation & racism, move to Alabama.
If you like pollution from burning coal, move to West Virginia.
If you hate gays, move to a state where bigotry is accepted.
If he likes mindless robots, he can move in with you!

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1095040 Mar 11, 2014
harmonious wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why does your stupid, ignorant , retarded ass keep blaming Bush for the budgets passed while he was president?
Imbecile.
I have never commented on a Bush budget other than to discuss his off budget spending and that having a budget is not a cure all.

Bush had 6 years of Republican Congresses & never vetoed any of the budgets regardless of their deficits.

Presidents have great influences over the budgets.

The point, dumbass, was that no President submits a budget & it passes without scrutiny & changes by Congress.

When you fricking bozos run around screaming " OMG OMG Obama's budgets never passed" you demonstrate your ignorance of the budget process.
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1095041 Mar 11, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
My son helps more people in an hour than you will in your whole miserable self centered life.
Cough, cough....

You mean your son helps the Socialist Party destroy the USA.

Provide one simple example of how he has helped anyone.

Waiting...

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1095042 Mar 11, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
IRAs are for average working people, not for the "wealthy"....as if that matters....
loser boozehounds like you never have enough money to fund an IRA....
Galt, being dumber than sh*t, doesn't get the subject is the use of Roth IRA's to avoid estate taxes.

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1095043 Mar 11, 2014
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
Dave lies as usual, because the PA sales tax excludes food and clothing, the bulk of most retail purchases......
California taxes both, and at a higher rate.....
When Flscktard threw out that 5%, he made no claim as to what is taxed & what is not.

Food is typically 15-20% of family budgets. So you decreased sales tax rate by 15% and added 15%-20% more taxable and you think that will fund the state?
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1095044 Mar 11, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
The original Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate 97 to 3 before being signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton in 1993.
Arizona's bill clarified a few points in the already existing law to further protect religious freedoms in light of the furor by progressive liberals over the issue of gay marriage.
Eleven constitutional scholars said the Arizona law had been “egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics” and though not all supported the legislation, in the letter they stated, "all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona law are deeply misleading.”.
The federal government and 18 states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts on their books. More than 12 other states have interpreted their state constitutions to provide similar protections to religious individuals.
This is just another progressive liberal/communistic tactic to control the people using gay marriage as a tool.
Oh, by the way, your village called....
The bill wasn't about gay marriage nitwit! As a matter of fact the words "gay", "lesbian" or "same sex marriage" don't even appear in the bill. The bill was useless because under Arizona state law it's already permissible to discriminate against gays except in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson which have ordinances prohibiting discrimination against gay and lesbians. Perhaps those ordinances were the real targets. It would also permit Muslims to discriminate against Christians and Jews or any religious person to discriminate against adherents of another belief. SB 1062 wouldn’t do anything. But, it may well be taken by people as saying,“Hey, we can go ahead and discriminate more.” It does seem to want to let people discriminate in situations where they can’t now.
Who are these eleven constitutional scholars Carol? Once again you're making a claim without anything to back it up.
Don't try to get cute with me Carol, you just don't have the chops for it.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1095045 Mar 11, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
When Flscktard threw out that 5%, he made no claim as to what is taxed & what is not.
Food is typically 15-20% of family budgets. So you decreased sales tax rate by 15% and added 15%-20% more taxable and you think that will fund the state?
You left out a part. If you can't pay for the government you have with the money you get cut the government till you can.
$0.20 sales tax.$0.12 local,$0.05 state and $0.03 federal
If you notice most of the tax is local. The state and federal governments would not need to be as large because the power would shift back to local government as the Founding Fathers envisioned it. Putting the power back in the local governments hands where they would be more responsive to the needs of that community and held to the fire for their decisions is the way this country is supposed to be run. Period!!!!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#1095046 Mar 11, 2014
Emeem wrote:
<quoted text>
Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda wiped out of Iraq BEFORE dumbass Bush invaded the country.
You really aren't very smart, just a frightened little chicken running around yelling the sky is falling.
A real world fact you ignorant buffoons cannot accept is, it didn't matter where we went to fight them. They were going to come wherever we went and fight us. I can just hear you treasonous frauds whining and wailing if Bush did what you suggest and left Saddam Hussein in his rear with a rebuilt war machine and took advantage of the US being concentrated in Afghanistan, moving his army into Saudi Arabia again to take the oil fields. Besides, Saddam Hussein had his own terrorist network going. You'd know this if you weren't indoctrinated with all the propaganda lies the Democrats invent to hide their treason.

So, since it's unarguable the Islamist jihad was going to come to wherever we went to fight us, you have to answer this question:

It's 9/12(2001). You're the President. What do you do?
Do you:
A) Surrender to the Islamist jihad? Or;
B) Do the Bill Clinton thing and lob a few cruise missiles into their general direction? Or;
C) Do the exact same thing in the exact same place against the exact same enemy as the Soviets, and you're stupid enough to expect something different to happen? Or;
D) You do something different that gives you a better chance of crusing the Islamist jihad like Bush did in Iraq?

If you choose D) do something different, what do you do?

You actually have to say what you would have done to answer the question.

When bush left office, there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq. Since Obama was named President, Al Qaeda has taken over western Iraq.... and attacked us in Benghazi, and are bombing every village and city in Afghanistan, and have grown to be bigger and more powerful than they ever were in their history, and have invaded Syria and are fighting a full-scale war with the Syrian army.

So, what would you have done on 9/12(2001)?
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1095047 Mar 11, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Galt, being dumber than sh*t, doesn't get the subject is the use of Roth IRA's to avoid estate taxes.
Galt never said anything negative about the Roth IRA after death you idiot.

God! When are you going to learn how to understand what you read. He simply pointed out that you pay income tax up front so the government gets their money then:

http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/TI79GCO8VK...

God are you dumber than sh*t, DumbDave.

People make a post and say one thing, yet you consistently go off on a tangent.

Got ADHD DumbDave? Yep!
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1095048 Mar 11, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just for the record, you're the one using the racial slurs. Lyndon Johnson did as well in private.
I'd not only vote for a black republican conservative who had the best interests of the entire country at heart but a black republican conservative woman who had the best interests of the entire country at heart.
If Condi Rice could be convinced to run against Hillary - or Biden - or whoever the Democrats exalt to deity status in 2016, I'm sure you'd support her 100% because of the color of her skin and/or her gender.
Correct?
Hypocrisy is thy name, dem.
Sure you clueless twit, anyone with half a brain would vote for the person who as National Security Advisor totally ignored the warnings from the intelligence establishment that this country would be attacked, just like her boss did.
You're an idiot Carol!
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1095049 Mar 11, 2014
PDUPONT wrote:
<quoted text>
My son helps more people in an hour than you will in your whole miserable self centered life.
Hey STUPID!

You mean your son helps the Socialist Party destroy the USA.

Provide one simple example of how he has helped anyone.

You can't, lying worthless commie.

Waiting...
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1095050 Mar 11, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you support a black republican woman or any black republican in the White House? Yes or no?
Either answer the question or can the blatant hypocrisy.
It would depend entirely on their political philosophy not their race or gender, stupid. Right now I can't think of one black or woman Republican I would support. We're not all as shallow as you are Carol.
PDUPONT

Chicopee, MA

#1095051 Mar 11, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only do you insist on proving yourself the poster child for all rude and crude liberals, but Senator Barack Obama quit after only two years as a junior senator.
Hypocrisy is still thy name, dem.
Being elected to higher office isn't the same as quitting you cretin.

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
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr MPMMB 12,406
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr qz-zq 243,568
If only Hillary had won. 3 hr Spineless Bytch 58
Maddow exposed, Fusion paid her for fake news s... 3 hr Thigh Spreading T... 20
Booby DeNiro guarantees Donald's 2020 election ... 3 hr Dwarf sized BOOB 11
News Slowik: Blue Island mayor faces intense critici... 3 hr Bodine 31
Murder 4 hr Marked 8

Chicago Jobs

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages