Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1704894 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: Jul 11

Location hidden

#1101055 Mar 20, 2014
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Real case scenario, my daughter. She, and her family, had health insurance she was perfectly happy with. She was paying $480. a month,$3500. deductible,$30. co-pay. Her insurance, Blue Cross/Shield, was dropped due to Obamacare coverage mandates. A comparable plan was offered at $1900 a month,$2500,$50 co-pay. The cost had quadrupled.
Checking the cost of a silver Obamacare plan (middle cost) on the Kaiser Obamacare calculator, her cost under Obamacare wil be $13,300. a year after subsidies. The silver has a $2000. deductible. She will be paying $13300. for a plan similar to what she was paying almost $6000. for previously.
She was a real independent woman, not some whiner complaining about birth control pills.
That's what happens when you give in to GOP demands, this was Obama's big mistake it gave insurance companies a lic to print money. Had he implemented full national health coverage as it exists almost everywhere in the world. Then a forced tax covers everyone with no option to opt out. This drives the cost of those wanting extra private insurance with competitive costs. That will never happen when you give the entire insurance industry a captive market. It's pretty simple maths, if the health component is 25% of the national budget then increase taxes to cover that 25%. Then its a shared cost for all tax payers.
All those insurance companies who want fit and healthy 20 somethings on their books it's just a pipe dream with this system. It will never happen so premiums just keep going up as population ages and the nation gets fatter.
TSM

El Paso, TX

#1101056 Mar 20, 2014
One thing Obama has an abundance of….Incompetence!!
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#1101057 Mar 20, 2014
Lily Boca Raton FL wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave a dollar to a homeless guy whose sign read "I Need a Beer"
Sometimes people need what they need; no need to judge. Once I gave a homeless guy $10 because he said he needed to take the bus; a young woman standing near me lambasted me saying "why would you give him money? He's only going to buy beer or drugs"
I just said, who cares? I don't give with conditions
Yeah, could really give a sh*t what people do or don't do, as long as it doesn't directly effect me in some harmful way I don't care. When did Carol quit smoking?
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1101058 Mar 20, 2014
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I did, you didn't open the link I posted.
You didn't post a link__doesn't matter the CA poster is correct the numbers are questionable__as though just pulled out of thin air.

Or__her previous plan was a skimpy one__very skimpy.

Just saying.
Carol

United States

#1101059 Mar 20, 2014
Obama is a joke wrote:
<quoted text>Where is the NAACP when it come to defending the rights of smokers to enjoy a perfectly legal substance as long as it is not done on company time? Why aren't they fighting the companies that refuse to hire smokers?
Forkfuckface for sure.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1101060 Mar 20, 2014
One of the ironies of climate science is that perhaps the most prominent opponent of satellite measurement of global temperature is James Hansen, head of ... wait for it ... the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA! As odd as it may seem, while we have updated our technology for measuring atmospheric components like CO2, and have switched from surface measurement to satellites to monitor sea ice, Hansen and his crew at the space agency are fighting a rearguard action to defend surface temperature measurement against the intrusion of space technology.

For those new to the topic, the ability to measure global temperatures by satellite has only existed since about 1979, and is admittedly still being refined and made more accurate. However, it has a number of substantial advantages over surface temperature measurement:

It is immune to biases related to the positioning of surface temperature stations, particularly the temperature creep over time for stations in growing urban areas.
It is relatively immune to the problems of discontinuities as surface temperature locations are moved.
It is much better geographic coverage, lacking the immense holes that exist in the surface temperature network.
Anthony Watt has done a fabulous job of documenting the issues with the surface temperature measurement network in the US, which one must remember is the best in the world. Here is an example of the problems in the network. Another problem that Mr. Hansen and his crew are particularly guilty of is making a number of adjustments in the laboratory to historical temperature data that are poorly documented and have the result of increasing apparent warming. These adjustments, that imply that surface temperature measurements are net biased on the low side, make zero sense given the surfacestations.org surveys and our intuition about urban heat biases.

What really got me thinking about this topic was this post by John Goetz the other day taking us step by step through the GISS methodology for "adjusting" historical temperature records (By the way, this third party verification of Mr. Hansen's methodology is only possible because pressure from folks like Steve McIntyre forced NASA to finally release their methodology for others to critique). There is no good way to excerpt the post, except to say that when its done, one is left with a strong sense that the net result is not really meaningful in any way. Sure, each step in the process might have some sort of logic behind it, but the end result is such a mess that its impossible to believe the resulting data have any relevance to any physical reality. I argued the same thing here with this Tucson example.

Satellites do have disadvantages, though I think these are minor compared to their advantages (Most skeptics believe Mr. Hansen prefers the surface temperature record because of, not in spite of, its biases, as it is believed Mr. Hansen wants to use a data set that shows the maximum possible warming signal. This is also consistent with the fact that Mr. Hansen's historical adjustments tend to be opposite what most would intuit, adding to rather than offsetting urban biases). Satellite disadvantages include:

They take readings of individual locations fewer times in a day than a surface temperature station might, but since most surface temperature records only use two temperatures a day (the high and low, which are averaged), this is mitigated somewhat.
They are less robust -- a single failure in a satellite can prevent measuring the entire globe, where a single point failure in the surface temperature network is nearly meaningless.
We have less history in using these records, so there may be problems we don't know about yet
We only have history back to 1979, so its not useful for very long term trend analysis.
Carol

United States

#1101061 Mar 20, 2014
Obama is a joke wrote:
<quoted text>This is a great idea especially when our government has such a great track record of running things efficiently.
Like the military.

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1101062 Mar 20, 2014
Obama is a joke wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the NAACP when it come to defending the rights of smokers to enjoy a perfectly legal substance as long as it is not done on company time? Why aren't they fighting the companies that refuse to hire smokers?
You can only be a drunk and a pothead when it's not on company time.

But you can't smoke in your own car on your own time on company grounds. And they won't hire you if you're honest about it.

Problem solved. Ostracizing and hypocritical selective PC social outcasting complete.

At company parties, they drink and snort cocaine and pass around joints until their hearts' content because they showed those nasty smokers they're the only ones who aren't socially acceptable anymore!

We've gone a little crazy if you ask me.

Since: Jan 11

Hackettstown, NJ

#1101064 Mar 20, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't post a link__doesn't matter the CA poster is correct the numbers are questionable__as though just pulled out of thin air.
Or__her previous plan was a skimpy one__very skimpy.
Just saying.
See above.
Obama is a joke

Emmaus, PA

#1101065 Mar 20, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Obamacare has basically been gutted by 'ta da' Obama himself (illegally,by the way). The law that was passed and signed by Obama looks nothing like what we have today. More changes to come. The bill is dead. Most has been repealed by Obama himself.
And every time he does he proves how stupid the original bill was.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1101066 Mar 20, 2014
White roofs, streets could curb global warming
Sep 17, 2008 by Lisa Zyga weblog
The idea of painting our roofs and roads white to offset global warming is not new, but a recent study has calculated just how significantly white surfaces could impact greenhouse gas emissions. Last week, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and UC Berkeley presented their study at California's annual Climate Change Research Conference in Sacramento.
If the 100 largest cities in the world replaced their dark roofs with white shingles and their asphalt-based roads with concrete or other light-colored material, it could offset 44 metric gigatons (billion tons) of greenhouse gases, the study shows. That amounts to more greenhouse gas than the entire human population emits in one year, according to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times. The strategy could also offset the growth in carbon dioxide emissions, which account for about 75% of greenhouse gases, for the next 10 years.
The reason for white is simple: white reflects the sun´s rays more than black does. The study´s coauthor, LBNL physicist Hashem Akbari, explained that it takes about 10 square meters of white roof to offset 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide. In warm climates, white roofs have the additional benefit of lowering the cost of air conditioning by up to 20% in hot months.
It´s this second reason of reduced cooling costs that prompted the state of California to require in 2005 that flat-roofed commercial buildings have white roofs. In 2009, the state will require that new and retrofitted residential and commercial, with both flat and sloped roofs, be installed with heat-reflective roofing. The requirements are part of California´s energy-efficient building code.
Globally, roofs account for about 25% of the surface of most cities, and pavement accounts for about 35%. Even without cutting industrial pollution from current levels, installing white roofs and pavements could offset more than 10 years of emissions growth, according to the conference data.
Economically, the scientists estimate that white roofs and roads could save billions of dollars per year in reduced carbon dioxide emissions. Besides offsetting global warming and reducing cooling costs, white surfaces offer a third benefit: they could cool a city by a few degrees, which dramatically reduces smog.
The LBNL physicists plan to work with the United Nations to persuade the world´s major tropical and temperate cities to adopt white roofing and pavement strategies.
Akbari, along with coauthors Surabi Menon of LBNL and California Energy Commissioner Arthur Rosenfield, will publish the study, called "Global Cooling: Increasing Worldwide Urban Albedos to Offset CO2," in an upcoming issue of the journal Climate Change.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#1101067 Mar 20, 2014
Incognito4Ever wrote:
Anyway, I don't smoke but don't mind if someone else wants to. I rarely, if ever, eat red meat or foods high in trans fat but don't mind if someone else wants to. I rarely, if ever, have an alcoholic drink but don't mind if someone else wants to.
Just wish everyone were like me. The brainwashed have selectively decided which of the three bad choices makes them drunken do-gooders with clogged arteries wearing halos around smokers.
No thanks. I'll stick up for all the sinners and make up my own mind about my own choices. And give my halo to liberal hypocritical snobs.
One would think with this attitude you would be a big proponent of gay marriage.

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1101068 Mar 20, 2014
Homer wrote:
<quoted text>Again I will ask, when did you quit smoking? Or are you just lying as usual?
The question for you is when did you ever just assume I smoked?

If people who drank wine became the new social outcasts, I'd stick up for them too.

Why aren't you sticking up for people who just want to smoke and are being treated like second-class citizens because they do?

Your halo is askew.
Homer

Bethlehem, PA

#1101069 Mar 20, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text>
WARRANT LYRICS
"Uncle Tom's Cabin"
Just for the record let's get the story straight
Me and Uncle Tom were fishin' it was gettin' pretty late
Out on a cypress limb above the wishin' well
Where they say it got no bottom say it take you down to Hell
Over in the bushes and off to the right
Two men talking in the pale moonlight
Sherriff John Brady and Deputy Hedge
Haulin' two limp bodies down to the Waters' Edge
I know a secret down at Uncle Tom's Cabin oh yea
I know a secret that I just can't tell
They didn't see me and Tom in the tree
Neither one believin' what the other could see
Tossed in the bodies let em sink on down
to the bottom of the well where they'd never be found
I know a secret down at Uncle Tom's Cabin oh yea
I know a secret that I just can't tell
I know a secret down at Uncle Tom's Cabin
I know who put the bodies in the wishing well
[Guitar Solo]
Soon as they were gone me and Tom got down
Prayin real hard that we wouldn't make a sound
Runnin through the woods back to Uncle Tom's shack
Where the full moon shines through the rooftop cracks
Oh my God, Tom, who are we going to tell?
The Sherriff, he belongs in a prison cell
Keep your mouth shut, that's what we're going to do
Unless you want to wind up in the wishing well too
I know a secret down at Uncle Tom's Cabin
I know a secret that I just can't tell
I know a secret down at Uncle Tom's Cabin
Know who put the bodies, know who put the bodies
In the wishin well
Oh yea
Can you play the guitar solo again, I missed it.
forks_make_us_fa t

Norman, OK

#1101070 Mar 20, 2014
Homer wrote:
<quoted text>Homer doesn't drink and drive, doesn't have kids, has never beaten anyone in a drunken rage but if I ever do it will be some dumbass rightwinger not my wife.
I've seen more broke people spending their last dime on cigarettes.
How do you know if someone is poor?

How would you ID a person you have just met and are not familiar with as being 'rightwing', do people where signs?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1101071 Mar 20, 2014
The National Park Service has lodged strongly worded objections to a proposed 6.5-square-mile solar development about a half-mile from the Mojave National Preserve, saying the project would harm wildlife and suggesting that it be built elsewhere.

Preserve Superintendent Stephanie Dubois submitted an eight-page letter to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the public land where the Soda Mountain solar project is planned and which is handling the environmental analysis of the development.

A subsidiary of the Bechtel Corp., one of the world’s largest construction companies, wants to put solar panels on both sides of Interstate 15 about six miles south of Baker and just outside the northwest corner of the national preserve, where the bright white Soda Lake is a striking landmark. The lake, mostly dry, is bordered by springs, seeps and ponds, providing a small oasis for wildlife.

Dubois' letter says the BLM failed to adequately examine the project's potential to harm groundwater, threatened and endangered species, and scenic views, among other issues. The project would be detrimental to the desert tortoise, bighorn sheep and protected birds in the area and could reduce water supplies that support one of the few populations of an endangered fish, she wrote.

“We urge the BLM to reconsider the potential for this project to be sited on other BLM lands, private lands, or other degraded lands where renewable energy projects would present fewer adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources,” Dubois wrote in her March 3 letter to the BLM.

BLM spokeswoman Martha Maciel said Dubois’ letter is just one of many written comments the agency received as part of the process to evaluate Bechtel’s requests for a right-of-way permit the company needs in order to build on public land.

"We will consider all the comments and adjust our analysis where appropriate," said Maciel, reached by phone at her office in Sacramento.

Dubois could not be reached for comment.

‘LINE IN THE SAND’

David Lamfrom, California desert program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, said it is unusual for a federal agency under the Department of Interior to be so critical of a sister agency. He expects Dubois’ letter to bolster the arguments of environmental groups that oppose the project.

“There is no question that this project is harmful and poorly sited,” said Lamfrom, who added that the Obama administration has approved all six commercial solar projects in the California desert that underwent BLM environmental reviews, despite repeated concerns by environmentalists about lost wildlife habitat and other natural resources.

“Soda Mountain is unequivocally a line in the sand,” he said.

The project is about 100 miles from the solar zone that the Department of Interior established along Interstate 10 in 2012 to avoid environmental conflicts and also defies ongoing state planning efforts to find appropriate locations for such projects, he said.

http://www.pe.com/local-news/topics/topics-en...
Obama is a joke

Emmaus, PA

#1101072 Mar 20, 2014
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Cost-sharing" subsidies reduce the deductibles, co-payments, co-insurance and total out-of-pocket spending limits for people with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level ($58,875 for a family of four in 2013).
"Cost-sharing reductions will be applied automatically for consumers who qualify based on their income, but only if they buy a silver-level plan, considered the benchmark under the law."
"A family of four whose income is between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty level ($23,550 to $35,325) will be responsible for paying 6 percent of covered expenses out-of-pocket compared with the 30 percent that a family not getting subsidized coverage would owe in a silver plan."
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/features/insu...
The question still remains..how will the people who can't afford to pay their premiums be able to pay their co-pays and deductibles? How much of the co-pays and the thousands of dollars in deductibles are these "cost-sharing subsidies" going to pay?
Grey Ghost

Bumpass, VA

#1101073 Mar 20, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Yep! Just another socialist dream of getting more people dependent on government.
Yes, how dare a president try and fix something that has way to long been ignored, and then to top it off by showing concern for the less fortunate. And then for the Republicans to come to grips with having to pull their collective heads out of the azz of healthcare industries. Heaven forbid. How dare a president try and pass responsible gun control, then to beat it all want to raise the minimum wage to help maintain a decent living. And to further complicate matters actually expect women to get paid the same as men. Now what kinda man would do such a thing? Now he even wants to talk and negotiate peace instead of sacrificing thousands of lives even to use common sense and intelligence...Damn who ever heard of such a thing. Baggers revolt, up in arms, impeach.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1101074 Mar 20, 2014
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you research the information yourself from accreditable sources and provide the answers? Tick, tock.
all data on ObamaKKKare is being suppressed by Obama for political reasons....
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1101075 Mar 20, 2014
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Real case scenario, my daughter. She, and her family, had health insurance she was perfectly happy with. She was paying $480. a month,$3500. deductible,$30. co-pay. Her insurance, Blue Cross/Shield, was dropped due to Obamacare coverage mandates. A comparable plan was offered at $1900 a month,$2500,$50 co-pay. The cost had quadrupled.
Checking the cost of a silver Obamacare plan (middle cost) on the Kaiser Obamacare calculator, her cost under Obamacare wil be $13,300. a year after subsidies. The silver has a $2000. deductible. She will be paying $13300. for a plan similar to what she was paying almost $6000. for previously.
She was a real independent woman, not some whiner complaining about birth control pills.
Before we start a war, here's the post I read in disbelief__no link, only a mention of Kaiser Health.

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 1 hr HRC bytch Killer 465
Men that wear panties 1 hr Should Carry Gun 3
Florida shooter is White Nationalist scum 1 hr FBI dropped Ball 13
TEACHER of year at FL. middle school posts mess... 1 hr Cant Attack Teacher 10
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr GALAXY FART 64,458
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 hr U_Nil_Name 243,316
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 hr Alain Vain 11,958

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages